Natural Family Planning?

[maybeizfundie]

They may not be the type of people who are evangelistically blogging about their lives. :)

The one I can think of that is already well enough known that I would feel comfortable directing to her blog is Barbara Curtis/mommylife.net.

She is conservative. Her politics are probably contemptible/hateful to many here. She's definitely right wing politically. But she's anti-patriarchal, she's been mentioned here for her posts about the Pearls, and as far as I know is/was QF (in the sense of not using birth control for reasons of faith), though not opposed to other people using other things. She has bunches of bio kids, and then 3 adopted boys with Down's Syndrome. Very much for education of all sorts (Big on Montessori, for little ones), got several college age kids in college, loves the arts and literature, and so on. I saw she had a modesty post up recently, but it's not about dresses only and the pics I've seen of her and the girls, they look like normal people. Reading over the years what she's written about her children's marriages/relationships doesn't look anything like fundie courtship.

There's also us. We don't use birth control, and it's a part of our beliefs. But we aren't Gothardite, don't subscribe to VF, dh makes a distinct effort to make sure I don't feel oppressed or devalued or under his thumb (big problem in his culture, he wants to do things differently than how he was raised), we don't go to a church where everyone is just like us so we don't live in that kind of bubble, and our kids are definitely on the college track--we value education highly (though we have different intellectual personalities, I'm more into language and literature and dh is big on the nuts and bolts, particularly maths and sciences). I wear dresses and headcovering by personal preference, dh doesn't care one way or another. While we are teetotalers by default, it's not because we think moderate consumption of alcohol is sinful, 'cause we don't. But I mostly don't blog about this kind of stuff.

I appreciate someone else pointing out that blanket definitions only go so far. :)

[LynnKaboom]

You know, I've always wondered- if the fundies can't use birth control and they don't want to have another baby yet, then why don't they just fap? It would make their lives so much easier. You can't make your hand pregnant/can't impregnate yourself.

But they probably consider that sinful.

[nutella addict]

You know, I've always wondered- if the fundies can't use birth control and they don't want to have another baby yet, then why don't they just fap? It would make their lives so much easier. You can't make your hand pregnant/can't impregnate yourself.

But they probably consider that sinful.

The men would be spilling their precious seed like Onan! The horror!

And the women? No no, women don't need sex. Women are there because *men* need sex.

Of COURSE it would be sinful!

[Witsec6]

I believe there are some methods of NFP that do not need "normal" or even regular cycles to work. Basal body temp and other signals of ovulation, not just relying on the calendar.

Yes. I have short cycles, but I monitor my temperature and fluids as well as counting. We are also prepared to have babies if it happens by accident. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to someone who can't or REALLY doesn't want to have kids.

[Wendy]

I love, LOVE, having sex when I'm ovulating; in fact, I'm a little sad that part of my life is almost over.

Wait--what's the date?

/acquires gleam in eye; goes to find hubby

[LynnKaboom]

The men would be spilling their precious seed like Onan! The horror!

And the women? No no, women don't need sex. Women are there because *men* need sex.

Of COURSE it would be sinful!

But the story of Onan said he was smited because he spilled on the ground. If the guy releases into his happy sock, then it's not hitting the ground!

[masagoroll]

Hmm...if you can cause miscarriages by a "contraceptive mindset", can I do the opposite and get pregnant by using condoms and NFP, but all the time thinking "Come on, condom, break! I want to get pregnant"?

Because if so... I'm gonna get pregnant. Hahahaha!

[raineymott]

The first month I tried to chart, I got pregnant. LOL Before, we just did the rhythm method and used condoms for a week or so in the middle of the month. When I got pregnant I was under a LOT of stress...which is supposed to make you ovulate LATER, well it made me ovulate SOONER! (four days after my period) And since I'd only been charting my temps for a week or so, I didn't notice the dip in the temps until it was too late!

[Feberin]

I only charted while we were TTC our son but I would wonder how it would work if you already have young children. My son doesn't sleep through the night yet and when he wakes up screaming I'd hate to lie there waiting to go in and nurse him until I have taken and recorded my temps and what if it isn't far enough in to the night yet? Oh and he just gets more pissed off if my husband goes in so it's not like that's an option. I just am curious how a family that already has a baby would do NFP especially one of the formerly QF families with a ton of kids.

[demgirl]

I really hope this doesn't come off rudely, because I do NOT intend it to be, and I really don't intend to offend anyone, but I have to ask -- for those that use NFP for religious reasons -- what is the difference? Whether you use the pill, condoms, IUDs, or NFP, how is one any different from the other? All are done with the intent to prevent conception, so why does it matter what form you use?

This is where I think the QFers have an argument, such as it is -- either you're against preventing conception, or you believe preventing conception is a valid choice, regardless of the method used. Obviously I think the QFers are wrong about which side they come down on, but I haven't read a good argument to show me how NFP is different from any other form of contraceptive?

I'm willing to change my mind! Someone explain! Please? :)

[Turtle]

I only charted while we were TTC our son but I would wonder how it would work if you already have young children. My son doesn't sleep through the night yet and when he wakes up screaming I'd hate to lie there waiting to go in and nurse him until I have taken and recorded my temps and what if it isn't far enough in to the night yet? Oh and he just gets more pissed off if my husband goes in so it's not like that's an option. I just am curious how a family that already has a baby would do NFP especially one of the formerly QF families with a ton of kids.

I just have one kid, but I used NFP without a problem after he was born. I focused more on mucus rather than temperature. My son woke up every 2 hours for the first two years, so no way in hell would I wake up an extra time/stay awake to take my temp. If I had 2 hours of sleep and took my temp at approx. (within about the same hour) the same time every day, it correlated with my mucus signs. I had used NFP since becoming sexually active though, so I felt pretty confident interpreting my body's signs. Just my experience though.

[Michiru]

I have been told, that it is different with nfp, because it is not a "contraception" in the original way. It is more using what god gave you. You can only get pregnant at certain days in a cycle and you just find out which one these are and then you have to move aorund them. :lol:

I myself think it is just the same and I do think nfp ist a proper contraception. Even more, when you combine it with condoms or such.

Oh and the pill is evil because it might, in a very very few cases, would prevent a fertilised egg to implant. That the main reason that the pill is so effective is, that you don't have any egs to fertilise... never mind that. :roll:

[liltwinstar]

I get *so irritated* when churches/religious leaders try to mandate or dictate what kind of contraception can or can't be used. I have no problem when individual couples make decisions that are in keeping with their own beliefs, but when a preacher/priest tries to insert his beliefs into something that should be private (and sacred, if you will) that makes me stabby with rage. I see it as intrusive and an abuse of power and an attempt to *weaken* marriages, rather than strengthen them.

I know that NFP would not work for me/my marriage. The pill is my BFF - but I would never tell another woman that she *had* to take the pill. Jesus didn't say one single solitary word about contraception, so why those who claim to follow him feel that they can do that?

There are some things in life that should be personal decisions, and when others *tell* you how to live those parts of your life, that crosses a line in my book. Things like telling you when/how/what to eat, when/how/with whom to have sex, etc. Attempts to control those things are always power trips, in my opinion, and are always inappropriate.

(I should add I'm talking about adults here, and the pastor/congregant relationship. Obviously parents have to make some of the above decisions for their kids; that's not what I'm talking about).

[Olive Plant]

I love the fact that NFP and any other birth control is messing with God's plan, but using IVF and/or other fertility boosters, and Michelle's reverse use of NFP to try to make a baby at her most fertile time are all ok (to the QFer's). God must really love hypocrites.

Of course God loves hypocrites. Hypocrites are his chosen people. You can tell they're chosen because Satan really attacks them via forums like FJ.

[raineymott]

The only reason we didn't go for a pill is I've heard how people gain a lot of weight on it...and I didn't want that to happen!!

[Olive Plant]

I get *so irritated* when churches/religious leaders try to mandate or dictate what kind of contraception can or can't be used. I have no problem when individual couples make decisions that are in keeping with their own beliefs, but when a preacher/priest tries to insert his beliefs into something that should be private (and sacred, if you will) that makes me stabby with rage. I see it as intrusive and an abuse of power and an attempt to *weaken* marriages, rather than strengthen them.

I know that NFP would not work for me/my marriage. The pill is my BFF - but I would never tell another woman that she *had* to take the pill. Jesus didn't say one single solitary word about contraception, so why those who claim to follow him feel that they can do that?

There are some things in life that should be personal decisions, and when others *tell* you how to live those parts of your life, that crosses a line in my book. Things like telling you when/how/what to eat, when/how/with whom to have sex, etc. Attempts to control those things are always power trips, in my opinion, and are always inappropriate.

(I should add I'm talking about adults here, and the pastor/congregant relationship. Obviously parents have to make some of the above decisions for their kids; that's not what I'm talking about).

Yep. Although if we're saying this then we have to accept that some people want more kids too, right? Even when it really seems like it would become patently obvious that maybe not having more kids is the responsible thing to do. I remember one family in my ATI-tinged church growing up who had 7 kids, I think, and they lived in this one-bedroom shack. Even at 10 years old I wanted to punch the mother when she said stuff like "God is sovereign, so I don't need to worry about anything."

[takers401]

I really hope this doesn't come off rudely, because I do NOT intend it to be, and I really don't intend to offend anyone, but I have to ask -- for those that use NFP for religious reasons -- what is the difference? Whether you use the pill, condoms, IUDs, or NFP, how is one any different from the other? All are done with the intent to prevent conception, so why does it matter what form you use?

This is where I think the QFers have an argument, such as it is -- either you're against preventing conception, or you believe preventing conception is a valid choice, regardless of the method used. Obviously I think the QFers are wrong about which side they come down on, but I haven't read a good argument to show me how NFP is different from any other form of contraceptive?

I'm willing to change my mind! Someone explain! Please? :)

I think it's because people feel that those items put a barrier between the couple during the 'marital embrace'. With the pill I think it's because there's the thought that if a woman did get pregnant the pill makes her womb inhospitable for implantation and the fertilized egg would die (almost like a pre-abortion - if that makes any sense). I don't know too much on how the IUD or depo shot works to know if they mimic the pill with disallowing ovultion and making the uterine lining too thin for egg implantation or not.

As far as I understand it, this is a simplistic view of what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't know about other religion's teachings.

[dawbs]

I really hope this doesn't come off rudely, because I do NOT intend it to be, and I really don't intend to offend anyone, but I have to ask -- for those that use NFP for religious reasons -- what is the difference? Whether you use the pill, condoms, IUDs, or NFP, how is one any different from the other? All are done with the intent to prevent conception, so why does it matter what form you use?

This is where I think the QFers have an argument, such as it is -- either you're against preventing conception, or you believe preventing conception is a valid choice, regardless of the method used. Obviously I think the QFers are wrong about which side they come down on, but I haven't read a good argument to show me how NFP is different from any other form of contraceptive?

I'm willing to change my mind! Someone explain! Please? :)

my thoughts, from my own experience...

-All forms of hormonal BC have a (at least theoretical) secondary effect of preventing implantation. The usually primary effect is to prevent ovulation but if ovulation occurs AND egg is fertilized, the hormones affect the uterine lining so the fertilized egg wont' implant. Now, how often this happens is hotly debated (planned parenthood lists it as a possible 'how it works' for each of the hormonal BCs--that it happens isn't really debated) which eliminates any form of hormone IF you believe preventing fertilization = wrong.

^assuming the above (big assumption), you're basically limited to barrier methods. And those are hard (or before the interwebz, were hard) to be anonymous with in small towns...Growing up, if I had bought condoms, Dr. L, the pharmacist or Mr Z, the grocery store owner, would have said something snide to my dad before I had a chance to use them.

-I think MUCH of the rest of it has to do with the de-valuing of women's sexual appetites. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt when I ovulate--my sex drive goes through the roof. Since the man is getting off regardless of this appetite, NFP, which promotes abstinence on those days, only affects the woman's sexual satisfaction.

-Because of the above-mentioned sexual appetites, I think some of it is martyrish. Like giving up sex for lent.

[Austin]

The only reason we didn't go for a pill is I've heard how people gain a lot of weight on it...and I didn't want that to happen!!

Everybody's different, but I've been on the pill (Seasonale now) for more than 15 years. My weight is not affected either way. I stay around the same weight and gain when I overeat (holidays!) and lose when I cut back, just as I would expect with no pill. I still have clothes from high school that I can wear so I guess it's fair to say I've been pretty stable weight-wise my whole life.

So,my experience is that the pill didn't cause me to gain weight, but everyone is different. I wouldn't make a decision - either way - about the pill based just on what other people say. There are women with positive experiences and some women with negative experiences. Some women have side effects, but they can be both positive or negative. Some positive things for me have been no PMS, clear skin, things like that.

[Austin]

my thoughts, from my own experience...

-All forms of hormonal BC have a (at least theoretical) secondary effect of preventing implantation. The usually primary effect is to prevent ovulation but if ovulation occurs AND egg is fertilized, the hormones affect the uterine lining so the fertilized egg wont' implant. Now, how often this happens is hotly debated (planned parenthood lists it as a possible 'how it works' for each of the hormonal BCs--that it happens isn't really debated) which eliminates any form of hormone IF you believe preventing fertilization = wrong.

^assuming the above (big assumption), you're basically limited to barrier methods. And those are hard (or before the interwebz, were hard) to be anonymous with in small towns...Growing up, if I had bought condoms, Dr. L, the pharmacist or Mr Z, the grocery store owner, would have said something snide to my dad before I had a chance to use them.

-I think MUCH of the rest of it has to do with the de-valuing of women's sexual appetites. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt when I ovulate--my sex drive goes through the roof. Since the man is getting off regardless of this appetite, NFP, which promotes abstinence on those days, only affects the woman's sexual satisfaction.

-Because of the above-mentioned sexual appetites, I think some of it is martyrish. Like giving up sex for lent.

I don't know what you mean by your "own experience" (how would you know if your uterus had expelled a fertilized pill due to the pill?). I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm truly wondering what your own experience is in this situation.

We had a (much-valued - I hope she finds us again!) FJ member on the old board who is an OB/GYN and a Catholic, DocSharon. She does not perform abortions. But she explained in pretty great detail how this so-called "secondary effect" is, while theoretically possible, very highly unlikely if one understands how the whole process of ovulation works and how hormones affect the body. I'll see if I can find the thread, because we discussed the "secondary effect" numerous times over there and she addressed it more than once.

I am a little sensitive about this topic because I've heard people like Michelle Duggar claim that the pill "caused her miscarriage" and I hate that she has a platform and she lies to women. I don't think that's what you're saying at all, but I believe it is a misstatement to claim this so-called secondary effect is a factor.

[bea]

I've run into a few, on the babywearing message board that I used to hang out on when my kids were small enough to be carried around.

Nice enough people. Though some of them seemed to hinge their entire identity on being pregnant/nursing/raising kids - but secular moms do that, too.

[Turtle]

Not that a lot of Catholics don't parrot the "bc pill cause abortions!!!!111!" line, but that's not why the church is against artificial birth control. Their teachings on sexuality focuses more on not introducing a barrier in the "marital embrace" (a lovely catchphrase).

I had to read the transcripts for Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body lectures and I think "Love and Responsibility" in college. If someone is really interested in the catholic stance, that would be a good place to start. Whatever you do, don't try reading Christopher West's Theology of the Body. Annoying as hell.

I was introduced to NFP at my catholic university, although I use it for non-religious reasons. It has always worked well for me, although I find it funny that I know way more non-religious women that use it than practicing catholics. Most catholics I know are on the pill.

[PBrooke]

Everybody's different, but I've been on the pill (Seasonale now) for more than 15 years. My weight is not affected either way. I stay around the same weight and gain when I overeat (holidays!) and lose when I cut back, just as I would expect with no pill. I still have clothes from high school that I can wear so I guess it's fair to say I've been pretty stable weight-wise my whole life.

So,my experience is that the pill didn't cause me to gain weight, but everyone is different. I wouldn't make a decision - either way - about the pill based just on what other people say. There are women with positive experiences and some women with negative experiences. Some women have side effects, but they can be both positive or negative. Some positive things for me have been no PMS, clear skin, things like that.

I've been on a few different pills over the last ten years. Not one made me gain a pound. Cookies and college eating, on the other hand... In fact, I don't know one person who says it has made them gain weight who started taking the pill in the last, say, 15 years. I think maybe it was a side effect once, but everyone's on low-dose pills today.

[Witsec6]

I've been on a few different pills over the last ten years. Not one made me gain a pound. Cookies and college eating, on the other hand... In fact, I don't know one person who says it has made them gain weight who started taking the pill in the last, say, 15 years. I think maybe it was a side effect once, but everyone's on low-dose pills today.

I'm that one. I started on the pill because of facial hair/acne issues. I ended up having zero libido, gaining 25 pounds, and the acne and hair remained. :cry:

[desertvixen]

In the 60s when they had the Papal Birth Control commission and actually tried the radical step of including (gasp!) lay married couples, there were surveys done of American Catholic couples who were pretty active in Church life about NFP, and many of them had a lot of negative input about it - couples who had it fail on them, couples who felt like being strict about when they could and could not have sex damaged their marriage, couples who didn't have a lot of physical affection at all. Turning Point (about this whole issue) was a depressing, if interesting read.