Does NFP Lead to “Massive Embryonic Death”?
— Posted by John (June 6, 2006 at 4:54 pm)
Uh, no.
But that’s precisely what Luc Bovens would have us believe.
Bovens is a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science who recently wrote an article titled “The Rhythm Method and Embryonic Death”, which appeared in the British Medical Journal’s subsidiary, the Journal of Medical Ethics.
In the article, Bovens writes:
What has gone unnoticed is that, if one is willing to make a few relatively innocent assumptions, then the rhythm method may well be responsible for massive embryonic death and the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, IUDs and pill usage, should also make them nervous about the rhythm method.
Here, Bovens makes an all-too-common mistake: he equates natural family planning (NFP) with the “(calendar) rhythm method”–which is obsolete, and has been for decades.
Aside from ecological breastfeeding, the two most common forms of NFP now used by couples are the Sympto-Thermal Method and the Billings Ovulation Method, both of which are vastly different–and far more scientifically sound–than calendar rhythm.
Bovens goes on to state his assumptions:
The first assumption is that there are a great number of conceptions that never result in missed menses. There are estimates that only 50% of conceptions actually lead to pregnancies. The second assumption is that, even in clinical trials, the rhythm method can fail due to the fact that a pregnancy results from sexual intercourse on the last days before and the first days after the prescribed abstinence period. Estimates of the effectiveness of the rhythm method vary in the literature, but let us set its effectiveness for clinical trials at 90%—that is, conscientious rhythm method users can expect one pregnancy in ten woman years. The third assumption is that there is a greater chance that a conception will lead to a viable embryo if it occurs in the centre interval of the fertile period than if it occurs on the tail ends of the fertile period. This assumption is not backed up by empirical evidence, but does have a certain plausibility. From assumption one, we know that there is a high embryonic death rate. It seems reasonable to assume that an embryo that results from an “old” ovum (that is waiting at the end of the fertile period) or an “old” sperm (that is still lingering on from before ovulation), and that is trying to implant in a uterine wall that is not at its peak of receptivity, is less viable than an embryo that comes about in the centre interval of the fertile period. Let us make a conservative guess that the chance that an embryo conceived in the centre interval of the fertile period, which coincides with the abstinence period in the rhythm method—let us call this “the heightened fertility (HF) period”—is twice as likely to be viable as an embryo conceived at the tail ends of the fertile period.
Bovens then proceeds to make his case that “millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death.”
In a series of letters published on the Journal of Medical Ethics’ website, Bovens’ article gets the scientific smackdown it deserves.
Dr. Mark Whitty demolishes Boven’s “assumptions”–and, in the process, presents some key lessons about human reproduction:
[Bovens’] first assumption that 50% of natural human conceptions are lost is an often-repeated figure based on problematic research in 1956 (1) using histological anaysis of hysterectomies where intercourse was encouraged prior to surgery. The higher figure of 78% often quoted rests on a 1975 analysis (2) of an hypothesis based on a series of weak assumptions. Animal studies commonly give percentages in single figures. Boven’s third assumption is wholly invalid in the light of current knowledge of human reproductive physiology. The ovum lasts for about 12 hours, 24 at most; sperm may last up to 3-5 days with the support of both the appropriate types of cervical mucus and of the activity of the cervical crypts. Any conception is as viable as the next, barring a fatal genetic or developmental defect; there is no truth to the old “old sperm” or “old ovum” speculation, or its “twice as likely to be viable”, “lack resilience” and “reduced survival chances” assumption. Neither is there any truth in the “heightened fertility (HF)” and ‘tail- end fertility” idea, with or without further speculative assumptions about extrapolated comparative embryonic viability based on this innacuracy. A luteal phase of less than 11 days may be insufficient to sustain a natural conception, but this is a case for medical intervention. So all that follows based on the HF and other assumptions is invalid. His fourth point of counter-argument depends on the idea that natural conception could be timed in NFP use for when the endometrium is inhospitable to an embryo; this is physiological nonsense. The symphony of ovulation-related events ensures that the endometrium is ready for implantation until when either the corpus lutem expires or ßHCG is produced. It is a complete fallacy to assert, even in regard to the obsolete rhythm method, that any NFP methods “depend for their successes on massive embryonic death”.
Whitty notes another major flaw in Bovens’ article:
The article fails to acknowledge the distinction between natural loss and loss caused by deliberate human intervention; common sense and every criminal law system recognise the importance of knowledge and intent in human responsibility; in particular, the fact that accidental deaths happen does not justify causing similar deaths.
In other words, there is no moral comparison between NFP and artificial contraception.
Not surprisingly, this distinction was lost on major international newspapers who proved to be willing buyers of Bovens’ bill of goods:
- Sydney Morning Herald: “How Vatican Roulette Kills Embryos”
- India’s New Kerala: “Rhythm Method Linked to Massive Embryonic Death”
- Vancouver Sun: “‘Rhythm’ Method a Killer of Embryos”
What is perhaps most interesting about the uncritical reaction by members of the mainstream media to Bovens’ article is that his background is in philosophy and sociology–not in biology, medicine, or any of the “hard sciences”.
It’s especially ironic considering how often these same mainstream media portray pro-lifers–especially those of us who oppose contraception–as a gaggle of slack-jawed, unsophisticated, anti-scientific bumpkins.
This entry is filed under Contraception, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mary Kay says:
I think this is a case of a man with too much time on his hands.
We live in an age where infants are murdered by the thousands every day, old people are put down like dogs, “undesirables” are left to die in incubators, Terri Schiavo is deemed unworthy of life, and this clown is worried about old sperm. For goodness sake the little buggers only live for 72 hours as it is. Just what exactly is an old sperm? And do we really now need to practice euthanasia on ovum and sperm? Have they now been relegated to the pile of unwanted garbage because of their age? Maybe we should start killing all the people who were concieved with old sperm and aging eggs!
Lunacy! Just plain lunacy…
MK
Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
rosie says:
what she said!
Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Lauren says:
We also live in an age when birth control is deemed to be a conspiracy, we keep people on feeding tubes with half-sized brains because of other people’s religious beliefs, and the pro-life movement endorses a president who said, “I believe an abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor.” Crazy world indeed!
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Pansy Moss says:
Between morning sickness and lack of sleep, very often lately I read things and they don’t quite sink in. I read this article a few days ago, and I still fail to see his true connection, but it could be my pregnancy brain. What I don’t understand is the basic moral debate about whether to use NFP (or if you are living in like 1962 or prior, the rhythm method) is intent. You know, the whole grave matter to use NFP thing.
But as far as how to physically, and or scientifically to use it, it’s not like people realistically have sex everyday, and may very well naturally keep the same sexual patterns without being aware of it…
What I am not getting is, I think his point is not that some embryos die (we all know that scientifically, it is a miracle when a pregnancy sustains itself to the point when a woman knows she is pregnant), but is his point that it is immoral to practice NFP on the basis that it leads to higher infant mortality? Would it be equally immoral then, if people naturally had the same sex patterns and the exact same infant mortality rate? Maybe no one should have sex?
I am so confused. I think perhaps I should not type when I wake up with these bouts of pregnancy insomnia at 3-5 am. I’m going back to bed.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 4:22 am
Pansy Moss says:
We also live in an age when birth control is deemed to be a conspiracy,
Oh yeah, I see people saying that on the 10 o’clock news all the time!
I should probably be staying on topic and not respond to this.
Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project
On a serious note, the OOW (out of wedlock-yes, it is a topic that comes up so often on black messsage boards, it has it’s own anagram) percetages in the 50’s were 12% of the black community. Since the legalization of the pill (and following that, abortion), the concept of sex without commitment has caused the OOW rate to rise to 80%.
An Analysis of Out Of wedlock Births in the US
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Young Christian Woman says:
I read the whole article. It is without redeeming scientific value. It is mere speculation; this “empirical data” he mentions does not appear in the article. The idea that all biologists are wrong about the lifetime of gametes is a harmless assumption? Ludicrous. Besides, even if his theories were accurate, the pre-”HF” conceptions would be no more common in NFP-users than in those who use NFP, cutting his supposed embryonic death in half. Of course, none of what he’s saying has a scientific or even biologically rational basis anyway.
Actually, I do think NFP is immoral (when used to avoid conception), but not for such speicious and unscientific reasons as Mr. Bovens purports. Sometimes the position of NFP proponents seems to be, God is sovereign over the womb. Only God should control conception. If He wants it to happen, it will happen anyway, and nothing can stop it. But it is still disobedience to use birth control devices or hormones, because he may choose to let these destroy children, and they could prevent a conception which would otherwise be God’s will. NFP is natural and just as effective as the pill. So it’s okay to thwart God’s will that way.
NFP still takes control out of God’s hands. It still sets us up to make our own decisions about when to begin our children’s lives. It still implies a fear of fertility–I will make love to you, but only when nothing will come of it. If one argues purely on the angle that it is the inadvertant killing of children which is unacceptable, then barrier methods are no less acceptable than NFP. If one argues that preventing conception is wrong, NFP is as culpable as anything else (except IUDs, which don’t prevent conception–but we all know where that leads). And why would it please God that each marital act was open to procreation when the marriage was still not open to procreation?
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:5 not to abstain within marriage except for the purpose of prayer (and fasting, according to the KJVs). I have never heard that NFP requires a significant commitment to prayer, let alone fasting. Even if it did, Paul does not say abstinence is okay as long as you pray; he said that abstinence is okay for the purpose of prayer. (I had a friend who studies Greek look at this, and the causality is very clear in the Greek.)
Even if you believe that Mary and Joseph were chaste even after Jesus’ birth–which I have seen as justification for abstinence–you must admit that this was a different sort of marriage. It is harder, sometimes, to be chaste occasionally than chaste always. In my experience, abstinence within marriage can also cause depression, because the act of marriage releases lots of endorphins (chemicals that make you happy).
I hope I am not being too argumentative; I certainly am not saying that NFP is “the murder of future persons.” (Wouldn’t say that about condoms, either, though.) This is actually one of my major problems–probably the second-biggest one–with Catholic doctrine. As for me, I leave my family planning to the Lord.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Lucy says:
YCW,
I’ll be honest, this article has blown my mind. As I have stated before, the matter of how many children that should be had is not an issue that I believe to be up for public appeal. I think that what is essentially the enforcement of abortions is wrong in places like China, who are beginning to see the results that seemed inevitable to me. If you only allow male children, or value them higher, eventually you run out of girls. It also strips people of their right to choose for themselves how many children they should have based on their own capacities. The ability to make these decisions independantly as individuals is an integral part of what makes us human. Therefore, it seems to me that all decisions regarding the subject should be made by individuals. History tells us that when government becomes involved the results are usually far less than preferable.
I obviously don’t agree with your position personally. I am fully in favor of you and others who do understand things in this manner to act according to your beliefs. I, however, am under the impression that if, for arguements sake, God gave me the capacity to reproduce, but also gave me the capacity to understand how it works, and to control it by understanding it, then I am not defying Gods will by utilizing the ability that was given to control it any more than I would be by utilizing my reproductive capacities. Presuming God, once again, for arguments sake, provided me with all that the capacities that I have, then I must assume that the ability to make decisions regarding such matters is one of the capacities that has been granted.
I would also assume that the understanding of how to create and use birth control has been provided, and therefore, is proper to be used. I would also dare to suggest that even the abilities to understand how to prevent the continuation of a Pregnancy is provided. I offer this as plausable due to the assumption that the ability to create roads, cars, houses, planes, aspirin, and other such manipulations of nature, would be accurately manipulations of nature, yet reasonably it could be suggested that the abilities are granted, and therefore proper to be utilized.
Arguably, if we operated only off of what we knew instinctually, which is little to nothing, and did not take measure to manipulate nature, and we are natural, we would still be throwing crudely crafted spears at wild animals and gathering berries. As we learn new ways of manipulating nature, including our own bodies, as we pursue cures for cancer, aids, and the common cold, the quality of our lives improve. We live longer, and the infant mortality rate drops. In developing countries life expectancy is still short, infant mortality is still high, disease is rampant and uncontrollable in some situations. Food shortages are high. The ability to manipulate nature to suit their needs is low.
I have to believe that as much as we need nature it is there to provide more than a scenic view. I have to believe that if we can manipulate the rest of nature, and we are nature, then we can manipulate our own bodies. Otherwise, I fail to see the difference between declaring that God wanted Cancer to take us and arguing against seeking treatment vs. believing that we should accept willingly that sex must lead to pregnancy, or at least not attempt to prevent it due to conditions that each individual must take into consideration.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Pansy Moss says:
Actually, I do think NFP is immoral (when used to avoid conception), but not for such speicious and unscientific reasons as Mr. Bovens purports.
Not all Catholics believe in NFP. Many are what we call providentialists. I tend to lean towards that only because NFP really does not seem to work too well with me, but seems to make life more complicated than having the babies. Also many Traditional Catholics (like myself) tend to lean towards providentialism as well.
With that said, I don’t believe Humanae Vitae is wrong. It just specifically says that NFP is allowed in grave circumstances. I am OK with that, it is just a personal matter as to what those circumstances are. If someone uses NFP for more selfish reasons, then God will know.
On a personal note though, I often read debates about Catholics providentialists with large families, and how Catholics are not required to have so many children like in the old days, and I often feel like NFP has opened a door for judgement of large families.
Lucy,
Arguably, if we operated only off of what we knew instinctually, which is little to nothing, and did not take measure to manipulate nature, and we are natural, we would still be throwing crudely crafted spears at wild animals and gathering berries.
Have you been spying on my boys in the back yard?
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Young Christian Woman says:
What blew your mind about the article? The premise or its factual inaccuracy?
For the record: I do not believe that NFP or barrier methods should be restricted. I do not believe that it is inherently sinful to use them. I think that it is perfectly acceptable if you, Lucy, choose to use such methods, because you are not Christian. My belief that birth control is wrong stems from a belief that God has given us a command to be fruitful and multiply, which is also the root of the Catholic teaching against birth control. My argument was only that the use of NFP is no more valid as a method of contraception than any other that does not kill unborn children.
I am not against all technology. But I am not for technology. Some of it can be used for nothing but evil. Technology is responsible for torture techniques, internet pornography, napalm, biological and chemical warfare, etc. Abortion is such a technology. Some of what makes it possible–such as a knowledge of how the body works, and sonogram machines–are not at all evil. Does knowing how to use a murder weapon to stop life mean that God encourages or even condones it? Of course not. In our society, once a person is of age, he or she may take any action that does not hurt another, and some harmful actions if they are consensual. Abortion is both harmful to another and nonconsensual.
What is so important about sex that people need to have it when they do not want to accept the natural and extremely common consequences? Why is sex so wonderful that it is worth the killing of millions of “potential” human beings?
I realize you weren’t necessarily equating pregnancy and cancer directly, although you came close, but I still think I should point out some differences–because it’s fun–other people can chime in with theirs too:
The difference between cancer and pregnancy is that cancer is a disease, and a baby is not a tumor. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Many people purposely become pregnant. Pregnancy goes away by itself in less than a year. Pregnancy is rarely life-threatening. No one protests another person’s cancer treatments, even if they don’t want their own cancer treated. No one thinks that killing cancerous cells is murder. Treating cancer has never been illegal, and has never been widely considered to be immoral. Vitamins and careful living make cancer less likely, but pregnancy more likely. There is no lifestyle in which cancer carries more stigma than another. No one would fight for the right to get cancer if it were taken away. No one else is intimately involved in giving you cancer, and even if they were, they would never protest you getting rid of it because they love tumors. Tumors do not grow up to be adults, or to get cancer and have more tumors themselves. I have never made any attempt to contract cancer, nor have most people I know. Commonly available products in a convenience store make pregnancy less likely, and cancer more likely (not the same ones though). No one prays for their tumor to grow larger and stronger. Cancer patients do not wish for their tumors to outlive them. Tumors do not go to heaven. Jesus does not love tumors. Punishments in the Bible on unrighteous people involve giving them tumors or not giving them pregnancies. Cancer treatment is not a task reserved for doctors who could not find other work. If someone was purposely spreading cancer, a cancer treatment center would not cover it up to get more business. Successful cancer treatments cause life; successful “pregnancy treatments” cause death. People who survive cancer treatment always remain in favor of cancer treatment. Tumors that were not treated do not go on to advocate against treating tumors. Doctors never advocate treating just some of the tumors so that others can get bigger and stronger. No one worries whether the cancer lasts a certain recommended amount of time before it ends. Cancer is not an expected result of marriage. No one grieves when they find their marriage is not cancerous. People who do not want cancer treatment do not wish to have funerals if their tumors go away anyway. Some people really don’t know why they got cancer.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Pansy:
What is providentialism?
Pansy said:
It just specifically says that NFP is allowed in grave circumstances. I am OK with that, it is just a personal matter as to what those circumstances are. If someone uses NFP for more selfish reasons, then God will know.
That is similar to what the first Protestant church to allow birth control said, and soon Protestants began allowing birth control for any and every reason. I suspect many, many Catholics consider a “grave circumstance” to be having two in diapers or an inability to avoid the best private schools. It is like the abortion debate; if we say that rape or incest or babies who have not implanted in the womb are exceptions, then we have made a concession we cannot easily unmake and weakened our entire argument.
On a personal note though, I often read debates about Catholics providentialists with large families, and how Catholics are not required to have so many children like in the old days, and I often feel like NFP has opened a door for judgement of large families.
Judging large families is a telltale sign of an anti-child mindset. It’s all too easy to go from “grave circumstances” to “difficult circumstances” to “inconvenient circumstances.” One of the things that I admire about Lucy is that she acknowledges that freedom of choice should be extended to those who want many children as well as those who want few. Many of those who call themselves pro-choice are only pro-choice-to-kill, not pro-reproductive-freedom.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Young Christian Woman says:
Oops; that should have been “afford the best private schools”
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Pansy Moss says:
That is similar to what the first Protestant church to allow birth control said, and soon Protestants began allowing birth control for any and every reason.
I think many Catholics would agree with you, execpt the Church draws the line with NFP and abc. I think someone would do a better job than I in explaining the differences because like I said, I am not the best NFP champion.
Providentialism is basically “letting go and letting God”.
One of the things that I admire about Lucy is that she acknowledges that freedom of choice should be extended to those who want many children as well as those who want few.
Yes, I agree.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Funky Dung says:
Thanks for adding another good response to this manure to the blogosphere.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Mary Kay says:
While it is absolutely possible to abuse any privilege, the bottom line is always a well formed conscience.
I am 48 years old and seriously doubt whether or not I physically could carry another child. I know that if it happened I would welcome that child with open arms but truly believe that I would be taking a chance with my health. I don’t really practice NFP but do keep loose tabs on my fertile periods and usually abstain from sex at that point. I also know that my husband isn’t as far along in his faith as I am and he is adamant about not wanting more children.
Personally, if you could leave one on my doorstep and not make me go through the pregnancy again, I’d have ten more…
So, I defer to his wishes (also a Catholic concept) and try not to load the dice, so to speak. All the while keeping the discussion open that if it is in God’s plans to have more children, then that is what we need to do. He is coming around. But given my age, the fact that I already have six and the knowledge that so far God has not given me more, I can honestly say that I have examined my conscience and am very comfortable with not “pushing the envelope” by having sex in my most fertile periods.
But that is the closest I come to trying to “control” my circumstances and I would still be open to more children.
There are circumstances where couples truly could not afford to have more children (and I don’t mean each child getting his own cell phone and a trip to Disney World every year) as well as women with endomitriosis, or tipped uteruses or any number of things that would make having children dangerous. Abstaining is not a bad thing. I remember once when I was taking Accutane and the doctor always prescribed birth control pills with it because birth defects were almost guaranteed with this drug. I would dump the pills and my husband and I abstained from sex for a year. It was very edifying. And Kevin was concieved on the day that we could “share” again. To me this was a perfect example of a good time for abstinence.
But you are right, just using NFP to keep the family to two children because of selfish reasons would be a grave sin.
That said, only each individual woman can make that decision, with the help of God, and it’s not the same as killing a child that is already there. While abortion is an obvious error, NFP is more about seeing into the hearts of the people who use it. And that is something I can’t do. I can see a dead baby, and I know that that was the intention of the people that aborted her, but I don’t know the intentions of families practicing NFP and would hesitate to judge them. Not that I’m saying you are.
What people don’t realize is that we as christians view children as a gift, and when God gives you a gift, you don’t say “No thank you” It’s not like getting yet another picture frame from a co-worker. It’s God. And he has given you a gift. At the very least, it would be an insult to give it back. At worst it would be placing yourself on the same plane that He is and presuming yourself to be wiser than He. That would be a reenactment of the first sin. Trying to be God. And even I don’t want that job.
MK
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Mary Kay says:
Funky Dung,
Huh?
MK
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Funky Dung says:
Bovens’ article = manure
your response = good
I guess it’s hard to comment on a post when there are already a dozen comments that one doesn’t intend to respond to.
I’ll endeavor to be clearer next time.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
There is a conspiracy going on, Lauren. That’s what you call it when one of the most important medical associations in our country changes biological definitions so that it can mislabel a drug.
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Lauren says:
what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Mary Kay says:
Lauren,
You’re home. Next time you’re going to be late call. I worry.
MK
Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Pansy Moss says:
what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman
Why do you put her name in quotes like that? Are you trying to illustrate that even though she claims to be Christian she is not? And you know this because you follow her around in real life and you see her sneakily ducking into Bhuddist Temples when on the internet she claims to be a follower of the teachings of Christ? Or is it merely a jab because she has a differing perspective.
…If you say a ton of grea tthings, they will find one sentence that offends them and doesnt have to do with the core of what you’re saying and will accuse you of being mean…
So “what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman ” is a “great” statement, and to find something offensive in it is just a matter of grasping at a no argument in a “great” statement and is a pro-lifer “being mean”. Unless of course simply having a different opinion than you is a self-righteous, right wing, gun toting, racist Christian way of being condescending and mean.
Look, I am not the moderator here, but I think as a human being I have a right to say knock it off. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure others would love to exchange ideas with you and hear your differing thoughts if they weren’t veiled in such nasty sentiments.
You don’t agree that abc is a conspiracy, and you would like further explanation on how someone could come to that conclusion, a better way to word the question would be :
“YCW,
What do you mean medical associations changing biological definitions? I’m not sure I buy that, but I would like a clarification.”
Instead of:what the hell are you talking about young “christian” woman
People would be more inclined to listen instead of getting annoyed, but I think you like annoying people because then you can complain about how horrible those Christians are. It is hard to hear “great” things when they are littered with cursing, telling people their children should not have been born, or wishing deadly diseases on them. I have yet to hear Lucy prove her point using one of those tactics.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 4:32 am
Mary Kay says:
What she said.!
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Funky Dung says:
You might be interested href=”http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2211″>the series of posts I’m writing that discuss these kinds of issues. I hope you join the conversation.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Funky Dung says:
Seems I bungled that URL. Try this one.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Young Christian Woman says:
What I was referring to was, as I am sure that some people know, the decision of the American Medical Association to change the definition of “conception” to be implantation rather than fertilization. This was done mainly so that birth control pills (and now other hormonal treatments) could be called contraceptives.
Don’t have a source you’ll find acceptable, Lauren, so you’ll have to do your own digging.
You might want to note that the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conception) still does not define it that way.
It is chilling and angering to come across serious-looking sites which proclaim, Those Christians don’t know what they are talking about. The medical community says that conception takes place at implantation, not fertilization… That’s my summary, but they do take the attitude that those who follow the older definition–the real one, that the dictionaries use–are backwards and not “with it.”
This, Lauren, is a conspiracy. Until I found this out, I didn’t really believe in conspiracies, but there it is.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 11:08 am
rosie says:
“NFP still takes control out of God’s hands”
How? The word potential has been thrown around here and I think that’s the key word where NFP is concerned, there’s still the potential chance you can get pregnant while the chaces are low. Now with contraception in your infertile period you are taking that “potential” away. Does that make sense?
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Funky Dung says:
Even if that’s the case, not all contraceptive pills are created equal. There is no evidence that the Pill, or its high-dose cousin Plan B, negatively affects implantation. Studies show only thickening of cervical mucus and prevention of ovulation. Neither has been demonstrated to be abortifacient. Mifepristone, on the other hand, most definitely is abortifacient. If we pro-lifers keep spreading the myth that the Pill and Plan B are abortifacient, people will continue to regard us as “a gaggle of slack-jawed, unsophisticated, anti-scientific bumpkins”.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
John says:
I’m compelled to throw in my $.02 on the discussion of NFP, providentialism, etc., as some of the comments posted indicate a rather significant misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding them.
My contribution will come mostly in the form of references to three articles, each written by individuals far more knowledgeable in this area than I.
First, an article published in This Rock titled “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?” by Fr. Brian Harrison, OS.
As you might guess, the answer is “no,” and in the course of the article, Fr. Harrison offers an historical overview of key developments in the Church’s teachings on contraception, natural child spacing, and the like.
Second, another article from This Rock, this one by Christopher West, entitled “God, Sex, and Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”.
Here’s an excerpt (note especially the quotation from the future Pope John Paul II, of happy memory):
Third, for those who are interested in a lengthier, more scholarly treatment of the issue, check out Dr. Janet Smith’s “Moral Use of Natural Family Planning” [PDF]
A complete list of Dr. Smith’s articles (most of which are available online) is here.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
John says:
Funky Dung said: “Even if that’s the case, not all contraceptive pills are created equal. There is no evidence that the Pill, or its high-dose cousin Plan B, negatively affects implantation. Studies show only thickening of cervical mucus and prevention of ovulation. Neither has been demonstrated to be abortifacient. Mifepristone, on the other hand, most definitely is abortifacient. If we pro-lifers keep spreading the myth that the Pill and Plan B are abortifacient, people will continue to regard us as ‘a gaggle of slack-jawed, unsophisticated, anti-scientific bumpkins’.”
Funky Dung,
You make a few more important points here, but you make a few mistakes in the process.
First, you’re justified to criticize the tendency among some pro-lifers to speak of the Pill, certain other forms of contraception, and the morning-after pill as exclusively abortifacients.
However, you’re mistaken when you suggest that it is incorrect to speak of the Pill, certain other forms of contraception, and the morning-after pill as if they never can act as abortifacients.
What we do know is that the aforementioned have the potential to act as abortifacients. Their manufacturers tell us as much (although they don’t use the word “abortifacient”, of course).
Right now, I’m looking at the pharmacological insert that’s included in a case of Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo Tablets (norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol), which says the following:
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Funky Dung says:
I think that’s more a matter of covering themselves than reporting the results of scientific studies. Thus far, the pharmacological inserts are the only places I’ve seen any mention of implantation being affected.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I would like to clarify my perspective. I did say I lean towards providentialism, but I also said I do not disagree with the Church’s teaching on NFP, and that I do not judge anyone who uses NFP.
The reasons I lean towards providentialism are more physical than philisophical/theological. It just doesn’t work that well with me. My last three children were conceived attempting to use NFP. I learned two methods, and it is just not easy to read with us, probably due to breastfeeding. It has become more of a frustration and a hinderance in my marriage than a Godsend.
I know I am not alone that NFP does not work well with everyone. And to be honest, the propaganda surrounding NFP, (for understandable reasons-to combat the misinformation in a contraceptive culture) is that it works so well, it brings marriages together, it is wonderful, and while that maybe true for some, it is not for a lot of people. I think many of the people who struggle with it are the ones that become hard core providentialists.
For years I have been reading opinions on this debate. There always seems to be strong arguments on one side or the other on this debate, with everyone quoting documents at each other, but no one in the middle truly expressing what has helped or been a burden in their own life experiences.
With that said, while I have read the Church allows for NFP, I have never read anywhere that says couples are required to use NFP, and I think it is wrong to look at a family, say they have too many kids and are irresponsible since the Church allows for NFP.
Anyway, if that is what you got out of my original post on providentialism, I apologise for the repition. If not, I hope this clarifies.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
When I said:
NFP still takes control out of God’s hands
Pansy commented:
How? The word potential has been thrown around here and I think that’s the key word where NFP is concerned, there’s still the potential chance you can get pregnant while the chaces are low. Now with contraception in your infertile period you are taking that “potential” away. Does that make sense?
Contraception is not infallible. It works about the same amount of the time as NFP. Sites promoting NFP say that its effectiveness is about the same as the pill when used properly. You can argue that they are different, but not that NFP is any more open to life. NFP is every bit as much a statement of “I love you, but not your fertility” as contraception. It is every bit as much a rejection of the gifts of God.
John spoke of:
the hyper-pious notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church.
I’m not a Catholic. I don’t care overly much about the teaching of the Catholic Church; I am concerned with the teachings of scripture, which says to go forth and multiply, and calls children blessings.
The Catholic church, I believed, authorized the use of NFP in “grave” circumstances, not in “any and every circumstance,” so I think it is not hard to say that if a couple has “one of each,” a nice house, two or three nice cars, a good nest egg in the bank, and no serious genetic issues, and they are using NFP to avoid another child, something is wrong.
Unless one starts from the Biblical assumption that, in a normal, ideal family and circumstance, children would always be welcome, you cannot come to a Biblical conclusion on when it is okay not to welcome children. There’s no Biblical reason for child spacing or not conceiving as newlyweds. God invented child spacing; that’s why it takes ten months between babies and more than a year and a half if mothers breastfeed, which is obviously the intent of our design. Aside from likely and serious medical complications or a real inability to feed another mouth, there is no reason not to welcome a child. Financial concerns really shouldn’t be an issue in the US, Europe, or most developed nations; kids just don’t starve or go naked.
NFP is heresy. The Protestant heresy is that birth control is okay; the Catholic heresy is that abstinence is okay, despite the fact that Paul forbid it in 1Cor 7:5 except for the purpose of prayer. Both are manifestations of an anti-child mindset. But Christ commanded us to be childlike, to let children come to Him, and to do to children what we would like to do for Him. He said that to teach children the wrong way was worse than to be drowned at sea. If we are to multiply and welcome children, then why would NFP be acceptable so that they were not “too close in age”?
I’m not trying to belittle anyone, and I think that if one must practice contraception, NFP is the way to go. But I don’t think it is ideal.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
rosie says:
Young Christian Woman,
That was my comment not Pansy’s. All I was trying to say is that when you practice NFP is that while you may not think it to be an ideal time to have another child there is still the willingness to conceive if that’s what God wants but the difference when you use contraceptives is that you are basically telling God he doesn’t know what he’s doing. I also think that a lot of people aren’t clear on what a grave circumstance would be and it’s important to know. I personally wouldn’t mind having 10 kisd,so you see we’re more in agreement than not. Sorry, i’m not very good at explaining things.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Mary Kay says:
John,
I cannot thank you enough for giving us those links. I feel even better about my decision now, because I know that my husband and I are both doing this for the right reasons. Our marriage and therefore our parenting is much better knowing that we can handle what we have, but would trust God to know better than us and accept whatever He thought best. We work together, have the same goal in mind, have the same acceptance if our goal is not God’s goal, and our sexual relationship, while being a part (and a very important part) of our marriage, does not define it.
MK
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Funky Dung says:
You might find this article interesting.
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I’m not trying to belittle anyone, and I think that if one must practice contraception, NFP is the way to go. But I don’t think it is ideal.
This is the way I always felt about it-and agin, that is a personal feeling, not a theological epiphany I had. I always thought of NFP as the result of original sin-in a perfect world where there is not sin, or suffering, people would not have to postpone children. I hate to use the term “necessary evil” because technically, if it is evil it should not be practiced, no? But again, I know a lot of people who NFP is not a struggle, so it has not been an extra burden to them, so they would not call it an evil.
I think your wording about “if you have to contracept, NFP is the way to go” is basically why the Church calls for grave circumstances. I read years ago, Dr. Janet Smith calls these circumstances “good reasons” or something like that (like I said, in the beginning of my marriage, I followed so many debates on this issue because trying to find out what was right weighed heavily on my mind). I am not sure how much I buy that, but in the end I am responsible for my soul in this matter. But along time ago I stopped reading the theologians on this. In theory, the best way to decide a grave matter is with prayer, and if your lucky enough to have a diocese that it can found in, with good spiritual direction. Sometimes finding God’s answer is not that cryptic either. If your motives are not pure, God will know. If they are, God will know.
One of the differences between NFP though, in theory, is that you are really not closing yourself off from life. Even though people abstain during a fertile cycle, God can technically send a child at any point, and unlike with artificial means, you will be open to that life. Many NFP people I know tend to have one more child then they were planning because one month they sort of felt like “why are we abstaining again?” I also see a lot of NFP using people who pretty much use it like “Catholic birth control”, or so they appear to from their own words. I guess they seem to be reasons to me that seem silly to postpone a child, but perhaps I should not judge because there may be more to the story than what is obvious. So for a long time, after seeing examples of this, I kind of felt the way you did, that after 2 kids, most people felt it was enough.
With all that said, I really wish NFP did work better for us. I am tired. For two plus years I lived among the Amish. The Amish could have kids out the ears because they had a community structured with help. My neighbor, Sarah, stayed in bed for the first month doing nothing after childbirth. She said to me that if she were like me, without the community, she had no idea how she could have children. We no longer have these communities. Mothers are expected to just deal, and I think that is why many women stick their kids in daycare and go off to work.
Motherhood is very hard work, and it gets exponentially harder with each child. With the last couple, I started getting repeated bouts of mastitis (from exhaustion), post partum depression…Still I think for us another child is a better alternative in my marriage than abstaining for months and months at a time. It is like a strange circle, family life causes spouses to sort of be pulled apart (like having babies in the bed) if they are not making concerted efforts to keep their marriage together, and I think abstaining for months sort of counters that. Maybe I will feel differently after this baby is born.
Sorry so long, I just wanted to say “ikwym” to your last sentence.LOL
Comment posted June 8th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Lena says:
I really appreciate this conversation.
This topic needs to be better understood by the masses. It’s amazing how contraception has become such an integral part of our society so quickly. It is redefining our culture.
It’s hard for people to verbalize the distinction between the use of artificial contraception and the use of NFP. I have heard that debate but I think it is clear to an objective observer that there is a tremendous difference.
I have often discussed the appropriate use of NFP with people. I think the topic is well covered here and I am so glad to have read this conversation. I just wonder - I know that it can be sinful to avoid conception but can it ever be sinful to conceive a child in a valid marriage?
I think of this question in light of the psalm that says, “Children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy the man whose quiver is filled with them.”
That being said, I concur 110% with Pansy Moss who addresses the issue of our society and how we moms are all on our own without the cultural support that our formothers had. This, I think, is part of the result of the contraceptive culture that we live in.
Lena
Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Michael 2 says:
There are times when I hear people say that they can not tell the difference between NFP and contraception that I almost want to bust out in a hilarous laugh. Go read the accounts of Beth and Sam Torode, boy can they tell the difference between contraception and NFP! They are just two well meaning but immature kids who were on some kind of starry crusade, not knowing what they really believed. At least they say they hope to try later and still hope to be able to limit contraception now.
Same when I hear comments that “NFP is evil” or “NFP is heresy” or “NFP is unScriptural because PAUL condemned it”. I find it strange that people do not have enough honesty with themselves that they are only pathetically pleading for an excuse for contraception. If pure-NFP is too much, stop the stupid dishonesty and use condoms in some Phase II’s, but be honest with yourself and the world. Paul gave advise to not abstain too long except for prayer to a community that was being divided by some promoting extreme ascetism. This was advise, not condemnation. And how long is too long? A week? Maybe for some kind, good-hearted Yahoo’s for whom ever touch has to be a bedroom call it is too long.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s people condemned the rhythm method for not being effective enough (I remember), now people say they are concerned about NFP being “too effective”. If you are going to be concerned about NFP being too effective such that you feel you are not open to life, then maybe want you really want is and NFP program only about 75% effective, like the old rhythm system. Of course, you will have to abstain less, which is what you really want. And that is OK, many people can be more traditional and get their 3-4 children within 15 years that way, by only abstaining about 4-5 days a cycle just before peak.
I am sorry if this offends some of you good people, but I have to call them as I see ‘um.
(I do not think contraception is the worst thing there is! I disagree with Calvin and Luther that is is worst than adultry or incense. But it definitely is like a slow poison, like creeping death. But because it is slow poison, a few drops scattered over a significant time period probably will not affect too much in this life.)
Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 6:32 am