Which NFP Method is Best?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdriannaJean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AdriannaJean

Guest
Hi All,

Just FYI you can chose more than one option in the poll above.

I am engaged and my fiance and I have started to look at the different methods for NFP (Billings, Creighton, and STM) and have quickly become overwhelmed. I know that STM involves temperature-taking (and I don’t know why, but that makes me think it would be more accurate. Is that the case?) and the others rely on other ways of recognizing the fertile period.

What has your experience been with these methods?

Which would you recommend?

How long are the periods of abstinence required for each?

Is there one (or more) of them that you had difficulties with?

Any help making this decision is much appreciated!
 
**What has your experience been with these methods? **
I learned the STM through my diocese when we first got married. I have never tried another method. It has worked wonderfully for us.

**Which would you recommend? **
I can’t say, for sure… I know many others have had wonderful experiences with the other methods, so it’s really a matter of trying which ever one feels best to you at first, and then being flexible and open to trying another method if it isn’t working!

**How long are the periods of abstinence required for each? **
That depends on your body and your cycle… if you are healthy and have a regular cycle your periods of abstinence are going to vary, but normally range anywhere from 5-10 (ish) days a cycle. After you have a baby things can get VERY complicated as your cycles return to normal… you could have many months of irregular cycles (which is very normal), so EXPECT to have longer periods of abstinence at those times… regardless of the method.

**Is there one (or more) of them that you had difficulties with? **
I’ve never tried anything but STM.
I think you’ll get LOTS of varying opinions because once someone finds something that works for them, they usually believe it’ll work for everyone. ;)… But I’m just going to encourage you to be willing to try, then be flexible and open to change if it doesn’t work.

I LOVE STM… I like all the technical “data” you get with the 3 different fertility signs (mucous, cervical position, and temperature)… I find that all very easy to use. Others don’t.
 
I use Marquette. I don’t think any one method is “best”- it depends on what works the best for you and your situation. For instance, for health reasons temperature readings are not accurate for me, so I can’t use that as a sign. So far Marquette has worked just fine, although the test sticks are a bit expensive. As far as abstinence, we’re found it to be about 10-12 days per month, and I’m pretty regular.

It’s good that you are looking into this now- you’ll have time to see what works best for you.
 
Please dont feel you need to answer publicly I’m not trying to tet at you personally but questioning everyone with the same question as you.

a challenge: you say you are engaged. Why are you expecting to use NFP from the Outset?

The churches teachings on this issue are clear. NFP is a permissible technique to be used when children need to be delayed or prevented for well grounded reasons and then it should be used “With Sadness”. It should be something you know about but shouild not be automatically grabbed from the day you marry (or before) to ensure you have a family that fits with secular societies expectations of “2.4 children and a dog.”

for more information read Humanae Vitae.

Please note I am not advocating or attempting to start the debate on use or not of NFP. I agree it IS permitted. (I thought the document stated “Grave reasons” but I just discovered otherwise) … however I feel some couples use is as a “permitted alternative to the pill” - it’s not. there’s a not very subtle difference stemming from the importance of having a marriage which is open to life and Gods Bounty - as opposed to a marriage which is modelled on that presented by the secular world, and squeezed into a “Catholic” bottle.

For me it’s a moot point … My wife would like between 3 and 4 children - and it is medically risky for her to have them too late in life. We married in our early 30’s. With spacings of 2-3 years to allow maximum brestfeeding time, and time for the C.S. scar to heal up each time (that’s another storey - but my wife cant give birth naturally) there’s no way we’ll have more than 4. We will probably be told in no uncertain terms to stop at 3 for my wife’s safety. - then we will need to get serious about using one of the NFP methods. So far we haven’t used anything more than a casual “Rythm” method when it dosn’t matter, - or fairly long periods of abstainance when it does matter.
There are 2 instructors for the Billings method in our parish.
 
Pink_Lemonade said:
I use Marquette. I don’t think any one method is “best”- it depends on what works the best for you and your situation. For instance, for health reasons temperature readings are not accurate for me, so I can’t use that as a sign. So far Marquette has worked just fine, although the test sticks are a bit expensive. As far as abstinence, we’re found it to be about 10-12 days per month, and I’m pretty regular.

It’s good that you are looking into this now- you’ll have time to see what works best for you.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Marquette based on detecting ovulation after the fact? The research I saw indicated that methods like STM or Billings which predict ovulation are safer if it’s important to prevent or delay conception.
(i suppose all the methods have their proponents and opponents)
 
Which method is best depends on what works for you. For example, STM works well for many people, but the temperature part of it didn’t work for my wife. So we use Billings, and it works great for us.

We also have recently tried Marquette, but have not found the information provided by the fertility monitor to be very useful or accurate. So again, we are probably going back to Billings. But again, this is just our experience. I am sure that for some people, Marquette works very well.

My advice would be to try one method, and see how it works for you. If you have given it a few months and still it doesn’t work well for you (e.g., if the signs are hard to interpret, even with expert help), then consider a different method.

Here are some things to consider, in deciding which method to try first:
  1. If you want a method that you can do in conjunction with medical care from a pro-life, pro-NFP doctor, then you could consider Creighton (if there is a NaPro Technology / Creighton practicioner in your area).
  2. If you want to have two different signs to cross-check against each other, especially if your mucus sign is hard to interpret, then you could consider STM (which uses mucus and temperature) or Marquette (which uses mucus plus a fertility monitor that tracks hormone levels).
  3. If you want a simple method that doesn’t require special equipment (like a fertility monitor) and that doesn’t require you to get up at the same time every morning to take your temperature, then you could consider Billings (which uses mucus only).
 
PaulGH said:
Which method is best depends on what works for you. For example, STM works well for many people, but the temperature part of it didn’t work for my wife. So we use Billings, and it works great for us.

We also have recently tried Marquette, but have not found the information provided by the fertility monitor to be very useful or accurate. So again, we are probably going back to Billings. But again, this is just our experience. I am sure that for some people, Marquette works very well.

My advice would be to try one method, and see how it works for you. If you have given it a few months and still it doesn’t work well for you (e.g., if the signs are hard to interpret, even with expert help), then consider a different method.

Here are some things to consider, in deciding which method to try first:
  1. If you want a method that you can do in conjunction with medical care from a pro-life, pro-NFP doctor, then you could consider Creighton (if there is a NaPro Technology / Creighton practicioner in your area).
  2. If you want to have two different signs to cross-check against each other, especially if your mucus sign is hard to interpret, then you could consider STM (which uses mucus and temperature) or Marquette (which uses mucus plus a fertility monitor that tracks hormone levels).
  3. If you want a simple method that doesn’t require special equipment (like a fertility monitor) and that doesn’t require you to get up at the same time every morning to take your temperature, then you could consider Billings (which uses mucus only).
Click to expand...
Thank-you that’s a very sussicnt comparison i havent seen elsewhere.
 
Okay, can’t answer poll because I don’t have human husband…

But, I think it’s great as an engaged person you’d be looking at the methods. A medical doctor presented the Creighton method in our diocesan marriage prep program I attended as part of my continuing ed for working as a judge in the marriage tribunal. It is fantastic, and because it not only is a method for trying to conceive children (or not), it is also a way for the Napro Technology trained doctors to help determine if you have any hormonal imbalances, or other concerns pertaining to female health. I recall being astonished at some of the details about artifical contraception they presented which would make anyone of any faith or belief question the use of ABC. It is meant to ideally be presented to both the fiancees. Even if one isn’t engaged, it is very useful for single women of fertile age.
 
anruari said:
Please dont feel you need to answer publicly I’m not trying to tet at you personally but questioning everyone with the same question as you.

a challenge: you say you are engaged. Why are you expecting to use NFP from the Outset?

The churches teachings on this issue are clear. NFP is a permissible technique to be used when children need to be delayed or prevented for well grounded reasons and then it should be used “With Sadness”. It should be something you know about but shouild not be automatically grabbed from the day you marry (or before) to ensure you have a family that fits with secular societies expectations of “2.4 children and a dog.”

for more information read Humanae Vitae.

Please note I am not advocating or attempting to start the debate on use or not of NFP. I agree it IS permitted. (I thought the document stated “Grave reasons” but I just discovered otherwise) … however I feel some couples use is as a “permitted alternative to the pill” - it’s not. there’s a not very subtle difference stemming from the importance of having a marriage which is open to life and Gods Bounty - as opposed to a marriage which is modelled on that presented by the secular world, and squeezed into a “Catholic” bottle.
Click to expand...
The Creighton method is used to achieve pregnancy, and to diagnose female health problems, not just to avoid pregnancy. Further, the success rates of the nfp methods depends largely on absolute compliance and many spouses are unwilling to not “cheat” the system here and there. The Creighton method was tweaked by a doctor with a permanent appointment in the Pontifical Academy (papal consultant) and he really makes it clear in the training how spouses communicate about the mutual ongoing discernment - is it time to be ready for a possible child this cycle, strive for a child this cycle, or are there grave reasons to avoid potential pregnancy… Couples who seriously practice this have something like a 2% divorce rate, far lower than the 50% plus rate. A plus in my books since the less annulment cases that cross my desk the better.

It is a tool (and like other tools can be used or abused), but I see it as a helpful tool that can really make a difference and can strengthen marriages. It can help awareness and decrease marital rape, it can also help the married couple exercise what we canonists call “responsible parenthood”. Another plus, of course, is that this can help decrease/treat infertility. Again, very useful in a marriage relationship or if a female is open to marriage and wants optimal fertility using Church approved medical methods.
 
anruari said:
Isn’t Marquette based on detecting ovulation after the fact? The research I saw indicated that methods like STM or Billings which predict ovulation are safer if it’s important to prevent or delay conception.
(i suppose all the methods have their proponents and opponents)
Click to expand...
Marquette is the combination of cervical mucus observations with the use of a fertility monitor that tests hormones (estrogen and LH) to predict ovulation.
 
I’m learning the Symto-Thermal, but so far my temps seem wacky and useless, so that doesn’t seem too reliable, but just learning here, so I’ll see what my teaching couple thinks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top