Sex in the City of God - A couple make the case for contraception-free marriage.

NRO ^ | August 9, 2002 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[Gophack]

Then it's the fact that conception might still potentially occur that renders NFP acceptable? The fact that the possibility of conception still exists?

NFP is more effective than any artificial form of birth control. The difference is that you are open to live and sharing in God's plan, even when you are not "trying" to get pregnant; whereas with artificial birth control you're saying, "No, I don't want to be part of God's plan."

But NFP is more than just a method of birth control. There are, in fact, wrong reasons to use NFP to avoid pregnancy. But NFP is about accepting God as a partner in your marriage; loving each other completely; will to sacrifice through abstinence if getting pregnant is just not the best thing for the family at the time. Couples who practice NFP have a FAR LOWER divorce rate than couples who use artificial birth control.

And, aside from all that, artificial birth control has potentially devastating side effects that permanently harm a woman and often her chance of fertility.

[Gophack]

So they not only want to saddle parents with an ever-expanding brood, but they want it supported by a single income, which is no longer commonly possible in modern society.

First, this isn't a fair statement, because NFP can be practiced to NOT have children. There is a five year gap between my second and third child, which we did intentionally because of financial reasons.

However, I will grant you that it is difficult for a family with any children to survive on one income, especially if you want to send them to parochial/private school and college. We haven't been able to do it yet where I can quit, but we can now afford for me to work part-time by cutting expenses and paying off debt. It's not ideal, but it's better than it was before.

[Gophack]

A single income is becoming more and more popular in modern Christian society, especially as parents decide to homeschool the children. Most I've talk to are amazed how well they are living as a one-income family and keeping an eye on the budget. Kudos to all those young families who are making this decision and finding that there is little suffering involved.

Believe me, I'm trying. If I have to homeschool my kids to afford it, then I will.

We had financial problems due to unemployment, and we're getting out of debt and on our feet. Now, I can move to part-time ... hopefully, by the end of next year, I will be a full-time stay-at-home mom ... and God willing, with number four on the way.

[el_chupacabra]

Last time I checked, the article in question was about a protestant couple's decision to use NFP. Did I misread it, or are you just looking for any excuse to attack Catholics?

[Gophack]

There is NOTHING wrong with using plain old birth control in marriage.

If the birth control is NFP, there is nothing wrong with it. If it is the pill, the IUD, etc., there is.

NFP is more than 99% effective when practiced properly. It is more effective than any form of artificial birth control at AVOIDING pregnancy. And I agree with you that some people can not handle a bunch of kids, that one or two is more than enough. Some people shouldn't ever have children.

But just because someone doesn't want a "bunch of kids", doesn't mean that they need to use artificial birth control. Remember -- most artificial birth control are abortificents, causing early abortions. That is wrong. Most artificial birth control screws up a woman's body, but they never tell you that. Did you know that for every year a woman is on the pill, her reproductive organs age two years? Ever think that might be a reason why all these 30-something women are having a hard time conceiving?

I have found on these posts that those opposed to NFP don't understand how it works and don't try to understand.

[BrooklynGOP]

Anal sex -- aside from its obvious implications for the normalizing of homosexuality among heteros as pushed by pornographers -- has nothing whatsoever to do with human sexuality.

Ping!

[BrooklynGOP]

Anal sex -- aside from its obvious implications for the normalizing of homosexuality among heteros as pushed by pornographers -- has nothing whatsoever to do with human sexuality.

What about oral sex?

[Texaggie79]

"The bed of a husband and wife cannot be defiled."

I.E. As long as it's between a man and woman who are married, all is fair game.

[Texaggie79]

Why do you have to be so "anal" when it comes to talk about intimacy?

[rmmcdaniell]

It was an interesting article, and I have nothing whatsoever against this couple, but I do have an observation. If they take God's word literally to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it," then Natural Family Planning is just as wrong as any other form of contraception. I have wondered about this issue for some time. To me, if someone uses science to plan when to have sex in order not to conceive--because they take a religious viewpoint that contraception is against God's word--then they cannot argue that having sex with the intention of not multiplying is obeying God's word.

You can take the philosophy even further. If you have the knowledge of what days a woman is fertile, the couple must use the rhythm method to avoid sex on any day when the woman was incapable of conception.

[rmmcdaniell]

Is it your complaint against the Church that she is authoritarian, or that she is not authoritarian enough?

I can't speak for the original poster, but I think the Church should be consistant. It should either ban all contraceptives (NFP or otherwise) or allow them all. If the church really believed that every sexual encounter between husband and wife must be open to conception, it SHOULD ban sex during infertile periods because such an ifertile day would be closed to conception. It should then also ban sex between permanently infertile couples or those who have passed through menopause. The church won't carry its own dogma to its logical conclusion because it would alienate too many people. The Church doesn't have the courage to root out its child molesters and Ted Kennedy pro-choicers. I don't really ever expect it to have the courage to be consistant with its views on contraception.

[SarahW]

"The pill" in its various formulations has protective as well as detrimental effects. It's a good method for many women but by no means all.

I personally don't have a problem with methods making implantation difficult, but I can see how others would.

Low dose pills rely more heavily on making the uterine lining inhospitable, but that is a: not the same as destroying an implanted embryo and b: morally the equivalent of having sex timed so that any fertilized egg will have no good place to land. (Both pill and mainly work by preventing or avoiding ovulation, and both also rely on an inhospitable uterine environment)

Having a baby every year, btw, is MUCH more dangerous than using the pill between babies. And the "aging" you describe is bogus. It does not age the reproductive tract. It protects against ovarian cancer and PID, to boot.

Women's fertility drops off rapidly after 34. (Waiting is a mistake if you know you want kids.) It has nothing to do *whatever* with the pill. (In fact it provides a protective effect for women who would otherwise develop tube damaging ascending pelvic infections that have also contributed to loss of fertility in women)

[redhead]

"I do it - my wife stays home"

I did it. When my youngest was 2 I "retired" to stay home for them. Every school day after that (give or take a couple for meetings, etc.), my kids came through the door after school to find me home. Believe me, it was THE absolute BEST decision I ever made (after returning to the Church and marrying my husband), and I have never regretted it for even a second. My intelligent, well-balanced kids are a real blessing that I wouldn't have had if I had turned their care over to another person from outside the home.

[redhead]

"However so do unnatural methods. But then you speak of abstinance. But those who practice natural methods aren't abstinant.

Aren't those who practice natural methods equally guilty of being not abstinant? I'm just wondering exactly what makes them better. It can't be that they have a possibility of conception because so do those who use condoms. So, what is the difference?"

The word is spelled with an 'e'. AbstinEnce. I wonder if you might be thinking that couples who practice NFP never abstain, but that is not true. Abstinence is 100% foolproof, and in NFP it is practiced during the fertile periods of a wife's cycle. It is not a major "loss" for a couple to abstain for the few fertile days in the cycle. That is what makes this method so effective: Intercourse during fertile times is not indulged in.

[redhead]

Bumping to you...

[Under the Radar]

Take Charge of Your Fertility

[Under the Radar]

Primarily because women work and have ratcheted down the man's ability to bring home wealth even as they've ruined the workplace and invited in Uncle Sam to settle their every dispute and even -- or slant, rather -- their every playing field.

Excellent, well said!

[independentmind]

Primarily because women work and have ratcheted down the man's ability to bring home wealth even as they've ruined the workplace and invited in Uncle Sam to settle their every dispute and even -- or slant, rather -- their every playing field.

This is a good thread; it dares to approach a subject that even most posters on FR won't go near. A clear case can be made for the connections between contraception and promiscuity, and contraception and divorce. Contraception within an otherwise sound marriage (and I, for one, am personally aware of many such marriages)is a much tougher case.

I wouldn't be so eager to blame working women for all of our societal woes; it seems to me that most men would prefer to see their wives and assorted significant others work; it allows them to enjoy a life relatively free of burdens. Little do they know that bearing burdens is a part and parcel of being a man. Now let's see the men's rights crowd discuss that one.