The objective of Natural Family Planning

[Mary_Gail_36]

Even if popes are saying that, there is no evidence to back it up. Anyone that says birth control is causing sexual immorality doesn’t know much about statistics. Even if a study showed that pre marital sex has gone up a lot since the introduction of condoms it doesn’t prove anything.

Statistically you could make an equally convincing argument for sliced bread (if that came out at the same time as condoms) being the cause of sexual immorality.

When did the Pill become widespread. Late fifties early sixties…

When did the sexual revolution happen? Mid sixties. Why did it happen? Because women started to use the Pill…no chance of pregnancy, pre-marital sex became more common.

 

[hellopeople]

When did the Pill become widespread. Late fifties early sixties…

When did the sexual revolution happen? Mid sixties. Why did it happen? Because women started to use the Pill…no chance of pregnancy, pre-marital sex became more common.

That is assumption that cannot be proven. Statistically, it is just as valid to say that the sexual revolution was caused by the Beatles…or really anything else that happened back then. Maybe it was color TV? Maybe it was Russia sending the first man into space. Statistically all of these are just as true as your assumption.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This topic comes up so often, it should be a sticky.

Natural Family Planning uses a woman’s knowledge of her body to decide whether to abstain or not. When a couple avoids pregnancy…they are also avoiding intercourse.

Contraception does not care about the woman’s fertility. The fertility is someting to be surpressed, in order to have relations when the woman would be naturally fertile.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That is assumption that cannot be proven.

So the sexual revolution would have happened if there were no Pills? People all of a sudden gave up their morals en masse.

 

[hellopeople]

So the sexual revolution would have happened if there were no Pills? People all of a sudden gave up their morals en masse.

I don’t know what would have happened. I am just trying to explain that it is impossible for you to say what caused sexual immorality of the 1960’s. And any statistician would agree. It is just basic statistics. Correlation does not equal causation.

Statistically it is just as valid to say that the pill caused us to get into the vietnam war than it is to say it caused sexual immorality.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That is assumption that cannot be proven. Statistically, it is just as valid to say that the sexual revolution was caused by the Beatles…or really anything else that happened back then. Maybe it was color TV? Maybe it was Russia sending the first man into space. Statistically all of these are just as true as your assumption.

Listening to the Beatles would not cause a couple to have pre-marital sex because it does not remove the chance of pregnancy.

Neither would watching the Beatles on a color TV.

Why didn’t watching Elvis on black and white TV cause more promiscuity? Or listening to Frank Sinatra on the radio? or watching Rudolph Valentino in a silent film.

 

[hellopeople]

Listening to the Beatles would not cause a couple to have pre-marital sex because it does not remove the chance of pregnancy.

Neither would watching the Beatles on a color TV.

Why didn’t watching Elvis on black and white TV cause more promiscuity? Or listening to Frank Sinatra on the radio? or watching Rudolph Valentino in a silent film.

I am just saying that your assumption that the pill caused sexual promiscuity is not based on anything that can be proven. It is an assumption based on absolutely nothing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Pre-marital sex
Once heavily stigmatised, pre-marital sex became more widespread during the sexual revolution. The increased availability of birth control (and the quasi-legalisation of abortion in some places) helped reduce the chance that pre-marital sex would result in unwanted children. By the mid 1970s the majority of newly married American couples had experienced sex before marriage

I can quote wikipedia too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution#Pre-marital_sex

 

[hellopeople]

I can quote wikipedia too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution#Pre-marital_sex

You know what is missing from that quote…a SOURCE. Because there is none, because it is impossible to show that birth control is the cause of an increase in pre marital sex. You lack basic knowledge of statistics. You are just making assumptions based on nothing you can prove.

 

[mark_a]

Even if popes are saying that, there is no evidence to back it up. Anyone that says birth control is causing sexual immorality doesn’t know much about statistics.

In your opinion, what is the cause of our society’s moral decline?

Even if a study showed that pre marital sex has gone up a lot since the introduction of condoms it doesn’t prove anything.

Are you saying the consequences of premarital sex aren’t disruptive to families? That children, on average, are just as well off in single parent families than in historically normal Christian families? Even Focus on the Family, with their “blind eye” treatment of contraception and masturbation, promotes traditional Christian parenthood.

Statistically you could make an equally convincing argument for sliced bread (if that came out at the same time as condoms) being the cause of sexual immorality.

Now that’s kinky.

I am just saying that your assumption that the pill caused sexual promiscuity is not based on anything that can be proven. It is an assumption based on absolutely nothing.

In your opinion, is the abortificient effect of the pill acceptable just because women sometimes suffer a miscarriage?

 

[mark_a]

bump

 

[hellopeople]

In your opinion, is the abortificient effect of the pill acceptable just because women sometimes suffer a miscarriage?

Can you provide with evidence of this that isn’t on a Christain or pro life website?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

thepill.com/thepill/aboutortho-how.html

myortho360.com/myortho360/shared/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf

Oral Contraception
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which
reduce the likelihood of implantation).

 

[Vincent]

Sexual intercourse during non-fertile days is not open to new life. Abstaining during fertile days is a calculated act which allows sex to occur when the door to life is closed. Those sperm cells have no chance of finding a suitable, receptive ovum. This is biological contraception. The teaching doesn’t seem consistent.

The conjugal act during times of infertility can be described as being open to new life.

The integrity of this act is unimpeded by another act before, during or after sexual intercourse that is specifically intended to prevent procreation as an end or a means.

Therefore such an act remains procreative * in type*. That is, it continues to be the kind of act that is intrinsically apt to generate new life even though the non-behavioral condition of natural infertility renders the act non-procreative in effect.

 

[mark_a]

Can you provide with evidence of this that isn’t on a Christain or pro life website?

Yeah, right.

This article was written from the “informed consent” side of the bush.
archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126#RREF-FSA8035-17

It is replete with sources from both sides of the life coin.

It also explains how misuse of the pill (intended or not) can be abortificient.

 

[FiberZilla]

Interesting you should bring that up. The epidemic of violence, along with most of society’s ills, are due to the destruction of the family (in the opinion of more than one pope), which is the most basic unit of society.

In your opinion, what is the reason for the epidemic of violence in our culture?

Anyway, is the abortificient effect of the pill ok too?

The responsible use of non-abortive methods of birth control by married couples has nothing to do with the disintegration of the family. The biggest reason for the destruction of the family and the epidimic of crime is a weak criminal justice system, liberal judges and socialism that has been creeping into western culture for over a hundred years.

Also, I may have misspoken… Although isolated incidents with sensational headlines like school shootings etc are up. Violent crime statistics have actually been decreasing a bit over the last twenty years. Most people in prison are there due to drug related offenses.

 

[baylee]

I completely get the difference between NFP and ABC; however, I do understand why there are questions regarding it: When a couple chooses to abstain during their most fertile periods, they are essentially doing the most unnatural thing a married couple could do. Although allt hings are possible with God, this is the best shot for God to create life and the couple is essentially saying “no”.

Personally, being an older woman with fertility issues I don’t ever have to “worry” about NFP. I guess there are some benefits to my condition.

 

[mark_a]

The responsible use of non-abortive methods of birth control by married couples has nothing to do with the disintegration of the family. The biggest reason for the destruction of the family and the epidimic of crime is a weak criminal justice system, liberal judges and socialism that has been creeping into western culture for over a hundred years.

Maybe its not coincedental that extreme liberalism has exploded since the demise of the most basic unit of society, the family, just as the popes predicted.

Also, I may have misspoken… Although isolated incidents with sensational headlines like school shootings etc are up. Violent crime statistics have actually been decreasing a bit over the last twenty years. Most people in prison are there due to drug related offenses.

Thanks for owning up.

 

[Corki]

I completely get the difference between NFP and ABC; however, I do understand why there are questions regarding it: When a couple chooses to abstain during their most fertile periods, they are essentially doing the most unnatural thing a married couple could do. Although allt hings are possible with God, this is the best shot for God to create life and the couple is essentially saying “no”.

You hit the nail right on the head. It is against all natural inclinations to abstain on a woman’s most fertile days. That’s why it should only be done purposefully for serious reasons.

Everyone focuses on having relations on infertile days - effectiveness, unlikely to conceive = not open to life, etc. That’s nonsense. Married couples are free to have relations any day of the month!!! The infertile days are a non-issue.

The confusion should focus on the fertile days. Does being open to life mean you absolutely must have relations when you know you are fertile? NO!