Prophetic Nature of Humanae Vitae & Promiscuity

[Paladin_V]

They lied to you, or just chose data that fit what their itching ears wanted to hear. A woman can get pregnant any time of a given month. It is only that the liklihood increases right before and right after ovulation. If you use NFP for a year, you and your spouse are guaranteed to get pregnant.

babycenter.com/404_can-you-get-pregnant-right-after-your-period_7094.bc

Or you have itching ears and don’t want to hear otherwise. No one said it is 100% effective. Look up the studies, or if you want I can get back to you with them. They show it is 99% effective when used correctly, which is more than you can say for many contraceptives. Obviously there are circumstances which can allow you to get pregnant at any time, which are, as your website said, very rare.

There are circumstances where it may seem like the woman had her period when in fact it was bleeding for some other reason and the woman is still fertile. That is why temperature fluctuations are measured in NFP. Further, most people who reported getting pregnant during supposedly infertile times probably weren’t practicing NFP and had no idea where in their cycle they were. Not to mention that hormonal birth control completely messes up your cycle anyway, making it hard to predict.

As for your statement that you are guaranteed to get pregnant after one year, well that is absolutely ridiculous. I can’t wait to see all the testimonials to the contrary.

As far as not having an act to sterilize… If you use NFP and you abstain from intercourse, you aren’t having intercourse, hence there is no sterilized act happening… you’re not doing anything at all. If you do have intercourse, you yourself are not sterilizing it.

Did you even read what I posted? It seems like you have no desire to even hear what I have to say. The only thing you’ve posted is something about ducks and about how the Church “dictates” to us (as it should, among other things, being Christ’s teaching authority).

I would like to know what you mean by having roots in gnostic asceticism.

 

[ckempston]

Yeah. Here is a big problem of reasoning I find with the Catholic church. Firstly, can anyone enlighten me as to what kind of things constitute ‘serious’ reasons for not wanting to procreate?

Then, if one has ‘serious’ reasons for not wishing to have children, why is artificial contraception worse than abstinence during fertile times? Is it just because NFP leaves it open for God to circumvent your ‘serious’ reasons?

Also, what does the church make of the growing numbers of people who identify as childfree?

God can circumvent condoms and the pill as well if he so chooses. Happens all the time.

 

[Paladin_V]

Yeah. Here is a big problem of reasoning I find with the Catholic church. Firstly, can anyone enlighten me as to what kind of things constitute ‘serious’ reasons for not wanting to procreate?

Then, if one has ‘serious’ reasons for not wishing to have children, why is artificial contraception worse than abstinence during fertile times? Is it just because NFP leaves it open for God to circumvent your ‘serious’ reasons?

Also, what does the church make of the growing numbers of people who identify as childfree?

You can’t get married in the Church if you don’t want to have children.

 

[Sair]

You can’t get married in the Church if you don’t want to have children.

That’s pretty much what I thought.

Good thing my husband and I went for a secular wedding!

 

[ckempston]

Or you have itching ears and don’t want to hear otherwise. No one said it is 100% effective. Look up the studies, or if you want I can get back to you with them. They show it is 99% effective when used correctly, which is more than you can say for many contraceptives. Obviously there are circumstances which can allow you to get pregnant at any time, which are, as your website said, very rare.

It’s interesting how you seem so convinced, but keep qualifying the act with phrases like, “no one said it is 100% effective.” If it fails, you have the wiggle room to say, “well, they must have done something wrong” (no true scotsman), or appeal to the 100% effectiveness claim. The reality is, it’s not effective, at all. It’s a statistical illusion as I already pointed out. Women are not guaranteed to get pregnant even at their most fertile times. It should come as no surprise that they don’t get pregnant at other times of the month either. That alone proves that the Catholic church is not passing along divinely inspired information.

There are circumstances where it may seem like the woman had her period when in fact it was bleeding for some other reason and the woman is still fertile. That is why temperature fluctuations are measured in NFP. Further, most people who reported getting pregnant during supposedly infertile times probably weren’t practicing NFP and had no idea where in their cycle they were. Not to mention that hormonal birth control completely messes up your cycle anyway, making it hard to predict.

If I’m not mistaken, hormonal birth control regulates cycles. i.e. it makes them MORE regular, not less.

As for your statement that you are guaranteed to get pregnant after one year, well that is absolutely ridiculous. I can’t wait to see all the testimonials to the contrary.

Ha ha ha. I can find testimonials that Madam Palm Reader can tell you the sex of your baby too. She’s got a 50% success rate.

As far as not having an act to sterilize… If you use NFP and you abstain from intercourse, you aren’t having intercourse, hence there is no sterilized act happening… you’re not doing anything at all. If you do have intercourse, you yourself are not sterilizing it.

Yes, you are. You’re having intercourse with the intention of preventing conception. A.K.A.: contraception.

Did you even read what I posted? It seems like you have no desire to even hear what I have to say. The only thing you’ve posted is something about ducks and about how the Church “dictates” to us (as it should, among other things, being Christ’s teaching authority).

I would like to know what you mean by having roots in gnostic asceticism.

You didn’t get the duck analogy? NFP is contraception. Same as using a condom. You just refuse to admit it. If the church does dictate to you, then you’ve got no grounds for claiming you can follow your “well formed conscience.”

 

[Paladin_V]

It’s interesting how you seem so convinced, but keep qualifying the act with phrases like, “no one said it is 100% effective.” If it fails, you have the wiggle room to say, “well, they must have done something wrong” (no true scotsman), or appeal to the 100% effectiveness claim. The reality is, it’s not effective, at all. It’s a statistical illusion as I already pointed out. Women are not guaranteed to get pregnant even at their most fertile times. It should come as no surprise that they don’t get pregnant at other times of the month either. That alone proves that the Catholic church is not passing along divinely inspired information.

You keep asserting this claim that it’s ineffective. How about this: I’ll track down studies about it’s effectiveness, you track down studies about it’s ineffectiveness, and we’ll compare notes.

Wait… you said you can guarantee that a couple will get pregnant in a year using NFP… now they are not guaranteed to get pregnant even at their most fertile times?

If I’m not mistaken, hormonal birth control regulates cycles. i.e. it makes them MORE regular, not less.

It lengthens them and subsequently makes them more irregular. Without birth control a woman is on roughly a monthly schedule. On birth control, all bets are off.

Yes, you are. You’re having intercourse with the intention of preventing conception. A.K.A.: contraception.

Like we said earlier… yes, the intention of NFP is to prevent conception. As I’ve discussed ad nauseum, with NFP, in every single act, the couple is not placing an impediment to conception, it is making use of one that already exists by nature for some serious reason.

The NFP user says, “We don’t want to get pregnant so rather than sterilize the act, we’ll wait unless there is much less of a chance and not sterilize the act.”

Besides, there is some chance of pregnant at any time anyway, so as long as there is no impediment placed in the act it’s a fertile act.

 

[captbackfire]

Jennifer J,

This remark you have made indicating that what is good for one couple may not be good for the next - would you say that borders on Relativism?

“Serious/grave/just reasons are not spelled out. What is serious/grave/just for one couple might not be for another couple. However, illness, economic distress, emotional issues, and the like would be serious/just/grave reasons for the use of either abstinence or NFP.”

capt

 

[captbackfire]

“Not to mention that the negative effects of contraception on marital relationships have been shown over and over as well.”

I’m interested to know what non-Catholic studies have shown this to be true “over and over”. Thank you.

capt

 

[Paladin_V]

“Not to mention that the negative effects of contraception on marital relationships have been shown over and over as well.”

I’m interested to know what non-Catholic studies have shown this to be true “over and over”. Thank you.

capt

This is an article by George Akerlof, an economics professor at UC Berkley:
[EconPapers: An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States](An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the US)

This is an article by a Catholic and it references Akerlof and others.
[Natural Family Planning Outreach: Podcasts](The Facts of Life & Marriage)

 

[Paladin_V]

It’s interesting how you seem so convinced, but keep qualifying the act with phrases like, “no one said it is 100% effective.” If it fails, you have the wiggle room to say, “well, they must have done something wrong” (no true scotsman), or appeal to the 100% effectiveness claim. The reality is, it’s not effective, at all. It’s a statistical illusion as I already pointed out. Women are not guaranteed to get pregnant even at their most fertile times. It should come as no surprise that they don’t get pregnant at other times of the month either. That alone proves that the Catholic church is not passing along divinely inspired information.

As promised, the studies on the effectiveness of NFP. I suggest you take a look at Method Effectiveness in Part 2 and User Effectiveness in Part 3, as well as the references in Part 5.
ccli.org/nfp/basics/effectiveness-p01.php

This is great too:
“Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”
sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
Not to mention that this website was plastered with ads for the NuvaRing… go figure.

 

[Paladin_V]

This is an article by George Akerlof, an economics professor at UC Berkley:
[EconPapers: An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States](An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the US)

This is an article by a Catholic and it references Akerlof and others.
[Natural Family Planning Outreach: Podcasts](The Facts of Life & Marriage)

The links didn’t work… try this for the first article:
ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v111y1996i2p277-317.html
At any rate, the article is called “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States,” by George Akerlof

The second article is found here (hopefully this link works):
nfpoutreach.org/library/facts_life-marriage.htm

 

[RobbyS]

Seriously, you’re wrong. I’ve been married for 14 years and I have four children and no accidents. My youngest is 5. We don’t even bother with all the temperature stuff. Learning the Church’s teaching about sex and marriage has had incredibly positive effects on my marriage and my relationship with my wife and my kids (not to mention the big fella upstairs).

Anyone who doesn’t think that birth control has made people more promiscuous should just consider what effect that easily available birth control had on women’s attitudes. Fear of pregnancy caused relatively restrained behavior among woemn in the '50s. One the threat went away, women began to have sex as freely as men. A simple analogy is instructive: where food is relatively scarce, people are thin. Where it is readily available, people get fat.

 

[Sair]

Anyone who doesn’t think that birth control has made people more promiscuous should just consider what effect that easily available birth control had on women’s attitudes. Fear of pregnancy caused relatively restrained behavior among woemn in the '50s. One the threat went away, women began to have sex as freely as men. A simple analogy is instructive: where food is relatively scarce, people are thin. Where it is readily available, people get fat.

So, the problem is not an overall increase in promiscuity, but an increase in women’s promiscuity…?

Talk about showing your true colours. Though I wonder who all these promiscuous men were having sex with before birth control was readily available to women.

 

[marleighmartine]

Giving birth control to anyone for any reason is the same as condoning premarital sex or God not being a part of the married relationship.

And yes, BC makes women more promiscuous. Unless they are getting raped, they are letting the men “in”. That’s not sexist.

On NFP, it works! You’re using your body’s natural signals to determine whether or not to try for a child. Just like BC, it only works if you do it CORRECTLY. I have 5 kids and ALL mine were conceived by NOT using it right! I always had a problem with that abstaining part… But I’ve never conceived while practicing it the right way.

 

[Paladin_V]

NFP is contraception. Same as using a condom.

I encourage you to check out CA Live with Jason Everett discussing NFP vs. Contraception. He explains it better than I have. You only have to listen to the first 10 to 15 minutes or so where he discusses the differences, but the entire show is very good (it’s 55 minutes long). I’ve also included a link to his website where he lists numerous scholarly articles on NFP and contraception.

The radio show:
catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=0&event=5509&date=2009-01-19

Jason Everett’s website:
chastity.com

Hopefully this will help.

 

[captbackfire]

Or you have itching ears and don’t want to hear otherwise. No one said it is 100% effective. Look up the studies, or if you want I can get back to you with them. They show it is 99% effective when used correctly, (i.e., without a shred of spontaneity) which is more than you can say for many **(but not all) **contraceptives. Obviously there are circumstances which can allow you to get pregnant at any time, which are, as your website said, very rare.

There are circumstances where it may seem like the woman had her period when in fact it was bleeding for some other reason and the woman is still fertile. (Vaginal bleeding, when not associated with menstruation, can be an indicator of serious conditions, including cancer. This woman should not even be thinking about sex.) That is why temperature fluctuations are measured in NFP. **(Temperature fluctuations are not going to tell her if she has ovarian, cervical or uterine cancer.)**Further, most people who reported getting pregnant during supposedly infertile times probably weren’t practicing NFP (speculation here) and had no idea where in their cycle they were **(and here). **Not to mention that hormonal birth control completely messes up your cycle anyway, making it hard to predict. This is incorrect: hormonal birth control acts to regulate cycles, not deregulate them.)
As for your statement that you are guaranteed to get pregnant after one year, well that is absolutely ridiculous. (Perfect adherence to NPF methods is hardly common - failures do occur in greater numbers than many people care to admit.) I can’t wait to see all the testimonials to the contrary. (Testimonials offered strictly by Catholics do not represent worldwide statistics on NPF.)
As far as not having an act to sterilize… If you use NFP and you abstain from intercourse, you aren’t having intercourse, hence there is no sterilized act happening… you’re not doing anything at all. If you do have intercourse, you yourself are not sterilizing it. (By not engaging in intercourse during fertile times, a couple thwarts conception and thus denies the possible will of God that they should conceive.)

Did you even read what I posted? It seems like you have no desire to even hear what I have to say. (Because an individual disagrees with you does not mean that s/he does not want to hear or read what you have to say.) The only thing you’ve posted is something about ducks (The references to walking/talking like a duck is so commonplace that it’s insulting that you should feign bewilderment at them.) and about how the Church “dictates” to us (as it should, among other things, being Christ’s teaching authority). ** If the Church “should” dictate to its parishioners, then why did this irritate you?**
I would like to know what you mean by having roots in gnostic asceticism.

**capt **

 

[Paladin_V]

I’ve added my comments in red.

Originally Posted by Paladin V
Or you have itching ears and don’t want to hear otherwise. No one said it is 100% effective. Look up the studies, or if you want I can get back to you with them. They show it is 99% effective when used correctly, (i.e., without a shred of spontaneity) [not so at all, ask just about any couple practicing NFP here]. which is more than you can say for many (but not all) contraceptives. Obviously there are circumstances which can allow you to get pregnant at any time, which are, as your website said, very rare.

There are circumstances where it may seem like the woman had her period when in fact it was bleeding for some other reason and the woman is still fertile. (Vaginal bleeding, when not associated with menstruation, can be an indicator of serious conditions, including cancer. This woman should not even be thinking about sex.) [Obviously she should see her doctor, but with NFP you know if your temperature has risen and thus you know if it was actually a menstruation or if it wasn’t. So in the case of something seriously wrong, the benefit of NFP is tremendous in helping to detect it. Additionally, missed or late periods can be due to some other illness or stress and are not necessarily a serious problem] That is why temperature fluctuations are measured in NFP. (Temperature fluctuations are not going to tell her if she has ovarian, cervical or uterine cancer.) [Nor will any contraception… actually hormonal contraceptions have been linked to the cause of these cancers. Also, see above… NFP may be the only reason that you know something is wrong]. Further, most people who reported getting pregnant during supposedly infertile times probably weren’t practicing NFP (speculation here) and had no idea where in their cycle they were (and here). Not to mention that hormonal birth control completely messes up your cycle anyway, making it hard to predict. (This is incorrect: hormonal birth control acts to regulate cycles, not deregulate them.) **
As for your statement that you are guaranteed to get pregnant after one year, well that is absolutely ridiculous. (Perfect adherence to NPF methods is hardly common - failures do occur in greater numbers than many people care to admit.) [you can say the same about other bc forms too… and I’ll track down some statistics regarding correct practice] I can’t wait to see all the testimonials to the contrary. (Testimonials offered strictly by Catholics do not represent worldwide statistics on NPF.)
As far as not having an act to sterilize… If you use NFP and you abstain from intercourse, you aren’t having intercourse, hence there is no sterilized act happening… you’re not doing anything at all. If you do have intercourse, you yourself are not sterilizing it. (By not engaging in intercourse during fertile times, a couple thwarts conception and thus denies the possible will of God that they should conceive.) [Not at all… certainly God wills that we space births for the benefit of children and the family; there’s nothing wrong with that (as long as it is not indefinite nor for trivial reasons). To that end, contraception is ok. What is wrong is interfering in and sterilizing the **individual marital act. Just because the couple is naturally less fertile doesn’t mean they can’t have sex, nor do they have to every time they are more fertile. Surely this is obvious.]

Did you even read what I posted? It seems like you have no desire to even hear what I have to say. (Because an individual disagrees with you does not mean that s/he does not want to hear or read what you have to say.) [But it doesn’t mean they did]. The only thing you’ve posted is something about ducks (The references to walking/talking like a duck is so commonplace that it’s insulting that you should feign bewilderment at them.) and about how the Church “dictates” to us (as it should, among other things, being Christ’s teaching authority). If the Church “should” dictate to its parishioners, then why did this irritate you?[Because it was said with animosity]
I would like to know what you mean by having roots in gnostic asceticism.

capt

 

[captbackfire]

“They show [NFP] is 99% effective when used correctly, (i.e., without a shred of spontaneity) [not so at all, ask just about any couple practicing NFP here]. which is more than you can say for many (but not all) contraceptives.”** (I repeat: testimonials offered strictly by Catholics do not represent worldwide statistics on NPF.) **

“So in the case of something seriously wrong, the benefit of NFP is tremendous in helping to detect it.” Please explain in detail how taking one’s temperature can be tremendously beneficial in detecting malignancies.

(" . . . hormonal birth control acts to regulate cycles, not deregulate them.) *" As you look into that more, please pay attention to PCOS and other fertility and endocrine disorders.

" . . . certainly God wills that we space births for the benefit of children and the family; there’s nothing wrong with that (as long as it is not indefinite nor for trivial reasons)." ** Who is to judge whether the reasons are “trivial”?**

“To that end, contraception is ok.” **??? **

“What is wrong is interfering in and sterilizing the individual marital act.” I have read this phrase repeatedly and have never seen a direct or comprehensible description of the term “sterilizing the individual marital act.” Please explain this.

“Just because the couple is naturally less fertile doesn’t mean they can’t have sex, nor do they have to every time they are more fertile. Surely this is obvious.” Actually, what is obvious to me is this: if a couple is naturally less fertile it would mean they might be more likely to have sex; and I would find it an abomination if they were required to have sex every time they were more fertile.

"If the Church ‘should’ dictate to its parishioners, then why did this irritate you?" [Because it was said with animosity] ** Or was it* read*** with animosity?

capt*

 

[Paladin_V]

Well, explaining this in a multitude of ways doesn’t seem to have helped… I’ll refer you to the people who study this professionally.
Check out Couple-to-Couple League International. They have clear concise articles on NFP and contraception, their effectiveness (including “as used”), effect on marriage, differences, etc. Please check it out…

About NFP:
ccli.org/nfp

NFP vs. Contraception
ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php

Effectiveness
ccli.org/nfp/basics/effectiveness-p01.php

Marriage Building
ccli.org/nfp/marriage/index.php

 

[captbackfire]

"The Pope Paul VI Institute reports a perfect-use effectiveness rate of 99.5% in the first year.[5] In clinical studies of the CrMS conducted at the Pope Paul IV Institute, researchers excluded most pregnancies from the typical-use rate calculation, on the grounds that they believed the affected couples had used the method to deliberately attempt pregnancy.[6] The Institute reports a typical-use effectiveness of 96.8% in the first year** **(as opposed to the claim that, “They show it is 99% effective when used correctly,” as Paladin V asserts.) ****.[5] Most studies of similar systems do not exclude such pregnancies from the typical-use failure rate."[7][8]

[5] “CREIGHTON MODEL FertilityCare™ System: Effectiveness of the System”. creightonmodel.com

[6] Use effectiveness of the Creighton model ovulation…[J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1994] - PubMed Result

[7] Weschler, Toni (2002). Taking Charge of Your Fertility (Revised Edition ed.). New York: HarperCollins. pp. 349–350.

[8] Kippley, John; Sheila Kippley (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th addition ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League. pp. 141–142.