- Status
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
The irresponsible wording on this thread is alarming.
With NFP we should not use blanket statements like “it is not possible to conceive when…” Also we should not apply a CDF ruling to other issues to try to prove a theological point and we also should not ever advise someone that they are not culpable when blah blah blah
This is human life and souls we are talking about here.
As a former NFP instructor I’ve seen at least two charts where the person conceived a week before the period or during the period.
And while it is not easy, NFP can indeed be used on hormonal contraception.
Blanket statements are rarely helpful here and we can start a thread where we debate and debate all this without confusing the OP with our discussion.
As for mitigation we should never ever be counseling someone on the “lesser of two evils” because when you write that on the internet you are basically saying, God won’t hold you accountable and if He does, I will take your place in Judgement… Bad idea.
I’ve recently contacted the National Catholic Bioethics center and they gave me a wonderful detailed, well researched theologically grounded and medically accurate answer to a problem. It has been suggested by a priest on this thread to do that in the OP’s case. That is the best answer one can give.
With NFP we should not use blanket statements like “it is not possible to conceive when…” Also we should not apply a CDF ruling to other issues to try to prove a theological point and we also should not ever advise someone that they are not culpable when blah blah blah
This is human life and souls we are talking about here.
As a former NFP instructor I’ve seen at least two charts where the person conceived a week before the period or during the period.
And while it is not easy, NFP can indeed be used on hormonal contraception.
Blanket statements are rarely helpful here and we can start a thread where we debate and debate all this without confusing the OP with our discussion.
As for mitigation we should never ever be counseling someone on the “lesser of two evils” because when you write that on the internet you are basically saying, God won’t hold you accountable and if He does, I will take your place in Judgement… Bad idea.
I’ve recently contacted the National Catholic Bioethics center and they gave me a wonderful detailed, well researched theologically grounded and medically accurate answer to a problem. It has been suggested by a priest on this thread to do that in the OP’s case. That is the best answer one can give.
J
jag
Guest
A week before the period is not the same as during the period.
Also, does a week before the period mean a week before the expected date for the period or a week before the period? If there is a period there is no pregnancy.
And, as has been said, not 100% impossible but very very very improbable. Once ovulation takes place the chances of getting a second ovulation before the period are so small that, as I said, any fertile woman has a higher risk of getting pregnant by rape
J
jag
Guest
It’s a useless exercise
J
jag
Guest
I didn’t say so. I just pointed to the flawed idea that you should be abstaining a random period of time because you are under a medical treatment that is contraceptive as a side effect
If a pill is anovulant and abortifacient there is no period when the ovulation can be FORESEEN as a REASONABLE POSSIBILITY
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
There are many applications. If a woman is on an IUD for heavy bleeding you can use NFP to avoid if a pregnancy can be life threatening. Hardly useless.
You are cutting a wide swath with your statements…
You are cutting a wide swath with your statements…
J
jag
Guest
While on an hormonal IUD you are not practicing NFP. You are playing NFP.
Hormones in contraceptives make a mess with fertility symptoms because, you guessed right, it makes a mess with fertility
Hormones in contraceptives make a mess with fertility symptoms because, you guessed right, it makes a mess with fertility
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
you are off base. The problem is that i think you and I probably agree with some very conservative principles here… Are you familiar with my postings on NFP?
P
PetraG
Guest
Do you mean that if the woman were to get pregnant it would be hazardous to her health, or do you mean that her fertility would be reduced because the likelihood that an embryo could implant successfully is presumed to be nil, or what? A married woman who is at very high risk for miscarriage is not required to avoid pregnancy or practice abstinence. Sometimes, after all, women at high risk for miscarriage actually have successful pregnancies.
If a married person needs a medication that could reduce his or her fertility, he or she is not required to practice abstinence. Either there is an alternative without that unintended side effect or there isn’t and the seriousness of the condition warrants treatment in spite of the likelihood that fertility would be affected. If getting pregnant would be dangerous to the patient, however, that is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.
If she knew she was pregnant, however, then she’d have to be ready to alter her treatment in view of the fact that she was not the only patient affected by the medication she was taking, just as anyone who found she was pregnant would stop drinking alcohol or doing anything that could harm her child.
Last edited:
U
Usige
Guest
This is the most concerning bit to me. There have been statements on this thread that takes a specific statement by the CDF and extrapolates a general case.
Essentially if A then B, so since A and E are both vowels then it follows that if E (or I, O, U) then B also applies for any vowel. That is not how it works. Similarity does not make equality.
T
twoangels
Guest
The risk is so tiny, you would not be at fault. Now, if we were talking about a couple who threw out NFP and decided to have at it, then I’d side with you. The chance of pregnancy in 1 year of using no method to prevent (moral or immoral) is 86%.
Now you’re off topic. The hormonal contraception (unless we’re talking about the ones where they’ve added a drug that used to be used to attack cancer cells) is not a potential abortifacient. The reason the packet said MAY prevent implantation is because they meant “Maybe, but science doesn’t know enough.” More recent research is showing that it most likely doesn’t.
Moreover, in what world are you living in where NFP can even be practiced by women on the pill? You’re on drugs that suppress your menstrual cycle and give you a fake period. You don’t have a cycle to observe and chart.
Yes, if we say that enough that’ll make it true. Let’s keep it up.
T
twoangels
Guest
You’re telling me the couple didn’t have sex the entire month except for a week before the expected period when ovulation was clearly identified and the person was clearly in their lutael phase?
Also that is nuts to say NFP can be used while a woman is on hormonal contraception! There’s no research on any of that. I mean, sure you can make meaningless mucus observations all you want and start tea leaf reading, but there’s no research!
T
twoangels
Guest
What the heck? If she’s on Minera, she’s on hormones! What sort of crazy pseudo-science are you advocating here with NFP?
Sometimes these discussion just go where they go. They are related issues. If certain types of hormonal contraception are not abortifacient, that is wonderful. Good to know.
I did not mean literally practice NFP. I can see where my words might have been imprecise. I simply meant if it can be posited that a woman could possibly ovulate in spite of the pill being an anovulant — in other words, if the anovulant function fails to work — assuming that the BCP does indeed “regulate her cycle”, potential ovulation, if it occurs, could safely be assumed to take place within several days before or after roughly day 14. Or could it?
Last edited:
J
jag
Guest
No, no, no.
You can’t assume. You can randomly bet
J
jag
Guest
Catholics are not supposed to act like robots. You don’t have to expect a precise rule or instruction for every possible moral case from church’s hierarchy. There is something called reason and something called conscience.
The conclusion I reach sounds weird, yes. Because the CDF ruling is based on weird principles that are totally alien to anyone with a prior understanding of anything related to sterilization and contraception in catholic morals.
No catholic moralist would say that the malice of sterilization “consists in the refusal of children” but the frustration of a bodily function by means of a surgical intervention on an organ that poses no risk to the body health.
No catholic moralist, in good standing at least, would say that viability is the point where procreation occurs. No catholic moralist would say that a human life that will not reach birth is of less value.
Saying that the malice of sterilization consists in the “refusal of children” makes NFP equally bad as it is putting the moral value in the will to not have children.
But all this things are in the CDF responsum. The golden rule of “if it can be achieved using NFP then it is not a medical treatment where contraception/sterilization is a side undesired effect” is no longer valid.
P
poche
Guest
In this case she is taking the medication for a neurological disorder and not for purposes of contraception. In this case she should be able to have normal relations with her husband.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Boy you really like to come in guns-a-blazing huh?
What is nuts is the blatant statements made to try to make points where souls and lives are in the balance.
- Sure
- Nuts? what is nuts is the absolute statements of this thread. things like “not possible” and “cant use”
NFP is different for each woman because her cycle is different and her body is different. In some cases it can be used and in some cases it cannot.
What is nuts is the blatant statements made to try to make points where souls and lives are in the balance.
- Status