Poll on contraception

[Canvas]

I thought the life of the ova once ovulated is anywhere from 6-24 hours. The reason the “fertility window” lasts several days is because some sperm can survive in the woman’s body for 3-5 days. Most fertility experts think the best time to try to conceive is actually 1 or 2 days before ovulation, so sperm are there to meet the ova, because it has such a short life span.

 

[pensmama87]

I’m postpartum and hormonal, so maybe I’m just taking this too hard. Personally, I’m tired of being told that what my husband and I are doing is substantively the same as a couple using hormonal or barrier contraceptives. It’s not.

NFP users get this from hardcore providentialists and from people who think the Church’s stance on contraceptives is ridiculous. It’s very, very annoying.

ETA: Just to be clear, I don’t go around telling everybody about charting and asking their opinion.

 

[Pup7]

That’s what I said.

The egg lives up to 72 hours (on average) and sperm can live for several days. You are only technically fertile for that 72 hour period, because the egg can die before the sperm arrive.

NFP users get this from hardcore providentialists and from people who think the Church’s stance on contraceptives is ridiculous. It’s very, very annoying.

I am neither. And this isn’t accusational - it’s just a word that is morally neutral, and the medical world uses it as such.

 

[Vonsalza]

Just so you’re aware;

The moral issue is a little larger for some folks (and a few popes!).

There is a concern - and a reasonable one of you ask me - that the couple who commits to NFP have a contraceptive intent. You’ll find some of these folks as the priests and bishops who advise that it’s only for short term use.

And others think it outright sinful - you must either remove the barriers to pregnancy or live as brother and sister! Thankfully, those Catholics are nearly gone from the earth…

 

[Vonsalza]

Personally, I’m tired of being told that what my husband and I are doing is substantively the same as a couple using hormonal or barrier contraceptives. It’s not.

No one’s said that. You just think so because you’ve over-loaded the word “contraception”.

@BlackFriar told me something along the lines of “the Church prohibits artificial contraception” (forgive me if I conveyed your idea crudely). Note the additional qualifier.

 

[pensmama87]

You just think so because you’ve over-loaded the word “contraception”.

Not me, personally.

There is a philosophical distinction that doesn’t exist medically. Hopefully someone else will come on and discuss this better than I can.

You’re very brave to tell a hormonal woman, “Aren’t you being a little too emotional and irrational over this?”

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

You just think so because you’ve over-loaded the word “contraception”.

You’re very brave to tell a hormonal woman, “Aren’t you being a little too emotional and irrational over this?”

My retreat is underway.

 

[Pup7]

I do understand the philosophical connotation. But it’s just that - a connotation. It isn’t a definition in the strictest sense.

 

[pensmama87]

i do understand the philosophical connotation. But it’s just that - a connotation. It isn’t a definition in the strictest sense.

You’ve put on your nurse hat. Shall I get out my English teacher one?

 

[Pup7]

LOL! My mom is an English teacher by trade.

 

[QContinuum]

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

pensmama, I believe you are using, in reverse, the same logic that others here use to condemn different uses of contraceptive drugs.

That is, it has been put forth that taking the Pill, for example, is not a sin when its purpose is to treat endometriosis.

But it is a sin if the purpose is to prevent conception.

The difference between the two proposed scenarios is one of intent, as the Pill, in both cases acts exactly in the same way upon the reproductive system.

So, if it is a given that intent determines the whether the act of taking the Pill qualifies it as contraceptive (and therefore sinful), would not Pup’s argument that NFP is a form of contraceptive also be valid?

In essence, abstinence is not sinful when not being (artfully) used as a stop-gap timed measure to avoid contraception.

But if the intent behind timed abstinence is to avoid conceiving while still engaging in an active sexual relationship, it seems like sophistry to me to try to sidestep that with a myopic focus on the relative “openness to life” of individual acts.

One discrete brick does not an edifice alone make. Many bricks stacked together make a very imposing wall.

 

[phil19034]

Many are confused on the Church’s teaching of intrinsically evil acts. No circumstance or intention can justify an intrinsically evil act. Double effect doesn’t come into play with intrinsically evil acts. If we say that one can use contraception for medical purposes then we can say abortion is allowed to save the mother, which we know is false.

No. You are confusing direct actions vs. unintended side effects.

Let’s look at “abortion to save a mother’s life.”

If a pregnant mother is actively dying and needs to be saved, it will NOT be her child that is killing her. It will be something wrong with her own body that is killing her. Most likely, the doctor will treat her in order to save her life. Sometimes this requires a c-section (for example, the uterus is killing the mother). If the child is not yet viable, the c-section will have the unintended consequence of killing the child.

However, the doctor did not directly and deliberately kill the child.

In the case of using the pill for medical reasons, the reason for the pill is to cure a hormonal imbalance. That’s what the woman is directly using it for. The side effect is infertility.

NOW - with that said: if there is a drug that is known to have abortifacient side effects, it would be prudent for a Catholic woman to either (a) request a different pill, if possible; or (b) use NFP in addition to the medicine to avoid the chance of an abortifacient side effect.

Point is: the act in question is taking drugs. Taking drugs is a neutral. The reason for taking the drugs is where sin comes into play.

If you are taking drugs purposefully for recreation, to get high, as contraception, to commit suicide, etc: all gravely sinful.

However, if you are taking drugs to help you body, then it is not sinful.

Finally note two: It is possible for a women to desire to take the pill for BOTH medical & contraceptive reasons. In such a situation, I would imagine that having marital relations would most likely be sinful for her because the woman would not be open to life.

I pray this helps.

God Bless

 

[Canvas]

I thought the ova only survived for 6-24 hours post ovulation, not 72. But there is a several day window because if sperm are present, the ova can be fertilized.

 

[babochka]

Sometime, when you want to avoid pregnancy the most (such as breastfeeding and perimenooause), the fertility signs are more confusing and avoiding pregnancy can involve considerably more than 7 days of abstinence.

 

[pensmama87]

Oh, this is exhausting.

I trust the Church. I don’t think it’s exerting an unhealthy level of control over my life. My experience with contraceptives was horrible. NFP is hard, but it’s better than the alternative.

 

[CelticWarlord]

This is one the few things I have difficulty with on my Catholic journey. My wife and I are long past having any more kids but we did use different types of birth control for the first few years. Despite all the very fine efforts I’ve read and heard on the Church’s position, it’s one topic I cannot agree with the Church on. (Most of the Catholic people I knew and know today, used birth control as well. It’s on their own conscience, of course, and there is no way the church can regulate it)

 

[QContinuum]

I agree, there are not really any easy solutions.

Would that ovulation and sperm production were both consciously voluntary acts, themselves.

 

[pensmama87]

I guess what makes the most sense to me is that all our bodily appetites have to learn some form of temperance. We can’t have unrestricted food, drink, sleep, sex, or any pleasure. How that challenges us will vary greatly by individual. And that doesn’t mean those things are bad - in fact, they’re all very good, but none of us are going to get holier thinking we deserve our pet desire with absolutely zero restrictions.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The thing is, a drug like abortifacient contraception for medical purposes is that the chance of an abortion can be easily avoided by waiting until after one is done taking the pill. Waiting a period of time for sexual relations is worth the wait since one can put a concieved child at risk of death.

 

[Vonsalza]

But there is a several day window because if sperm are present, the ova can be fertilized.

Goodness, if the ph of her “girl parts” is less hostile and the man providing the sperm has healthy and plentiful semen, the boys can survive in there for a week or longer, even though that’s admittedly getting toward the outsides of the distribution. They’re all usually dead in a few days.

The vagina is a hostile environment.