Unique Case Contraceptive

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Hoosier-Daddy:

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.

What the heck? If she’s on Minera, she’s on hormones! What sort of crazy pseudo-science are you advocating here with NFP?

Mirena is a brand. But are you saying that IUD’s all have the same dose and affect everyone equally and that there are no signs of cycles at all, ever, in all cases?

That would be psuedo science.

People are conceived while on all forms of Birth control… so there is indeed some cycle to be had…
The interpretation of those signs and the length of cycles could be detrimental to practicing NFP. And most certainly it would be hard. But impossible in every case? nope.

Oddly when a woman has irregular cycles or whacked out hormones from the “norm” we almost always still side with the fact that NFP can be used, though not optimally. But for some reason when we artificially alter that situation it cannot be used and to think it can is pseudoscience?
You can have your cake… I’ll eat mine.

 

[twoangels]

People are conceived while on all forms of Birth control… so there is indeed some cycle to be had…

The user failure rates include failures to consistently use the method. If a woman stops taking the pill for months, her cycles return, and she gets pregnant, that’s included in the user failure rate of the pill.

Oddly when a woman has irregular cycles or whacked out hormones from the “norm” we almost always still side with the fact that NFP can be used, though not optimally. But for some reason when we artificially alter that situation it cannot be used and to think it can is pseudoscience?

A seriously irregular cycle is a health problem. There needs to be more research on women’s health in this area, unforunately. I did try Naprotechnology and found it to be underresearched. So I don’t find it a good measure except as an alternative to IVF. Even then, I think they diagnose infertility abnormally early and inflate their success rates. So I’m not a fan of their organization regardless.

Humanae Vitae does not tell women who are on the pill to treat health problems unrelated to the pill that they can’t take it. We should not be increasing their burden. I realize my opinion is a minority one for these forums

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I think you have personalized the subject and that may be coloring your posts. I also think you are misunderstanding my posts. And that is my fault.
I’m speaking in generalities and in this subject specifically there needs to be crystal clear terminology.

While I think many agree that doctors can “over prescribe” the pill for problems that can be treated another way, I think you are NOT in the minority on these boards for your view. CAF is incredibly how shall we say… progressive when it comes to these subjects. Anyone who would state that women who are prescribed the pill as a LEGIT and BEST source for a medical issue unrelated for contraception should not take it are not only illogical and uneducated on the subject but also reckless with medical opinions.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

https://www.prolifehealthcare.org/abortifacient-contraception/

 

[twoangels]

I think you have personalized the subject and that may be coloring your posts.

Why do you think that? My experience with napro was that I got sold on monitoring my health through charting. My cycles are still pretty much clockwork. My only complaints ever were menstrual cramps but those got better after I had my daughter. When I learned to chart through Creighton, I was told something was wrong with my cycle. And certainly, since I haven’t been able to get pregnant since my one and only daughter, that could be the cause.

I mentioned my experience with napro because I know it’s often presented as the universal solution. I know women out have a lot worse menstrual problems than I do. My concern is for them.

CAF is incredibly how shall we say… progressive when it comes to these subjects.

This has not been my experience at all.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I think napro is sold as a first resource and that is a good first step. Answers beyond napro probably need more insight than these boards are capable of. My experience with napro was poor. But that doesnt mean it shouldnt be explored by others. We personally had to enlist the help of the national Catholic bioethics center and we have been beyond pleased with the response and knowledge.

As for CAF… there is myself and maybe one other who have reached the PERSONAL opinion that we cannot in good conscience practice nfp. I say personal because it is against CAF policy to say otherwise. And truthfully I believe that the Church teaches NFP. I do not accept it in my own marriage. I’d classify myself as the most “conservative” on here with this subject as any extreme views are usually flushed out of CAF.

 

[twoangels]

You realize the board of HealthCare Alliance is not composed of doctors, right?

Let’s go by one that is. The American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs. Here’s what they say.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists is frequently approached by individuals wondering if the Association has a position on the sometimes-alleged abortifacient effect of oral contraceptives. This effect refers to any possible disturbance of the normal function of the early conceptus, or its interaction with the uterus, from the moment of fertilization to the peri-implantation period, which may result in the loss of early human life. This is an issue that has been considered at some length by the board of AAPLOG.

NOTE: Previous papers are outdated and new ones are in process. Included here are two papers, carefully researched and compiled by several members of the AAPLOG board (Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive and Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications).

These papers come to different conclusions about the possible abortifacient effect of oral contraceptives, reflecting in a microcosm the controversy that has recently surrounded this issue in the larger pro-life community. **At the current time, we feel that each individual physician should evaluate the available information, and then follow the leading of his/her conscience in this matter.

Why does this controversy exist? Why is there not a consensus on this issue in our organization, or in the larger pro-life community? In short, it is because our current scientific tools limit us.

… the methods available to us to evaluate the in vivo processes of human fertilization, tubal transport and implantation are relatively crude. We are not currently sophisticated enough to evaluate oral contraceptives (or even IUDs) for a possible effect on the pre-implantation human being in the same rigorous fashion that we can evaluate the effects of a suction dilatation and curettage, mifepristone or methotrexate on an implanted human being. Thus we find ourselves in a situation where speculation, deduction, and educated guessing must be employed. There are times when our knowledge of the truth is incomplete, and we must peer through the fog to make, and act upon, judgments about the information available to us. In these settings, individuals wholeheartedly committed to the truth can come to different conclusions. So it is with us.

Make note that what they offer is old. The research on the morning after pill failing to prevent pregnancy when taken after ovulation was not known yet when these papers were written.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Thank you for the information. This is a subject on which we can never know enough.

Worth noting, as well, is that this is something that really can’t be tested. You can’t have a clinical study in which there is test, a control group, and so on. Nor would you want to — this would be tantamount to conceiving embryos and seeing if they implant or not.

I have searched the web in vain for the text of the “Silent Abortions” pamphlet from the WELS Lutherans. I have the text, but I cannot post it here as it is rather lengthy.

 

[jag]

there is myself and maybe one other who have reached the PERSONAL opinion that we cannot in good conscience practice nfp

NFP is not mandatory. Each couple has the moral obligation to weigh every good at stake and make an informed decision face to face with God. Sometimes it will be to not use NFP, sometimes it will be to use NFP with different levels of “safety margins”. Sometimes, in rare occasions I think, it will be to abstain totally.

 

[twoangels]

Worth noting, as well, is that this is something that really can’t be tested. You can’t have a clinical study in which there is test, a control group, and so on. Nor would you want to — this would be tantamount to conceiving embryos and seeing if they implant or not.

Well, how did we discover that after fertilization some embryos fail to implant at all? What’s uncertain is if the pill makes it more likely that implantation won’t succeed.

 

[twoangels]

NFP is not mandatory. Each couple has the moral obligation to weigh every good at stake and make an informed decision face to face with God. Sometimes it will be to not use NFP, sometimes it will be to use NFP with different levels of “safety margins”. Sometimes, in rare occasions I think, it will be to abstain totally.

What Humanae Vitae says about responsible parenthood is that large families should spring forth out of generosity and prudence.

Fertility charting has a learning curve and is a lot more involved that contraception. I also think those who see fertility charting as so tired to their concept of NFP that they think “Eh, I won’t use NFP, therefore I won’t chart” are thinking of NFP as a contraceptive. Because they can’t distinguish charting from periodic abstinence as they should, they tend to see NFP as a form of contraception the Church has given a moral concession to in extremely limited situations because the whole thing is actually immoral.

But if you understand that charting is just information, and that you can actually be more prudent with your sexuality in marriage if you consistently chart–regardless of whether you practice periodic abstinence or not or to what degree you do–it becomes clearer how NFP is not contraception. Catholics really can only prevent pregnancy through abstinence and it is not a sin to know when that abstinence will actually reduce the odds of pregnancy and when its unnecessary.

I totally plan to teach my daughter basic mucus-only method charting when she hits puberty. I began charting when I was single and found it made chastity easier and helped me to be better prepared for my period whenever it arrived.

And if you want to consistently chart enough to not have to needlessly abstain because you missed a few days, charting needs to be like brushing your teeth. My husband and I haven’t practiced periodic abstinence in about six years. Mind you, we haven’t gotten pregnant in eight. That surprised us, but though I know the chances of us getting pregnant is almost zero since it hasn’t happened in all this time, I don’t stop charting. I like knowing what is going on. It’s just body literacy.

 

[TheLittleLady]

NFP is not mandatory.

However, learning one method of NFP is a mandatory part of marriage prep in some Dioceses. The couple does not have to vow to use the method, but, they do have to learn one of the methods.

 

[jag]

There we can make a distinction between NFP and fertility awareness/fertility signs tracking
The P in NFP has a strong leaning towards TTA or TTC.

 

[jag]

I’m from Spain. AFAIK no diocese in Spain mandates learning NFP.