Why do YOU use NFP to prevent conception?

[mommamia]

Hmmm…I don’t think you thoroughly read my post as none of your points address my argument that nfp is a contraceptive method.

I know that this is how God made a woman’s body to work. But does that mean it should be the only method that is available to mankind? God also put hair on our bodies to protect us from the elements. Are we violating His design when we remove it with scissors, razors, etc?

I think there is nothing wrong with questioning the Church’s position on a certain issue. What I was trying to say is that it is a problem with semantics. I really don’t think it’s right to use the infertile period of a cycle to prevent conception and then say you are not contracepting. Having said this, this doesn’t mean I dislike nfp.

Lastly, I never said the Church was espousing something that is sinful. I hope you see the point I was trying to make.

I do see, I think.

Contra- against
conception- becoming pregnant.

If you want to take things “literally”… then yes NFP is a form of contraception in that when using TTA, you are trying to prevent pregnancy. HOWEVER, as it can also be use when “trying to concept” it can’t be called a true “contraceptive”, it has more than one purpose.

As I’ve never bothered to use NFP or artificial bc, since I’m not very fertile. I never really bothered to read the Church’s reasoning or position. So I don’t want to get into any kind of argument as to whether its “right” or not.

 

[JLCecilia]

Jennifer,
No, abstaining to prevent pregnancy is not contraception. But, choosing to have sex only during infertile times when you know it is biologically impossible to conceive because you have monitored your cycle IS contraception. Makes no difference that you’re not using any devices or chemicals. The withdrawal method doesn’t use anything artificial either and it is still contraceptive as well.

NFP is great. I have used it myself with both frustration and contentment. But let’s call a spade a spade. I just don’t think the Church can have it both ways by approving of a birth control method that does not result in conception, but is not called contraception.

I do not mean to offend here. I am merely pointing out what I think is a flaw in the Church’s reasoning.

We had a very good priest when we attended our Engaged Encounter who answered this question when it came up. There was a mixed couple (one Catholic, the other not) who posed the question if it would be acceptable to use NFP to avoid conception for the duration of the marriage. NO, it would not except for just reason (health, being able to financially provide for and educate the children).

I know of one couple in our parish who was on a ‘phase III’ only rule for many years: their first child was perfectly healthy, their second child has hearing/speech problems, and their third child is totally mentally handicapped. Obviously they had grave concern for having another child who may possibly have physical or mental disabilities. But, lo and behold, 6 years later, they determined that they wanted another and they had a perfectly healthy baby. What a testament!!!

Remember, the abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good. There are couples out there who will ‘abuse’ NFP (I hate to use this word, but . . .). I’m not citing Church teaching here, but I believe the main reason for having NFP is just to help space children, however if there is a just reason for postponing a pregnancy for a longer time or indefinitely, I would consider these to be secondary causes for using NFP.

Clear as mud?

 

[Rafaela]

We are definitely going to go for this method, as soon as our baby will be born in October. We are a young couple, and I have still two years of university ahead, which I would like to finish before next comes along. Besides, I think that a child has a right to be child, so that parents are not nervous wrecks with two or more babies around at same time, and how to pay the bills. I hope I am making some sense here…

 

[agapewolf]

I do see, I think.

Contra- against
conception- becoming pregnant.

If you want to take things “literally”… then yes NFP is a form of contraception in that when using TTA, you are trying to prevent pregnancy. HOWEVER, as it can also be use when “trying to concept” it can’t be called a true “contraceptive”, it has more than one purpose.

As I’ve never bothered to use NFP or artificial bc, since I’m not very fertile. I never really bothered to read the Church’s reasoning or position. So I don’t want to get into any kind of argument as to whether its “right” or not.

Nope…

The couple may not desire children for a certain time, but that does not make NFP itself against conception. Contraception means doing something active to prevent…NFP is inaction. it is not doing something. You can’t do something active by not doing something.

 

[Joya]

We had a very good priest when we attended our Engaged Encounter who answered this question when it came up. There was a mixed couple (one Catholic, the other not) who posed the question if it would be acceptable to use NFP to avoid conception for the duration of the marriage. NO, it would not except for just reason (health, being able to financially provide for and educate the children).

I know of one couple in our parish who was on a ‘phase III’ only rule for many years: their first child was perfectly healthy, their second child has hearing/speech problems, and their third child is totally mentally handicapped. Obviously they had grave concern for having another child who may possibly have physical or mental disabilities. But, lo and behold, 6 years later, they determined that they wanted another and they had a perfectly healthy baby. What a testament!!!

Remember, the abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good. There are couples out there who will ‘abuse’ NFP (I hate to use this word, but . . .). I’m not citing Church teaching here, but I believe the main reason for having NFP is just to help space children, however if there is a just reason for postponing a pregnancy for a longer time or indefinitely, I would consider these to be secondary causes for using NFP.

Clear as mud?

Good post! But I think your retelling of the nfp couple’s question to the priest proves my point exactly!

 

[Joya]

I do see, I think.

Contra- against
conception- becoming pregnant.

If you want to take things “literally”… then yes NFP is a form of contraception in that when using TTA, you are trying to prevent pregnancy. HOWEVER, as it can also be use when “trying to concept” it can’t be called a true “contraceptive”, it has more than one purpose.

As I’ve never bothered to use NFP or artificial bc, since I’m not very fertile. I never really bothered to read the Church’s reasoning or position. So I don’t want to get into any kind of argument as to whether its “right” or not.

Thanks for the post…you summed up my point in your first sentence.

 

[Tosk]

Nope…

The couple may not desire children for a certain time, but that does not make NFP itself against conception. Contraception means doing something active to prevent…NFP is inaction. it is not doing something. You can’t do something active by not doing something.

The meaning of a word comes from the way a culture and society uses it. When people say contraception they mean a method you use while remaining sexually active to prevent pregnancy. That is what people who are not catholic mean when they say contraception and that is why all the definitions you find in dictionaries all include NFP.

That leads to confusion and an ambiguous definition since many people, mostly catholics, define contraception as any method that is used to change the nature of the sex act from a procreative act to a non-procreative one.

as long as you make clear how you are using the word you it doesn’t really matter which definition you use. Just to avoid confusion though I would tell most people that NFP is a method of contraception or birth control.

 

[RedSoxWife]

There is a lot of discussion on these boards about NFP and “just reasons” for spacing. Given the current culture I want a thread about people’s reasons. I expect honesty. And though it will be hard for all of us to play by the rules lets try not to judge too much.

Many people state that they want some kind of “list of reasons” to use NFP. they Church leaves it up to your FAMILY. (I hate it when people say it is up to an individual) But lets come up with some kind of concensus.
Keep it brief and the moral justification to a minimum. Lots of introspection here.

It could be like this…
A) financial- we can’t eat.
B) Financial- How will I pay for my fararri? And I want a new house.
C) Mental- the 15 kids under 15 years old are driving me nuts.
D) Mental- how will I juggle walking my dog with a new baby.
E) Medical- I will die or the baby will die
F) Medical- I don’t even like constipation how will I handle labor?

Anyway you get the idea. Be as honest as you can and lets try to come up with some parameters.

We have been talking about this subject a lot lately and I believe that we have serious reason to avoid pregnancy right now…

Here are the reasons we’ve come up with…

A) Financial- We still have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans and my husband will be in school working towards a canon law degree for at least another four years. Unemployment in our county is 22% and while my husband finally has a job working between 20 and 30 hours a week it doesn’t look like he’ll find full time work in the near future. We’re getting by but we don’t have health insurance.

B) Financial- Because of the job situation we live in a one room cabin with no indoor plumbing. The cabin is ten feet by fifteen feet and is already a bit crowded. It has our bed, our one year old daughters crib and his computer desk for school work. That takes up our 150 square feet of space. We do have a garden so food hasn’t been an issue during spring and summer.

However, we’ve been discussing it lately because we feel called to have more children. As I said, my husband is going to be in school for at least four years and we both want a large family. We want our daughter to have siblings who are close enough in age that they can be close friends. While I think our serious reasons for avoiding can be considered serious, we’ve pretty much agreed we’ll be trying again soon.

I guess a lot depends on what sort of lifestyle is tolerable to a couple. I’ve come to love our little cabin. We’re willing to live like this to have a (hopefully, God willing) large family.

 

[agapewolf]

The meaning of a word comes from the way a culture and society uses it. When people say contraception they mean a method you use while remaining sexually active to prevent pregnancy. That is what people who are not catholic mean when they say contraception and that is why all the definitions you find in dictionaries all include NFP.

That leads to confusion and an ambiguous definition since many people, mostly catholics, define contraception as any method that is used to change the nature of the sex act from a procreative act to a non-procreative one.

as long as you make clear how you are using the word you it doesn’t really matter which definition you use. Just to avoid confusion though I would tell most people that NFP is a method of contraception or birth control.

It does matter, and your way causes more confusion. Nfp is a method of birth control, but it is NOT contraception.

contraception in the dictionary does not include NFP anyway. But even then, it is a secular definition.

 

[whatevergirl]

*We have used for spacing of births when we were younger in our marriage. I then went on bc pills off and on throughout the marriage, mainly for medicinal uses. But, there were times when I was truly ignorant, for lack of a better word, on Church teaching about it.

Now, we use it for our ages. I’m 40, my dh is 50. I leave it in God’s hands, but I know that my dh doesn’t want to have any more children, since he is now 50. *

 

[Sr_Sally]

Those who use NFP to prevent conception while still going through with intercourse . . . how is that not contraceptive? i don’t buy the “well if i get pregnant so be it”. You’re either 100% for pregnancy or you are abusing sex.

You can’t “go through with intercourse” if you are using NFP to prevent. That is why it is different from artificial birth control. The option with NFP is to abstain–NOT have intercourse. The option with abc is to “go through with intercourse” while using some other method to stop the pregnancy.

While using NFP if you do not follow the rules correctly, you have to realize that you might get pregnant. That realization and the willingness to go forward is being open to life. Even if it isn’t completely, wholeheartedly, “I hope we get pregnant tonight” openness, it is still being open.

A couple who uses a condom that fails, was not open to life even if they do get pregnant because they had no intention at all, no willingness, to be pregnant. They may indeed become reconciled and happy about the baby, but at the time of sex, they were not open to life.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Those who use NFP to prevent conception while still going through with intercourse . . . how is that not contraceptive? i don’t buy the “well if i get pregnant so be it”. You’re either 100% for pregnancy or you are abusing sex.

And this is 100% wrong. How can deciding that whether or not you are going to bring a life into this world be in God’s hands, be contraceptive? It’s not. You’re not trying and your not avoiding. You are open to life and to God’s will in your life. And that isn’t contraception.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Besides, I think that a child has a right to be child, so that parents are not nervous wrecks with two or more babies around at same time, and how to pay the bills. I hope I am making some sense here…

A child will still be a child, with or without a sibling around… Dd1 and Ds1 are pretty close in age (15 mo) and they are growing up together, and loving having someone to share with (lol, and so is Ds2). They are 4 and almost 3 and tell each other jokes and crack each other up, and entertain each other in ways that us adults could never do. In some ways, they are able to be more childlike than other kids I have met that are alone among adults. I dunno…

 

[shannyk]

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, has done a great video mini-catechesis on the difference between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and contraception.

There is obviously a LOT of confusion here, so this might be a good thing to watch.

viditalk.com/hli/3/

This also has a good explanation of the important moral distinction between NFP and contraception.

 

[taye]

We’re using NFP to avoid at this point in time because of my mental health and exhaustion. My husband is concerned that I would have serious difficulty in raising another child. I never imagined I’d have three very “spirited” children, one who also has autism (mild). What happened to those 12 kids you were “planning” on having when you married, Tanya? (Yes, we wanted a BIG family - think Duggars big.) Sometimes I feel like a failure because I haven’t had that “perfect” big family, but maybe in a weird way, it’s a cross that I must carry. In the meantime, I have to do the best I can to care for my precious ones. As it stands now, I’m leaving it up to my hubby to decide when it’s time. He is better at gauging (sp?) my emotional health than I am. When or if things get less hectic around here, then it will be time to have the “talk” again. For the time being, I need to take care of myself first.

I’m very grateful for NFP and how it’s strengthened our marriage. It’s like a “diamond in the rough” - not many Catholics know about it, much less use it. Those who do choose this difficult path are blessed. I know, because I’ve been there. It isn’t always easy, but the payoff is great!

 

[maryj]

Age.

 

[Joya]

We’re using NFP to avoid at this point in time because of my mental health and exhaustion. My husband is concerned that I would have serious difficulty in raising another child. I never imagined I’d have three very “spirited” children, one who also has autism (mild). What happened to those 12 kids you were “planning” on having when you married, Tanya? (Yes, we wanted a BIG family - think Duggars big.) Sometimes I feel like a failure because I haven’t had that “perfect” big family, but maybe in a weird way, it’s a cross that I must carry. In the meantime, I have to do the best I can to care for my precious ones. As it stands now, I’m leaving it up to my hubby to decide when it’s time. He is better at gauging (sp?) my emotional health than I am. When or if things get less hectic around here, then it will be time to have the “talk” again. For the time being, I need to take care of myself first.

I’m very grateful for NFP and how it’s strengthened our marriage. It’s like a “diamond in the rough” - not many Catholics know about it, much less use it. Those who do choose this difficult path are blessed. I know, because I’ve been there. It isn’t always easy, but the payoff is great!

Thank you for your lovely testimony. God bless you as you continue to discern the right time to conceive again. I am very much in the same boat as you.

 

[mommamia]

Nope…

The couple may not desire children for a certain time, but that does not make NFP itself against conception. Contraception means doing something active to prevent…NFP is inaction. it is not doing something. You can’t do something active by not doing something.

Just wanted to chime in that I wasn’t saying that was my take on NFP, just that I could understand how someone could decide to think that. Based on just the semantics of the word. Besides, doesn’t choosing to not do something constitute doing something?

 

[BiologyBrain]

Remember, the abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good. There are couples out there who will ‘abuse’ NFP (I hate to use this word, but . . .). I’m not citing Church teaching here, but I believe the main reason for having NFP is just to help space children, however if there is a just reason for postponing a pregnancy for a longer time or indefinitely, I would consider these to be secondary causes for using NFP.

I think that was a great way of putting it!

 

[BiologyBrain]

Besides, doesn’t choosing to not do something constitute doing something?

Let’s think about this from a secular matter. Let’s have abc be equal to murder. Let’s have NFP be equal to ignoring the person. If I ignore a person, but do them no harm - does that constitute murdering them?

Or

Let’s have abc equal speeding. Let’s have NFP equal going exactly the speed limit (not below or above). If I go the speed limit am I speeding?

Or

Let’s have abc equal a constant speed zone of 25. Let’s have NFP equal a school zone - 25 when school’s in session 55 when no school in session. If I zip through at 55 the constant speed zone of 25 I’m breaking the law. If I go through the school zone while school IS in session at 25 I’m following the law. If I zip through the school zone at 55 while school is NOT in session - am I breaking the law?

In other words - even in secular circles, the ‘non-action’ equals an action DOES NOT hold up as equal. The last example is probably the best b/c its a cycle - just like a woman’s fertility. However, abc makes a woman’s fertility ALWAYS the same (theoretically).