Breastfeeding vs. contraception

Following my column, "June 7: The Pill Kills Day," I received emails expressing similar thoughts from good pro-life friends like this:

[B]efore going along with American Life League's campaign against birth control pills, your blog (and column) should do more than merely read off the FDA's label regarding birth control pills and leave it as if the FDA's label is gospel truth.

ec uh oh.jpg

The FDA label says the same thing about emergency contraception and recent study after recent study is showing how unlikely it is that EC has a post-conception effect.

There are numerous scientific studies on this issue and not one of them (at least that I've read) has conclusively proven that birth control pills prevent the implantation of conceived embryos....

[T]here's a difference in saying there is a possibility (and no one is sure how strong a possibility) that the pill might in the case of breakthrough ovulation prevent a human embryo from implanting and saying with certainty that the "pill kills."

From what I've read, there is also a possibility that breast feeding might have similar effects to the effects the pill has on a woman's body. But I'm not seeing ALL claim "Breastfeeding kills."

As I understand it, to this day no one can unequivocably state how the birth control pill works. But almost all pill packaging lists 3 possibilities, 1 of which is it can make the uterus impermeable to the 5- to 9-day-old embryo attaching.

Why argue against this possibility, particularly when knowing the information is published by those wishing it weren't so? If they could not say it, they would not say it. And if there is a possibility, should one play contraceptive Russian Roulette? Don't we always err on the side of life?

Emegency contraceptives are just mega-doses of artificial hormones found in birth control pills. I have read the opposite than my friend about EC and killing preborns. Since there is greater likelihood the egg has been fertilized by the time a woman takes an EC (within 72 hours after unprotected sex), there is greater likelihood an EC aborts. CWA lists all the scientific arguments.

The argument that breastfeeding may have the same mode of action as contraceptives so why oppose contraception is the equivalent in my mind to arguing that since miscarriages may have the same mode of action as abortions why oppose abortion.

Further, here is how breastfeeding appears to inhibit pregnancy, from my Human Anatomy and Physiology textbook:

Although it is possible for a woman to become pregnant during the period that she breast-feeds her child, menstrual cycles seem to be inhibited, at least for a time, while the mammary glands are active.

breastfeeding.jpgAlthough the mechanism responsible for this effect is not well understood, it is thought that prolactin may suppress the release of gonadoptropins [Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH)] from the anterior pituitary gland.

In any event, menstrual cycles may not resume for some time following the birth of an infant that is breast-fed. On the other hand, after several months of breast-feeding, FSH is usually released, and the monthly reproductive cycles are reestablished.

If breastfeeding inhibits the menstrual cycle altogether, then it inhibits egg maturation and release, since the gonadotropins trigger that. This is what I would expect anyway. God would not purposefully cause abortions. He does allow miscarriages, but that is a different topic.

The menstrual cycle is a beautiful, extremely complex hormonal dance. Every time I study it I marvel anew and give glory to God. From my textbook (click to enlarge):

menstrual cycle 001.jpg

My NFP friends can jump in here with more information how breastfeeding causes natural family spacing.


Comments:

Okay - comments are open. There's some technical stuff we're working on. Thanks for your patience.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 6, 2008 6:36 PM


In my opinion, it's better to say that the pill *may* kill as described by the FDA and to act as if it does.

Even if were to turn out that the pill doesn’t alter the lining of the womb so as to prevent implantation, some studies have shown a higher incidence of ectopic pregnancies associated with use of the pill. Ectopic (“wrong place”) pregnancies typically result in the death of the unborn children involved...

It’s not exactly known why there may be an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with the pill. If the pill does indeed cause ectopic pregnancies, this is still, in a sense, preventing implantation in the womb - but by a different post-fertilization mechanism than typically described by pro-lifers.

If it turns out that the pill causes ectopic pregnancies, than indeed it does kill *some of the time*.

Finally, more research is needed on this issue..

While on this subject, please visit the pregnancy page at http://www.NoRoomforContraception.com

Ruben Obregon
No Room for Contraception

Posted by: Ruben at June 6, 2008 7:04 PM


NFP IS MURDER!

“millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rhythm method criticised as a killer of embryos
00:01 25 May 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Alison Motluk

The range of birth control choices may have become narrower for couples that believe the sanctity of life begins when sperm meets egg. The rhythm method, a philosopher claims, may compromise millions of embryos.

“Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” writes Luc Bovens, of the London School of Economics, in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

With other methods of contraception banned by the Catholic church, the rhythm method has been one of the few options available to millions.

In using the rhythm method, couples avoid pregnancy by refraining from sex during a woman’s fertile period. Perfect adherents claim it is over 90% effective – i.e. one couple in 10 will conceive in an average year. But, typically speaking, effectiveness is estimated at closer to 75%.

Now Bovens suggests that for those concerned about embryo loss, the rhythm method may be a bad idea. He argues that, because couples are having sex on the fringes of the fertile period, they are more likely to conceive embryos that are incapable of surviving.

Fertile window
As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says. It is reasonable to assume then, he adds, that embryos created from sperm that has been sitting for days within the female's reproductive tract before ovulation may be disadvantaged.

The situation is similar, he suggests, for eggs that have been waiting around for sperm to arrive. These are the only two likely scenarios where fertilisation might occur using the rhythm method, he points out.

These embryos may then face a less-than-ideal uterine lining, he points out, since the uterus is not as receptive outside of the most fertile period.

Bovens calculates that, if the rhythm method is 90% effective, and if conceptions outside the fertile period are about twice as likely to fail as to survive, then “millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death”.

Pill under fire
Other birth control methods also fail the test in terms of preventing embryo death. The morning-after-pill, for instance, affects the uterine lining, so will prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterine wall.

Even the birth control pill has recently come under fire, since one of the ways it prevents pregnancy is by thinning the uterine lining, again making implantation unlikely.

Randy Alcorn, a pro-lifer and Christian minister in Gresham, Oregon, US, recently stated that “even an infinitesimally low portion – say, one hundredth of 1% – of 780 million pill cycles per year globally could represent tens of thousands of unborn children lost to this form of chemical abortion”.

Fertile fringes
“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.”

Roger Gosden, at the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in New York, US, says: "It's quite plausible that more abnormal embryos are conceived at the limits of sperm - and especially egg - viability," he says, "and that these are more frequent in women practising rhythm contraception than those having unprotected intercourse at random stages of the menstrual cycle."

He recalls that at least one study found that Roman Catholics had higher rates of miscarriage, presumably, he says, due to aged gametes. "Actually confirming this is not easy, though," he admits.

Paul Tully, general secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in London, UK, says this may cause concern to users of natural family planning. "It may lead to adjustment in the way they use it," he says. "But I don't think it will undermine the whole technique."

Journal reference: Journal of Medical Ethics (vol 32, p 355).

Posted by: Laura at June 6, 2008 8:17 PM


A few things to keep in mind regarding breastfeedig and natural child spacing:

I'ts not just any kind of breastfeeding that provides the added benefit of extended infertility; it's the kind that does not implement the use of pacifiers, bottles, feeding schedules,and extended periods of mother-baby separation. Most breastfed babies in our country tend to follow that regimen.

The Couple to Couple League is the only NFP organization, to my knowledge, that includes the how-to's of breastfeeding infertility in its course.

A number of breastfeeding advocacy groups, such as La Leche League and the International Board of Breastfeeding Consultants have long recognized these factors, as well.

The only way an egg can be fertilized is if it's released in that process known as ovulation. Now, if the woman is not ovulating, no egg is released, which means conception cannot occur. And that's where the beauty of systemized NFP comes into play. Our bodies provide signs when ovulation is approaching and has passed. If a woman is able to recognize those signs, then she can know with a great level of certainty where she is in her cycle.

The return of postpartum infertility has its challenges for the NFP practicing couple, that's for sure. We offer guidelines on what to expect and how to chart it.

Jill, I'm betting my bottom dollar your gentle corresponder has not taken a course in NFP and therefore arrived at the conclusion that somehow breastfeeding kills babies based on some flawed A plus B equals C equation.

Posted by: carder at June 6, 2008 8:47 PM


He recalls that at least one study found that Roman Catholics had higher rates of miscarriage, presumably, he says, due to aged gametes. "Actually confirming this is not easy, though," he admits.
This wouldn't surprise me if it were true. It is quite a slam against contraception when you factor in that 80% of Catholics practice some form of birth control.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 6, 2008 8:52 PM


Evil has been called good. It's about time that good was called evil.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 6, 2008 8:55 PM


CWA lists all the scientific arguments.

No, they really don't. The most recent paper they cite is from 2000, and most of the research into the mode of action of Plan B has been done since then. Serge of the Life Training Institute has made a number of posts looking at more recent evidence, and that evidence shows that Plan B probably has no postfertilization effect at all.

Posted by: Jen R at June 6, 2008 8:57 PM


"Serge of the Life Training Institute has made a number of posts looking at more recent evidence, and that evidence shows that Plan B probably has no postfertilization effect at all."

Wow, good. I hope this turns out to be true. Nice work, Jen.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 6, 2008 9:03 PM


Nice work, Serge. I'm just linking. ;)

Posted by: Jen R at June 6, 2008 9:08 PM


I second what Carder posted. I use NFP and have ecologically breastfed all 4 of my children. I knew when I was beginning to ovulate again after each child and my husband and I abstained during that time. Any couple that is truly practicing NFP and not just going thru the motions and using barrier methods alongside it should know the signs and symptoms of returning fertility after childbirth and they would also know when they were beginning to ovulate again and would abstain if they were looking to postpone another pregnancy. I think the most likely scenario in the post breastfeeding miscarriage loss is the one where the child is wanted but due to low progesterone issues that the Dr's don't want to believe/monitor the baby is lost to miscarriage. Unfortunately, I am one of those statistics. I lost 2 children to miscarriage b/c of low progesterone problems following the birth of a my third child. The first Dr. didn't believe me when I told him there was something wrong with my cycle and after the first miscarriage. When I insisted there was something wrong after the second miscarriage he said I didn't know what I was talking about. It is only b/c I practice NFP that I was able to figure out what my problem was and then find a Dr. that believed me and believed in NFP that allowed me to make it to term with my 4th child. Any other Dr. would have made me go thru a third miscarriage before they would have even started looking for the problem.

Posted by: sam at June 6, 2008 9:25 PM


Laura:NFP IS MURDER!

Your title is quite misleading, because the bulk of the article you posted addresses the outdated rhythm method (also known as the calendar method) of following a woman's cycle. The Catholic church now supports the use of Natural Family Planning which offers a more precise predictability of the fertile part of the woman's cycle. Sometimes it is called the sympto-thermal method because it combines the daily taking of the body temperature of the woman along with charting changes in mucous patterns indicating fertility. The only reference to NFP in the article is the last paragraph and undoubtedly, this man doesn't understand there is a marked difference between the old rhythm (calendar) method and the new method, Natural Family Planning (NFP), or just neglects to mention it.

+++++++
From: http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/nfpeng.shtml
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a general name for the methods of family planning that are based on a woman’s menstrual cycle. A woman experiences clear, observable signs indicating when she is fertile and when she is infertile. By learning to observe and understand these signs, couples are enabled to participate in responsible family planning, whether a couple’s situation calls for avoiding or achieving pregnancy. (USCCB, Married Love and the Gift of Life, www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/MarriedLove.pdf) Nov.2006

One study found that only 3.5% of women, age 15-44, had ever used NFP, down from 4.2% seven years ago. The results of another survey show that only 230,000 of sexually active women are currently using modern NFP methods in comparison to 750,000 who still use the outdated Calendar Rhythm method. (Use of NFP in the U.S. Remains Low, Current Medical Research, Vol. 16, #1-2, 2005, 8-13, www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/Win-Sp-05-CMR.pdf)

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 9:40 PM


I'ts not just any kind of breastfeeding that provides the added benefit of extended infertility; it's the kind that does not implement the use of pacifiers, bottles, feeding schedules,and extended periods of mother-baby separation. Most breastfed babies in our country tend to follow that regimen.

I agree with you carder. This is breastfeeding on demand or as sam calls it ecological breastfeeding! I also ecologically breastfed my 4 children and I am so glad I did this.
Carder are you connected with CCL? What a great organization. I use to get their newsletters and they were always very interesting. They would sometimes have charts printed of situations that were difficult to read.
I am sorry about your miscarriages sam.I have a friend who breastfed her children (6 or them) and I believe she had several miscarriages when she became pregnant while still nursing. Finally, she decided to wean her youngest before attempting to get pregnant again. Her doctor (and mine) was very prolife but he really didn't investigate.
Doctors are not too informed on NFP.


Posted by: Patricia at June 6, 2008 9:41 PM


There are actually several kinds of NFP. There is the Billings method which I believe CCL teaches. There is the sympto-thermal method which involves the taking of a woman's basal body temperature each day in the morning before rising in addition to other fertility symptoms and there is also the Creighton method which was being developed when I was a young mom and I believe this method involves very detailed observations of cervical mucous symptoms.
As Janet stated the calendar method hasn't been used in about 40 years. I'm not sure when Billings began his teaching?

Posted by: Patricia at June 6, 2008 9:47 PM


Patricia, I believe the Billings method started to become popular in the early 1970's.

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 10:16 PM


Hahahaha, excellent point, Laura. I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. If they're planning intercourse around times that they'd be less fertile (times that their uterine lining would be unreceptive to a fertilized egg), they're just doing the same thing women on birth control are doing. They just aren't using outside sources of these same hormones, and don't have the luxury of being able to have sex whenever they want. I just can't stop laughing about how they were just up in arms railing over birth control earlier in light of this new information!

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 1:02 AM


If any other pro-contraception/pro-life people want to start getting organized, and maybe help change our image along the way (hopefully. I had no idea that a good portion of the pro-life base seems to be just anti-sex/anti-contraception until recently, and I'm really starting to see where many pro-choicers are coming from now) I'd like to be included. My email is xalisae@gmail.com on myspace and facebook.

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 1:23 AM


x:1:02 and 1:23:
Before you get too hysterical, reread Laura's post. It doesn't give the complete story and is biased against the rhythm method. If embryos are conceived naturally and do not implant naturally, it certainly does not make the couple responsible for a death or "killing" of an embryo. It is the natural way we were designed so as to not get pregnant every time we have sex. Think about it.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 2:24 AM


If embryos are conceived naturally and do not implant naturally, it certainly does not make the couple responsible for a death or "killing" of an embryo.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 2:24 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No.

When you refrain from sex when you're fertile and only conceive when the embryo has no chance of implanting, you INTENTIONALLY ensure that embryo's death.

Allowing that poor little zygote to die in your hostile uterus is exactly the same thing as allowing a toddler to wander out into a blizzard and die of exposure.

Oh the humanity!

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 3:00 AM


Laura,
Very funny.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 3:25 AM


Janet, I have spoken to pro-lifers before who believe not only that NFP is sinful, but that causing the failure of fertilized eggs to implant is abortion because the couple timed their sexual interaction with the intention of avoiding pregnancy -- thus they caused the failure to implant due to their desire to not have a child.

Posted by: Alexandra at June 7, 2008 7:30 AM


Janet: okay that's interesting. I learned the sympto-thermal method in the late 1980's.Some of my friends learned the Billing's method.
Did you know that there are pro-Billing's and pro-STM camps and that they can be quite headstrong about which method is better?

Referring to the email you quoted in your post Jill:
[T]here's a difference in saying there is a possibility (and no one is sure how strong a possibility) that the pill might in the case of breakthrough ovulation prevent a human embryo from implanting and saying with certainty that the "pill kills."

From what I've read, there is also a possibility that breast feeding might have similar effects to the effects the pill has on a woman's body. But I'm not seeing ALL claim "Breastfeeding kills."

I think in no way can one equate the pill with breastfeeding. IMO, there quite possibly may be a difference of intent. When a couple is using the pill, the intent is that their life-giving capabilities are to be completely thwarted. That is, they are actively not open to the possibility of pregnancy and the intent is to render each sexual act infertile.
With breastfeeding, most often fertility does not return for some time especially if nursing is done on demand or "ecologically". While there are exceptions to this scenario (and I just know someone will post these) menses usually don't return for at least 8 mons to a year or so. In my case it was 18 mons.

This provides a "resting" period for the couple so they can enjoy their new baby and the woman can recover from birth and pregnancy. When a woman's cycle returns it can be gradual and or everything just starts up again. For myself it was gradual.

However, many couples who breastfeed in this manner tend to have a certain lifestyle to begin with because breastfeeding ecologically IS a lifestyle. It is usually these couples who show up for more training in NFP methods or come for their first time to learn the method. They are open to the possibility of children but also want to have something to help them increase their chances of waiting just a bit longer for the next baby.
I know when I was young mom, doctors were not supportive of ecological breastfeeding. I was treated with derision after I had my first baby and was questioned about what BC I would be using post-partum. His response during my 6 week post delivery check-up was a stern lecture. After telling him that I was a practicing Catholic, I simply got up and left regardless of whether the visit was over. I never returned to this doctor.

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 7:38 AM


Janet, I have spoken to pro-lifers before who believe not only that NFP is sinful, but that causing the failure of fertilized eggs to implant is abortion because the couple timed their sexual interaction with the intention of avoiding pregnancy -- thus they caused the failure to implant due to their desire to not have a child.

Posted by: Alexandra at June 7, 2008 7:30 AM


I'v met people who feel this way too Alexandra. I believe the thinking is that they "are open to whatever number of children God will give them". My response is that NFP when used properly and (for me as a Catholic as my church teaches) allows us to use our intellect in conjunction with out bodies to help space children for the benefit especially of mother and baby(ies).

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 7:48 AM


So...it's ok to achieve the expulsion of a fertilized egg intentionally as long as you don't take a pill to that effect. Gotcha. Do you all see where you might be wrong on this one? I mean, you were up in arms because the pill MIGHT HAVE (it wasn't even proven that this happens, for crying out loud) the affect of a fertilized egg not implanting. It wasn't even designed for that purpose and doesn't even do that for sure. Then you all start touting the virtues of your contraceptive method which, in all likelyhood DOES DO THAT BY DESIGN because there is no employment of a definitive means of preventing ovulation for certain, and you guys are just a-ok with this. Mmmhmmm.

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 8:22 AM


xalisae: Natural family planning is NOT a contraceptive method.
It is a method which takes into account the woman's natural body rhythms to space children. Since these cycles are part of the way a woman's body works they can be utilized in a manner that is not harmful to the woman nor the couple's marital relationship.
The pill does not function on any level in this manner. It tricks the woman's body into thinking she is pregnant ALL the time and therefore has nothing natural aboutit. Couples who have used the pill and then switch to NFP can vouch for the effect it had on their marriage/relationship. I direct you to Nona Aguilar's The New No Pill, No Risk Birth Control for such testimonies.
I am against the BC pill for a large number of reasons not just the one you cited.

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 9:14 AM


Ah, June 7. I think I'd rather remember this day for the more important things going on.... you know, the Belmont Stakes (GO BIG BROWN!), the fact that I'm getting a new head unit installed in my car today. It's all rather exciting. My only regret is that tonight, I won't be taking an "active" birth control pill in celebration.

I suppose that if I'm sexually active, I should keep myself away from anything that even has the slightest potential to prevent implantation of an embryo. Ok. I'll stop running long distances, I'll shield myself from violent sneezes, and make sure I never get stressed or sick. In fact, I'll never leave the house, get in the car, or drink a cup of coffee. After all, my life and how I run it will never be more important than what can plant itself in my uterus. I must always value my uterus above anything else I can do. Competitive running? NO! IT COULD MURDER AN EMBRYO! I guess I won't be able to run that 155-mile relay next year to raise money for kids with cancer. How SELFISH of me. I should always be thinking of the poor embryos and what I could be doing to them by exerting myself.

I take birth control not so that I can expel embryos, but to manage my twice-a-month periods and dysmenorrhea. If an added intended bonus is that I don't ovulate, then wonderful. I don't want that either because I don't need it, and it's not necessary at this time in my life. I'm 20 years old, in college, and do not need a baby. If I'm sexually active while on the pill for other reasons, my intentions are not to keep an embryo from implanting- my intention is to keep one from ever existing at all.

Posted by: Lyssie at June 7, 2008 10:35 AM


Does it include methods to maintain a physical relationship while delaying/preventing pregnancy? Then it's contraception. Deal with it. Giving things different labels and doing the same things for different reasons does not change what that thing or act does. Just like calling an unborn baby a fetus doesn't make a difference between them. And of course, someone with your relationship expertise and successful track record is a wonderful source of advice as to what might be best for another individual. Are there any husbands currently practicing NFP who would like to endorse it themselves on this thread?

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 10:36 AM


Lyssie: 155-mile relay? WOW!

xalisae: I'll get hold of you on MySpace or Facebook, probably tomorrow night. You might also want to check out my blog for pro-contraception stuff.

I agree with you about NFP and other forms of fertility awareness; I think that the moral distinction between those and other forms of contraception is pretty artificial. I can see other reasons why people would prefer it, but it's still contraception.

Posted by: Jen R at June 7, 2008 10:55 AM


My response is that NFP when used properly and (for me as a Catholic as my church teaches) allows us to use our intellect in conjunction with out bodies to help space children for the benefit especially of mother and baby(ies).

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 7:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...No matter how many embryos you send to their death in order to meet that end.

If you took the pill, you'd suppress ovulation and avoid killing those "baaay-beeees."

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 11:12 AM


Someone said: "The Couple to Couple League is the only NFP organization, to my knowledge, that includes the how-to's of breastfeeding infertility in its course." CCL used to teach the Seven Standards of ecological breastfeeding, but has dropped eco-breastfeeding in its new teachings. CCL has also changed the theology and the method taught.
Instruction on eco-breastfeeding and all the fertility signs and rules can be obtained free by downloading the 100 page "how-to" NFP manual at www.nfpandmore.org. Studies show that the American mother doing eco-breastfeeding, following the 7 Standards, will experience, on the average,14 months without menstruation. It is God's plan for baby care and baby spacing. You do not need a sufficiently serious reason to use this form of NFP and abstinence is not required for this spacing.
The only organizations that I know of that promote and teach ecological breastfeeding is Catholic Nursing Mothers League, www.catholicbreastfeeding.org, and NFP International.
Sheila Kippley, volunteer
NFP International

Posted by: Sheila at June 7, 2008 11:13 AM


NOTICE:

I realize that on other blogs posting as anonymous is allowed, even encouraged. But here on Jill's we are all about conversation. Something that is very difficult when 5 or 6 people are posting under the same moniker.

Jill and I have discussed this, and we have decided that from now on anyone posted as anonymous will be removed.

We are trying to make commenting easier for everyone.

You do not need to put your email in to post. So call yourself Buford, Amos, Clyde or Florence and we still won't know who you are in the real world. But we WILL know who we are speaking with here on Jill's site.

Thanks for understanding...

MK
(with Jill's approval)

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 11:16 AM


Are there any husbands currently practicing NFP who would like to endorse it themselves on this thread?

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 10:36 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know about your husband, but I can tell you without any doubt that Mike is just not that fascinated by my cervical mucus.

SING ALONG!
"Isn't it romantiiiiiiic..."

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 11:20 AM


Lyssie, how many laps of the 155 - mile route do you have to do, personally?

Posted by: Doug at June 7, 2008 11:27 AM


At this point, I'm just training...I'm not signing up for the event until the fall, while I'm in school, because it's an event that runs in conjunction with the school. I will either do that, or a 48-hour dance marathon...both raise money for the same event. Over 6.5 million was raised this year alone, and the money goes directly to families that have children with cancer. It helps pay for housing, treatment, and experimental new therapies that insurance won't give to these brave, heartbreakingly strong little kids. The 155-mile thing is run by teams....the members switch off every ten miles. by the end, someone could have run 30-40 miles depending on the size of the team, or if someone gets too tired to finish a leg. Can't blame them, either....it's run in the dead of winter, too.

Posted by: Lyssie at June 7, 2008 12:51 PM


You guys might remember when I told you that my boyfriend was in this 48-hour dance marathon...he was raising money for the same event. I will have the option to dance this year with my co-ed fraternity...if I don't, then I'll try to do the 155-mile relay. Wish me luck, I have some serious training to do (I have to get back to my state-qualifying cross country shape...that means I have about 10 pounds to lose since being in the best shape of my life). I just ate a bunch of steamed mixed veggies and half a peanut butter sandwich. Mmmm

Posted by: Lyssie at June 7, 2008 12:56 PM


Hi Sheila,

It's wonderful to be corresponding with you. You and John's work have made an earth shattering difference in my life.

I'm the one whose comment you quoted in your post. I'm not yet certified in their new materials, so I was posting based on the soon-to-be-expired course. Yes, the terminology has changed. Having read the new manual, I notice some shifts in how the method will be presented, and am impressed how it's more user-friendly as well as more appealing to the current generation, coupled with the integration of JP II's Theology of the Body. Couldn't tell you how many times I got chuckles from the students when I set up my little slide projector.

I thnk Jill's emailer doesn't understand that the child spacing effects of Eco. BF is a built-in benefit of the postpartum mother. Long before systemic NFP emerged, there was breastfeeding.

I liken it to God giving us moms a break. :0)

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 1:39 PM


"Carder are you connected with CCL?"

I'm a volunteer NFP instructor. I'm the exception and not the rule because my husband does not teach with me. Another story.

To clarify: the Billings Method is a single symptom method (mucus). CCL teaches the Sympto-Thermal method.

Billings began his research around the 50s or 60s if I'm not mistaken. John Billings passed away some time ago. His wife, Evelyn, is still around.

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 1:45 PM


Lyssie, Lyssie,

We're tangling the purpose of breastfeeding and its effects with other events, that, when we unravel the mire, it's quite the blessing.

"I take birth control not so that I can expel embryos, but to manage my twice-a-month periods and dysmenorrhea. If an added intended bonus is that I don't ovulate, then wonderful."

I've already posted sources that could address those issues. If you need a refresher, I'll be glad to re-post them.

Just curious: has your progesterone level ever been checked?

This is a general comment: I have noticed that we all get uptight over abortion, hence this blog. But I'm astounded at the level of animosity when contraception and/or NFP is mentioned.

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 1:56 PM


Is it really healthy to be lactating or pregnant 100% of the time?

Shouldn't you take off 2 years between pregnancies? Doesn't this wreak havoc with your bone density? It sounds like the start of an osteoporosis festival.

Doesn't that create ALL KINDS of career and intmacy issues? Couldn't that destroy your marriage? (Money, kids and sex are the "big three" issues in divorce cases...)

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 1:58 PM


I am too.

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 2:00 PM


That comment was directed toward carder. Also directed toward carder, I think it's because many of us DO feel so strongly about abortion, and we feel that this negative attitude towards contraception some pro-life people have could be possibly responsible for causing more, actual, real abortions.

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 2:30 PM


I don't know if you're sincere or not, Laura. I'm almost expecting a slam dunk/low-blow from you any second.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

"Is it really healthy to be lactating or pregnant 100% of the time?"

I'll be the first to admit I lack a medical pedigree. Without having read the research, my preliminary response would be 'It depends on a variety of factors'. I have read of cases where pregnancy could be hazardous to a women's health(and if you're curious, I could provide the article for you.)

I have personal friends who are going through what you've described. Either they're pregannt or nursing or both. Three have been doing this for at least a decade and they are in great shape.

There are some health benefits from extended BTW.

"Doesn't that create ALL KINDS of career and intmacy issues? Couldn't that destroy your marriage?"


Wouldn't that depend on the state of their marriage prior to all these issues? Not saying that divorces don't happen after multiple children; it would be simplistic to say constantly breastfeeding/pregnancy causes divorce. That's where all those virtues necessary for marriage get its workout. Patience, understanding, compassion along with a healthy dose of communication.

On another note, I want you to remain a blog regular. Keeps us on our toes.

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 2:45 PM


Should have read "There are some health benefits from extended breastfeeding, BTW.

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 2:48 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "Natural family planning is NOT a contraceptive method."

What a stupid thing to say. Of course it is a contraceptive method. What else is it?

Posted by: SoMG at June 7, 2008 3:58 PM


Breastfeeding is Normative and Life-Giving

Breastfeeding is the normal and unparalleled means to nourish the human infant and to successfully space births. According to The American Academy of Pediatrics, "Increased duration of breastfeedin confers significant health benefits for the child and the mother, especially in delaying return of fertility (thereby promoting optimal intervals between births.)"1 Ecological Breastfeeding is exclusive, frequent, and unrestricted nursing. It is the primary factor leading to natural lactation amenorrhea (cessation of menstruation) and sustained extended infertility.

Ecological Breastfeeding hormonally shuts off the mother's ovulation, causing a 99% chance of not becoming pregnant for the first 6 months post-partum. For accurate information, see 'Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing', by Sheila Kippley 2: and The Couple to Couple League International, which teaches Ecological Breastfeeding in conjunction with The 99% effective Modern Sympto-Thermal Method of Natural Family Planning (NFP). 3

Breastfeeding is preferred, normative, and recommended for virtually all infants worldwide due to its many advantages: nutrition, protection from disease, immunity, child development, relationship bonding, natural child spacing, decrease in breast cancer of the mother, and global health benefits. Mother's milk is alive. It contains custom-made living cells and antibodies.

All responsible authoritative agencies recommend breastfeding: The American Academy of Pediatrics 2005 Policy (nursing"...should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child." and "There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding.")4 ; also, The World Health Organization in 2003 ("...infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life; then, with added foods "...while breasteeding continues for up to two years of age or beyond.")5

The best care and feeding for the infant is also the best care for the mother, the father, the whole family, indeed, for the entire world. If an early coincidental miscarriage occurs, it is unconscionably fallacious, irresponsibly scurrilous, and lacking in compassion to insinuate any malevolent culpibility whatsoever to a lactating mother for breastfeeding her child and/or reserving conjugal intercourse to her less fertile days.

The loving act of maternal nursing and the provision to the baby of the irreplaceable qualities of mother's milk respects the natural life-giving ecology of human reproduction, marriage, healthy development, and world resources. Normal human ecology encompassses ordinary pre-implantation embryonic loss and spontaneous miscarriage, which by defintion, are uncaused and not culpable to intention, but to fate. Life happens and death inevitably follows at some indeliberate moment anywhere along the lifespan from conception to old age, according to the mysterious Providence of God.

To say that breastfeeding or NFP kills is to say that sex kills. No, it is like saying that love kills, since it is love-making that creates the tiny life that dies...

Non sequitur.


1. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)'Breastfeeding and The Use of Human Milk" 2005

2. 'Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing: How Ecological Breastfeeding Spaces Babies' by Sheila Kippley

3. The Couple to Couple League International www.ccli.org

4. AAP, 2005

5. 'Global Strategy for Infant and Young Feeding' Geneva, World Health Organization, 2003

Posted by: Pro-Life MD at June 7, 2008 4:31 PM


The best care and feeding for the infant is also the best care for the mother, the father, the whole family, indeed, for the entire world. If an early coincidental miscarriage occurs, it is unconscionably fallacious, irresponsibly scurrilous, and lacking in compassion to insinuate any malevolent culpibility whatsoever to a lactating mother for breastfeeding her child and/or reserving conjugal intercourse to her less fertile days.

The loving act of maternal nursing and the provision to the baby of the irreplaceable qualities of mother's milk respects the natural life-giving ecology of human reproduction, marriage, healthy development, and world resources. Normal human ecology encompassses ordinary pre-implantation embryonic loss and spontaneous miscarriage, which by defintion, are uncaused and not culpable to intention, but to fate. Life happens and death inevitably follows at some indeliberate moment anywhere along the lifespan from conception to old age, according to the mysterious Providence of God.

To say that breastfeeding or NFP kills is to say that sex kills. No, it is like saying that love kills, since it is love-making that creates the tiny life that dies...

Non sequitur.

Thank you Pro-life MD!

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 8:39 PM


x Said: Does it include methods to maintain a physical relationship while delaying/preventing pregnancy? Then it's contraception. Deal with it.

You mean sexual? No, it doesn't.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 8:43 PM


This is a general comment: I have noticed that we all get uptight over abortion, hence this blog. But I'm astounded at the level of animosity when contraception and/or NFP is mentioned.

Posted by: carder at June 7, 2008 1:56 PM

It's amazing what pro-aborts will say to detract from the abortion issue itself. I've never heard such accusations about Natural Family Planning in my life. Pro- life MD's comment at 4:31: was perfectly logical, especially: To say that breastfeeding or NFP kills is to say that sex kills. No, it is like saying that love kills, since it is love-making that creates the tiny life that dies... Non sequitur.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 8:48 PM


"The 155-mile thing is run by teams....the members switch off every ten miles. by the end, someone could have run 30-40 miles depending on the size of the team, or if someone gets too tired to finish a leg. Can't blame them, either....it's run in the dead of winter, too."

If you can do all of this tough cross-country training, runnning marathons, etc, then you can do without the pill young lady.


Posted by: Jasper at June 7, 2008 9:34 PM


Jill said: As I understand it, to this day no one can unequivocably state how the birth control pill works. But almost all pill packaging lists 3 possibilities, 1 of which is it can make the uterus impermeable to the 5- to 9-day-old embryo attaching.

That's amazing! I never knew that.

Why argue against this possibility, particularly when knowing the information is published by those wishing it weren't so?

Got me. I'd be inclined to believe them.

If they could not say it, they would not say it

Right!

And if there is a possibility, should one play contraceptive Russian Roulette?

Maybe some people like to live on the wild side?

Don't we always err on the side of life?

I guess not. Wow.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 9:38 PM


If you can do all of this tough cross-country training, runnning marathons, etc, then you can do without the pill young lady.

Posted by: Jasper at June 7, 2008 9:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That made so sense whatsoever...

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 10:01 PM


What a stupid thing to say. Of course it is a contraceptive method. What else is it?


Posted by: SoMG at June 7, 2008 3:58 PM

SoMG: if you knew anything about NFP you would not be making such a STUPID statement.
A couple using BC pills, condoms etc are doing so with the intent of thwarting each and every act of sexual intercourse of its life giving capabilities. A couple using a natural family planning method abstains from sexual relations during the time when the wife is fertile. During these times the couple finds other means to express their love and affection for one another. During other times in the woman's cycle, although there may be no chance of conceiving (such as during the definitely infertile time) or a reduced chance of conceiving (such as during the relatively infertile time) the couple remains open to the possibility of conceiving and this is shown by their attitude and the fact that nothing is used to impair the generative function of their act.
Thus, it is the intent that is very different from the contracepting couple and the fact that the procreative aspect of the sexual act is never separated from the unitive aspect.
Either you know all this SoMG or you just don't accept it - and that is your problem, and not mine.

Thank you prolife MD what an excellent post!
To say that breastfeeding or NFP kills is to say that sex kills. No, it is like saying that love kills, since it is love-making that creates the tiny life that dies...

Yes, what these statements demonstrate is how something very good and morally correct is twisted to become evil.
Pregnancy is a disease, a baby is a bunch of cells, abortion is safer than birth, breastfeeding kills babies...
Does anyone see a trend here?

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 10:14 PM


Jasper wrote:
If you can do all of this tough cross-country training, runnning marathons, etc, then you can do without the pill young lady.

Need your reading glasses, old man? She takes the Pill to prevent the incapacitating effects of her period that would make it impossible for her to train for or participate in such events.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 7, 2008 10:30 PM


I just don't get it.

Using NFP that MIGHT send an embryo to die in an inhospitable uterus is OK because it's natural?

Using a pill that MIGHT send an embryo to an inhospitable uterus is bad because it's synthetic?

What's the difference?
Either way you're intentionally thwarting the implantation process.

In fact, the pill is better as it helps ensure that there's no embryo in the first place.
NFP does NOTHING to suppress ovulation, resulting in more embryo death.

Posted by: Laura at June 7, 2008 10:33 PM


Is it really healthy to be lactating or pregnant 100% of the time?

Shouldn't you take off 2 years between pregnancies? Doesn't this wreak havoc with your bone density? It sounds like the start of an osteoporosis festival.


First of all NO WOMAN is pregnant and/or lactating 100% of the time for very long. A woman will usually have at least a few periods between pregnancies and lactating. The time between pregnancies is really up to the couple and their circumstances.

From the La Leche League site:
Another important element used in producing milk is calcium. Because women lose calcium while lactating, some health professionals have mistakenly assumed an increased risk of osteoporosis for women who breastfeed. However, current studies show that after weaning their children, breastfeeding mothers' bone density returns to prepregnancy or even higher levels (Sowers 1995). In the longterm, lactation may actually result in stronger bones and reduced risk of osteoporosis. In fact, recent studies have confirmed that women who did not breastfeed have a higher risk of hip fractures after menopause (Cummings 1993).

Cumming, R.G. et al. Breastfeeding and other reproductive factors and the risk of hip fractures in elderly women. Int J Epidemiol 1993; 22(4):684-91.

Sowers, M., Randolph, J., Shapiro, S. Jannausch, M. A prospective study of bone density and pregnancy after an extended period of lactation with bone loss. Ostet Gynecol 1995; 85:285.

Sinigaglia, L., Varenna, M., Binelli, L., Gallazzi, M., Calori, G., Ranza, R. Effect of lactation on postmenopausal bone mineral density of the lumbar spine. J Reprod Med 1996;41:439.

For a bibliography on breastfeeding and osteoporosis see the following:
http://www.llli.org/cbi/bibosteoporosis.html

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 10:37 PM


Ugh. Where to start?

MD: I think breastfeeding is great, too. I breastfeed my 4 month old son whenever he's hungry, and plan on doing so until he's at least 6 months old. I still got my tubes tied though, because this is going to be our last biological child, hopefully, and I don't intend on breastfeeding him until he's 5 and quite possibly mess him up psychologically (like my grandmother did with my youngest uncle)just so I can romp with his dad in the sack without having to get ready for any more wonderful children, as much as I wouldn't mind that if it were to happen.

And, let me see if I fully understand what you're saying here (SARCASM ALERT!): The blessed alternative to the pill is using natural methods to dose yourself with the same hormones which serve the same purpose, only they're less effective and the effectiveness of this method steadily declines after the first 6 months, which in all likelyhood INCREASES the chance that a fertilized egg is being passed without implantation, but it's ok, because doing things this way earns you cool points with the pope and god. Everyone else who uses the pill-by default-is just a loose woman with no capacity to feel love or be in a committed relationship. Gotcha.

Oh, I proofread this paragraph for ya:

"If an early coincidental miscarriage occurs, it is unconscionably fallacious, irresponsibly scurrilous, and lacking in compassion to insinuate any malevolent culpibility whatsoever to a WOMAN TAKING ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES for reserving conjugal intercourse to her less fertile days."

You can thank me later. Although, I believe your statement labeling the passing of a fertilized egg through the uterus without implantation a "miscarriage" falacious, and somewhat insulting to women who've experienced ACTUAL miscarriages, like my mother. (She's Catholic and pro-life, but happens to feel the same way I do. Heck, she's even got street cred. with having had 9 pregnancies, 6 of those producing living children. She had to get her tubes tied because the doctor said if she got pregnant again, she'd probably die. She also happens to take oral contraceptives for her endometriosis)

And, I'm sorry, but the "We'll just leave it in God's Hands. HE works in mysterious ways, you know!" statement doesn't work for me, and hasn't for quite some time. I'm an atheist. :D

I also find your insinuation that any sexual contact while using contraceptive methods outside of NFP lacks emotional ties, closeness, and love to be VERY insulting. ;)


NEXT,

Janet:
1.) I'm not a pro-abort. I'm an anti-abortion, pro-life, atheist, war-supporting, mother of 2 Republican. I also happen to think that having a life is an important part of living, and I think it goes hand in hand with actually being "pro-life". From what I've seen lately, most people here just seem to be "pro-being-alive-and-making-other-living-people".

2.) By the statements from MD and Patricia of what NFP is (and wikipedia, by the way), it IS contraception. I thought you agreed so wholeheartedly with MD? Do you just glance at the posts, pick out the people you think you should agree with without reading or comprehending what they say, state your agreement, and leave it at that? Thinking is hard, isn't it? ;_;

Patricia:

"A couple using a natural family planning method abstains from sexual relations during the time when the wife is fertile. During these times the couple finds other means to express their love and affection for one another. During other times in the woman's cycle, although there may be no chance of conceiving (such as during the definitely infertile time) or a reduced chance of conceiving (such as during the relatively infertile time) the couple remains open to the possibility of conceiving and this is shown by their attitude and the fact that nothing is used to impair the generative function of their act."

If they were 100% "open to the possibility of conceiving", they would ONLY be doing "their act" at the woman's most fertile times. They are INTENTIONALLY having sex at inopportune times for egg implantation. That is contraception. Attempt to sugar-coat it any way you want to make you feel better, but you're just being ignorant.

Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 10:57 PM


Laura :10:33 : Laura, I think this comment by Pro-life MD @ 4:31: is key to understanding NFP. It might be easier to understand if you don't try to compare it to Artificial BC.

Normal human ecology encompassses ordinary pre-implantation embryonic loss and spontaneous miscarriage, which by defintion, are uncaused and not culpable to intention, but to fate. Life happens and death inevitably follows at some indeliberate moment anywhere along the lifespan from conception to old age, according to the mysterious Providence of God.

To say that breastfeeding or NFP kills is to say that sex kills. No, it is like saying that love kills, since it is love-making that creates the tiny life that dies...

Non sequitur.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 11:01 PM


x:
"Thinking is hard?" Well aren't you in a chipper mood tonight?

I apologize for calling you a pro-abort. (It must come from your angry tone?) MD didn't use the word contraception in her post, and Patricia commented to SoMG that NFP is NOT contraception, so I don't know where you get the idea that I'm wrong. May be we define contraception differently????? I would be willing to say that NFP is a natural contraceptive method, IMO, but I'm not a medical professional.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 11:12 PM


If they were 100% "open to the possibility of conceiving", they would ONLY be doing "their act" at the woman's most fertile times. They are INTENTIONALLY having sex at inopportune times for egg implantation. That is contraception. Attempt to sugar-coat it any way you want to make you feel better, but you're just being ignorant.


Posted by: xalisae at June 7, 2008 10:57 PM

Sorry X, but you are the one distorting the meaning here. The contraceptive mentality divorces the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex each and every time.
It is true that some couples will use NFP because they want a natural contraceptive method. In fact, some couples use NFP and then use a condom during the woman's fertile times - thus defeating any benefits to the method other than maybe the physical ones.
However often when a couple continues to use the method, the benefits have a spillover effect into other parts of their lives and marriages.
It is all about intent. The intention behind the action is what defines it.
If a couple chooses NFP with the idea that they are very open to having children and that they would like to space their children for the benefit of mom and baby, it will not be contraceptive because the intent behind the action (to welcome new life should it come but to offer some space to the mother)is quite different. If they know it would not be such a good time to become pregnant again (say 6 months postpartum) then by simply not have relations during the wife's fertile times is not contraceptive. They wish to be open to life WHENEVER they have sexual relations - they wish to do nothing to impair the generative function of the each sexual act at any time. Therefore, they refrain when the possibility of pregnancy occurs. It is sacrificial in one respect for them. However, should they on the whim of the moment, in the heat of passion, decide to have sex during the fertile portion, then they remain open to that possibility of new life.
IN fact the method functions in such a manner that each day the woman examines and records her fertility symptoms and the couple makes a decision each day regarding their fertility.

It is this attitude that is completely different from the contraceptive attitude which is the total negation of the gift of life that each spouse gives one another.

I would encourage you to give it a try X, before you dismiss it.

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 11:20 PM


x:
One more thing. This is a pro-life blog. Jill asked for comments about NFP. My comments are not directed to you personally. I don't really care what BC control method you use, and it doesn't matter to me if you don't believe in God, it's not my business. Good night.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 11:21 PM


From what I've seen lately, most people here just seem to be "pro-being-alive-and-making-other-living-people".

This IS a big part of what being pro life is about. BEing open to new life on a daily and sacrificial basis.

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 11:24 PM


Janet: X's post was very bitter and harsh. it would seem that contraception is a very sensitive topic for many people. You have responded well.

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 11:27 PM


Patricia,
Thank you. You too. Nite!

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 11:30 PM


Sweet dreams. Im off now too!

Posted by: Patricia at June 7, 2008 11:35 PM


Divorce and failed marriages is also a sensitive topic for some people too.

Posted by: Hester Prynne at June 7, 2008 11:40 PM


X and Laura,

A number of points:

1. Here is an NFP husband backing the method. Yes, there are a few times that it causes sacrifice of immediate desires for pleasure. However, a healthy marriage requires sacrifice of selfish desires for the good of the family, and I feel that my wife and I have such a strong marriage in part due to NFP. NFP causes in-depth conversations to occur regularly. Communication failures, on the other hand, are the root of many divorces.

2. If a fertilized egg finds an unwelcome uterus, it will do so whether or not NFP is used. An egg is only available to be fertilized for a little while- it lives for only 12-24 hours after ovulation (release from the ovary) if it is not fertilized. Couples who try to "cheat" NFP by having intercourse at the fringes of fertility cannot affect the timing of an egg release or the condition of the uterus. Thus, NFP is not like the pill, which might artificially create a hostile environment.

3. NFP is not a contraceptive. Why? A most basic reason is that no contraceptive can help a couple achieve pregnancy. NFP has helped many couples who have been diagnosed as infertile achieve pregnancy, as well as thousands of couples who just want another child. A relative was essentially taught NFP by a fertiliy doctor a couple of years ago, though the name NFP was never used. This relative described to me the lessons on charting, cervical mucus, and basal temperature, and I just nodded and said, "That's NFP!"

4. I will concede, however, that for some, a contraceptive mentality enters the NFP equation. It is not common, because of the regular deferral of intercourse causes a couple to re-examine and re-affirm their reasons to not desire a pregnancy. But it can occur.

5. Patricia, some woman are pregnant or lactating 100% of the time for quite a while. My wife has been since Oct. 2003, when she became pregnant with our first, and has been nursing at least one since the following year. Number 3 is due in December, so I think she's good on that account until 2010 at least. My wife is in very good health, and no doctor has questioned or cautioned us about the nursing or pregnancies.

Michael

Posted by: Michael at June 8, 2008 12:12 AM


I tend to not play well with others when things get personal.

"It is this attitude that is completely different from the contraceptive attitude which is the total negation of the gift of life that each spouse gives one another."

For your information, I happened to be using contraception when I concieved my daughter. I find it INFURIATING that you would assume that since I was inclined to use contraceptives (even though they didn't happen to be oral b.c. at that time), I would also somehow be inclined to be hostile or harmful to my baby. Being of the "contraceptive mentality" DOES NOT EQUAL "not being open to new life". It's what I base my freaking ideals on, for the love of goodness. My entire personal philosophy is: Enjoy your significant other in all facets. Have a happy relationship. Explore each other in whatever ways you please. However, ALWAYS keep in mind that WHENEVER you partake of carnal pleasures, NO BIRTH CONTROL/CONTRACEPTION/ETC. is 100%, so be prepared to accept and love any and all new life which is created.

I find it terribly offensive to think that just because I might think that getting pregnant might not be the best of ideas at a certain time, and I still might like to enjoy relations with my significant other, I would be harsh to or even possibly harm our offspring. I find your words cruel, judgemental, ignorant, and downright false.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 12:24 AM


"1. Here is an NFP husband backing the method. Yes, there are a few times that it causes sacrifice of immediate desires for pleasure. However, a healthy marriage requires sacrifice of selfish desires for the good of the family, and I feel that my wife and I have such a strong marriage in part due to NFP. NFP causes in-depth conversations to occur regularly. Communication failures, on the other hand, are the root of many divorces."

1.)Here's my main problem with most of you NFP people: the way you phrase things, you seem to be of a mind that your NFP is sooooo much better than those sluts on their oral contraceptives, just because it's "natrual" and "god's plan". I don't have any problem with your personal philosophy, but I'm also not saying that you're flawed because you use it, or that you shouldn't be allowed to use it because it's killing babies, and you seem to be saying the converse for us about the pill. My husband and I make sacrifies for our marriage/relationship/family. All people do. Some people don't have to make the same sacrifices we do. Some people don't have to pass on a new computer as we would because they have better paying jobs. Some people who have better paying jobs might have to pass on having children for a time because their jobs are more demanding of them. We don't think that those people having more money make them better than us, and we don't think we're better than them because we have children. Making sacrifices is well and good, but we happen to think that if you can find a way to not have to make so many sacrifices, the more sacrifice we can cut out, the better. We don't have to sacrifice the frequency of our bonding ritual/adult fun time/ultimate expression of how much we love each other because we found a way to not have to do so. Also, my husband and I communicate quite well. We communicate now that he's deployed in Iraq and we are not having sex for more than a whole year just as well as we communicated when he was here and we were living together and sharing our marital bed often (only my hairdresser knows for sure just HOW often. :X ). We talk extensively AT LEAST once a day, about all kinds of things. :)

"2. If a fertilized egg finds an unwelcome uterus, it will do so whether or not NFP is used. An egg is only available to be fertilized for a little while- it lives for only 12-24 hours after ovulation (release from the ovary) if it is not fertilized. Couples who try to "cheat" NFP by having intercourse at the fringes of fertility cannot affect the timing of an egg release or the condition of the uterus. Thus, NFP is not like the pill, which might artificially create a hostile environment."

2.) So...just because it's a naturally manipulated environment rather than an artificially manipulated one, that makes all the difference...this will NEVER make sense to me. But, ya know, plenty of women have gotten pregnant while on the pill. I really think you guys are bringing some trumped-up charges against this thing, and sometimes I wonder if it isn't out of jealousy.


"3. NFP is not a contraceptive. Why? A most basic reason is that no contraceptive can help a couple achieve pregnancy. NFP has helped many couples who have been diagnosed as infertile achieve pregnancy, as well as thousands of couples who just want another child. A relative was essentially taught NFP by a fertiliy doctor a couple of years ago, though the name NFP was never used. This relative described to me the lessons on charting, cervical mucus, and basal temperature, and I just nodded and said, "That's NFP!" "

3.) I disagree. Discontinuing an oral contraceptive which had helped regulate an irregular cycle or normalized the cycle of someone with some sort of disorder so that they could more reliably predict that person's fertility would theoretically achieve this. Although, a condom is a form of barrier contraceptive, but if you took a condom full of semen and dumped it in the right place, it could facilitate pregnancy too.


4.) ok.


5.) Umm...yeah...my grandmother went through 12 pregnancies, and breastfed 9 children that lived, one until he was 5 years old...so...just...yeah.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 12:55 AM


A lot of you seem to be big on the "intent" buzzword; that is, if you are taking BC, you are "intentionally" killing a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting.

However, since there is no proof this actually happens, one could argue that they are NOT in fact intending to abort a fertilized egg by taking this pill, but rather they are simply trying to avoid ovulation.

I don't see a difference in that opinion, and the idea that a women drinking caffeine is off the hook because her actions may inadvertently kill a child as well.

She may not have the intent. But it happened. C'est la vie.

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 12:59 AM


x:
I'm back, not sleepy, I guess. Give your husband a big THANK YOU for being in Iraq. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you. As I said before, nothing I say here about NFP is meant to be personal. I word things the way I do to be clear, but definitely not accusatory.

Here's my main problem with most of you NFP people: the way you phrase things, you seem to be of a mind that your NFP is sooooo much better than those sluts on their oral contraceptives, just because it's "natrual" and "god's plan".....

That's not even close to how I feel. You seem to make a whole lot of assumptions about "us NFP people". You don't even know me. Why not listen to what I actually say instead of making generalizations and I will do the same for you. Remember, these studies on BC are not conclusive, this is only a discussion. I happen to use NFP because I'm Catholic and I want to follow Church teaching. I don't think I'm better than anyone who doesn't, and you shouldn't be angry at me for it. I realize that there are good people who use BC who would never consider aborting if they became pregnant. That's a good thing. I'm glad you are pro-life.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:14 AM


I'm sorry, Janet. A lot of my harsh feelings are coming from the first few posts about this whole "BC kills" thing that were made by Patricia and someone who I can't remember whose name started with a "K". Those really were mean-spirited, from what I gathered, and I know you didn't contribute to that, so I'm sorry I directed any anger towards you, it wasn't your fault, and you really kinda just got caught in the crossfire.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 1:19 AM


5. Patricia, some woman are pregnant or lactating 100% of the time for quite a while. My wife has been since Oct. 2003, when she became pregnant with our first, and has been nursing at least one since the following year. Number 3 is due in December, so I think she's good on that account until 2010 at least. My wife is in very good health, and no doctor has questioned or cautioned us about the nursing or pregnancies.

Michael

Posted by: Michael at June 8, 2008 12:12 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She's been pregnant and/or nursing at least one (sometimes more than one?) for five years?

That's her choice, but in my 45 years, I've never met a woman who would choose that lifestyle.

Asking other women to live that way because YOU oppose birth control is simply wrong.

(I've always wondered how those people plan to educate their children with anything less than a six-figure income. My sisters and friends space their children with the anticipaction of looming private school and $200,000.00 college tuition bills. I guess I believe that a woman who's pregnant or breastfeeding 100% of the time is NOT pullng down a professional's salary.)

Posted by: Laura at June 8, 2008 1:20 AM


EDYT: 12:59:

What side are you on?

Intent is nine-tenths of the law, right? Isn't that how God generally looks at things, too?

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:21 AM


Laura 1:20:

Asking other women to live that way because YOU oppose birth control is simply wrong.

Michael is only indicating his family's situation, not telling you you have to do the same. Do you see the difference?

Do you think that I feel PC'rs are telling me, a PL'r, that I need to abort my babies? I don't.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:26 AM


Michael is only indicating his family's situation, not telling you you have to do the same. Do you see the difference?
to abort my babies? I don't.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:26 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Janet, with all due respect, this thread is based on the views of people who want to outlaw contraception. The spokesman fron "No Room For Contraception" has posted here. There was a march yesterday consisting of people who would outlaw contraception.
That is just mind-blowing for most people who post here.

Posted by: Laura at June 8, 2008 1:33 AM


xalisae:1:19:
No problem. Sometimes it's hard to have a discussion when there are several people around. I think name of the "The Pill Kills" campaign by the American Life League is pretty inflammatory myself.

I don't think Patricia was off-base in her comments at all at the beginning of this thread, for the record. You didn't post until after Laura had inserted her "NFP Kills" comment, which was worse than anything else said to that point. You aren't Laura, are you? No offense, if you aren't....Nothing surprises me lately. Anyways, have a good evening..

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:37 AM


Janet, with all due respect, this thread is based on the views of people who want to outlaw contraception. The spokesman fron "No Room For Contraception" has posted here. There was a march yesterday consisting of people who would outlaw contraception.
That is just mind-blowing for most people who post here.

Posted by: Laura at June 8, 2008 1:33 AM

You must be talking about Ruben at 7:04. I see how that might unsettle you...Until yesterday I had never heard of this campaign. I'm not about to make a judgement on it until all the facts are in, but I would like to find out the truth as much as you would.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 1:46 AM


What side are you on?

Intent is nine-tenths of the law, right? Isn't that how God generally looks at things, too?

"Side"?

Are we back to playing cowboys and indians again? Good guys, bad guys? I can't have an honest discussion with pro-lifers because I'm pro-choice? I can't have a religious discussion because I'm an atheist?

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 1:46 AM


I don't think it was on this thread. It was the first one that came up a day or two ago, I think it was posted on Friday. It was a bunch of highly insulting stuff, spouting out about how contraception pretty much makes men into rapists, totally prevents intercourse based on love and respect, and some other silly things I and most others who support birth control saw as derrogotory aimed toward us.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 2:01 AM


What side are you on?
Intent is nine-tenths of the law, right? Isn't that how God generally looks at things, too?

"Side"?

Are we back to playing cowboys and indians again? Good guys, bad guys? I can't have an honest discussion with pro-lifers because I'm pro-choice? I can't have a religious discussion because I'm an atheist?

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 1:46 AM

I guess most of your posts confuse me. You have an aggressive and sometimes sarcastic style and it's very hard to know where you stand sometimes. I like simple, straightforward answers. Oh, please stop playing the atheist card. It gets old after a while.


Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 2:04 AM


Let's go play atheist cards together, Edyt. Go fish? ;P

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 2:10 AM


Edyt: A lot of you seem to be big on the "intent" buzzword; that is, if you are taking BC, you are "intentionally" killing a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting.

Since this has not been proven, it is speculation, therefore I am not accusing anyone of being a killer. I do not consider a pregnant woman who drinks a little caffeine to be a killer either. Why do you ASSUME I would?

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 2:12 AM


x & E :

I prefer cowboys and indians!
Let's call a truce? ; )

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 2:15 AM


Edyt,
Speaking of "good guys" - "bad guys". We were posting back and forth about that the other day and then you never asnsered my last question to you so I am reposting it here cause I would really like to better understand your position:
*******
Not to be rude, but calling yourselves the "good guys" doesn't help out your protest efforts either. Painting everyone else as the "bad guys" makes you sound like children playing a game of cowboys and indians. It's not that simple. This is not a black and white issue. People are not just good or bad guys, and that sort of simplification is what alienates others and makes them think pro-lifers really don't see people as people.

Posted by: Edyt at June 1, 2008 12:36 AM

Edyt,
nice guys - people who care for other and willingly sacrifice themselves for the welfare of others. et al. don't kill baby's in the womb to make their own lives easie. Simple as that.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 1, 2008 12:50 AM

TS,

Like I said, you can believe whatever you want, but it will hurt your cause. Those people you call the "bad guys" are just going to laugh at the ridiculousness of that statement and not change their minds anyway. Of course, if it really is just spectacle and blaming people, continue on.

Posted by: Edyt at June 1, 2008 12:52 AM

Edyt,
I gave you my definition of "nice guy". Somebody who sacrifices for the benefit of others

What is you definition? I want to understand how nice guys could kill babies in their mother's womb.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 8, 2008 2:21 AM


Janet, smoking heapum wampum on peace pipe?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 8, 2008 2:26 AM


I don't think it was on this thread. It was the first one that came up a day or two ago, I think it was posted on Friday. It was a bunch of highly insulting stuff, spouting out about how contraception pretty much makes men into rapists, totally prevents intercourse based on love and respect, and some other silly things I and most others who support birth control saw as derrogotory aimed toward us.
Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 2:01 AM

xalisae,
It is silly for someone to say birth control makes men into rapists. Comsentual sex on birth control is NOT rape. And it doesn't totally prevent love and respect in intercourse either. You are a shining example of that. You conceived your baby while on birth control and gave birth to said child. That means you were "open" to a child. Now if you used birth control and had a preconceived notion that you would abort any child you might conceive, then that would be sex void of love and respect. Does that make sense?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 8, 2008 2:35 AM


5. Patricia, some woman are pregnant or lactating 100% of the time for quite a while. My wife has been since Oct. 2003, when she became pregnant with our first, and has been nursing at least one since the following year. Number 3 is due in December, so I think she's good on that account until 2010 at least. My wife is in very good health, and no doctor has questioned or cautioned us about the nursing or pregnancies.

Michael

Posted by: Michael at June 8, 2008 12:12 AM


Hey Michael: this is really wonderful for you. A number of my friends have large families and have used NFP and breastfeeding and all the women are in good shape.
I had 4 children and was pregnant and breastfeeding for about 11 years all together. I also have a very slight build and I have no problems with osteo.

X,
First of all you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.
When a woman takes a contraceptive her intention is to prevent herself from having a baby. This means she is not open to having a baby, hence the contraceptive.
However, absolutely, some women when they do get pregnant on the pill (and I know someone who got pregnant on several different types of contraceptives!) are accepting of the situation. They are not "hostile to the baby".

But many are not of this mindset, hence the current situation with abortion. One contraceptive mentality leads to another and so forth. I would say your choice of words, that they are hostile to the baby, EXACTLY defines the current contraceptive mentality by both men and women.

However, ALWAYS keep in mind that WHENEVER you partake of carnal pleasures, NO BIRTH CONTROL/CONTRACEPTION/ETC. is 100%, so be prepared to accept and love any and all new life which is created.

I would submit that most people using contraceptives do NOT have this attitude, xalisae. If they did, we would not have the abortion rates we experience today.

Believe me, no NFP user is JEALOUS of you taking the pill. In fact, they would probably LOVE to see you use NFP, knowing well the benefits they personally experience.

Discontinuing an oral contraceptive which had helped regulate an irregular cycle or normalized the cycle of someone with some sort of disorder so that they could more reliably predict that person's fertility would theoretically achieve this.

It would be likely that it would take months for the effects of the contraceptive to wear off. It would be better for the couple to chart the woman's cycles after coming off the pill, so her fertility could be monitored and thus they can be helped to conceive.

I'm sorry, Janet. A lot of my harsh feelings are coming from the first few posts about this whole "BC kills" thing that were made by Patricia and someone who I can't remember whose name started with a "K". Those really were mean-spirited, from what I gathered, and I know you didn't contribute to that, so I'm sorry I directed any anger towards you, it wasn't your fault, and you really kinda just got caught in the crossfire.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 1:19 AM

My comments were not mean-spirited. I was simply telling you the rationale behind NFP and why people use the method. This is based on my own experience, the experience of my friends - some of whom started out their marriages using contraceptives and eventually began to use NFP. These people SAW a remarkable change in their marriages.
Despite the fact that my own marriage was not good and failed, I can categorically state that I would have been much worse off, had I NOT used NFP. It was through NFP and breastfeeding, that I was protected and my children were also protected. I will not go into details about this suffice it to say it was so, in hindsight.

We communicate now that he's deployed in Iraq...

It is my hope xalisae, that your dearly beloved, comes home soon to you, safe and sound. God bless.


Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 8:21 AM


X,

1. Re: Communication. Reread this thread and what I said. People wanted an NFP husband to endorse the method. I did. One of the reasons I endorse it is because it helps us with communication, one of the main failures in modern society because we're all too busy seeking "personal fulfillment". (Hostility here is not directed toward you but to the mentality that more of stuff, events, experiences, etc. is better.) I'm glad you and your husband communicate well.

And I second the earlier comment thanking your family for their service to the country.

"2.) So...just because it's a naturally manipulated environment rather than an artificially manipulated one, that makes all the difference...this will NEVER make sense to me.

No, it's not manipulated at all. That's a key difference. With NFP, you're not manipulating the woman's body at all. If the uterus is hostile to a fertilized egg, NFP had nothing to do with it.

Laura, my wife choose to tandem nurse our first two, and the second will be weaned (~2.5 years) right about when the third arrives. Nursing at age 2 is about comfort and solace, not nutrition. And yes, she's the one who wanted to do it this way.

Finally, our kids' educations will be paid for as ours were: scholarships, need-based grants, and student loans. There's a lot less wasted time in college when each additional semester comes out of your own pocket, in general. Plus, each dollar saved for college reduces university grants first and foremost. We prefer to fund our own retirements than college endowments.

Michael

Posted by: Michael at June 8, 2008 8:38 AM


Michael:
Thank you for responding. oh boy, I remember tandem nursing. IT was difficult but well worth it! Also, when nursing a 2 year old they don't nurse like a newborn or 6 month old would. Often it's for naptimes, bedtime, waking or comfort and any combo of the above!

As for your kids education: don't let anyone deter you from having children for that reason. Not everyone needs or wants a university education. I have one friend who has 6 kids and one girl is going to be a chef, another wants to work in a trade. There are many options and careers available today!

I'm not American Michael, but I do know that in my country and America there are many who denigrate the services. As X pointed out, she and her hubby have sacrificed personally for America. So as a Canadian, I recognize this and say thanks!

God bless you Michael!

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 8:54 AM


*giggles at Jasper's supreme, overwhelming, ignorant stupidity* Tell me EXACTLY, in more than a one-sentence quip, how your opinion about my pill use has anything to do with my long-distance training? Use LOGIC, Jasper, I know it's actually difficult to think....but, try it sometime. You might be surprised what that atrophied old brain can do.

I'm glad I don't live in your world, Jasper. I wish you could do half the stuff I'm doing (training and such...got up at 6:30 this morning for a run in the park with my dog), and realize that how I treat my body, with or without the pill, will never be subject to your opinion. You are one of the most obstinate, moronic geezers I've ever had the misfortune to comment on how I live my life. Oh, and don't call me "young lady". That's your pitiful attempt to act like an authority figure to me, and I find it condescending. Sorry, just because you happen to be an older male human, doesn't mean you deserve my respect. Know that tonight, I'll be taking my pill in your honor. I'll toast to "Jasper", then down my "baby-killer" with glee.

And I'll get up tomorrow and run a few more miles.

Posted by: Lyssie at June 8, 2008 10:07 AM


By the way, Xalisae, you might be the newest awesome person here. And I wish you and your family the best, and send my prayers to you and your husband for his safe and happy return. I'm dating a Marine that served three tours in Iraq, and I can only imagine the anxiety you're dealing with, because I dread that he could get sent back there again.


And your comment about "romping" with your hubby was really funny. And so goes my favorite bumper sticker...

"Support our troops: sleep with a Marine"

:)

Posted by: Lyssie at June 8, 2008 10:23 AM


Lyssie!!

*takes my pill*

Cheers dudette! =)

Posted by: Amanda at June 8, 2008 10:35 AM


The 155-mile thing is run by teams....the members switch off every ten miles. by the end, someone could have run 30-40 miles depending on the size of the team, or if someone gets too tired to finish a leg.

Lyssie, get down! Love it - that's some serious stuff.

Posted by: Doug at June 8, 2008 11:09 AM


We'll see, I still have a chance at doing the 48-hour dance marathon portion. If so, I might not do the relay. Either way, I'll be in excellent shape for both, and I can still raise A LOT of money for kids with cancer. Let's just hope I don't "kill" an embryo in the process. My selfish need to want to raise money and train hard for a long run... well, aren't I going straight to hell?

Posted by: Lyssie at June 8, 2008 11:28 AM


*cheers*

:)

I take mine at 10 tonight, Amanda. I'll think of you fondly, along with Jasper. tee hee. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at June 8, 2008 11:29 AM


Lyssie,

By the way, Xalisae, you might be the newest awesome person here. And I wish you and your family the best, and send my prayers to you and your husband for his safe and happy return. I'm dating a Marine that served three tours in Iraq, and I can only imagine the anxiety you're dealing with, because I dread that he could get sent back there again.

I second the above.

AS for this:"Support our troops: sleep with a Marine"

Pray for a marine and treat them with respect.


Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 12:29 PM


Jasper, you should not encourage contraception if you feel that way.

Posted by: Pro-Life Berta at June 8, 2008 12:34 PM


Edyt,
I gave you my definition of "nice guy". Somebody who sacrifices for the benefit of others

What is you definition? I want to understand how nice guys could kill babies in their mother's womb.

I don't have a definition of a "nice guy" because I don't believe people are one-dimensional. I believe people have nice qualities and bad qualities, but there is no such thing as a person who is completely nice or completely bad. I think sorting people into boxes like that is shallow and childish.

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 12:59 PM


I am confused why people think that by practicing NFP women are having intercourse in their "less" fertile times knowing that the newly conceived child will not implant and thereby "aborting" it.

When you are truly practicing NFP you are avoiding intercourse before ovulation and for a certain amount of time after ovulation so as to avoid becoming pregnant. A female only ovulates once during her cycle unless she has a double ovulation, but that will only occur within 24-48 hours of the original ovulation. NFP takes this into account. The only way that the newly conceived child will be "aborted" is if your luteal phase is too short. Less than 10 days. Women who practice NFP know this and will do what they need to do to raise the length of their luteal phase so as to avoid losing a child to miscarriage in this manner.

You would have to have intercourse just before or within 24 hours after ovulation AND have a short luteal phase LESS THAN 10 DAYS in order for the newly conceived child to be miscarried in this way.

Posted by: sam at June 8, 2008 1:22 PM


I guess most of your posts confuse me. You have an aggressive and sometimes sarcastic style and it's very hard to know where you stand sometimes. I like simple, straightforward answers. Oh, please stop playing the atheist card. It gets old after a while.

Janet, how would you feel, if despite what you told people, others said "Oh no, you're definitely Muslim." "The way you talk about these things, you sound like you actually ARE a Muslim." "Which side are you on, really?"

That's how I feel when you keep insinuating that I'm religious or believe in God or whatever. It's insulting and disrespectful.

I enjoy having intelligent conversations about religion though. Just like I like having conversation about abortion and other controversial issues. I feel that it stretches out my brain muscles, so to say. And sometimes I play devil's advocate, or follow certain "rules of the game" to reach a certain point or conclusion, or even to trick my mind into playing the opposite side. It's like a tennis player playing with his left hand rather than the right to strengthen and improve his game. He'll have an advantage over his opponent because he can easily switch hands if necessary.

If you want to know where I stand, you can ask me. I'll answer honestly. But I will continue to debate whatever side I feel like playing on. Sorry if that's confusing to you.

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 1:29 PM


Sam: point very well taken.

However, the debate on this board is with people who really have NO idea as to how NFP works and are making incredibly inaccurate statments about how it is used.
The idea that there are millions of babies being aborted through NFP usage is completely ludicrous and not even worth debating.
What many people do not accept and cannot understand is that contraception is the thin wedge that brought in abortion and many other ills we now suffer through. The entire women's movement today is based on the right to contraception - something most women early in the movement did NOT support nor ever wanted. It was rammed through by a minority of women. The original suffragettes would be appalled at the descendents of their movement.

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 1:38 PM


Thank you all, and especially Lyssie. I'll pass on the good wishes the next time he and I talk.

And...the only Marine I know personally is one of my brothers, so I'll have to pass on that suggestion. (He's also deployed at this time, too. Ugh, the men in my life just love making me worry! hehe)

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 1:38 PM


"The idea that there are millions of babies being aborted through NFP usage is completely ludicrous and not even worth debating.
What many people do not accept and cannot understand is that contraception is the thin wedge that brought in abortion and many other ills we now suffer through. The entire women's movement today is based on the right to contraception - something most women early in the movement did NOT support nor ever wanted. It was rammed through by a minority of women. The original suffragettes would be appalled at the descendents of their movement."

Just was we who support other contraceptive methods think that the idea that there are millions of babies being aborted through contraceptive usage is completely ludicrous. Do you see where we're coming from yet? We're not attacking NFP or your right to practice it. That's great if that's what is for you. But you all are pretty much accusing people taking birth control of being murderers ("The pill kills!"), and state openly that you think it should be illegal, as was the topic of the last post about contraception! I'm sure you'd get equally irate were someone to accuse you of killing your own babies and bringing about the collapse of civilized society through the practice of NFP. We didn't say half the emotionally-charged things about NFP that you have about contraception as a whole, and I think we handled ourselves quite well.

I agree that the original womens' rights movement leaders would be appalled at what it has become. I am myself. But I think you're trying to shift the blame on an inanimate object, making the people who ingest it out to be possessed of some evil via its consumption, when that isn't what is at work here. It is the ATTITUDE of GENERATIONS of women who were failed by their role models, teachers, and families which failed to give them a healthy sexual attitude, and I think this is a primary failing of our side. If anything at all is being said about sex (which many times there isn't), it's usually something negative, or just "DON'T YOU DARE DO IT UNTIL YOU'RE MARRIED!!!", and as great as it is when that works for someone, it doesn't work for everyone. And, when that message DOESN'T work for you, and you know it won't, where will you turn? To your teachers, who give you everything you want to know about the mechanics of the act so you can do it all day long, but nothing about the emotional aspect or all possible consequences so you have no reason you shouldn't? Media figures/society, who just say "DO IT DO IT DO IT YOU'RE NOT LOVED UNLESS YOU DO IT YOU'RE NOT ACCEPTED UNLESS YOU DO IT. DO IT!!!!"

Either luckily or unfortunately, I haven't really decided yet, my parents kept me shielded from all things sexual until I was relatively old when compared to my peers, and I turned out to be old enough to make what I think were-for the most part-mature, informed decisions (that, and I happened to be the oldest of 6 kids and did a good portion of the rearing of my last two siblings, so I had no delusions about the prospects of pregnancy and babies, well-aware that a pregnancy was a living baby itself, and sex was what brought it about). But many other young people in my situation had no such luxuries, both of sheltering parents, and the knowledge that comes from experience-not necessarily of the more enjoyable aspects of procreation-but the work its end entails. Trying to look at this in terms of us vs. them, wrong vs. right, etc., does a great injustice to many people who need more than just a lecture.

Posted by: xalisae at June 8, 2008 2:07 PM


If you want to know where I stand, you can ask me. I'll answer honestly. But I will continue to debate whatever side I feel like playing on. Sorry if that's confusing to you.

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 1:29 PM

Most people wouldn't play devil's advocate without stating so first. That would help avoid confusion on where you are coming from...

When I asked "what side you were on" @ 1:29, I was referring to the BC debate, because you seemed to be arguing both sides at the same time about "intent". I wasn't referring to your religion or lack there of. I apologize if I insulted you, it wasn't my intention at all. If you feel insulted in the future, let me know and I will try to correct it. Thanks.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 3:31 PM


"What many people do not accept and cannot understand is that contraception is the thin wedge that brought in abortion and many other ills we now suffer through."

Really.

Care to explain why then, abortion pre-dates contraception by a few thousand years?


"The idea that there are millions of babies being aborted through NFP usage is completely ludicrous and not even worth debating."

I agree. And so is the idea that millions of babies are being aborted because of the pill. Its even MORE ridiculous, because the idea that the pill stops implantation is merely a theory, while having intercourse at a time were implantation is unlikely is INTENTIONAL. People don't take the pill with the intention of stopping implantation, they take it to prevent ovulation. In NFP, ovulation is occuring - but you have sex only when you know an embryo probably won't implant. Which makes them BOTH contraceptive, only one's primary purpose is to prevent ovulation, and the other's primary purpose is to prevent fertilization or implantation.

Posted by: Amanda at June 8, 2008 3:42 PM


xalisae: 2:07: You bring up so many good points, I wish I had time to address each one!

Please remember that we pro-lifers don't all have to agree with the title/topic of every post here, just because we happen to be pro-life. "The Pill Kills" is a slogan made up by just one pro-life group, the American Life League. It's been posted here for discussion purposes. I can imagine it would be very frustrating as a pill user to be confronted with such a slogan. I don't judge you for your choice to use the pill, and I know there are others, Pc'rs and Pl'rs who don't either. You have a good head on your shoulders, and some very good ideas. It's good to have you here!

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 3:46 PM


As I've stated before, the BC pill acts in several ways and one of those ways is likely as an abortifacient. It is merely one of the many reasons I don't support the use of the BC pill. I sincerely believe based on my personal research and the experiences of colleagues and friends that it is harmful to women.
I don't know EXACTLY how many babies are conceived and aborted due to the effects of the pill, but considering the fact that there are millions upon millions of women the world wide who use this method of BC, it's likely it may not be an insignificant number. To me, even if that number were 25, this would still be unacceptable.
I don't believe I have personally called you or anyone on this site a baby killer (other than possibly SoMG, Tiller and Morgentaler). Nor have I implied it - I have simply stated that one of the actions of the pill is possibly to act as an abortifacient.
However, you xalisae, like any other woman out there who may be taking BC pills ought to WANT to be informed about just what the pill does. And I think you do want to be informed. If you take the pill after making an informed decision so be it. However, there are many women who simply don't know the effects of the pill or even how it works. They ought to.

It is the ATTITUDE of GENERATIONS of women who were failed by their role models, teachers, and families which failed to give them a healthy sexual attitude, and I think this is a primary failing of our side.

I believe this is quite correct but it depends upon what you view as a "healthy sexual attitude". It is likely that what I view as such will be quite different from what you view as healthy, xalisae. I happen to believe that the pill distorts our view of sexuality.

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 3:56 PM


In NFP, ovulation is occuring - but you have sex only when you know an embryo probably won't implant. Which makes them BOTH contraceptive, only one's primary purpose is to prevent ovulation, and the other's primary purpose is to prevent fertilization or implantation.

Posted by: Amanda at June 8, 2008 3:42 PM

Amanda, the woman's cycle is not accurate enough to know when the uterus will not allow an embryo to implant. Every woman is different.
With the sympto-thermal method of NFP, you don't know exactly when you are going to ovulate until it happens, because the symptoms aren't optimal until that point. It's only at that point that she would be able to try to guess how long the rest of her fertile period would last. It would be pretty hard to place culpability on a woman who can't know for sure. Make sense?

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 3:57 PM


Amanda, correction:

I should have said "the woman's cycle is not regular enough.."

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 3:58 PM


Janet: I think ovulation can be predicted fairly accurately in most women, within 24 hours based on her fertility symptoms. There are a wide variety of fertility symptoms that a woman can draw from to determine ovulation or nearness of ovulation including cervical mucus, basal body temperature and other symptoms such as a pain on one side (indicating ovulation), sore breasts etc.
For example, my temperature signs were very strong. I would have a basal body temp of 96.1 and the next day it would be 97.1. This is a huge jump and I would know that within 24 hours I would ovulate or would already have ovulated. Hence no intercourse that evening!
It is different for each woman but that is the beauty of the method. It's based on YOUR symptoms, not mine or your next best friends wife's! And each woman comes to understand her own body and what affects her fertility symptoms (such as wine, too little sleep, etc).

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 4:14 PM


Patricia, I understand NFP, I've used it myself. I guess what I neglected to say is that there are other factors involved besides ovulation that play an important role in this whole question regarding implantation. For example, there's the timing of intercourse after ovulation occurs, the virility (for lack of a better word) of the sperm, the length of the woman's fertile phase.

Do you agree that a woman using NFP should not be held culpable for an embryo that naturally doesn't implant? My point is she shouldn't be.

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 4:31 PM


Yes, Janet, I do agree with you on your last point. And I wasn't criticizing you either. I am trying to remember when I used nfp a few years back!! lol
it's ridiculous and deflects from the issue of the dangers of the BC pill and it's effects on women.
I think we women deserve to have our bodies and our fertility repected and I don't see the pill leading to behaviours that do that.
God bless

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 4:48 PM


Edyt,
I gave you my definition of "nice guy". Somebody who sacrifices for the benefit of others

What is you definition? I want to understand how nice guys could kill babies in their mother's womb.

I don't have a definition of a "nice guy" because I don't believe people are one-dimensional. I believe people have nice qualities and bad qualities, but there is no such thing as a person who is completely nice or completely bad. I think sorting people into boxes like that is shallow and childish.
Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 12:59 PM

Edyt,
Be honest with yourself and be willing to define what is good and what is bad or you'll never be able to make choices to better yourself. Lets try it another way so you don't have to judge the person, but instead judge the action.

If somebody gives of themselves to help somebody in need is that a nice thing to do?
Also, if somebody see's someone in need and kills them cause the needy person would be a burden is that a nice thing to do?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 8, 2008 5:05 PM


hey, we got tornado warnings heeeellllppp!

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 5:08 PM


Patricia,
No problem! I agree it does deflect from the issue. You know, I'm sure it is hard for some BC users to consider the possibility of this negative effect of BC. Let's be patient and see what happens with future studies, and go from there. Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. :)

Stay safe. We've had some rough weather the last two days. That's "summer", I guess. God bless you too!

Posted by: Janet at June 8, 2008 7:02 PM


I agree it does deflect from the issue. You know, I'm sure it is hard for some BC users to consider the possibility of this negative effect of BC. Let's be patient and see what happens with future studies, and go from there. Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. :)
I agree Janet.
Even when I consider friends who have switched from BC to NFP, it's taken them years to get there. God is always patient (and it's darn good HE is too - because we'd all be in alot more trouble than we already are!)
Peace

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 7:42 PM


Be honest with yourself and be willing to define what is good and what is bad or you'll never be able to make choices to better yourself. Lets try it another way so you don't have to judge the person, but instead judge the action.

Uh, I have a pretty good grasp of what is "good" or "bad" in those simplistic terms, well enough to know that people are not objects that can be classified as good or bad. I also know there are a whole lot of things (actions included) that are neither good nor bad, and people who insist on living in a world where everything is black and white are sadly deluded.

If somebody gives of themselves to help somebody in need is that a nice thing to do?

Depends on what they do. If they help their neighbor dispose of their neighbor's dead wife, no I wouldn't say that's a nice thing to do. See how things aren't black and white?

Also, if somebody sees someone in need and kills them cause the needy person would be a burden is that a nice thing to do?

That's a dumb question. No one is obligated to help anyone else out. Therefore the burden is but a mindset.

Posted by: Edyt at June 8, 2008 8:40 PM


Edyt,
Your lack of compassion for babies in the womb is a symptom of lack of compassion for others in general. That is a dangerous way to live and people who know that about you would likely choose to avoid associations with you. I don't know enough about about your background to say you are a "bad" person but I wouldn't be comfortable bringing yu around people I love. I hope someday your are able the happiness that comes when you live a life where the love you have for others exceeds even the love you have for yourself.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 8, 2008 10:18 PM


:; shaking head ::

Oh good grief, Truthseeker....

Posted by: Doug at June 8, 2008 10:36 PM


Sam: point very well taken.

However, the debate on this board is with people who really have NO idea as to how NFP works and are making incredibly inaccurate statments about how it is used.
The idea that there are millions of babies being aborted through NFP usage is completely ludicrous and not even worth debating.
What many people do not accept and cannot understand is that contraception is the thin wedge that brought in abortion and many other ills we now suffer through. The entire women's movement today is based on the right to contraception - something most women early in the movement did NOT support nor ever wanted. It was rammed through by a minority of women. The original suffragettes would be appalled at the descendents of their movement.

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 1:38 PM
..........................................

I completely disagree with you Patricia. I would like to know where you get your opinion from.

Posted by: Sally at June 9, 2008 12:04 AM


Janet: I think ovulation can be predicted fairly accurately in most women, within 24 hours based on her fertility symptoms. There are a wide variety of fertility symptoms that a woman can draw from to determine ovulation or nearness of ovulation including cervical mucus, basal body temperature and other symptoms such as a pain on one side (indicating ovulation), sore breasts etc.
For example, my temperature signs were very strong. I would have a basal body temp of 96.1 and the next day it would be 97.1. This is a huge jump and I would know that within 24 hours I would ovulate or would already have ovulated. Hence no intercourse that evening!
It is different for each woman but that is the beauty of the method. It's based on YOUR symptoms, not mine or your next best friends wife's! And each woman comes to understand her own body and what affects her fertility symptoms (such as wine, too little sleep, etc).

Posted by: Patricia at June 8, 2008 4:14 PM
.....................................

Are you saying that you intentionally avoid 'god's will'/opportunity for fertility, as well as your husband's carnal desires on occasion? Sounds like contraception Patricia.

Posted by: Sally at June 9, 2008 12:26 AM


"You are one of the most obstinate, moronic geezers I've ever had the misfortune to comment on how I live my life."


LOL!...thats the first time I've ever been called a geezer, now I feel old.

Posted by: Jasper at June 9, 2008 4:19 AM


Are you saying that you intentionally avoid 'god's will'/opportunity for fertility, as well as your husband's carnal desires on occasion? Sounds like contraception Patricia.

Posted by: Sally at June 9, 2008 12:26 AM

Nope. I've already explain this about a dozen times on this thread. If you don't understand you'll have to take NFP classes and go to catechism class to learn more.
God bless.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 6:03 AM


Yes, Sally. How stupid can you be? She's already explained the reasons that NFP is not contraception MANY times, so pay attention! If you need help, I'll break it down for you:

1.) NFP doesn't prevent ovulation through artificial means, but that's ok, because if you just stop having sex within 24 hours of ovulation, even though sperm can live for roughly 72 hours inside a woman on average, which would still give it the ability to fertilize the egg, which would still give that egg the possibility of just passing through the woman's reproductive system rather than implanting, which is what they're obviously rooting for since they stopped having sex after ovulation, it's "God's will". THAT MAKES EVERYTHING THEY DO PERFECTLY OK, AND PHARMA. CONTRACEPTION SINFUL, M'KAY?!

2.) NFP is way less reliable and only retains effectiveness for a shorter duration, rather than the stuff they consider to be ACTUAL contraception. That makes it better than mean 'ol contraception, duh!

3.) Patricia and the pope say so.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 8:17 AM


THAT MAKES EVERYTHING THEY DO PERFECTLY OK, AND PHARMA. CONTRACEPTION SINFUL, M'KAY?!

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 8:17 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes.
If you intentionally send that embryo to it's doom using natural means it's OK.

If you intentionally send that embryo to it's doom using chemical means, it's murder.

It's kind of like saying, "If you strangle someone with a strip of organic, unbleached cotton muslin, it's OK. If you strangle them with a strip of rayon, it's MURDER!"

(People, when the intent and result are the same in both cases, the means of achieving that result ceases to matter.)

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 9:39 AM


X :8:17: 1.) NFP doesn't prevent ovulation through artificial means, but that's ok, because if you just stop having sex within 24 hours of ovulation, even though sperm can live for roughly 72 hours inside a woman on average, which would still give it the ability to fertilize the egg, which would still give that egg the possibility of just passing through the woman's reproductive system rather than implanting, which is what they're obviously rooting for since they stopped having sex after ovulation, it's "God's will". THAT MAKES EVERYTHING THEY DO PERFECTLY OK, AND PHARMA. CONTRACEPTION SINFUL, M'KAY?!

NFP users should use a larger window than 2 days to prevent implantation/fertilization. I used to use about 4 or 5 days as I remember (It's been a while since I've had to use it, I'm older now!). If you are avoiding pregnancy, you want to be on the safe side!

The misperception that a fertilized egg is being killed must come from those who think intercourse is avoided only 24 hrs before and after ovulation. It's not the case as I know it. I've done classes and used the method myself.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 10:34 AM


Laura: 9:39: If you intentionally send that embryo to it's doom using natural means it's OK. If you intentionally send that embryo to it's doom using chemical means, it's murder. It's kind of like saying, "If you strangle someone with a strip of organic, unbleached cotton muslin, it's OK. If you strangle them with a strip of rayon, it's MURDER!" (People, when the intent and result are the same in both cases, the means of achieving that result ceases to matter.)

Laura, Please read my post at 10:34. NFP doesn't send an embryo to it's doom because intercourse is avoided at the fertile time. The fertile time includes a sufficient window of time on either side of the day of ovulation. If this still doesn't make sense let me know.


Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 10:43 AM


Laura, I just reread the long article you posted at the beginning of this thread. It is more ridiculous to me than the first time. Can you explain to me in your own words, why it makes any logical sense?
Please, I would love to hear it.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 10:47 AM


Janet,

Most people wouldn't play devil's advocate without stating so first. That would help avoid confusion on where you are coming from...

Usually I don't play devil's advocate (so I wouldn't worry about it... if I do I'm probably being horribly sarcastic), but like I've said before, I'll adjust the way I talk about things in controversial debates, simply because some people are religious and that appeals to them.

For example, if discussing abortion, my viewpoint from a religious perspective is that God would want what's best for the child. I honestly do believe that sometimes what is "best" is not being alive at all. Particularly if the child will spend the rest of a short life in pain or going through multiple surgeries, like children with HLHS. From a religious viewpoint, aborted children have it best because all of them go directly to heaven. That's how I would see it, if I were religious.

When I asked "what side you were on" @ 1:29, I was referring to the BC debate, because you seemed to be arguing both sides at the same time about "intent". I wasn't referring to your religion or lack there of. I apologize if I insulted you, it wasn't my intention at all. If you feel insulted in the future, let me know and I will try to correct it. Thanks.

Oh, it's okay, I think I misunderstood you too. I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to force me to say only certain things within my realm of belief.

What I meant was that people were talking about NFP and saying that if a fertilized egg didn't implant, it wasn't the couple's fault because it wasn't an intentional death.

And I said that I don't see why you'd view the pill differently from NFP, considering that people taking the pill do not have the intent to kill a fertilized egg if it fails to implant. (And this is further backed by a lack of proof that the pill prevents implantation.)

Same thing as drinking caffeine or smoking. It may unintentionally cause a miscarriage, but if that was not the intent of the couple, how can you push for BC to be taken off the market, and not remove other potential hazards?

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 12:55 PM


I agree with ts on this one. Kinda. I usually can't stand 9 out of 10 of the people I come across on a given day, but I still do my best to treat them as I would want to be treated, just because. But keep in mind, ts, that just because he thinks that right and wrong are purely subjective (I do myself, to a certain degree, but I think there are things which are just so far to one side within the spectrum of gray they ARE absolutes) doesn't mean he would act in a manner unbecoming. You can be a moral relativist and still consistently act in a manner which would be considered highly moral by most people. So even when it IS black and white, it isn't REALLY. Does that make sense?

I'm a little confused, because I don't think that's TS's position at all. TS believes in the objective, while I believe they are subjective - that is there are no things that are truly right or truly wrong, and that morality is unique to each person and each culture.

I think there are some things we can consider morally wrong on throughout every culture - things like murder. However, even though a culture considers itself anti-murder, they may engage in it through things like war, which is often considered a "necessary evil." That's where I feel even the most "wrong" can be seen in the most gray of terms. If we were truly objective and moral, we would be pacifists and never engage in war because it causes murder. Even if we are attacking so-called "bad" people, I cannot believe that there has never been a war in which an innocent person was not killed.

And I agree, you can be a moral relativist and act in a highly moral way. I don't cheat or lie or steal or kill people, for example, and I tend to expect the same of others. But I believe those "morals" came about more as a need for civilized culture, and we would never advance as a species if we engaged in acts counter to our livelihood. Most societies have similar moral values simply because those values work best. And I have no problem aligning myself with those values.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:35 PM


Your lack of compassion for babies in the womb is a symptom of lack of compassion for others in general.

How so?

That is a dangerous way to live and people who know that about you would likely choose to avoid associations with you. I don't know enough about about your background to say you are a "bad" person but I wouldn't be comfortable bringing yu around people I love.

Haha, okay.

I hope someday your are able the happiness that comes when you live a life where the love you have for others exceeds even the love you have for yourself.

Did I ever tell you the story about how I lost my job and apartment after I rescued my cat, Basil? I've risked a lot even to be with my boyfriend. But then again, I don't really need to "prove" my good will to you, since you are under the impression that people who are pro-choice are inherently bad people. Which is a sad position to take, and I feel sorry for you. I hope someday you will be able to extend your compassion to people outside your personal viewpoint.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:39 PM


I think that NFP is to artificial birth control what bulima is to eating healthy.

With NFP you are in control, you show self restraint, you recognize that there are consequences from your actions and you abstain from those actions to avoid the consequences.

With eating healthy, you don't eat a box of twinkies. You just change your behavior.


With artificial birth control, you use an unnatural means to avoid the undesirable consequences of your behavior.

With bulimia, you do the same. You eat the box of twinkies and then vomit them up. You get your twinkies and eat them too.

To us, we believe that while the results are the same, the means is very different. In the case of the twinkies you avoid putting an unhealthy amount of food in your body, with sex you abstain when you are most fertile.

With bulimia and birth control, you are interfering artificially with the way the body is supposed to work and with what the body was meant for.

Sex is meant to create new life. This doesn't mean you can't enjoy it immensely! Food is meant to nourish the body, but this doesn't mean that food that is good for you can't taste good.

You can eat the occasional twinkie, just as you can have sex within the bounds that your body has set out for you...

Does that make a little more sense?

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 1:59 PM


Bulimia is characterized by "binges" in which the person feels compelled to eat very large quantities of food, followed by a compulsion to throw it up or otherwise purge it. I don't mean that they just want to, but they feel as though they literally can't stop themselves. I realize that there are people who would characterize sex they don't approve of as "having no self-control" or "addictive behavior" or whatever, but in reality, a healthy relationship that involves sex is not comparable to bulimic binging/purging.

Also, the constant throwing up is terrible for the body. If anybody were on birth control that was causing side effects as bad as the effects of bulimic purging, it would be the wrong method for them and they should try something else.

Interestingly, I just looked up bulimia on wikipedia and found this: "In one study, diagnosis of bulimia was correlated with high testosterone and low estrogen levels, and normalizing these levels with combined oral contraceptive pills reduced cravings for fat and sugar."

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2008 2:18 PM


Jen,

No. It wasn't a perfect analogy and of course it doesn't cross over in every area...

But it does show that using NFP is about self control, and using birth control is about artificial control.

Binge eating is disorder, granted, but it is a lack of control as opposed to just saying no that extra piece of cake.

I realize that it's a serious illness and sex isn't, although sometimes I do think that we have become so sexualized as a society, that it isn't even fathomable to think of not having it...

Which in a way, is like bulimia, in that if you are willing to go such extremes as aborting your own child just so you can have sex unimpeded, you are sort of chained to sex, the way a bulimic is chained to vomiting/binging.

I think this is why people get so upset when it is even suggested that abstinence until marriage is a viable lifestyle choice.

Pure, unadulterated, fear at the thought of their "sex" being taken away. Just like I'd feel if someone took my cigarettes away...

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:47 PM


Jen R,

Also, with Bulimia there is an unnatural focus on food. Eating and vomiting, from my understanding is a way to fool yourself into believing you have some control in a life that feels out of control.

I think birth control does the same thing. It's hyperfocusing on sex to the point that you will do all kinds of things to rationalize your right to it, that you would never do to get anything else.
Taking birth control gives you the illusion that you are in control of your body. But the body betrays you, and you get pregnant anyway. Now you have to buy into the illusion that killing your offspring is also morally acceptable...because it allows you to be in control.

Irony is, if you were in control of your life to begin with, you wouldn't have bulimia, and if you found yourself pregnant you'd be able to accept the responsibility for the resulting life.

It's the fact that you DON'T have control that makes you behave in ways you would never do otherwise.

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:53 PM


"I've risked a lot even to be with my boyfriend"

how is that?

Posted by: Jasper at June 9, 2008 10:53 PM


ts said,
Your lack of compassion for babies in the womb is a symptom of lack of compassion for others in general.
Edyt said, How so?

Edyt, I saw that in your previous response when you said "No one is obligated to help anyone else out. Therefore the burden is but a mindset."
While it is true that nobody is "obligated" to help out a needy person, people who have compassion for others do feel that obligation.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 9, 2008 10:54 PM


Did I ever tell you the story about how I lost my job and apartment after I rescued my cat, Basil? I've risked a lot even to be with my boyfriend. But then again, I don't really need to "prove" my good will to you, since you are under the impression that people who are pro-choice are inherently bad people. Which is a sad position to take, and I feel sorry for you. I hope someday you will be able to extend your compassion to people outside your personal viewpoint.
Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:39 PM

I do say that abortion is bad. I do not think pro-choice people are inherently bad. Not all pro-choice people would commit abortion. My compassion does extend to people beyond my viewpoint but I don't always accept/condone what they do.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 9, 2008 11:07 PM


But mk, everyone who uses birth control *doesn't* have an abortion if they get pregnant. Half of pregnancies that occur while the couple was using birth control are aborted; half aren't. And that actually means that fewer than half of the women abort, since a high percentage of abortions are repeats. (In other words, if there are one million abortions, that doesn't mean there are one million women having abortion.)

So it's entirely possible to use birth control and still accept a child who might be conceived. Not enough people have this attitude, but a lot do, and we could probably reach more people if so many prominent pro-lifers could talk to people who use birth control without accusing them of all kinds of stuff.

Posted by: Jen R at June 10, 2008 1:09 PM


Er, that last sentence didn't come out the way I was trying for. What I'm saying is that pro-lifers who hate birth control and think bad things about people who use it are in no position to talk to them and try to get them to adopt the attitude that they will accept an unplanned child. All they have is "stop using birth control". And most people (rightly) see no reason to do that.

Posted by: Jen R at June 10, 2008 1:12 PM


My compassion does extend to people beyond my viewpoint but I don't always accept/condone what they do.

Nicely said, Truthseeker.

Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 7:49 AM