Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

60% of women having unplanned children used birth control. Here's why it doesn't work.
http://www.wopular.com/60-women-having-unplanned-children-used-birth-control-herex27s-why-it-doesnx27t-work ^ | Dangus

Posted on 07/11/2013 1:20:45 PM PDT by dangus

Failure rates of common birth control methods:

Symptom-based fertility awareness ("modern Natural Family Planning"): 1.8%

Cervical cap: 6.7%

Combined oral contraceptive pill: 8-9%

Note: "Combined" oral contraceptive pills combine estrogen-based drugs with abortifacients. So without "undetected miscarriages" (i.e., dead babies), this rate would be higher.

Ortho-Evra patch: 8-9%

Nuva Ring: 8-9%

Diaphragm: 12-16% (depending on source)

Male Latex Condom: 15-18% (spermicide-treated, depending on source)

Coitus Interruptus: 18-22% (depending on source)

Rhythm Method: 24-25% (depending on source)

Contraceptive Sponge: 24-32% (depending on whether the woman had been previously pregnant)

Spermicide: 28% (without condom)

Please note the following:

> Condom use is no more effective than coitus interruptus.

> An 18% failure rate does NOT mean that only 18% of women who use this method will ever get pregnant. It means that it reduces pregnancies 82%. So if a women would normally get pregnant after an average of three months without using a condom, she will now get pregnant after only sixteen months.

> Even presuming failure rates are completely independent, using a male condom with a contraceptive sponge combined is still THREE times LESS effective than modern NFP. (15% * 32% is 4.8%, compared to 1.6%)

Now, I believe that you should consider "typical-use" failure rates. But a lot of people reading this are probably jumping out of their seats to deny that condoms have a 18% failure rate. But the "perfect use" failure rate is still higher than the typical-use failure rate for modern NFP, and still three times higher than perfect-use NFP. And I believe that "perfect use" is completely unrealistic: the male partner has to hold the condom on with his hand while he does a one-hand pushup over his partner. And no double dipping without showering between acts!

Also worth noting, the standard-days rhythm method, carefully used, has a failure rate LOWER than the typical-use condoms, plan B, contraceptive sponges, combined diaphragm and spermicide, Nuva Ring, or combined oral-use contraception, and even perfectly used contraceptive sponges, cervical caps, diaphragms, Plan B, or common applications of spermicide.

So why are so many people so convinced that artificial contraception is necessary to prevent overpopulation?

I believe the problem is this: NFP reminds people of the need for responsibility. But modern sexuality is all about compulsivity. What artificial contraception provides


TOPICS: Apologetics; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251 next last

1 posted on 07/11/2013 1:20:45 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangus

i bet many are lying when they say they took BC


2 posted on 07/11/2013 1:23:14 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Because NFP requires a modicum of intelligence and self control.


3 posted on 07/11/2013 1:24:15 PM PDT by informavoracious (We're being "punished" with Stanley Ann's baby. Obamacare: shovel-ready healthcare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

abstinance- 100% SUCCESS RATE


4 posted on 07/11/2013 1:25:16 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Abstnance has worked everytime but once.


5 posted on 07/11/2013 1:25:49 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Fight the culture of nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

*snort* Yeah, but she did say, “let it be done to me according to thy will.”


6 posted on 07/11/2013 1:27:58 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Snip Snip!


7 posted on 07/11/2013 1:28:13 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (If you’re happy and you know it clank your chains!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Yep.


8 posted on 07/11/2013 1:29:33 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it. Their minds have been stolen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus

My wife used birth control pills for 25 years without a single unplanned pregnancy. They work if you take them.


9 posted on 07/11/2013 1:29:41 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The side effects of the birth control pill are horrific. No one should be on it.


10 posted on 07/11/2013 1:30:02 PM PDT by diamond6 (Behold this Heart which has so loved men!" Jesus to St. Margaret Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Give someone 40 antibiotic pills and tell them to take them 4x a day for 10 days and a vanishingly small number will actually do that (I include myself in these statistics).

Admittedly BCP’s are not 4x a day but the principle is the same - even people who are “compliant’ with meds or other medical treatments or procedures are bound to mess up every now and then. And there are tons of people who aren’t even close to that.


11 posted on 07/11/2013 1:30:30 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

The success rate for married couples is very good if you don’t want to have a kid. As soon as you get to first date, second date, one night stand, etc. the statistics plunge.


12 posted on 07/11/2013 1:35:22 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

>>The success rate for married couples is very good if you don’t want to have a kid. As soon as you get to first date, second date, one night stand, etc. the statistics plunge.

How does that affect the reliability of birth control pills if they are taken as directed?


13 posted on 07/11/2013 1:37:35 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Condoms are extremely effective, my wife and I used them successfully for 8 years before we decided to have children. You’d have to be a complete moron to not use one properly.


14 posted on 07/11/2013 1:41:17 PM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

You couldn’t pay me to go back on the Pill. My new OBGYN told me she’d never write a script for the Pill for her three daughters.


15 posted on 07/11/2013 1:42:48 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

The birth-control pill failure rate isn’t from missing a day of pills. In fact, many women can’t get pregnant for months after quitting them. It’s from the fact that many women’s simply don’t work the way the pill manufacturers would like them to. So whereas condoms inevitably fail eventually, yes, many women use the pill for a lifetime without them failing... that they know of.

As I mentioned, however, modern birth control pills usually use minimal doses of estrogen to avoid the serious, nasty complications of estrogen, and maintain the effectiveness by adding progesterone which can prevent the babies from being able to integrate into the uterine lining successfully. The drug companies deny this happens ... progesterone also makes conception more difficult ... but despite the progesterone, 9% of the time a pregnancy is noticed. Since the effects of progesterone also certainly make the uterine lining less hospitable to conceptions, we can know that some of the babies must fail at integration. We just don’t know how often, because no studies have ever been performed, since the notion of deliberately causing conception so you can see if the baby gets killed is abhorrent to the most militant of pro-aborts, and those people don’t want to know the answer.


16 posted on 07/11/2013 1:43:34 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Also worth noting, the standard-days rhythm method, carefully used, has a failure rate LOWER than the typical-use condoms, plan B, contraceptive sponges, combined diaphragm and spermicide, Nuva Ring, or combined oral-use contraception, and even perfectly used contraceptive sponges, cervical caps, diaphragms, Plan B, or common applications of spermicide.

If and only if your cycle is regular. I was fortunate enough that my body ovulated at the same time every month so I knew exactly when I was fertile. Every one of my children was planned and the month I wanted to get pregnant with them I did. Each and every time.

And let's be frank here .... I'd be willing to bet that a lot of women who say the rhythm method failed them didn't follow procedure .... had sex too close to ovulation and don't want to admit it.

17 posted on 07/11/2013 1:43:50 PM PDT by Lizavetta (You get what you tolerate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

18 posted on 07/11/2013 1:44:37 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Holy Matrimony also prevents out of wedlock pregnancies.


19 posted on 07/11/2013 1:45:41 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dangus

>> but despite the progesterone, 9% of the time a pregnancy is noticed.

So, this is just a case of statistics manipulation by interpolation and possibility scenarios? That makes sense.


20 posted on 07/11/2013 1:48:48 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

So you say. But 30 million born people and 20 million aborted babies would disagree.

Seriously, how jaw-droppingly, mind-blowingly stupid do you have to be to cite an anecdote as a refutation of risk? How many complete, total morons out there say crap like, “dude man... I drink and drive all the time and I never got into an accident.” “Dude, I’ve used crack for twenty years and I don’t have any problems.” “Whoa... Russian roulette is fun and I never blew my brains out.”


21 posted on 07/11/2013 1:49:51 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
My wife used birth control pills for 25 years without a single unplanned pregnancy. They work if you take them.

A close friend, otherwise healthy as a horse, just had a severe stroke at age 45. Her only risk factor? Birth control pill for 20 years.

Birth control pills are human pesticide. Any other class of drug with the horrendous side effect profile of the pill would have been pulled from the market decades ago, and their manufacturers sued out of existence.

Men would never accept the level of risk they expect women to take from taking the pill. Does that make men jerks, or women stupid?


22 posted on 07/11/2013 1:52:39 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

That’s why I don’t use the “rhythm method” but instead the Fertlity awareness method. It teaches the user all of the techniques to detmine when ovulation is about to occur. Crazy ovulation cycle? No problem.


23 posted on 07/11/2013 1:53:03 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

No, Lizavetta, the failure rate INCLUDES people who had irregular cycles. That’s why the standard-days rhythm method has a failure rate several times higher than modern natural family planning, which detects and compensates for irregular cycles.


24 posted on 07/11/2013 1:53:50 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

Thanks for that chart, Dr. Kopp!


25 posted on 07/11/2013 1:55:02 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

{My wife used birth control pills for 25 years without a single unplanned pregnancy. They work if you take them.}

Not always. Some medications interfere with BC pills, and many doctors are lax in reading their PDRs. I personally know 2 women who were “religious” about their BC meds and got pregnant anyway. There is a failure rate and it is caused by more than just forgetfulness.


26 posted on 07/11/2013 1:55:13 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Wife and I have three birth-control babies. They apparently haven’t invented a lock I can’t pick. Heh.

SnakeDoc


27 posted on 07/11/2013 1:56:20 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

It worked for me.


28 posted on 07/11/2013 1:56:44 PM PDT by laplata (Liberals don't get it. Their minds have been stolen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Improvement to NFP - 99.3% effective rate

http://www.lady-comp.com/en/page/at-first-sight


29 posted on 07/11/2013 1:57:09 PM PDT by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Admittedly, I don’t know anything about planning for irregular cycles. I was lucky enough to not have to deal with that.


30 posted on 07/11/2013 2:03:45 PM PDT by Lizavetta (You get what you tolerate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Actually, I meant birth control in general. Committed couples seem to get it right - if that’s what they want. I shouldn’t have singled out the pills.


31 posted on 07/11/2013 2:04:45 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

“Does that make men jerks, or women stupid?”

Both. I would never ask a woman I care about to go on the pill purely for recreational purposes.


32 posted on 07/11/2013 2:07:47 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Why can’t the guys just use condoms??! They are very reliable and men should have to play some part in this instead of women being forced to constantly take all kinds of poison.


33 posted on 07/11/2013 2:07:50 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Common side-effects of birth-control pills:

Depression
Muscle-mass decrease
Increase in body fat
Acne (delayed effect)
Becoming sexually repulsed by testosterone, and even many masuline behaviors
Breast Cancer

How insane is the mainstream press’ acknowledgment of these side effects? WebMD lists estrogens as a cause of depression under hormone-replacement therapy, but not under birth control!

“Wait... I thought birth control HELPS acne?!” Yes... while you’re on it, birth control medication can help prevent pre-menopausal acne. But if you’ve been taking birth control as a treatment for acne, brace yourself for when you finally come OFF birth control.


34 posted on 07/11/2013 2:07:57 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

LOL!

Still workin’. In a manner of speaking.


35 posted on 07/11/2013 2:11:15 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (If you’re happy and you know it clank your chains!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Well one of the advantages of the Fertility Awareness Method is that when I’m about to ovulate or have ovulated, we have the choice of condoms or abstinence. The abstinence option is very interesting because the couple demonstrates that they are more than just sex objects to one another. The two get to show one another that while sex is an important part of mariage, it is not the most important aspect. Plus condoms, even used by well educated people, fail regularly. I think the original poster’s chart showed this.


36 posted on 07/11/2013 2:15:28 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I thought condoms had a very, very high rate of effectiveness - especially among married people. I still believe that.


37 posted on 07/11/2013 2:18:38 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dangus

The Billings Ovulation Method of natural family planning is now considered to be one of the most effective ways of family planning. It is so effective that it is also used for couples who are having fertility problems.

Apparently having knowledge of natural body functions and rhythms goes a long way to help control your family size.

Check out BOMA USA on the internet!


38 posted on 07/11/2013 2:22:05 PM PDT by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Church
British Medical Journal/ Loyola University ^ | R.E.J. Ryder

Posted on Monday, December 10, 2001 10:49:06 PM by Brian Kopp DPM

British Medical Journal, Sept 18, 1993 v307 n6906 p723(4) 

"Natural family planning": 
Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church
 R.E.J. Ryder. 


Abstract:
    Natural family planning, when used by motivated couples, is a safe and cost-effective means of birth control. Natural family planning, which involves teaching women to recognize signs of ovulation and to avoid intercourse on fertile days, is the only method of birth control approved by the Catholic Church. A total of 869 women of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds participated in a study conducted by the World Health Organization. Regardless of literacy and culture, 93% of the women were able to recognize the changes in their cervical mucus associated with ovulation. Other studies have emphasized the importance of good initial teaching and the motivation of the woman practicing the method. A failure rate of 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women was found in a study of 19,843 women in India. 

[Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1993 British Medical Association] 

During 20-22 September Manchester is to host the 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro. At that summit the threat posed by world overpopulation received considerable attention. Catholicism was perceived as opposed to birth control and therefore as a particular threat. This was based on the notion that the only method of birth control approved by the church--natural family planning--is unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. 

In the 20 years since E L Billings and colleagues first described the cervical mucus symptoms associated with ovulation natural family planning has incorporated these symptoms and advanced considerably. Ultrasonography shows that the symptoms identify ovulation precisely. According to the World Health Organisation, 93% of women everywhere can identify the symptoms, which distinguish adequately between the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle. Most pregnancies during trials of natural family planning occur after intercourse at times recognised by couples as fertile. Thus pregnancy rates have depended on the motivation of couples. Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved in the developed and developing worlds. Indeed, a study of 19 843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, effective, without side effects, and may be particularly acceptable to and efficacious among people in areas of poverty. 

The 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro is to take place in Manchester during 20-22 September and is entitled "Partnerships for change." The Rio earth summit focused considerable attention on the expanding population of the world as an important issue in relation to resources, environment, and poverty. In the media the "opposition of the Catholic Church to birth control" was discussed (BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 18 May 1992) and considered to be an important factor with the many millions of Catholics in the world, particularly the Third World, such as Brazil. In the medical press the "Pope's continuing opposition to birth control" was condemned[1] and powerful Vatican opposition was considered likely to wreck hope of useful progress at the earth summit with regard to global overpopulation as a most urgent ecological hazard.[2] 
The widespread beliefs that the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control,[1] that the urgent provision of artificial contraception within the Third World is the only answer to overpopulation, and that the Catholic Church is opposed to this[2] all stem from the perception that the so called "natural methods of family planning," which are approved by the Catholic Church, are unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. Historically, this perception is based on the unreliability of the rhythm method of contraception ("Roman roulette"), which attempts to identify the fertile phase of the woman's cycle by calendar calculations. Is this perception as accurate today as it may have been in the past? 

The ovum has a life span of not more than 24 hours and is fertilisable for only part of that time.[3] The life span of the sperm may be measured in hours under adverse conditions. Under optimum conditions, however, sperms may remain viable for four or five days, and a life span of up to seven days has been postulated.[3] Thus a woman is potentially fertile for no more than six to eight days of her cycle, probably less in most cases. To what extent can these potentially fertile days be accurately identified and avoided by most women as a method of birth control? 

Cyclical changes in cervical mucus secretion

In 1972 Billings et al reported the characteristic changes in cervical mucus secretion which occur during the menstrual cycle.[4] After menstruation there are a variable number of "dry" days with little or no mucus secretion and a feeling of dryness in the vaginal area. Then, as ovulation approaches under the influence of increasing oestrogen concentrations[3 5] the dry feeling ends and there is increasing secretion of cervical mucus, which at the time of ovulation becomes an abundant discharge of substance like the raw white of an egg. After ovulation the first secretion of progesterone abruptly reverses the effect of oestrogen on cervical mucus and causes it to become thick and rubbery, forming a plug in the cervix.[3 5] The fertile-type, "raw egg white" cervical mucus is of low viscosity and high threadability (spinnbarkeit) with glycoprotein fibrils in a micelle-like structure which aids sperm migration. It contains sugars and trace elements necessary for sperm survival, capacitation, and transport and it can maintain the sperm capable of fertilisation for several days.[3 5 6] By contrast, the thick, white, non-stretchy mucus which occurs at other times in the cycle is impenetrable by sperm and hostile to its survival. 


Other symptoms have been described in association with ovulation, in particular periovulatory pain and the progesterone induced postovulatory rise in basal body temperature. Hormonal studies have confirmed the close relation of the various symptoms with ovulation,[4 7] and more recently ovarian ultrasonography has suggested that the day of most abundant secretion of fertile-type egg white mucus identifies the day of ovulation as precisely as does the luteinising hormone peak (see figure).[8] Other symptoms associated with the cyclical changes in oestrogen and progesterone concentrations include changes in the cervix, breast tissue, skin, hair, libido, and moods.[3 5] 


Pregnancy and contraception 

Reported pregnancy rates (pregnancies per 100 woman years; Pearl index) in well motivated couples using the condom, diaphragm, intrauterine device, and progestogen only and combined oestrogen-progestogen oral contraception are 3.6, 1.9, 1.4, 1.2, and 0.18 respectively.[9] Much higher rates have been recorded, particularly among less motivated couples--for example, pregnancy rates of 21 and 22 in condom users[10] and 23 in diaphragm users.[10] Pregnancy rates of 23 and 28 have also been reported in users of oral contraceptives in the developing world.[11] As shown in Oxford, even the contraceptive pill may fail if the woman forgets to take it, runs out of tablets, or has diarrhoea and vomiting or other illness.[12] 
Early trials of birth control based on symptom observation[13-17] yielded pregnancy rates of 6.0[17] to 25.4.[13] Most conceptions occurred because of intercourse on days designated by the family planning method as fertile. Controversy therefore ensued[18-21] between those who thought that all pregnancies occurring in trials should be considered as failures of the particular method[19 21] and those who thought that the method could not be blamed if couples had intercourse during a phase which they knew to be fertile.[18 20] It was also possible that initial scepticism about natural family planning methods led to a casual approach by couples.[13] 

WHO study 

Given a natural pregnancy rate--that is, the Pearl index without any birth control--estimated as 80,[22] the cheapness of natural family planning, and the acceptability of natural family planning to many cultures and religions, the World Health Organisation undertook an international study.[23-27] A total of 869 women of proved fertility and widely varying cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds were studied in five centres (Auckland, Bangalore, Dublin, Manila, and San Miguel, El Salvador). Regardless of culture and education, 93% of the women recorded an interpretable ovulatory mucus pattern. Of the El Salvador women, 48.1% were illiterate and yet recognised the mucus symptoms.[23] 


Detailed analysis in the WHO study confirmed the potential effectiveness of mucus symptom observation as a means of family planning. The probability of conception from intercourse outside the period of fertility defined by cervical mucus observation was 0.004 (see table).[25] Intercourse on days designated as fertile by cervical mucus observation resulted in conception with increasing frequency the nearer to ovulation that intercourse occurred, intercourse on the peak day of cervical mucus secretion resulting in a probability of conception of 0.667 (table).[25] Thus it is clear that women of all cultures and educational backgrounds can learn to recognise when they ovulate and when they are potentially fertile and that if intercourse is avoided on potentially fertile days pregnancies will not occur. 


[TABULAR DATA OMITTED] 
Increased confidence in natural contraception 

After the early studies,[13-17] increased confidence in and experience with natural family planning methods tended to lead to progressively lower overall pregnancy rates. The rates, however, remain variable, depending on the standard of teaching and the motivation to avoid pregnancy.[24 28-39] A study in Chile confirmed the importance of good initial natural family planning teaching, experienced teachers achieving a pregnancy rate of 4.7, inexperienced teachers achieving a rate of 16.8.[28] Studies have underlined the importance of motivation, one international study finding a pregnancy rate of 4.13 in couples wishing to limit their families but a rate of 14.56 in couples wishing only to space their families.[29] Studies suggest that methods combining several indicators of ovulation yield lower pregnancy rates.[3] The cost issue has been addressed, studies from Liberia and Zambia showing pregnancy rates of 4.3 and 8.9 and user costs of $40 and $30 respectively.[35] A study of natural family planning in general practice in the United Kingdom also found it to be by far the cheapest method.[39] 


The largest natural family planning study combined effective teaching with high motivation and showed that natural family planning can be extremely effective in the Third World.[33] The study was of 19 843 predominantly poor women in Calcutta, 52% Hindu, 27% Muslim, and 21% Christian. Because of poverty motivation was high both among the users and among the well trained teachers of natural family planning. The failure rate was similar to that with the combined contraceptive pill--0.2 pregnancy/100 women users yearly.[33] The result suggests that poverty as the motivation can greatly improve the effectiveness of natural family planning. A similar result, however, was achieved in Germany in a study with a pregnancy rate of 0.8.[34] 


An Italian study found an overall pregnancy rate of 3.6, all the pregnancies occurring in couples wishing to space but not limit their families. The pregnancy rate was zero in couples who wanted no more children.[30] With other German studies finding pregnancy rates of 1.8[31] and 2.3,[36] a study in general practice in the United Kingdom finding a rate of 2.7,[39] and a study among 3003 illiterate and semiliterate women in India yielding a pregnancy rate of 2.04[37] the accumulating data confirm that natural family planning can be as effective as any method of family planning. 


Implications for the Third World 

In the WHO study most couples in the three developing countries who practised natural family planning were satisfied with the frequency of intercourse, whereas in the two developed countries one third of subjects and half of their partners who practised the method would have preferred more frequent intercourse.[27] It might be argued that natural family planning being cheap, effective, without side effects, and potentially particularly effective and acceptable in areas of poverty may be the family planning method of choice for the Third World. The case for and against this may be argued and debated, but whatever the standpoint there is no doubt that it would be more efficient for the ongoing world debate on overpopulation, resources, environment, poverty, and health to be conducted against a background of truth rather than fallacy. It is therefore important that the misconception that Catholicism is synonymous with ineffective birth control[1 2] is laid to rest. 


Understanding the simple facts about the signs of fertility confers considerable power to couples to control their fertility, for achieving as well as preventing conception. The widespread dissemination of these simple facts would be useful everywhere but might be of particular value in the Third World. 

 

Notes

[1] Godlee F. Going backwards in Rio. BMJ 1992;304:1525. 
[2] Poole J. Time for the Vatican to bend. Lancet 1992;339:1340-1. 
[3] Flynn AM. Natural methods of contraception. Maternal and Child Health 1991;16:148-53. 
[4] Billings EL, Billings JJ, Brown JB, Burger HG. Symptoms and hormonal changes accompanying ovulation. Lancet 1972;i:282-4. 
[5] France JT. The detection of ovulation for fertility and infertility. In: Bonnar J, ed. Recent advances in obstetrics and gynaecology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1982:215-39. 
[6] Bromwich PD. Problems with sperm/cervical mucus interaction. Part 1: pathophysiology. British Journal of Sexual Medicine 1985;12:124-5. 
[7] Flynn AM, Lynch SS. Cervical mucus and identification of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:656-9. 
[8] Depares J, Ryder REJ, Walker SM, Scanlon MF, Norman CM. Ovarian ultrasonography highlights precison of symptoms of ovulation as markers of ovulation. BMJ 1986;292:1562. 
[9] Vessey M, Lawless M, Yeates D. Efficacy of different contraceptive methods. Lancet 1982;i:841-2. 
[10] Mills A. Barrier contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1984;11:641-60. 
[11] Laing JE. Natural family planning in the Philippines. Stud Fam Plann 1984;15:49-55. 
[12] Duncan G, Harper C, Ashwell E, Mant D, Buchan H, Jones L. Termination of pregnancy: lessons for prevention. British Journal of Family Planning 1990;15:112-7. 
[13] Weissman MC, Foliaki L, Billings EL, Billings JJ. A trial of the ovulation method of family planning in Tonga. Lancet 1972;ii:813-6. 
[14] Ball M. A prospective field trial of the ovulation method of avoiding conception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1976;6:63-6. 
[15] Marshall J. A field trial of the basal body temperature method of regulating births. Lancet 1968;ii:8-10. 
[16] Marshall J. Cervical-mucus and basal body temperature method of regulating births. Lancet 1976;ii:282-3. 
[17] Parenteau-Carreau S, Lanctot CA, Rice FJ. Etude internationale Fairfield sur l'efficacite de la methode sympto-thermique de regulation des naissances. Resultats Canadiens compares aux resultats globaux. La Vie Medicale au Canada Francais 1976;4:145-53. 
[18] Billings JJ. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:579. 
[19] Marshall J. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:685. 
[20] Billings JJ. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:969. 
[21] Marshall J. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:1085. 
[22] Reid KM. Choice of method. In: Loudon N, ed. Handbook of family planning. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1985:25-39. 
[23] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. I. The teaching phase. Fertil Steril 1981;36:152-8. 
[24] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. II. The effectiveness phase. Fertil Steril 1981;36:591-8. 
[25] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. III. Characteristics of the menstrual cycle and of the fertile phase. Fertil Steril 1983;40:773-8. 
[26] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. IV. The outcome of pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1984;41:593-8. 
[27] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. V. Psychosexual aspects. Fertil Steril 1987;47:765-72. 
[28] Perez A, Zabala A, Larrain A, Widmer S, Nunez M, Baranda B, et al. The clinical efficiency of the ovulation method (Billings). Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 1983;48:97-102. 
[29] Rice RJ, Lanctot CA, Garcia-Devesa C. Effectiveness of the symptothermal method of natural family planning: an international study. Int J Fertil 1981;26:222-30. 
[30] Barbato M, Bertolotti G. Natural methods for fertility control: a prospective study. Int J Fertil 1988;33(suppl):48-51. 
[31] Frank-Hermann P, Bremme M, Rosmus t, Kunkel W. Use-effectiveness of a symptothermal method in Germany. In: Schaitouits H, ed. Proceedings of 4th European congress IFFLP/FIDAF Vienna, Austria. Vienna: Institut fur Ehe und Familie, 1987:27-45. 
[32] Bonnar J. Natural family planning including breast feeding. In: Mishell DR, ed. Advances in fertility research. New York: Raven Press, 1982:1-18. 
[33] Ghosh AK, Saha S, Chattergee G. Symptothermia vis a vis fertility control. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 1982;32:443-7. 
[34] Roetzer J. Symptothermal methods of natural family planning. International Review of Natural Family Planning 1981;5:200-2. 
[35] Kambic RT, Gray RH, Lanctot CA, Martin MC, Wesley R, Cremins R. Evaluation of natural family planning programs in Liberia and Zambia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2078. 
[36] Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Burr S, Bremme M, Doring GK, Godehardt EAJ, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of the symptothermal method of natural family planning in Germany. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2052-4. 
[37] Dorairaj K. The modified mucus method in India. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2066-7. 
[38] Kelly J. Audit of health services in Gurage. J Trop Pediatr 1992;38:206-7. 
[39] Clubb EM, Pyper CM, Knight J. A pilot study on teaching natural family planning in general practice. In: Natural family planning: current knowledge and new strategies for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1990:130-2. 
[40] Ryder REJ, Depares J, Norman C, Walker S, Scanlon MF. Ovarian ultrasonography and the precision of the symptoms of ovulation. Clin Sci 1985;69(suppl 12):17P.

39 posted on 07/11/2013 2:22:59 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

You’re very right.


40 posted on 07/11/2013 2:24:11 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM
Flushed [birth control pill] hormones change sex of [wild] fish [what are they doin' to you???]
The Ottawa Citizen ^ | Saturday, January 05, 2002 | Tom Spears

Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:50:00 AM by Brian Kopp DPM

Flushed hormones change sex of fish
Synthetic estrogen in water from sewage causes male fish to produce eggs: study

Tom Spears
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, January 05, 2002

Women who take birth control pills or hormone therapy are flushing enough hormones down the toilet to make male fish downstream produce eggs, a Canadian study shows.

Synthetic estrogen in the women's urine goes through sewage treatment plants without being completely broken down, and the fish absorb it, with bad effects following.

Male fish produce eggs in their testes. Female fish are stimulated by the extra hormones to produce eggs at the wrong times of year.

And there are questions, still unanswered, about whether these chemically altered fish are capable of reproducing at all.

Scientists have seen this "gender-bending" effect in fish downstream from sewage plants, but lacked proof that birth control pills are a cause.

So Karen Kidd of Fisheries and Oceans Canada started dribbling bits of the synthetic hormone from birth control pills into a 34-hectare lake in northwestern Ontario, west of Dryden, to find out. The lakes are so remote they don't even have names (this one is called Lake 260) and are perfectly suited to act as giant experiments because they are practically untouched by pollution.

Sure enough, the male lake trout, white suckers, fathead minnows and pearl dace turned up this fall with proteins that females use to manufacture egg cells, and in some cases with the eggs themselves.

"The question now is whether this feminization is affecting the population size or sustainability," she said. "Can males with eggs in their testes reproduce effectively? Can they contribute to the population?"

It will take another summer of adding chemicals, and a couple of years of counting fish afterwards, to know the full effects. But Ms. Kidd is finding an interested audience in Vancouver this weekend, where she will show her early results to a conference of fisheries scientists.

"People consume the birth control pills and it's lost from their bodies and goes into the sewage," said Peter Leavitt, a biology professor at the University of Regina. "So we get this huge population in sources like cities, dumping this very high concentration of hormones into the water bodies. And the question is: Is it having an influence?

"It seems to be mimicking some of the reproductive hormones that other organisms use, and it's basically messing up their reproductive strategies," he said. "I think it's really significant," because no one thought of human sewage as a source of this type of pollution before, he said.

"And what Karen is showing is that there are consequence of large numbers of people living in an area ... It's not so much that we're destroying their (the wildlife's) habitat. But we're actually changing the chemical environment in which they live and breathe."

Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into sewage in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.

For 10 years scientists have studied chemicals that act like estrogen in fish, other wildlife, and even humans that eat tainted fish. Many of these come from pesticides or industrial waste and are never intended to be like hormones at all. But this study is unique in looking at real hormones flushed down the drain.

Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into the sewage system in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.

The Lake 260 experiment uses the amount of hormone that would come from 6,000 women taking the pill, she said.

© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen

41 posted on 07/11/2013 2:25:03 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Because condoms fail 18% of the time under normal (read, reasonable) use. EACH TIME. This isn’t like the pill or rhythm methods, where if it works once for you, it’s more likely to work again. This is every single time, you place another bullet in the gun you’re playing Russian roulette with. This means that if you normally would have gotten pregnant after three months, you WILL STILL GET PREGNANT using a condom, it will just take an average of sixteen months.


42 posted on 07/11/2013 2:27:14 PM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Condoms are like putting iron on your...well, you know what I mean. I don’t believe it is 18% for married couples. It’s more like 90-95 percent effective. Guys just don’t like them. Tough!


43 posted on 07/11/2013 2:29:46 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Because they don’t work well?


44 posted on 07/11/2013 2:30:50 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

[[citation needed]]

Just because you believe it doesn’t mean it’s true.


45 posted on 07/11/2013 2:31:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Taking as directed revolves around a structured life schedule, and respecting the final week. Active dating is contrary to a structured live, and often doesn’t respect the final week.


46 posted on 07/11/2013 2:31:43 PM PDT by discostu (Go do the voodoo that you do so well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangus

You can get a poll to say anything you want it to say. This is nonsense, IMHO.


47 posted on 07/11/2013 2:32:03 PM PDT by Rytas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

statistics on this subject are one thing

but they represent composite results, and

they always should include the disclaimer

what works well for some may not work well for you, AND what does not work well for some may work well for you; individual experience varies and couples should always rely most on what most often works for them


48 posted on 07/11/2013 2:32:46 PM PDT by Wuli (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

They work very well. It’s a cliché that they don’t work. They don’t work if you’re a stupid kid of 18 having your first encounter with someone. (I guess, in modern day America, I should say ‘if you’re a stupid kid of 12 or 13...”)


49 posted on 07/11/2013 2:34:03 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

No, believe me, I know what I’m talking about. If you can find an objective study, you’ll find that condoms are very effective. Why do you think men hate them? Because they work and are uncomfortable.


50 posted on 07/11/2013 2:37:02 PM PDT by miss marmelstein ( Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson