 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:25 am |
|
This subject came up and I had no idea what it was or why I had not heard of it. I was going to argue against it but I think that the church actually does allow for it. Basically it is a machine that detects where a woman is in her cycle and if she is ovulating.
Has anyone heard of or used this in addition to or instead of NFP?
Is it more or less accurate? I know little about it, but I have learned that sperm can survive for three days. Being that this is the case a woman could not be ovulating at the time of intercourse, but still wind up pregnant three days later and therefore such a test could still not help one avoid pregnancy.
How can NFP really say when a woman is not fertile if it is possible for the sperm to fertilize the egg three days later?
Is it because a woman can not be fertile if it is clear that her body is not in a place to cooperate with the sperm? and/or other factors? therefore, even if the sperm could have survived for three days, without certain help from the woman it just won't make it?
But if there were such scientific devices that could track the same info as NFP would these be acceptable (I think they are, but I am not sure if they actually are as reliable or tell as much as NFP does) . Then again, maybe some couples would use both. I think I saw this recommended at a Catholic university.
Anyway, I ask partly because I will be married someday, and partly because I find it fascinating. I am not meaning to imply that pregnancy is something to be avoided at all cost, but I do like knowing what the possibilities are, while I agree with church teaching that the sexual act should be open to life.
BrianLast edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:45 am by brian
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 305 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 01:10 am |
|
I think you have gotten a little confused about the whole 3 day, ovulating predictor thing. First of all, take the NFP course, it will make things so much clearer than I will but I will give it a try.
It is amazing how many factors must work together for a woman to get pregnant. Sperm can live 3 days and I have heard it can be 5 days at the outside limit but they also have to be in the right place at the right time. When a woman is not in 3-5 day hormone build up before ovulation, her cervical mucus is so thick and dry that sperm present can't get through the cervix and are in a hostile atmosphere and die quickly. So if you were to have sex the day before this hormone build-up starts, it would be very very unlikely any sperm would survive until she ovulated 4-6 days later. Once she ovulates, her hormone pattern changes to a progesterone surge, and the cervix dries up again. Thus, a few days after she ovulates, she is infertile again. Now, in some people, the cervical mucos thickens too quickly after ovulation and makes it hard to get pregnant. Breastfeeding can have that effect.
The fertility predictor kit measures the hormones preceding ovulation when the reach a certain level. Thus it is handy for using to achieve pregnancy but not as helpful when trying to postpone pregnancy. If you go by the test, you might not have enough hormones to register on the test but would be within the 3 days before ovualtion. In the same way, you might have ovulated but be within the time frame you can still get pregnant after but the test would only tell you that you had ovualted. I don't see why the church would object to a woman knowing she was potentially ovulating. So I doubt it is a moral issue, just a practical one.
I think the real area where NFP gets difficult, is that there are times when a woman's cycle is just wierd and the only safe way to interpret it, is to presume you are fertile and abstain. If you think abstaining before marriage is hard, it is loads worse in close quarters. It is very tempting to fudge on the method. I know Dave A had "surprise" pregnancies that he credited to his wife's irregular cycle. If you had more specific questions that required gory details or personal stuff, I would be willing to try to answer in a PM, maybe Dave would too. I understand your concern as a future husband and provider. Lack of contraception was one of the hardest things for my husband to accept in returning to the church.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 04:50 am |
|
Thanks for the info. I actually did see a Catholic university (Marquette) that had a method which seemed to advocate using both together. However, you are right that the detection thing really may not be dependable for those trying to avoid pregnancy.
I suppose my hypothetical question was if such a scientific device existed that told people with near 100% certainty if they were likely to conceive would it be permissable to use it? Meaning, you would not be in any way changing the nature of the sex act or its openness to life, yet it would seem that you were lacking a certain degree of openness. Anyway, my qeustion does not need to be answered since no such thing exists.
It's sort of like asking if you could go back in time should you receive communion again if you went to the same liturgy. But sometimes my mind goes to interesting places.
thanks for the answer.
Brian
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1657 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
I know Dave A had "surprise" pregnancies that he credited to his wife's irregular cycle.
Indeed, though I think, too, that she never completely learned NFP, in full detail, so it may not have been just that. She always seemed to be a bit unsure about it (and the irregularity didn't help things), and she is uncomfortable talking about these issues (as I suspect many women -- and men -- would be). Also, Judy is exceptionally fertile (several miscarriages in addition to our four children). That's not to imply that we had any doubts about the method or the morality of it. Not at all. It was just difficult to learn and apply (welcome to life!).
Praise God for these "surprises" too!: they brought us our delightful third son and our only daughter, who have both immeasurably enriched and blessed our family. We had ample legitimate reasons to avoid further children (health, emotional, and financial), but God has provided our needs.
If you had more specific questions that required gory details or personal stuff, I would be willing to try to answer in a PM, maybe Dave would too.
I don't know anything about this machine. It seems to me that there would be nothing wrong with using it, if it is accurate. It would be an aid to NFP, to improve and make easier, its use. As for "expert" advice, I'd defer to the Couple to Couple League and suchlike.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 05:50 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: I don't know anything about this machine. It seems to me that there would be nothing wrong with using it, if it is accurate. It would be an aid to NFP, to improve and make easier, its use.
I don't see a problem either. Like taking our temperature or blood pressure, anything that helps us to better understand the functions of our bodies is a good thing. It's up to us to see to it that the resulting information is not used in an immoral manner.
For example, there are tests that can judge the condition of a baby in utero, the results of which can be used to provide needed medical treatment to a child in distress, or as a justification for abortion. The former is good, the latter is not.
So as long as the information is put to proper use (planning of families, not complete prevention of bearing children), any device which would make NFP more successful is a good thing, just as the improvements of NFP over the "rhythm method" was a good thing.
Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II both recognized the value of family planning when done in a moral manner, and anything that helps to accomplish that goal would certainly be acceptable to the Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1657 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 06:05 pm |
|
| Amen!
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 661 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
Taking Charge of Your Fertility is what helped me get a handle on things. Here's the Amazon link. http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Charge-Your-Fertility-Anniversary/dp/0060881909/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213820666&sr=8-1 I got my copy from the library for free, though  It's an excellent book, very easy to understand, IMO.
Ali
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 305 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 11:17 pm |
|
| I agree with Ali, TCOYF is a good book and website. I actually bought their cycle tracking software and find it helpful.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1657 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 24th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
| I'm glad to hear that there are some new methods to help people better understand and apply NFP. It does have a certain level of complexity, and of course it is up against some very powerful desires, so the more knowledge the better.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 03:31 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
