Relationship in the gutter.

[agapewolf]

I think the point you are missing is that 2 pregnancies per 100 couples per year assumes that the couple doesn’t deliberately select fertile or infertile days.

Presumably if the OP were to have sex with a condom, this is what he would do, so the 2% chance per year would be a good measure of risk for him.

The 2 pregnancies per 100 couples per year could only have happened when the couple had sex on a fertile day. For the purpose of finding out the chance of getting pregnant with a condom on a fertile day, you need to know how many sex acts the 100 couples had on fertile days.

The study would be bad if there were disproportionately few sex acts on fertile days, like say only 2. But, as long as this was not the case, it doesn’t matter.

Even if each couple only had fertile sex 10 times in the whole year. That’s 100 couples * 10 fertile sex days per couple = 1000. And of those 2 pregnancies. (And this is a rough estimate because once a couple gets pregnant, they can no longer have fertile sex. But since only 2 get pregnant, this difference doesn’t have an effect although it would if say all got pregnant.)

I am not missing this point…because it doesn’t follow logic.

What the “effectiveness” is supposed to be testing is the ability of condom to stop sperm. It’s getting credit for stopping sperm when it really didn’t… but conception wasn’t possible… so its getting credit for stopping sperm even though it didn’t.

 

[flyingfish]

I saw that flyingfish posted an interesting article about the effectiveness of NFP. That is really surprising numbers. If you compare them to the numbers obtained for similar methods, there seems to be quite a discrepancy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_of_various_methods

As far as I know, there haven’t been too many studies about the effectiveness of NFP methods (there are quite a few of them, all with different effectiveness).

That particular article I linked claims to describe the largest study on the symptothermal method done to date.

The Wiki effectiveness sources don’t seem to distinguish between the different methods of NFP,

^ No formal studies meet the standards of Contraceptive Technology for determining typical effectiveness. The typical effectiveness listed here is from the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth, which grouped symptoms-based methods together with calendar-based methods. See Fertility awareness#Effectiveness.​

^ The term “fertility awareness” is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “natural family planning” (NFP), though NFP usually refers to use of periodic abstinence in accordance with Catholic beliefs.​

Calendar based methods are not very effective. Also, I don’t know how you’d measure the “typical use” statistic. There would obviously be some issues with who you’re studying. If the best NFP users participate in your study (as the article I linked suggested), their “typical use” might be quite a bit more close to perfect use than that of the average person.

 

[Persuader]

As far as I know, there haven’t been too many studies about the effectiveness of NFP methods (there are quite a few of them, all with different effectiveness).

That particular article I linked claims to describe the largest study on the symptothermal method done to date.

The Wiki effectiveness sources don’t seem to distinguish between the different methods of NFP,

Calendar based methods are not very effective. Also, I don’t know how you’d measure the “typical use” statistic. There would obviously be some issues with who you’re studying. If the best NFP users participate in your study (as the article I linked suggested), their “typical use” might be quite a bit more close to perfect use than that of the average person.

I suggest you ignore agapewolf. He/she is just derailing the thread, and doesn’t understand what he/she is talking about.

You are right about calendar-based methods. They are not as effective. As far as statistics on typical use, I agree with what you are saying.

The stats on that NFP looks very promising, though. If my gf goes off the Implanon, we might look into some kind of fertility awareness method. The primary issue, of course, seems to be that it is a gigantic hassle. On Implanon you do not need to think about or plan your sexual encounters in any way, and my gf doesn’t need to worry about taking pills or anything else. If you dodge the worst side-effects, this is clearly the best product out there. Condoms are a bit of a hassle, and they limit the sexual experience in some ways. Ideally she will continue with Implanon, but that is her decision 100%.

By the way, Implanon’s primary and secondary mechanisms of action is not affecting implantation. Therefore it is probably not abortifacient. ” Hormonal contraceptives also have effects on the endometrium that theoretically could affect implantation, however no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantation actually results from their use.“ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon#Mechanism_of_action

In any case, the chances for it being abortifacient are really small indeed.

 

[agapewolf]

I suggest you ignore agapewolf. He/she is just derailing the thread, and doesn’t understand what he/she is talking about.

You are right about calendar-based methods. They are not as effective. As far as statistics on typical use, I agree with what you are saying.

The stats on that NFP looks very promising, though. If my gf goes off the Implanon, we might look into some kind of fertility awareness method. The primary issue, of course, seems to be that it is a gigantic hassle. On Implanon you do not need to think about or plan your sexual encounters in any way, and my gf doesn’t need to worry about taking pills or anything else. If you dodge the worst side-effects, this is clearly the best product out there. Condoms are a bit of a hassle, and they limit the sexual experience in some ways. Ideally she will continue with Implanon, but that is her decision 100%.

By the way, Implanon’s primary and secondary mechanisms of action is not affecting implantation. Therefore it is probably not abortifacient. ” Hormonal contraceptives also have effects on the endometrium that theoretically could affect implantation, however no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantation actually results from their use.“ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon#Mechanism_of_action

In any case, the chances for it being abortifacient are really small indeed.

I am not derailing the thread, simply challenging where you put your faith.

 

[flyingfish]

The stats on that NFP looks very promising, though. If my gf goes off the Implanon, we might look into some kind of fertility awareness method. The primary issue, of course, seems to be that it is a gigantic hassle. On Implanon you do not need to think about or plan your sexual encounters in any way, and my gf doesn’t need to worry about taking pills or anything else. If you dodge the worst side-effects, this is clearly the best product out there. Condoms are a bit of a hassle, and they limit the sexual experience in some ways. Ideally she will continue with Implanon, but that is her decision 100%.

I’ve never used NFP, and it seems that there is a range of personal accounts of it. Some people are very happy with it, they only abstain for 5-7 days each month and find it to be completely effective. Occasionally you will see stories though of women with irregular cycles for whom NFP doesn’t work or who have to abstain for nearly the whole month.

I’m not sure if this is the concern you’re expressing, but in the event that your girlfriend returns to the Catholic faith, the Church allows Catholics to have sex with spouses who use contraception/ are sterilized. Although she herself would not be able to use contraception.

 

[Persuader]

I’ve never used NFP, and it seems that there is a range of personal accounts of it. Some people are very happy with it, they only abstain for 5-7 days each month and find it to be completely effective. Occasionally you will see stories though of women with irregular cycles for whom NFP doesn’t work or who have to abstain for nearly the whole month.

I’m not sure if this is the concern you’re expressing, but in the event that your girlfriend returns to the Catholic faith, the Church allows Catholics to have sex with spouses who use contraception/ are sterilized. Although she herself would not be able to use contraception.

Good to know. Thanks for that. I don’t understand about the contraception, though. What could be the problem if the contraception is not abortifacient? If implantation does not occur, no form of life is lost. So what is the problem?

 

[flyingfish]

Good to know. Thanks for that. I don’t understand about the contraception, though. What could be the problem if the contraception is not abortifacient? If implantation does not occur, no form of life is lost. So what is the problem?

Well, it’s a theological reason based on Catholic teaching about the purpose of sex.

Sex is supposed to have 2 purposes, to make new life and to unite the spouses. The recognition of the “unitive” purpose of sex is, as far as I know, fairly recent and historically procreation was seen as the primary purpose of marriage and sex.

Today the teaching is that each act of sex must be “open to life”. Openness to life is defined as not actively doing anything to prevent conception (like contraception or withdrawal method). By this definition, if an infertile couple, or a pregnant couple, or a post menopausal couple have sex they are open to life because they are not not actively doing anything to prevent conception.

Similarly the teaching is that because a couple using NFP simply abstains from sex on the fertile days instead of interfering with fertility they are open to life.

As far as I understand the teaching anyway.

 

[Persuader]

Well, it’s a theological reason based on Catholic teaching about the purpose of sex.

Sex is supposed to have 2 purposes, to make new life and to unite the spouses. The recognition of the “unitive” purpose of sex is, as far as I know, fairly recent and historically procreation was seen as the primary purpose of marriage and sex.

Today the teaching is that each act of sex must be “open to life”. Openness to life is defined as not actively doing anything to prevent conception (like contraception or withdrawal method). By this definition, if an infertile couple, or a pregnant couple, or a post menopausal couple have sex they are open to life because they are not not actively doing anything to prevent conception.

Similarly the teaching is that because a couple using NFP simply abstains from sex on the fertile days instead of interfering with fertility they are open to life.

As far as I understand the teaching anyway.

I don’t think that makes much sense. What they say is seemingly that you can take steps to avoid getting pregnant as long as you do not do so during the actual sexual act. Is avoidance of x consistent with being open to x?

That would be like saying a person is open to sunlight, although that person did what he/she could to avoid stepping in to the sun. However, since that same person would stay in the sun for a bit if actually caught there, it would then be acceptable to say that the person was open to sunlight. Strange logic.

 

[flyingfish]

I don’t think that makes much sense. What they say is seemingly that you can take steps to avoid getting pregnant as long as you do not do so during the actual sexual act. Is avoidance of x consistent with being open to x?

Right, I think openness to life is seen more as a physical openness and not the intention of the couple.

I also think that a couple that goes to great lengths to identify the fertile times and avoid sex on those times is doing everything in its power to avoid another child, and it would be strange to view them as psychologically open to new life.

But since they are not interfering with the physical nature of sex by modifying the body in some way, they are considered to be open to life.

The Church allows couples to avoid pregnancy while working with the natural order of things, but forbids deliberate interference in the natural order.

 

[Persuader]

Right, I think openness to life is seen more as a physical openness and not the intention of the couple.

I also think that a couple that goes to great lengths to identify the fertile times and avoid sex on those times is doing everything in its power to avoid another child, and it would be strange to view them as psychologically open to new life.

But since they are not interfering with the physical nature of sex by modifying the body in some way, they are considered to be open to life.

The Church allows couples to avoid pregnancy while working with the natural order of things, but forbids deliberate interference in the natural order.

Hmm. I think that sounds strange. What about artificial life support? That would be deliberate interference in the natural order of things. Are the catholic church opposed to artificial life support?

Or what about artificial drugs like pills for depression? That would be deliberate interference in the natural order of things.

 

[flyingfish]

Hmm. I think that sounds strange. What about artificial life support? That would be deliberate interference in the natural order of things. Are the catholic church opposed to artificial life support?

Or what about artificial drugs like pills for depression? That would be deliberate interference in the natural order of things.

I think it applies to sex specifically because of the way sex and marriage are seen in Catholic teaching. (Historically, the primary purpose of marriage is making babies.)

It is a “commandment” of sorts that you’re not supposed to deliberately remove the procreative aspect from sex. Why? Because in Catholic theology the primary purpose of marriage (and sex) is babies.

With NFP, you’re not interfering with an individual sex act to remove procreation, you’re just being very careful not to have sex on those days when conception is possible. I can’t say that it makes sense to me, because in either situation you end up with a couple deliberately arriving at the result of having sex without risking pregnancy. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

[Persuader]

I think it applies to sex specifically because of the way sex and marriage are seen in Catholic teaching. (Historically, the primary purpose of marriage is making babies.)

It is a “commandment” of sorts that you’re not supposed to deliberately remove the procreative aspect from sex. Why? Because in Catholic theology the primary purpose of marriage (and sex) is babies.

With NFP, you’re not interfering with an individual sex act to remove procreation, you’re just being very careful not to have sex on those days when conception is possible. I can’t say that it makes sense to me, because in either situation you end up with a couple deliberately arriving at the result of having sex without risking pregnancy. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

Huh? You say that messing with the natural order of things is not ok only because it prevents pregnancy? But if preventing couples from making babies is the reason you shouldn’t interfere, how is that any different than NFP?

If you are going to say that interfering with the natural order of things is the reason for why contraceptives is wrong, you can’t simultaneously say that contraception is wrong because it intereferes with the natural order of things in preventing pregnancy. That’s two different reasons. Which one is it? Either contraception is wrong because of the fact that it is interfering with the natural order, or it is wrong because it prevents pregnancy. In the first case, interfering with the natural order in different ways should also be wrong. In the latter case, NFP should also be wrong.

 

[flyingfish]

Either contraception is wrong because of the fact that it is interfering with the natural order, or it is wrong because it prevents pregnancy. In the first case, interfering with the natural order in different ways should also be wrong. In the latter case, NFP should also be wrong.

As I understand it, the Church teaches that contraception is wrong because it interferes with sex by removing the fertility that’s naturally there.

The teaching is not that it’s wrong to interfere with nature generally, but that it’s wrong to interfere with the nature of sex.

I think the difference between NFP and artificial contraception is physical. NFP avoids fertile sex, artificial contraception changes fertile (and infertile) sex. According to Church teaching one is okay and the other is not.

 

[Persuader]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that contraception is wrong because it interferes with sex by removing the fertility that’s naturally there.

The teaching is not that it’s wrong to interfere with nature generally, but that it’s wrong to interfere with the nature of sex.

I think the difference between NFP and artificial contraception is physical. NFP avoids fertile sex, artificial contraception changes fertile (and infertile) sex. According to Church teaching one is okay and the other is not.

Yes, so that would be the first case then. It is wrong because it interferes with nature, not because it is avoiding pregnancy per se (since it’s fine to do this in other ways).

So what is the reason for why it is unacceptable to interfere with nature in avoiding pregnancy, but ok in other cases? If you don’t know, that’s fine, but it would be nice to know.

Just to clarify that we are dealing with a circular argument: I asked why it would be wrong to avoid pregnancy by contraception when it is right to do so with NFP. You said it was because it interferes with the natural order. So the fact that it is interfering with the natural order of things is what is different between contraception and NFP. Then I asked how it could be right to interfere with the natural order of things in other cases, since this clearly was the reason for why contraception was wrong, but NFP right. Then you said it was because contraception avoids pregnancy. But the fact that contraception avoids pregnancy was earlier established as not being the real reason since NFP did the same. Since interference is not something CC is generally against, it is thus required to explain what makes interference with the natural order a problem in this specific case.

 

[flyingfish]

Yes, so that would be the first case then. It is wrong because it interferes with nature, not because it is avoiding pregnancy per se (since it’s fine to do this in other ways).

Why do you think it must be a single thing rather than a combination of things that on their own are fine but together are not okay?

So what is the reason for why it is unacceptable to interfere with nature in avoiding pregnancy, but ok in other cases? If you don’t know, that’s fine, but it would be nice to know.

To be honest I am not that well versed in Catholic teaching to understand the full reasoning behind it.

I would think that contraception is forbidden because of historical views on sex and marriage. The very purpose of marriage was traditionally to make babies. NFP was not an issue when these views developed, it’s a fairly recent method. (And as far as I know, the older rhythm method is relatively recent too.)

Augustine had a strong influence on the development of Catholic theology, and he struggled a lot with sexual sins. Probably in part because of his influence, and because of general social attitudes toward lust/various sexual sins sex that a couple had for the sole purpose of pleasure came to be viewed as possibly lustful. And what is contraception if not a way for a couple to enjoy sex while avoiding pregnancy. Later NFP came along and made to fit into this view of sex.

 

[Persuader]

Why do you think it must be a single thing rather than a combination of things that on their own are fine but together are not okay?

That might be, but then you would need an explanation to show why interfering with the natural order is wrong in this specific case. It doesn’t make any sense to say it is wrong to interfere with the natural order of things because it prevents pregnancy, since preventing pregnancy is fine otherwise.

It’s fine that you do not know that explanation. If anyone else knows anything, I would like to hear it.

 

[flyingfish]

It’s fine that you do not know that explanation. If anyone else knows anything, I would like to hear it.

Right, I gave the best explanation I could.

But I am not sure you will get what you are looking for. You are approaching this from a secular point of view and are expecting to be given logical reasons that justify the teaching. There is a lot in Catholic teaching that is taught authoritatively as divine revelation, so the best explanation that anyone can give is what is taught not why you should agree with it.

As regards contraception, you might ask a more fundamental question of why should it be wrong to have sex purely for physical pleasure and no other reason. Then you come down to religious reasons, and there is no “why”.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

We are not animals. Animals have sexual relations based on biological and hormonal urges to create new animals. As humans, we have an added dimension of sexual relations… a love-giving aspect. To understand CC teaching on sex you must understand its teaching on the nature and dignity of the human person. We are created in the image and likeness of God with free will and intellect, which separates us from the animals. They cannot freely choose to be moral or immoral. Their instinct overrides their sometimes limited intellect and minimal free will. In us, our free will and intellect perfects and informs our instincts.

As creatures made in the image and likeness of God, we were created to love… in a way even the nicest pet cannot. The mutual love of spouses in a committed and permanent relationship is a gift from God. And in that framework of mutual love, care and fidelity, God gave us a love-giving/life-giving way of creating new life… our love personified. The couple loves each other so much it makes a new person, essentially.

So deeply are those love/life aspects linked, that one without the other is seen as barbaric. If a tribe of vandals was to invade a country and deliberately impregnate the women, that separates love and life. One without the other is an abuse. It is a monstrous violation of the dignity and rights of the women involved. Rape is sex without love. We can see in that respect that it is an indignity to impregnate a woman and create a new life without any love for her. It is using her as an incubator. Pope John Paul II said the opposite of love is not hate. It’s “use.” When we use others, we are least loving.

Well, the other love/life separation is only showing the love and denying the life-giving aspect. Deliberately thwarting that is not honest. It is a violation of the very integrity of the act. It is telling the person “I don’t love all of you. I only take certain parts. Your fertility and ability to give new life is not something I want.” It is taking the act and making it pure recreation. It is using the person for pleasure but saying “We don’t have enough love to create a new life, but I’m going to use you until I find the person who I want to create life with and then I’ll love all of that person.”

Unlike NFP, which suspends the entire act for a time, not dividing the love-giving/life-giving aspect, respecting the integrity of the act itself… birth control is a human injection of actions before during or after the act to stop the very transmission of life while it is happening. Stopping ovulation, stopping fertilization, preventing the fertilized ovum from implanting, or wiping it out altogether. It is a slap in the face to God who gave us roles as co-creators in His plan for humanity.

The ends may be the same, but it’s like wanting a car. You can buy one, or you can steal one. Wanting a car can be a neutral thing. How one goes about it, with integrity or not, is the difference.

Women have a little more of a grasp of this notion. It’s seldom “just sex” to them. MOST women cannot have sex with a man they don’t love. They understand that whole integrity thing. They have to love a man first to have sex with him. And some men make dishonest protestations of love to get that. Deliberately rendering the act to be sterile robs it of half its meaning. You understand that, don’t you? How if you do an action and the intent isn’t there, it’s dishonest? You told us that’s how you’d feel about praying with the family. That’s an act that has an outward component, but if it’s robbed of its internal intent (communion with God) then it’s a hollow playacting. Well, birth control takes that complete union between the couple intended by God, their whole beings, their fertility, their intent to manifest their love for each other, and it robs it of half its meaning. It’s hollow playacting. Might tickle some neurons and feel good for a while, but eventually the overall emptiness and sterility of the act becomes divisive for the couple. Someone eventually figures out they’re getting used.

No, it’s not like giving someone medicine or putting them on a ventilator. Treating the illness of a sick person is not violating the integrity of an action. Birth control is treating a healthy function like a sickness and trying to suppress it. It takes a healthy fertility organ system and makes it incapable of functioning properly to prevent life. REAL medicine operates in the opposite fashion, trying to make sick organ systems function like healthy ones to preserve life.

 

[newbetx]

It’s fine that you do not know that explanation. If anyone else knows anything, I would like to hear it.

Lib’s last post works through some of the finer points and beliefs. It’s got a lot of good points in it. However, it’s hard to understand when one does not share the same point of reference as the other in the debate. You’ll have to be patient while we try to bridge that gap.

Let’s ask this question… if you are with your gf at your parents house, would you be sleeping with her? Will your parents presume and approve of you having sex with her in their house?

Oh, and did you ever get that book for you gf that I suggested?

 

[StillWondering]

I just wanted to respond to these two comments from a Catholic prospective.

In any case, the chances for it being abortifacient are really small indeed.

A chance of abortificative is never a good thing for a fully practicing Catholic. If your girlfriend returns to Catholicism and become orthodox (as in holding onto the true teachings of the Church) anything that is abortacient is morally wrong. A child is an innocent being so the Catholic cannot use any method that objectively says no we refuse this child, especially so if death may occur.

Good to know. Thanks for that. I don’t understand about the contraception, though. What could be the problem if the contraception is not abortifacient? If implantation does not occur, no form of life is lost. So what is the problem?

If she becomes a practicing Catholic and stop using the pill for contraception, having marital relations with you would be fine if it is your choice and not hers for the condom. It’s a situation where she is being a faithful wife and not a situation of she choosing to contraceptive.

As for the second part of the comment, condoms fall under the barrier to love category. You would be accept her body and the pleasure from it without accepting her fertility. That’s an essential part of her being. The Church teachings that one makes love fully, faithfully, fruitfully, and freely. (1) Real sex only exists in the context of giving yourself fully and receiving your partner fully. (2) Real sex is always done as a faithful expression of love. There is no lies and no objectifying such as not caring for her but imaging someone else or her as a salve or toy for that end. (3) The love between the partners should bare fruit in the relationship as well as promote an love of life – in each other and in the beauty and gift of children. (4) And lastly, the partners give each other freely, not as payment nor through coercion. Let me note that NFP is meant to coexists with all four. Additionally, if it certainly alright if you have marital relations to comfort each other or to renew a love that would already be there in the marriage.