Pill and abortion

[mark_a]

Edit per admin: Get your facts straight before posting your catholic propaganda on this forum. The Birth control pill has NEVER been proven to cause a single abortion. There is no scientific study proving it is abortive.

However, literature packaged with the pill (also available online) includes the probable three pronged effect of the pill.

These folks would be better off using the abortionists’ claim: “We don’t know when life begins.”

 

[rwillenborg]

Yeah, I don’t get this.
Even the little packet of info PROVIDED BY THE PILL MANUFACTURER says it is an abortifacent.
Or, is the Church in cahoots with them, too?
If any of them would go to webmd, or wikihow, or any even just a google of ‘how does the birth control work’ it is VERY CLEARLY mentioned as one of the ways it works. Maybe the church owns those websites, too!! What with the Pope sitting on his piles of gold coins and all…
Except, notably, on the planned parenthood website. THEY beat the drum of ‘it’s never been proven’ Man, if I’m pro-life and I agree with planned parenthood, somebody’s probably wrong.
And, here’s the thing with ‘slim chances’. Let’s do some math.
Let’s say a married couple has relations twice a week, save for a one week vacation, since I like working with round numbers. That’s 100 opportunities a year to make a baby. And let’s say that these people married at 25, and the woman reached menopause at 45. And, let’s say for 5 of those 20 years total she was off the pill on account of trying to get pregnant or being pregnant. Okay, that’s 15 years, times 100 times a year, which is 1500 opportunities over the life of this couple to make a baby.
So, if there is a 1 in a THOUSAND chance that the pill causes a spontaneous abortion, which is a 0.001% chance, then, well, it happened. And if the couple dares to throw my round numbers out the window and actually has sex MORE than twice a week, well, then, it happened a couple of times over.

 

[Karen1960]

However, literature packaged with the pill (also available online) includes the probable three pronged effect of the pill.

These folks would be better off using the abortionists’ claim: “We don’t know when life begins.”

Exactly:thumbsup:

What boggles the mind is these people also have the nerve to call themselves “Pro-life who believe in birth control” because by their twisted reasoning by using birth control it eliminates the use of abortion

 

[Karen1960]

Yeah, I don’t get this.
Even the little packet of info PROVIDED BY THE PILL MANUFACTURER says it is an abortifacent.
Or, is the Church in cahoots with them, too?
If any of them would go to webmd, or wikihow, or any even just a google of ‘how does the birth control work’ it is VERY CLEARLY mentioned as one of the ways it works. Maybe the church owns those websites, too!! What with the Pope sitting on his piles of gold coins and all…
Except, notably, on the planned parenthood website. THEY beat the drum of ‘it’s never been proven’ Man, if I’m pro-life and I agree with planned parenthood, somebody’s probably wrong.
And, here’s the thing with ‘slim chances’. Let’s do some math.
Let’s say a married couple has relations twice a week, save for a one week vacation, since I like working with round numbers. That’s 100 opportunities a year to make a baby. And let’s say that these people married at 25, and the woman reached menopause at 45. And, let’s say for 5 of those 20 years total she was off the pill on account of trying to get pregnant or being pregnant. Okay, that’s 15 years, times 100 times a year, which is 1500 opportunities over the life of this couple to make a baby.
So, if there is a 1 in a THOUSAND chance that the pill causes a spontaneous abortion, which is a 0.001% chance, then, well, it happened. And if the couple dares to throw my round numbers out the window and actually has sex MORE than twice a week, well, then, it happened a couple of times over.

Exactly:thumbsup:

I gave this “person” the link to WebMD and others and they actually wanted “facts and figures” of exactly how many women had “abortions” on the pill.
When I tried to explain that when this occurs, a woman has no clue she is even pregnant yet, they said it was “Catholic Propaganda”

 

[rwillenborg]

Exactly:thumbsup:

I gave this “person” the link to WebMD and others and they actually wanted “facts and figures” of exactly how many women had “abortions” on the pill.
When I tried to explain that when this occurs, a woman has no clue she is even pregnant yet, they said it was “Catholic Propaganda”

smacks forehead
What can you do, y’know?
If someone’s not got the eyes to see and all…

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Exactly:thumbsup:

I gave this “person” the link to WebMD and others and they actually wanted “facts and figures” of exactly how many women had “abortions” on the pill.
When I tried to explain that when this occurs, a woman has no clue she is even pregnant yet, they said it was “Catholic Propaganda”

Do you speak of D__?

D’s evidence consisted of one person (probably cherrypicked)…this James Trussell at Princeton. He obviously isn’t pro-life due to his promotion of the morning-after pill…which he does say works to prevent implantation. And that pill contains the same hormones as the normal estrogen+progestine BCP…just in much higher concentration. So I suppose it’s a statistical thing…lower concentration…less instances of failed implantation of a fertilzed egg. Perhaps zero (although I highly doubt it)…but since the risk is loss of human life…it’s up to their side to prove that this doesn’t happen (and they’ve said there’s no proof!). So it’s time for protestants to condemn the pill from their pulpits! They’re supposed to preach the word (Thou shalt not kill.) …and apply the word, right?

-BHM

 

[Rach620]

Did you see how D went through and edited that whole thread, BHM? Even your OP has been edited to say in red at the top that your post is “Catholic propaganda,” and she inserted her scientist’s findings in the body of the OP. Ridiculous!

What she doesn’t realize is that no one is accusing anyone of sin (as sin requires the intent to commit the act), but the risk of committing a grave wrong, unknowingly. Pregnant women inform themselves of the foods and drinks and medications they are to avoid in order to provide the best, healthiest environments for their babies to grow; pro-life women should be especially concerned in creating the healthiest environments for their potential children to grow.

We can see from the pill’s effects on the female body that it is not at all open to life. It is designed to close the woman’s body off to the creation of life at every possible turn.

Although the rhetoric over there on the other forum has gotten blown way out of proportion, the pro-life doctors who initially published articles about the possibility of the pill causing very early abortions used very measured rhetoric themselves. They talked of the need for informed consent for women about the medical possibility of postfertilization effects of the pill on newly-conceived human life. They suggested the following language:

The physician or provider might say, for example: “Most of the time, the pill acts by preventing an egg from forming. This prevents pregnancy. However, women on the pill can still sometimes get pregnant. Some doctors think that the pill may cause the loss of some of these pregnancies very early in the pregnancy, before you would even know you were pregnant. Would knowing more about this possibility be important to you in your decision about whether to use the pill?”

If the answer is yes, further explanation of the issues would be indicated and should occur in terms that are as understandable as possible. Proper informed consent requires patient and physician comprehension of information, the disclosure of this information, and the sharing of interpretations. If any mechanism of any OC violates the morals of any particular woman, the failure of the physician or care provider to disclose this information would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman’s consent was truly informed and would seriously jeopardize her autonomy.

From a similar perspective, those of us who are pro-life but are not physicians, consider it our duty to warn other pro-life women of this potential issue, since apparently so many physicians do not think asking women whether they are interested in this information is important.

What D is arguing is that these risks NEVER occur because breakthrough ovulation also causes the release of all of the hormones and hormonal changes in the endometrium to sustain a pregnancy. Since she never linked the journal article she is citing (probably selectively!), there is no way for us to find out how this claim is medically or scientifically substantiated, since it seems to me very difficult indeed to track endometrial changes in women experiencing breakthrough ovulation on the pill.

I am going to post from an article published in the Journal of Family Medicine in 2000, which details three specific ways in which the Pill has negative effects on human embryonic development after fertilization. While we can’t say it works this way in every woman, the potential that it does work in this way does exist.

 

[Rach620]

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent

My notes & quotes of note:

For patients who believe that human life begins at fertilization (conception), a method of birth control that has the potential of interrupting development after fertilization (a postfertilization effect) may not be acceptable.5-6 Postfertilization effects are operative for emergency (postcoital) contraception (when it is administered too late to prevent ovulation),7-8 luteolytic agents (ie, RU-486),9 and intrauterine devices,5 and these methods therefore are unacceptable to some patients. Although postfertilization effects have been cited as a secondary mechanism of OCs,10-12 the evidence for such effects has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this article was to review and grade the available evidence for postfertilization effects of OCs and discuss the implications for informed consent, based on the premise that patients to whom postfertilization effects are important have the right to make decisions based on the best available evidence.

Mechanisms of Oral Contraceptives

The literature discusses several mechanisms for OCs. While the primary effect of OCs is the inhibition of ovulation via suppression of pituitary gonadotropin secretion (this mechanism is operative most of the time),1, 10, 12 secondary effects are implicated at times of breakthrough ovulation to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy.17-18 We classified these secondary effects as occurring either prefertilization or postfertilization.

These are the effects of BC pills that we all know about and can read about if we consult the pill packaging or the Physicians’ Desk Reference. It’s important to remember that a pregnancy is only “clinically recognized” at or after implantation (as implantation is a process that can take several days). Pro-lifers recognize life as beginning at conception–days and sometimes almost two weeks before pregnancy is said to begin.

In theory, postfertilization effects of OCs could involve any 1 or more of the following 3 mechanisms of action: (1) A postfertilization preimplantation effect would consist of a slower transport of the preembryo through the fallopian tube, preventing the preembryo from implanting in the uterus; this could result either in the unrecognized loss of the preembryo or in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy if the preembryo had slower tubal transport and ended up implanting in the fallopian tube. (2) A peri-implantation effect would be the alteration of the endometrium, such that a preembryo that reached the uterus was unable to successfully implant into the endometrial lining of the uterus. (3) A postimplantation effect could result from alteration of the endometrium not sufficient to prevent implantation but unfavorable for maintenance of the pregnancy; a preembryo or embryo already implanted in the endometrial lining of the uterus would be unable to maintain itself long enough to result in a clinically recognized pregnancy.

An issue D over there hasn’t addressed is the higher rate of ectopic pregnancies in pill users. This article links BCP use as a potential cause of ectopic pregnancies because the fertilized egg is impeded from traveling normally to the uterus where it can implant, and it mistakenly implants in the tube. Ectopic pregnancies result in the loss of human life, and pose a risk to the mother; since this loss of human life can be linked back to BCP use, as a pro-life woman I’d say the pill should be avoided on this count, even apart from the “hostile endometrium” issue.

Endometrial Changes that may Affect Endometrial Receptivity

Oral contraceptives directly affect the endometrium.
…
Although these changes are consistently seen in women taking OCs, there is currently no direct evidence to link these changes to preembryo or embryo loss in women taking OCs. However, this hypothesized postfertilization effect seems to be so well accepted that in many medical articles and textbooks it has been explicitly listed as the third mechanism of OCs (after suppressing ovulation and prefertilization effects).

The writers of the article, and pro-lifers in general, are not the ones who introduced the “hostile endometrium” hypothesis–it was the Pill manufacturers and doctors themselves!

to be continued…

 

[Rach620]

EVIDENCE supporting hostile endometrium hypothesis:

To assess the clinical significance of an altered endometrium, it was helpful to examine data that compared endometrial thickness with the receptivity of the endometrium to preembryos during in vitro fertilization procedures. Magnetic resonance imaging scans of the uteri of women reveal that the OC users have endometrial linings that are consistently thinner than the endometrial linings of nonusers,48-50 up to 58% thinner.51 Of the first 4 ultrasound studies published, the first did not find a relationship between endometrial thickness and in vitro fertilization implantation rates52; however, subsequent studies noted a trend,53-54 and one demonstrated that a decreased thickness of the endometrium decreased the likelihood of implantation.55 **Larger, more recent, and more technically sophisticated studies56-65 all concluded that endometrial thickness is related to the functional receptivity of the endometrium. Furthermore, when the endometrial lining becomes too thin, then implantation does not occur.56-58,64-65 The minimal endometrial thickness required to maintain a pregnancy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization has been reported, ranging from 5 mm55 to 9 mm65 to 13 mm,53 whereas the average endometrial thickness in women taking OCs is 1.1 mm.**50 These data would seem to lend credence to the Food and Drug Administration–approved statements that " . . . changes in the endometrium . . . reduce the likelihood of implantation."11 We considered this level II.2 (good to very good) evidence

The typical pill user has very little endometrial build-up, because of the way the hormones in the pill works in the female body. This is clear from multiple studies, and also from the experiences of women on the pill, who experience very light “periods” monthly, or more infrequently.
Integrin Changes Affecting Fallopial Tube and Endometrial Receptivity for Implantation

Integrins are a family of cell adhesion molecules that are accepted as markers of uterine receptivity for implantation…These 3 integrins are conspicuously absent in the endometrium of most patients with luteal phase deficiency, endometriosis, and unexplained infertility.
…
In addition, integrin expression is significantly changed by OCs. Integrins have been compared using endometrial biopsy specimens from normally cycling women and women taking OCs. In most OC users, the normal patterns of expression of the integrins are grossly altered, leading Somkuti et al68 to conclude that the OC-induced integrin changes observed in the endometrium have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs.

It makes sense that integrins are changed by the Pill–that’s how the Pill works, by chemically rendering a woman infertile!

More on the reasons for increased ectopic pregnancy risks:

Integrins have also been identified in the fallopian tube…As discussed earlier, one of the postulated actions of the OCs is a slowing of tubal peristalsis (via smooth muscle relaxation)70; therefore, a reduction in tubal peristalsis that is associated with an upregulation of the V3 integrin in the epithelium of the fallopian tube could theoretically lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancies in women taking OCs.

D argues that an ovulatory pill cycle will immediately cause other hormonal and endometrial changes that will make the uterine environment similar to a non-pill user. The writers of this article anticipated that objection, and responded:

If breakthrough ovulation occurs while using the COC, then to some extent ovarian and blastocyst steroidogenesis could theoretically “turn on” the endometrium, causing it to normalize prior to implantation in the ovulatory cycle. However, after discontinuing use of COCs, it usually takes several cycles for a woman’s menstrual flow to approach the volume of women who have not taken hormonal contraception,71 suggesting that the endometrium is slow to recover from its COC-induced atrophy. Furthermore, in women who have ovulated secondary to missing 2 low-dose COCs, the endometrium in the luteal phase of the ovulatory cycle has been found to be nonsecretory.

Increased Extrauterine Pregnancy to Intrauterine Pregnancy Ratio

If the action(s) of OCs on the fallopian tube and endometrium were such as to have no postfertilization effects, then the reduction in the rate of intrauterine pregnancies in women taking OCs should be proportional to the reduction in the rate of extrauterine pregnancies in women taking OCs. If the effect of OCs is to increase the extrauterine-to-intrauterine pregnancy ratio, this would indicate that one or more postfertilization effects are operating. All published data that we could review indicated that the ratio of extrauterine-to-intrauterine pregnancies is increased for women taking OCs and exceeds that expected among control groups of pregnant women not currently using OCs.
…
The risk of ectopic pregnancy is higher with POPs, and ectopic pregnancy has been discussed at length by a number of investigators as a clinically significant potential complication of POPs.

Multiple studies have shown an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy for women on the pill. This alone has implications for pro-life women, but it also demonstrates, according to the authors, that the pill has other postfertilization effects on the developing human being in utero.

 

[Rach620]

Conclusion:

We found the evidence supporting postfertilization effects for OCs in the prevention of clinically recognized pregnancy to range from poor (level III) to very good (level II.2). Specifically, evidence based on alterations in endometrial biochemistry and histology (level III), evidence based on endometrial thickness and endometrial receptivity from research studying in vitro fertilization (level II.2), and evidence based on endometrial integrins (level II.3) all support the possibility of peri-implantation or postimplantation effects. Furthermore, evidence based on ectopic-to-intrauterine risk ratios from multiple case-control studies (level II.2) supports the possibility of postfertilization preimplantation, peri-implantation, or postimplantation effects. However, we could identify few data that would assist in quantifying these postfertilization effects. It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.

Sorry for the long posts!!

 

[Bluegoat]

I think there are a couple of things going on with this.

Firstly, a great many Catholics also do not understand this aspect of the Pill, IUDs, and other hormonal birth control. This is not true only of Protestants - and there are Protestants who do understand this too.

I think this relates specifically to a lack of understanding of the mechanism of the Pill, the medical definition of pregnancy, and the Catholic or Christian understanding of the idea that the soul exists from conseption. In the case of the latter, even among those who accept it, few understand the theological reasons behind it.

All together mean that many have a hard time making a logical argument about the issue, even to themselves. They get all mixed up.

I don’t actually think there is a real problem with the medical definition of pregnancy. It is simply not the same as conception. THere is good reason to consider that pregnancy begins at implantation, both medically and practically. But most medical and religious lay people don’t get the distinction.

I would also suggest when discussing this with Protestants that it is best to separate it from discussions of the principle of birth control. Many would be quite unhappy with the abortionist effects of the pill if they understood them, but would not have a problem with say, condoms. Discussing the two separately is a lot more likely to get at least a partial understanding.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Rachel,

I went back to C___ and noticed that the thread was restored. In the OP, I had said that “everybody knows that the pill kills fertilized eggs” and “humans are dying”…which I later found out is still unproven. It’s still risky…and the pill should be condemned because of that. That explains all of their answers that “nobody has proven the pill kills”. They couldn’t get beyond those works in my OP. I’m still kicking myself!! I really didn’t know it was unproven.

-BHM

 

[Karen1960]

Conclusion:

Sorry for the long posts!!

Thank you for posting this

 

[Karen1960]

Rach and BHM,
How do I respond to this? That person reponded to my post with this posted in quotes below

**Ok, this is getting more interesting.
Are you saying that “nature” designed the NFP method of birth control? Please explain how “nature” has anything to do with avoiding ovulation in a man and woman coming together as a married couple? Where in “nature” do we see such occuring? God certainly did not create ovulation monthly so that man would avoid mating, especially since there is nothing visible or natural pointing to ovulation in women. You have to use something unnatural, man made, to even know about ovulation. So what is “natural” about it?

As for artificial, where does Scripture say it is a sin to use something “artificial,” man made**?

 

[Karen1960]

double post

 

[Karen1960]

I’m bowing out of the discussion there, I am getting to upset and anger is filling inside me. I will pray for strength for us and for them also. Be back later

 

[rwillenborg]

Rach and BHM,
How do I respond to this? That person reponded to my post with this posted in quotes below

Here is how I would respond (use your own words obviously, or copy this if you like it) -
I think the idea here of what is ‘natural’ versus what is ‘unnatural’ is actually not an accurate representation of how Catholics view this. After all, the computers we are typing on are most certainly not ‘natural’, but there is nothing in Catholicism forbidding their use. And, conversely, xenophobia and poisonous snakes are most certainly natural, but I don’t enjoy encountering either.
Catholics are not attempting to get closer to nature.
They are attempting to get closer to God.
To do so, catholics believe it is important to use what God has given us in the WAY he intended for us to use it (the verse here about tongues being used to bless and curse would be appropriate, but I don’t have the number handy), rather than manipulating it for our own goals.
The problem with birth control and barrier methods is that they, in essence, ‘break’ sex. Those methods render the marital act infertile, and it is infertile not through GOD’S will, but through our own. Therein lies the sin. With NFP, the marital act is still ORDERED towards procreation. The sex hasn’t changed, but our choices have.
With NFP a couple is simply choosing not to have sex. This choice, by the way, must always be made prayerfully. The question of ‘Is now the right time to have more children?’ is always a question that should be asked to God. It is IMPERATIVE that a couple have a strong prayer life, especially on this matter. As with everything, God will guide. It is our duty to simply follow.
Though no analogy is perfect, I think he difference between NFP and other methods is akin to the difference between dieting and purging. When one diets, one changes one’s actions to be in concordance with their will. So, on a diet, a person ABSTAINS, as it were, from certain foods, or certain amounts of foods. A person makes acts in accordance with their will. Whereas with purging, one does not change one’s actions. You go about living your life exactly as you had before, except you manipulate your body to achieve a desired result. Rather than changing one’s actions, a person changes their body. And, as with NFP, even dieting can be used in a sinful matter. if the person is dieting for vanity, then it could be sinful. If a person is dieting in the interest of preserving and protecting the gift from God that is their good health.
As I said, NFP is something that can be used and the couple could STILL be sinning. Is the couple avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons or out of a desire for responsible parenthood? It’s a tough call for all married couples as to choosing when to conceive, with or without NFP. That’s why prayer is SO critical to every couple’s relationship (among other reasons.)
I would also like to add that it’s not a sin to abstain from sexual relations with your spouse, for any number of reasons of LESSER importance than procreating. Maybe you had a long day at work, and would prefer a hot bath and an early bedtime. Maybe the kids are sick and you know they’ll wake you seventeen times tonight. Maybe you’re covered in poison oak. The point is, married couples don’t have sex every hour of every day. Couples abstain from marital relations for all sorts of reasons. And I believe reasons like ‘my body is still recovering from the last baby’ is certainly a good enough reason to abstain from sex, too.
In short, we have free will and we have knowledge. Both are gifts from God and, used in accordance with his will, are perfectly acceptable.
If I could just add some scripture here, too…again, I can’t name chapter and verse, but the punishment for Onan was death. Death, death, death. The punishment according to law at the time of NOT taking your brother’s wife was public humiliation. Why was Onan punished so much more severely?
Also, it might be helpful to consider which commandment a couple is breaking when one engages in relations with artificial contraceptives. It’s the sin of bearing false witness. To Catholics, your body MEANS something. Your actions MEAN something (hence the bowing, kneeling and the such.) jesus said to Judas in the garden ‘You would betray me with a kiss?’ Why say that? Because your actions MEAN something. You can tell lies with your body as easily as you can with your tongue.
And as God designed marriage, it is to be a TOTAL and COMPLETE mutual giving of self and the summit of this self-giving is in the marital act, when two become one. When a couple has relations with contraceptives, what they are saying with their bodies is ‘You can have me, EXCEPT my fertility. That, you can’t have.’ They are doing the very act which is supposed to unite them as one, and instead they are still divided, either physically through a barrier or more covertly through the use of the pill.

One last thing…I don’t have time to link to the studies now, but I remember reading that50% of couples divorces. Of those who attend church of any kind it drops to something like 16%. Of those who are using NFP, the divorce rate drops to around 5%. That means of 100 couples using NFP, 6 will divorce, whereas in the general population it’s 50.
By your fruits, I will know you…

Hope this helps!

 

[Rach620]

Karen,

rwillenborg posted an excellent response. I won’t try to add to his post, but to address the specific claims made that you were asked to respond to.

**Are you saying that “nature” designed the NFP method of birth control?
**
No. Doctors and women developed the methods of NFP. The criteria is not that which is natural vs. that which is artificial, but only doing that which is in keeping with the natural order of things, as it has been created by God.

Please explain how “nature” has anything to do with avoiding ovulation in a man and woman coming together as a married couple? Where in “nature” do we see such occuring?
This view of nature is not the one which Catholics are using. According to the natural order (ie, God’s design), sexual intercourse was created for husbands and wives, to unite them in “one flesh,” and for the generation of children. Also according to God’s design, when we look at men, we see that they are designed so that their participation in marital intercourse is always fertile. Every time a man has sex, his sperm contains all of the genetic material necessary for the generation of new life, if it unites with an egg. When we look at women, we see that they are designed so that they are only actually fertile 24-48 hours each month, during a particular window of time after the egg has been released and the environment in the womb is ready to assist the sperm in meeting the egg. All of this is God’s natural design; it has taken man-made technology to understand this design and exactly how it works.

Catholics conclude, after understanding this design, that while God intends every act of sex to be open to the creation of new life (because the husband’s sperm is always contributed), God does not intend for every act of intercourse to actually result in the creation of new life (or else he would have made both women and men always fertile).

Simply put, women are designed, by God, so that most of the time they have intercourse at a time when they are not ovulating.

God certainly did not create ovulation monthly so that man would avoid mating,
How does one reach this conclusion? I’m not sure I follow where it has come from. There is nothing in the natural order that points to the fact that we must always have sex during the few days in which a woman is fertile, and many people avoid sex on these days for a number of reasons (not all of which are even related to avoiding pregnancy…sometimes people really are just tired ).

** especially since there is nothing visible or natural pointing to ovulation in women. You have to use something unnatural, man made, to even know about ovulation. **
This is false. As I’ve said many times before, NFP is not rocket science. If a woman pays attention to visible, external signs, she can track her fertility with a high degree of accuracy. NFP does not require temperature-taking or constantly checking cervical position, and there is even a method (Billings) which is based almost entirely on a woman’s “sensation” of lubrication vs. dryness. There are many very visible, natural signs of fertility, and it is healthy for any woman, sexually active or not, to follow them.

I am not sure what she means by saying “you have to use something unnatural, man made, to even know about ovulation”. A woman does not need any special equipment to make an observation of cervical mucus when she uses the restroom (sorry if this TMI grosses anyone out over here…just getting down to the nitty gritty details here), unless one considers toilet paper to be a modern, artificial, man-made luxury!

**So what is “natural” about it? **
NFP is in keeping with God’s design–the natural, created order–for marital intercourse. It does not involve exerting technological control over our bodies by using drugs or devices, nor does it damage either a man’s or woman’s body, which is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

As for artificial, where does Scripture say it is a sin to use something “artificial,” man made?
This is a false dichotomy. The issue is not natural vs. artificial, but keeping our behavior in keeping with God’s design and the natural order of things. It is not showing our respect for God’s creation (our bodies) when we use science to force it to do things which God did not intend, or where we frustrate His purposes. Fertility is a blessing, not a disease to be treated by “science”.

Hope that helps!

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Rach and BHM,
How do I respond to this? That person reponded to my post with this posted in quotes below

I’m not sure this would apply, but…

I recently heard on EWTN a response about birth control in general…that while having sex, we’re not supposed to separate the unitive and procreative aspects. NFP is not an attempt to separate the unitive and procreative aspects…since it’s not having sex in the first place (there’s no unitive aspect).

I’m not sure about this…I still haven’t read the “Theology of the Body” that I’ve heard so much about. Maybe there’s something in there.

EDIT…another thing…Mt 16:19 “whatever you bind on earth…whatever you loose on earth”. We’ve got earthly authority appointed by Jesus Himself. But this will probably side-track the discussion if you’re dealing with a non-Catholic.

 

[Karen1960]

Thank you rwillenborg, Rach620 and BHM:thumbsup:

I will return to that thread tomorrow afternoon when I get off work. They are all great posts and I will be using them.

Just right now, I am so angry at her, that it’s not healthy and I am steering clear of her for now. I know myself and I will say something and end up getting banned again and then what good will it do.

Before she popped in on the scene many Protestants were thankful for this info, even one said something to the effect, Had I known it could even have a slight chance I would not have used it.