Poll on contraception

[Angel_Gabriel]

If you use NFP to avoid having children, the intention is to defeat the primary purpose of marriage while having sexual relations. You just don’t want to have too many kids, but you want to have sexual relations just the same.

sorry but I’m not buying that…there will come a time where most (not all but MOST) couples will need to avoid having more children until menopause starts.

The risk of miscarriages is pretty darn great in the 40s and the physical demands of pregnancy and child rearing are felt more the older one gets. I just can’t imagine having to suffer through more miscarriages or a high risk pregnancy at the expense of my husband and other children. I don’t see that so much as selfish but as practical…and just.

(I often wonder if a lot of these pro-NFP posters here are single/young or both…I suspect that many are young and looking at marriage and NFP with rose colored glasses on. I’m not accusing anyone specifically of this but the thought has crossed my mind given my experience with these topics past discussions… )

 

[pensmama87]

If NFP (periodic abstinence) is contraception, then so is total abstinence.

I’ve said it before on CAF and I’ll say it again: this idea that people who use NFP to postpone or avoid pregnancy are somehow getting away with something is mind boggling.You know what they’re doing a lot of? Abstaining.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

If NFP (periodic abstinence) is contraception, then so is total abstinence.

I’ve said it before on CAF and I’ll say it again: this idea that people who use NFP to postpone or avoid pregnancy are somehow getting away with something is mind boggling.You know what they’re doing a lot of? Abstaining.

yes. The intent is the same …avoiding a pregnancy. Now it’s not always the case though and abstinence as a form of denial isn’t a bad thing really…I believe ST. Paul says that it’s ok to abstain for a little bit with mutual consent. Traditionally in the East during our fasts abstinence from sex was included as well as from certain foods.

 

[AlNg]

Is all matter evil in your view?

No. I would not say so. But I do say that it is a bad thing if your daily drinking water is contaminated with deadly poison and you do not know about it.

 

[goout]

goout:

Is all matter evil in your view?

No. I would not say so. But I do say that it is a bad thing if your daily drinking water is contaminated with deadly poison and you do not know about it.

Right. of course.
Is lead “evil”? Lead in drinking water poisons people. Does that make lead evil?
Or is my act of dumping it into the drinking water evil?

Is progestin “evil”? No, progestin is a substance.
The act of contra-ception is evil.

Everybody, listen:

Contra-ception is an act that can be morally evaluated, not a morally neutral substance.

Birth control does not necessarily involve contra-ception.

And NFP is not contra-ception.

 

[Pup7]

You know what they’re doing a lot of? Abstaining.

Not really. A woman is only fertile for about 72 hours once a month. Avoiding sex for 5-7 days isn’t really “doing a lot” of abstaining.

 

[Pup7]

Yes, it is contraception. Just not a physical or chemical method. Birth control = contraception.

Creating your own spelling of the word doesn’t change the meaning.

 

[goout]

Yes, it is contraception. Just not a physical or chemical method. Birth control = contraception.

Creating your own spelling of the word doesn’t change the meaning.

I’m sorry, that’s not correct.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself.
This forum is not a sport.

 

[Pup7]

I’m a registered nurse. I’m pretty educated on this sort of thing, actually. But thanks for the tip.

Why you consider that word so horrible is beyond me.

 

[goout]

I’m a registered nurse. I’m pretty educated on this sort of thing, actually. But thanks for the tip.

Good for you.
What you said is incorrect.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself.
This forum is not a sport.

 

[pensmama87]

It can be a lot more than that if she’s learning the method, if she’s postpartum and/or breastfeeding, approaching menopause, or has otherwise unclear symptoms for a whole host of reasons.

Couples who have very significant reasons to avoid do a LOT of abstaining.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

I’m a registered nurse. I’m pretty educated on this sort of thing, actually. But thanks for the tip.

Good for you.
What you said is incorrect.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself.
This forum is not a sport.

What I have said is 100% correct.

I’m good, actually. But thanks.

I don’t think this forum is sport, so why do you keep repeating yourself?

 

[goout]

goout:

Pup7:

I’m a registered nurse. I’m pretty educated on this sort of thing, actually. But thanks for the tip.

Good for you.
What you said is incorrect.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself.
This forum is not a sport.

What I have said is 100% correct.

I’m good, actually. But thanks.

No, you were wrong.
Any easy search of NFP in the Catholic context. will help you.
You have a responsibility to educate yourself.
And since you say your work in the medical profession, if you are speaking to people about Catholic ethics and moral theology, you have a even greater responsibility to educate yourself and use the terms responsibly.

 

[Pup7]

It can be a lot more than that if she’s learning the method, if she’s postpartum and/or breastfeeding, approaching menopause, or has otherwise unclear symptoms for a whole host of reasons.

Couples who have very significant reasons to avoid do a LOT of abstaining.

In general, a woman is still only fertile for about 72 hours a month. Once you learn it, it’s about a week. I would say it’s a given that it depends on how regular she is - but you still only release eggs once unless you have something extremely rare going on.

 

[Pup7]

No, you were wrong.

Any easy search of NFP in the Catholic context. will help you.

You have a responsibility to educate yourself.

As I said, I’ve taught this. It is indeed contraception, regardless of context. You’re reading far too much into the word.

And since you say your work in the medical profession, if you are speaking to people about Catholic ethics and moral theology, you have a even greater responsibility to educate yourself and use the terms responsibly.

I’m not “saying” anything. You want my license number? I am precisely what I say I am. I will present it in the exact way I have been educated to do so.

 

[goout]

goout:

No, you were wrong.

Any easy search of NFP in the Catholic context. will help you.

You have a responsibility to educate yourself.

As I said, I’ve taught this. It is indeed contraception, regardless of context. You’re reading far too much into the word.

And since you say your work in the medical profession, if you are speaking to people about Catholic ethics and moral theology, you have a even greater responsibility to educate yourself and use the terms responsibly.

I’m not “saying” anything. You want my license number? I am precisely what I say I am.

What you said is definitively incorrect. End of story… You’re repeating of it doesn’t change it.

 

[goout]

Contra-ception is an act that can be morally evaluated, not a morally neutral substance.

Birth control does not necessarily involve contra-ception.

And NFP is not contra-ception.

 

[pensmama87]

I don’t dispute that one bit. But it can be incredibly tricky for some women to determine when ovulation is. And if getting pregnant is very, very risky, you’re going to be extra cautious.

 

[Pup7]

Contra-ception is an act that can be morally evaluated, not a morally neutral substance.

Birth control does not necessarily involve contra-ception.

And NFP is not contra-ception.

What? Contraception is the avoidance of pregnancy. Contraception in and of itself is morally neutral. How you choose to do it may not be. Birth control is anything used to avoid pregnancy.

From womenshealth.gov:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vonsalza]

We have the full science that the pill can be abortive, it cannot just hurt the offspring but kill the offspring.

We have circumstantial “evidence” that the pill is abortive.

Circumstantial evidence is always good enough when you want it to be. But objectively, it tends not to pass muster.

The core problem with your claim is that the exact same cascading chemical triggers that cause a woman to ovulate (even unintentionally) are also the same triggers that prepare her uterus to catch any fertilized eggs.

If she can ovulate and the ovum is healthy enough to fertilize (a huge “if”, by the way), then that ovum can implant and she can get pregnant.

A pill-defying breakthrough-ovulation where the ovum is developed enough to fertilize but can’t implant due to the pill is a hypothesized event. It’s circumstantial and a statistical outlier.

It’s like dark matter. We hypothesize it exists, but it’s never been directly observed. That, so far, is “the full science”.