Standard Days Method of NFP

[Ron_Conte]

Concerning effectiveness, if a couple has a serious reason to avoid the possibility of conception, they should probably use the sympto-thermal method strictly, which is the most effective method. But many couples are not trying to avoid all possibility of conception. The SDM and TD methods are more effective than is needed by most couples. At 95% effectiveness, there is only one chance in 20 of conceiving in any given year.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Standard Days Method is a new method of NFP developed and tested in the late 1990’s. With correct use, its effectiveness is about 95%. Most women have no more than one cycle per year shorter than 26 days or longer than 32 days, so most women can use the method.

The TwoDay Method is another new method of NFP, which can be used by women of any cycle length. Also developed at Georgetown University, its correct use effectiveness is about 96%.

These methods have the advantage of being easy to learn.

Got stats to back that up??? I know that I’m never regular. My average cycle length is 36 days. I know that I am far from the only one, based on the women who ask questions about NFP and irregular cycles. I’d like some hard stats on the “average” women’s cycle length? Also, this method cannot be used postpartem, because there is no cycle. Couldn’t be used during perimenipause, etc… I think another, more accurate method, would be more helpful for more women during all seasons of their life. Just my opinion, though. (and as a disclaimer, we use STM when we have need to space/postpone)

Jennifer

 

[Em_in_FL]

Got stats to back that up??? I know that I’m never regular. My average cycle length is 36 days. I know that I am far from the only one, based on the women who ask questions about NFP and irregular cycles. I’d like some hard stats on the “average” women’s cycle length? Also, this method cannot be used postpartem, because there is no cycle. Couldn’t be used during perimenipause, etc… I think another, more accurate method, would be more helpful for more women during all seasons of their life. Just my opinion, though. (and as a disclaimer, we use STM when we have need to space/postpone)

Jennifer

Oh I agree… I’ve never had a “regular” cycle… mine usually range from 32 to 40 days… and vary from month to month.

I’d also like to see the real stats… those that do not include women on any form of chemical birth control (which FORCE your cycle to be 28 days long)…

 

[1ke]

Oh I agree… I’ve never had a “regular” cycle… mine usually range from 32 to 40 days… and vary from month to month.

Well, as a woman whose cycle is “regular” according to the “standard days” method, I can vouch that this method is highly unreliable.

I have been charting for several years and I can tell you that even though my cycle is the **same **length nearly every month-- and never outside the range listed for this method-- my fertile days are NOT the same days every month and this method would have been a disaster.

The idea that it’s “good enough” for someone to use who needs to avoid is completely off-base. It seems the OP is coming from the POV that this method is for people who don’t really have a reason to avoid.

But, if you don’t have a reason to avoid, you don’t need a method for avoiding!

 

[1ke]

The contraceptive mentality, in which a person or a couple attempts to do only their own will concerning procreation, thwarting in any way the will of God in procreation, is a sin.

Actually, I would define the contraceptive mentality as avoiding children without a just reason that conforms to the objective moral criteria-- that seems to be how the Catechism distinguishes the morality of using the infertile period.

Controling procreation is not equivalent to having a contraceptive mentality. As I stated earlier, someone can have a just reason to completely avoid conception.

 

[Teakafrog]

There are a number of good NFP methods. Couples can choose which method is most fitting to their lives. As Catholics, we should be supportive of every good method of NFP.

But this has proven over the centuries to NOT be a ‘good’ method for a majority of couples.

1ke:

95% is very low effectiveness rate for method effectiveness.

And, even when one has a cycle that falls within the range you state, one can still have fertile days outside the 8-19 day range you posted.

If one is serious about avoiding pregnancy, this is not the method to use.

Why are pushing two methods with inferior levels of effectiveness? Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Billings, Marquette, and NW Family Services have much higher effectiveness.

And the disadvantage of being inferior to the other methods, which are also very easy to learn.

Very true. Why push something that is ineffective? Why not use one that actually works if you’re going to the trouble to use anything at all?

***Concerning effectiveness, if a couple has a serious reason to avoid the possibility of conception, they should probably use the sympto-thermal method strictly, which is the most effective method. ***But many couples are not trying to avoid all possibility of conception. The SDM and TD methods are more effective than is needed by most couples. At 95% effectiveness, there is only one chance in 20 of conceiving in any given year.

So now you’re admitting that it doesn’t work and we should use something else? Then why bother with this rhythm method regurgitation at all?

Well, as a woman whose cycle is “regular” according to the “standard days” method, I can vouch that this method is highly unreliable.

I have been charting for several years and I can tell you that even though my cycle is the **same **length nearly every month-- and never outside the range listed for this method-- my fertile days are NOT the same days every month and this method would have been a disaster.

The idea that it’s “good enough” for someone to use who needs to avoid is completely off-base. It seems the OP is coming from the POV that this method is for people who don’t really have a reason to avoid.

But, if you don’t have a reason to avoid, you don’t need a method for avoiding!

True, so again, it doesn’t work for most people, SO WHY USE THIS AT ALL???

Controling procreation is not equivalent to having a contraceptive mentality. As I stated earlier, someone can have a just reason to completely avoid conception.

How is ‘controlling procreation’ NOT having a contraceptive mentality? How do you tell God what He can and can’t do, and then deny that you are doing it?? Makes no sense.
Besides, you said that if anyone REALLY wanted to “completely avoid conception” then this is not the method to use. So you are trapping yourself in your circular logic. Either it works or it doesn’t, and you have admitted that it doesn’t (see first quote). So why keep pushing something that doesn’t work? What is your motive for this?

 

[deanarrca]

This is such a personal subject. I would never advocate one method being better or worse. But for me this method or standard/ or calendar method whatever you want to call it has worked for over 18 years. My first baby was due to a contraceptive sponge failure. (I was not Catholic then). Any way after that, fearing spermacides etc. (our first child was born handicapped which may or may not have been affected by the spermacide) we started the so called calendar method. Still protestant at the time. I didn’t like the idea of the pill and taking hormones. Now child number 2 &3 were planned using the calendar method. Both times got pregnant right away. However, I have been as regular as clockwork – super regular since I was 11 always between 28 and 30 day cycles. Also, if I happened to get pregnant it would have been more than welcomed and not a calamity. However now that I am 40 I am worried that maybe one day I won’t be so regular. I am worried about the peri-menopause phase. So now that I am a new Catholic I think I should learn about more specific or more involved methods of NFP. Whoever just haven’t had the time yet to investigate it. So I will be looking at the websites posted in this thread. Any other helpful advice would be appreciated. Hubby is scared because we have 1 handicapped child and his brother and his wife had a baby later in life who was born with a condition related to being older parents when they conceived. Hubby is worried about having another special needs child in our forty’s. it is a big concern for us.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

If a couple has **a grave **reason, they can use NFP with the intent of avoiding all conception, since they discern, by means of the moral law, the will of God to that end.

What Vatican-approved church document are you references that requires anyone to have “grave reasons” to practice NFP? This is a traditionalist urban legend that is bordering on heretical innovation. Why does it still persist on these forums?

 

[Seatuck]

What Vatican-approved church document are you references that requires anyone to have “grave reasons” to practice NFP? This is a traditionalist urban legend that is bordering on heretical innovation. Why does it still persist on these forums?

How about “serious” reasons? I believe that is used interchangably with grave.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[ODGarza]

How about “serious” reasons? I believe that is used interchangably with grave.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I found the ASK an Apologist section most usful in this clarification on acceptable reasons for NFP.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39854&highlight=Grave+serious+NFP

Hope this helps everyone else as well.

 

[diosa25]

How is ‘controlling procreation’ NOT having a contraceptive mentality? How do you tell God what He can and can’t do, and then deny that you are doing it?? Makes no sense.

Contraceptive mentality is sex with no consequences. Sometimes it is wanting no kids at all ever. I don’t think that you can use “controlling procreation” as synonymous with “preventing procreation”, although sometimes this is included. God gave us our brains and logic so we can determine what is best for our families. I don’t think that just having sex whenever and not ever planning out your family (how many kids and when) is responsible or God’s will for everyone. Using that logic then people who have premarital sex and affairs and are not contracepting are also leaving the procreation completely up to God and I highly doubt that God’s will was for so many people to have children in such bad circumstances. We have to be responsible with our actions becaues they ALL have consequences, sex included. Since we know what a possible outcome for sex is, we should all make sure that we are prepared for those consequences. I see nothing wrong with being able to plan a family by “controlling” some aspect of it. We all try to control some aspects of EVERYTHING in our lives even because we have to. Doesn’t mean we get what we want all the time but we still have to try and do our part. God takes care of that which we CANNOT take care of.

 

[DiannaK]

Why would I want to abstain that many days (12), when the sympto-thermal method only closes out 5-9 days per cycle (for me)?

What’s the motivation to use something that’s less effective AND less days of intimacy?

Well said … I cringed when I saw the number of ‘abstaining’ days

 

[Sure]

What Vatican-approved church document are you references that requires anyone to have “grave reasons” to practice NFP? This is a traditionalist urban legend that is bordering on heretical innovation. Why does it still persist on these forums?

Grave and serious are interchangable in moral theology. It is not at all an innovation, it’s the word used in Humanae Vitae. “Just reasons” means the same thing as serious/grave.

Do you have any proof that this is an innovation???

 

[New_Yorker]

Sympto-thermal is much more accurate than any method that depends on anything being “standard.” The ST method allows for one to understand each cycle and when fertility and infertility is in each cycle. Over time, there are always variations.

All you need for the ST method is a thermometer, pen, and a chart. It’s pretty simple and VERY accurate.

 

[MomKarin]

We use the NFP ( Temp.only) many years, and now Calendar
Method (with abstain during the fertile times)

 

[Rach620]

Is the Standard Days Method what the new “CycleBeads” are based on? I always have wondered about how those could possibly be effective…

My problem with this method, besides the ones already mentioned, is that it totally does away with the most helpful aspect of NFP, IMO: the woman’s ability to understand her body and notice when things are not well.

Practicing a symptothermal or a mucus-only method might seem like a ‘nuisance,’ but you get the perks of 1) greater accuracy–for either achieving *or *avoiding; 2) knowledge of the normal patterns of fertility of the woman’s body. Why would you give that up for something much less accurate just because doing the observations is a hassle?