What to do when wife won't do/doesn't believe in NFP?

[ac_claire]

Not picking on you, Rye, but just wanted to respond to this one comment as well:

LIsten, if you can afford to have kids and you WANT to have kids than great, go for it - but I know that if we want our children to have everything we want them to have then we need to limit the children we have.

This sentiment can sound good, but it’s 100% of man. There is nowhere where God tells us we have a right or responsibility to give our children “everything we want them to have” or to protect them from being poor. My husband and I certainly don’t plan on living in poverty and have arranged our lives to that end (God willing), but we have to remember that we can’t control the universe, and God himself was born on this earth poor, to poor parents…in a stable no less.

Part of the Catholic marriage vows are: “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”…and then there’s a vow both bride and groom must take to uphold the other vows “for richer or for poorer”. If this seems scary (because it does to me, at times…and I just took those vows two weeks ago so they’re fresh in my mind ), then I imagine that’s where faith and trust in God must come in. Otherwise…the fear and uncertainty can just lead us to make our own precepts and vows and goals which have nothing to do with God’s own plans. If that makes any sense.

 

[kage_ar]

Please, inform yourself and read Margaret Sangers ACTUAL writings. She was on an evil campaign and her leagacy is of death.

 

[ryecroft]

I’ll just second everything that LittleDeb has said in reply, and also this…I do understand that this is what your grandmother has told you, but this attitude/belief isn’t in any way representative of all women of that time. My own grandma and my aunts-- from that time and some of them children of immigrants-- have told me very differently. They didn’t long for any kind of freedom from the “tyranny” of being a wife and mother, and being subject to every whim of their sex-crazed husbands. Nothing like that at all.

I too believe that you’re sincere in your heart, Rye…but your post strikes me as being full of political, pro-contraception buzzwords and arguments from the past 40 years, mixed in with your own genuine sentiment and observations.

On the other hand, what the Church teaches on the matter is timeless (not political) and you can put your full faith in it being true. Just something to maybe think about.

Honestly, I really appreciate all that you guys have said and thank you for not bashing me for what I’ve come to believe. Seriously, if I were able to do NFP all the time, and KNOW that I would have the given result and not wind up having to get transfusions occaisionally (due to multi munt -8 month periods - think PMS to the hundreth degree) - currently, I’m trying with NFP again - we have an OVA Cue and it has put me in touch with whats going on - but in my situation (which I am obviously not the only one on here with some of these problems) if I didn’t have the this machine to back up what I was believing was happening via sympto thermal etc., I would not trust not to get pregnant. Currently we’re off the “pill” because the doctors have said in a few months we can try again if I do n’t have any huge hospital stays and all the doctors agree. I want kids - but I guess what really gets me is when some very staunch NFP people say that it can work for all women - and if I object then it’s “well if you only went to the Pope Paul institute or had an NFP only doctor than this would help it - try again - the NFP worked but God decided you should be pregnant and you wouldn’t want to second guess Him no would you?”
Part of me says that I was given an intellect by God to know what works for me. I really would rather not have to be on birth control and luckily, I’m allowed to be on it due to my medical conditions. Also, I don’t like saying “no honey, we could have an accident if we did something tonight…” I feel I should be able to be there for my husband anytime without the fear of getting pregnant anytime. So in that sense, I like what “the pill” has done. Honestly, people talk about this wonderful situation that they didn’t have when they were using ABC - but having been both on NFP and on ABC, I can honstly say that I can’t tell any difference except that my husband doesn’t have to worry any time he’d like to be with me. I wish I could tell you we felt closer to one another with the NFP, but I really believe we felt closer with the ABC. I understand how a condom could make someone feel that there was something between husband and wife but Vaginal Contraceptive Film and the Pill have never made us feel that way. If there’s some secret to where this wonderful feeling or more closeness comes from please let me know because from where I stand having tried both, the only thing NFP makes me do when trying to avoid pregnancy is worry. It bugs me that just by charting on your own that you’re not really privy if there happens to be an extra egg let go, (which I’m told this is the reason why I got pregnant using NFP - that and God decided it was time for me to be pregnant)- and with that last comment I made about God wanting someone to be pregnant - couldn’t He just as easily have someone become pregnant while using artificial birth control? I’ve seen it enough with both to know somethings things just happen. I have prayed that God would help me see as well as my husband this tremendous difference between the two, but nothing has happened as of yet.
God Bless
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

Please, inform yourself and read Margaret Sangers ACTUAL writings. She was on an evil campaign and her leagacy is of death.

Actually I have done a great deal of reading about her - specifically in one of the classes I took in college and it wasn’t just the planned parent hood stuff. Please don’t make assumptions that I havn’t read - instead, it might be better to ask.
God Bless
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

Actually I have done a great deal of reading about her - specifically in one of the classes I took in college and it wasn’t just the planned parent hood stuff. Please don’t make assumptions that I havn’t read - instead, it might be better to ask. In the posts I’ve made I’ve specifically said that I don’t agree with everything she wrote but I understand why, after seeing someone die from a botched abortion she would want to find a way to keep women from getting pregnant. Someone has already made the note that prior to 1976 there was no “marriage rape”. Women were expected to be available to their husbands. I’m by no means saying that I consider her a saint, but I’m glad people like my Grandmother didn’t have to have more children then she felt she could handle. I’m glad she would rather have fewer children and give those that she had everything she wanted and needed them to have.My mom is Catholic as well but I know that she used birth control as well - three kids were more than enough for her and I wouldn’t have had all the oportunities I was given had she decided to have many more children. It wasn’t until the early 50’s that the RCC even o.k.ed the rythm method. It seems they wanted couples to have as many children as they could. I believe that Sanger was deffinately off on eugenics and stearalization but I really believe that she was trying to help keep women from dying due to back alley and self induced abortions. You can call this my listening to PPH or whatever but having read quite a bit on her, IMO, I don’t view her as evil. Even recently there was a group that was willing to give a woman I blieve it was $800 to be steralized. To me, I can understand why they would want to do this - they were seeing children being born to drug addicts and people that had no business with a child. The children of these people would sometimes die and othertimes hav FAS or be extremely ill. These women did this of their own will - they wern’t forced but decided that the money was worth it. I know there are some that later on would kick their habits but that is a small minority. It looked to me like they were trying to keep babies from being born with horrible afflictions. Can you imagine a baby having to withdraw from heroin? It’s an awful site and awful to hear. Anyway I’ve gone off on a tangent.
God Bless
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

Not picking on you, Rye, but just wanted to respond to this one comment as well:

This sentiment can sound good, but it’s 100% of man. There is nowhere where God tells us we have a right or responsibility to give our children “everything we want them to have” or to protect them from being poor. My husband and I certainly don’t plan on living in poverty and have arranged our lives to that end (God willing), but we have to remember that we can’t control the universe, and God himself was born on this earth poor, to poor parents…in a stable no less.

Part of the Catholic marriage vows are: “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”…and then there’s a vow both bride and groom must take to uphold the other vows “for richer or for poorer”. If this seems scary (because it does to me, at times…and I just took those vows two weeks ago so they’re fresh in my mind ), then I imagine that’s where faith and trust in God must come in. Otherwise…the fear and uncertainty can just lead us to make our own precepts and vows and goals which have nothing to do with God’s own plans. If that makes any sense.

I know it doesn’t say this anywhere in the Bible that you don’t have to be poor or give your children everything they want and need, but I, like my parents feel that this is a just reason to space children. I don’t want my children to be poor because I decided to leave it up to God and just see how many kids I had. I believe, just like my parents believed that you should be able to give your children everything they need and at least some of what they want. I do not have nay desire to have my children poor because I couldn’t space them or make a decision that we’d had enough. I can’t imagine bringing up children without giving them every advantage I could. This is why I believe many women wait until their carrers are set in order to have kids. And I’m glad I’ve been able to do what I needed to in order to feel “ready” to have children. Don’t get me wrong, when we tried NFP and wound up getting pregnant any way, twice, we would have gladly accepted that child into our lives - but those pregnancies didn’t go past 5 months. Again, I really believe that if you feel you can give children everything they need and some of what they just want then great, go on and have a dozen if that’s what you’d like. Personally, our children will have everything they need and hopefully everything they want and we will imit our family just like my parents did. I’m not comfortable with the idea of being poor and I expect if asked our children that they’d prefer not to be poor as well. Wouldn’t you rather raise your children well off?
God Bless
Rye

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Actually I have done a great deal of reading about her - specifically in one of the classes I took in college and it wasn’t just the planned parent hood stuff. Please don’t make assumptions that I havn’t read - instead, it might be better to ask. In the posts I’ve made I’ve specifically said that I don’t agree with everything she wrote but I understand why, after seeing someone die from a botched abortion she would want to find a way to keep women from getting pregnant. Someone has already made the note that prior to 1976 there was no “marriage rape”. Women were expected to be available to their husbands. I’m by no means saying that I consider her a saint, but I’m glad people like my Grandmother didn’t have to have more children then she felt she could handle. I’m glad she would rather have fewer children and give those that she had everything she wanted and needed them to have.My mom is Catholic as well but I know that she used birth control as well - **three kids were more than enough **for her and I wouldn’t have had all the oportunities I was given had she decided to have many more children. It wasn’t until the early 50’s that the RCC even o.k.ed the rythm method. It seems they wanted couples to have as many children as they could. I believe that Sanger was deffinately off on eugenics and stearalization but I really believe that she was trying to help keep women from dying due to back alley and self induced abortions. You can call this my listening to PPH or whatever but having read quite a bit on her, IMO, I don’t view her as evil. Even recently there was a group that was willing to give a woman I blieve it was $800 to be steralized. To me, I can understand why they would want to do this - they were seeing children being born to drug addicts and people that had no business with a child. The children of these people would sometimes die and othertimes hav FAS or be extremely ill. These women did this of their own will - they wern’t forced but decided that the money was worth it. I know there are some that later on would kick their habits but that is a small minority. It looked to me like they were trying to keep babies from being born with horrible afflictions. Can you imagine a baby having to withdraw from heroin? It’s an awful site and awful to hear. Anyway I’ve gone off on a tangent.
God Bless
Rye

Do you have a document that says the “rythmn method” was only allowed in the 50’s. I never heard that before.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Rye, just curious. Say tomorrow a cure to your condition became available, that woukd not compromise your fertility…would you use nfp, or stay on the pill?

 

[ac_claire]

I know it doesn’t say this anywhere in the Bible that you don’t have to be poor or give your children everything they want and need, but I, like my parents feel that this is a just reason to space children. I don’t want my children to be poor because I decided to leave it up to God and just see how many kids I had. I believe, just like my parents believed that you should be able to give your children everything they need and at least some of what they want. I do not have nay desire to have my children poor because I couldn’t space them or make a decision that we’d had enough. I can’t imagine bringing up children without giving them every advantage I could. This is why I believe many women wait until their carrers are set in order to have kids. And I’m glad I’ve been able to do what I needed to in order to feel “ready” to have children. Don’t get me wrong, when we tried NFP and wound up getting pregnant any way, twice, we would have gladly accepted that child into our lives - but those pregnancies didn’t go past 5 months. Again, I really believe that if you feel you can give children everything they need and some of what they just want then great, go on and have a dozen if that’s what you’d like. Personally, our children will have everything they need and hopefully everything they want and we will imit our family just like my parents did. I’m not comfortable with the idea of being poor and I expect if asked our children that they’d prefer not to be poor as well. **Wouldn’t you rather raise your children well off?**God Bless
Rye

I would much rather that my whole family be well-off and comfortable financially, of course. We’ve planned our lives and are working to that end (at least, to be reasonablly comfortable; ie: not struggling all the time.) So yeah, we can work towards that end but even still, there are absolutely no guarantees in this life. About anything. We have to trust God about some things, He requires this of us over and over in the Bible and the Church teaches that as well.

I’m not trying to say that I think this is nice and easy…I struggle with it and I have a lot of anxiety about it too, at times. I’m just saying, it is what it is. My own feelings and anxieties aside.

 

[LittleDeb]

Rye,
I am glad you are posting in this thread. You might be voicing the very concerns the OPs wife has.

You have a lot of misinformation about Catholic teaching. I pray that you were just misinformed and that no one had ulterior motives when giving you such wrong information (meaning I hope they weren’t Catholic bashing when giving you such bad information and were themselves just terribly misinformed.) But I don’t even know where to begin to set you straight on Catholic teaching.

 

[agapewolf]

I feel I should be able to be there for my husband anytime without the fear of getting pregnant anytime.

Someone has already made the note that prior to 1976 there was no “marriage rape”. Women were expected to be available to their husbands.

So which is it?

Don’t you see how you are buying into the lie of contraception? The natural consequence of sex is pregnancy. Why in the world people think that they MUST be able to have sex all the time is nuts. That is making a god out of sex.

 

[agapewolf]

College classes on margaret sanger are severely tainted and biased.

 

[LittleDeb]

I had to take a step back and pray before I answered this. Flying fish, I have to make myself believe that you had the best of intentions when posting this.

That’s absolutely not true, since then marital rape is considered to be a crime. If the wife says no and the man doesn’t listen, he can go to prison for rape. Before 1976 marital rape was not a crime in the USA, trying saying no then. Though it’s not treated as severely as stranger rape.

If you are trying to make the point that because marital rape is finally on the books as a crime, that respect for women has gone up, you are barking up the wrong tree. Many of the early suffragettes were anti-contraception because it *exacerbated *marital rape. They were trying to get marital rape on the books back then. Did you know that many proponents of contraception actually believed that just being *married *was entirely about rape? Sanger herself, wrote about it. She wanted all women free of marriage so that they were not “raped” by their husbands. Sanger actually said that if marriage didn’t exist neither would rape! Rape is intrinsically evil. The Church has always taught that. Spousal rape was considered by the Church to be a grave sin, centuries before it was made an illegal act by the state.

Contraception is a technology that is forbidden by the Church, on its own it’s just a thing, it doesn’t do anything special. You can achieve the same effects with NFP.

  Contraception doesn't make men mistreat women, other things make men mistreat women.

You are incorrect about the means of NFP. An act of abstinence is *not *the same as an act of contracepted sex. In fact they are utter and complete opposites. Contraception is not just a technology since the withdrawal method is also condemned. It isn’t technology that is condemned. It is the breaking of the marital act. As has often been shown, charting is actually *more *technologically advanced since it has a *higher *rate of helping carry to term than IVF and other condemned methods.
On your final point, you are correct. Contraception doesn't *make *men mistreat women. It just makes the opportunity to do so, much more accessible.

 

[agapewolf]

You are incorrect about the means of NFP. An act of abstinence is *not *the same as an act of contracepted sex. In fact they are utter and complete opposites.

Just to clarify terms here (Littledeb, you’re doing a great job).

Abstinence is not an act, it is the absence of an act.

I think this is an important distinction to make, and I understood what you are saying (and agree), but I think that clarification could help things if conversations were to continue.

 

[flyingfish]

I had to take a step back and pray before I answered this. Flying fish, I have to make myself believe that you had the best of intentions when posting this. If you are trying to make the point that because marital rape is finally on the books as a crime, that respect for women has gone up, you are barking up the wrong tree. Many of the early suffragettes were anti-contraception because it *exacerbated *marital rape. They were trying to get marital rape on the books back then. Did you know that many proponents of contraception actually believed that just being *married *was entirely about rape? Sanger herself, wrote about it. She wanted all women free of marriage so that they were not “raped” by their husbands. Sanger actually said that if marriage didn’t exist neither would rape! Rape is intrinsically evil. The Church has always taught that. Spousal rape was considered by the Church to be a grave sin, centuries before it was made an illegal act by the state.

Marital rape is now a crime because of improvement in the status and rights of women across the board. In the past rape was about raping another man’s woman. It was viewed from a man’s perspective.

The reason that I brought that up is because you claimed that because of contraception women are expected to have sex with their husbands whenever the man demands it.

Women’s position in society today has vastly improved over the past century. I don’t see how anyone can deny that. From the perspective of women’s rights, contraception has exactly the same effect as NFP. It allows women to have smaller families, lives outside the home, and to protect their bodies and minds from the stresses of repeated pregnancies.

NFP is contraception. It’s something you do to have sex without getting pregnant.

And to your later point, I know that its technical aspects of abstinence during fertile times distinguish it from deliberately blocking fertility all the time. But the end result and the goal of NFP is the same: sex without babies.

 

[agapewolf]

From the perspective of women’s rights, contraception has exactly the same effect as NFP. It allows women to have smaller families, lives outside the home, and to protect their bodies and minds from the stresses of repeated pregnancies.

NFP is contraception. It’s something you do to have sex without getting pregnant.

And to your later point, I know that its technical aspects of abstinence during fertile times distinguish it from deliberately blocking fertility all the time. But the end result and the goal of NFP is the same: sex without babies.

THis is completely incorrect. NFP is NOT contraception,…by its very definition. You have to have something to do something against it. Nfp is a non-action.

NFP does not have the same effect as ABC. NFP has healthy effects…even if trying. ABC kills, hurts marriages, damages working reproductive systems, and can cause long painful terminal illnesses.

Just because an end result may be the same…one less child, does not make the means of getting there the same.

The argument that the ends justify the means, or makes them equal is juvenile.

 

[ryecroft]

Rye, just curious. Say tomorrow a cure to your condition became available, that woukd not compromise your fertility…would you use nfp, or stay on the pill?

In all hnesty, if my husband went along with this and saying I had the gadge (the ovacue thing that I mentioned) and like you mentioned there would be no fear of me bleeding out or having periods that lasted mo nths (I could handle a couple weeks on once in a while) then I would almost deffinately want to go NFP. I didn’t get on Birth Control because of children - I got on it because of the horrendous times I was having with my cycle. I don’t even LIKE being on the pill - when they first put me on it I was out of school almost two weeks because I kept vomitting it up. And I certainly didn’t like gaining the weight which never seems to want to come off. I was a virgin well into my 20’s.But currently what I’ve been told by multiple doctors, was that this was the best way they knew to deal with controling the periods. I’ve had multiple, invasive surgeries to have cysts and the such taken out. It does NO good. And since I already loose blood through my kidney disease, I sometimes have to get transfusions - if it was just the transfusions I could handle it - it’s the constant bleeding (sorry if this is TMI) that I hate. Honestly, I think my husband would be fine with this if he could be convinced that it worked but I also believe that for the times we wern’t supposed to have sex that he would probably want to use a condom or have me use something like VCF. I don’t like denying my husband ever. He’s really one of the greatest guys you’ll ever meet.

One thing that was brought up on here had to do with someone mentioning that they didn’t trust themselves to do the NFP method correctly (meaning the checking and knowing what you were really seeing and then interpreting it) - I agree whole heartedly with this - and like I mentioned, right now the machine we’ve gotten helps me make sure about what’s going on. If i’m about to ovulate it gives me a sign no matter when. This has made me more confident with NFP. Although we were told we didn’t interpret incorrectly our charts when we got pregnant while on NFP, I always wondered if we had had this machine if it would have detected this 2nd irregular release of an egg. Right now, I’m hoping if the doctors o.k. us to try to get pregnant again that he’ll get excited about it. It’s kind of hard with all the miscarriages and dangerous medical situations we’ve had but we should be able to use the NFP information to try to get pregnant. Honestly, I don’t think he sees why the church allows NFP but says condoms are bad but that’s a whooole other topic.

God Bless
Rye

 

[flyingfish]

THis is completely incorrect. NFP is NOT contraception,…by its very definition. You have to have something to do something against it. Nfp is a non-action.

NFP does not have the same effect as ABC. NFP has healthy effects…even if trying. ABC kills, hurts marriages, damages working reproductive systems, and can cause long painful terminal illnesses.

Just because an end result may be the same…one less child, does not make the means of getting there the same.

The argument that the ends justify the means, or makes them equal is juvenile.

Not all ABC is the hormone pill, there are methods that don’t have any effect on the body.

Don’t get me wrong, I think NFP is a great method, and I’m not suggesting that women should stop using NFP and start taking birth control pills. I am not saying the methods are equal.

I just don’t see how ABC can hurt marriages or cause women to be mistreated. I don’t see the connection. Some men mistreat their wives, that is a fact. I don’t think they do it because their wife is on the pill.

The men who mistreat their contracepting wives by using them for sex can similarly use their wives for sex during an infertile time.

I am not saying the methods are the same, I’m saying I don’t see how one can kill a marriage any more than the other. If it’s sex purely for pleasure that you’re worried about, both methods make that plentifully available.

 

[LittleDeb]

Just to clarify terms here (Littledeb, you’re doing a great job).

Abstinence is not an act, it is the absence of an act.

I think this is an important distinction to make, and I understood what you are saying (and agree), but I think that clarification could help things if conversations were to continue.

You are totally right! I did mean to say an “un-act.”

 

[LittleDeb]

Women’s position in society today has vastly improved over the past century. I don’t see how anyone can deny that. From the perspective of women’s rights, contraception has exactly the same effect as NFP. It allows women to have smaller families, lives outside the home, and to protect their bodies and minds from the stresses of repeated pregnancies.

On this point I will grant that women’s *position *in society has improved. But that is *not *thanks to contraception.

What you seem to miss is that nearly all of the early suffragettes were pro-life and pro-family. They split on contraception. Those factions who were pro-contraception went fringe and actually failed to pass laws bettering women.

It has been said before and I will say it again. Smaller families are not the great thing that revisionist history has made you believe. Having a smaller family is not what enabled women to be outside the home. Getting equal pay for equal work is what allowed women freedom. Being viewed as just as intelligent as their male counterparts and able to enroll in college instead of finishing school has made them free. Getting good prenatal and postpartum care has made them free.

Tell me one law that Sanger helped pass that bettered women. Legalizing the distribution of contraception? Well if NFP and contraception have “exactly the same effect” why did women need contraception since NFP works? And furthermore, if they have “exactly the same effect” why was NFP legal and contraception was not? After all it was *Protestants *who passed the Comstock laws declaring contraception ‘obscene material.’ The temperature method of NFP was introduced in the 1930s. The Comstock laws date from the 1800s.

Contraception is *still *about eugenics. It is still the “poor, uneducated woman who *needs *access to contraception.” Margaret Sanger and her fellow eugenicists decided based on skewed I.Q. tests who was “feeble-minded,” and declared them “human weeds.” That thinking hasn’t changed.