 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 07:22 pm |
|
I am starting to leant quite a bit about NFP. Partly because it is fascinating and partly because it will not be long before I need to use it. While I think I would be happy enough to have children at most any time, I was hoping to be able to avoid it for a handful of months while determining how quickly we may be ready.
NFP seems to work by indicating when ovulation occurs and avoiding intercourse on the days leading up to it and a few days after it has occurred. This assumes that women are only fertile on these days.
However, I notice many websites claiming that a woman actually can get pregnant from intercourse at any time of the month! I thought it was only during or nearing ovulation? I also notice that it is possible for sperm to survive for up to seven days. Though the average is maybe a few days at most.
Another concern is that some I have heard about NFP assumes that a woman is infertile during her period. Yet this is not true entirely. If a woman ovulates very quickly after her period she could conceive from intercourse had even during her period. Is this a very rare thing to happen? How does NFP account for this? Is there a way to determine that though you are having your period that the conditions are actually still fertile enough? But I have heard that NFP works even for people with irregular cycles.
And when people say that there is a chance a woman can get pregnant at any time of the month how does NFP account for this?
Now I know and accept that even when properly practiced there is still always a small chance that one may conceive. I like this as it means that we still allow for God to be God and tell us when we want life as opposed to being closed to it. But I suppose when I read that it is over 98% accurate I am wondering if the times where one accidentally became pregnant are because of these rare instances of early ovulation or sperm that survive for way too long compared to average, or does NFP account for these things mostly, but the surprise pregnancies are due to other factors that I am not considering?
Now of course, I know that as Catholics we believe every sex act ought to be as open to life as that particular sex act can be. However, I am more concerned not with understanding I suppose the science of this and how much we actually do understand and how much room there is for loopholes.
I am not as interested in the rare exception so much as in the science of what is considered highly probable. So when I ask if a woman is presumed infertile or not, I mean with high probability and relatively for the most part. I am happy enough with the fact that there is still a chance one will be "surprised" and I would be happy to have a surprise pregnancy but I am more interested in seeing how throughly NFP accounts for these concerns or if there are a few gaping holes in the method. So if anyone knows the answer I suppose I am also interested in how common of a concern that these things are vs. how rare of an exception they would be.
Because if the "surprises" are rare, than I see it as God's way of being in control and making us adjust. If they are common, I see them more as reasons to doubt the method itself and to be more concerned when one has a very legitimate reason to space pregnancy.
BrianLast edited on Fri Jul 4th, 2008 07:59 pm by brian
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
I wanted to post my own response to my question in case the initial post was too long as sometimes I tend not to read entire posts if they get too lengthy.
Here is what I think the answers are:
A woman can really only get pregnant for a handful of days of "HER Specific" cycle, but when these days occur can be different from month to month (so it could potentially be any day depending on the woman and the month) but using NFP will make these changes observable.
Therefore, it is both true that it is possible for "ALL women combined" to become pregnant on "ANY DAY" of "ALL potential cycles" - and true that "A Specific Woman" can only get pregnant on a "Handful of Specific Days" during "HER Specific Cycle."
Women can get pregnant at any time of month because a woman may ovulate at an unexpected time, but really it is still only mostly possible to achieve pregnancy when having intercourse near or during the time of ovulation. So women can get pregnant on any day of a cycle, but it still would have to depend on the time that she ovulates.
So it is not very possible that it could occur on "any and every single day" of a "specific" woman during a "specific" month. Meaning a woman is not potentially fertile 28 days a month (if her cycle is 28 days that is)
So perhaps when I read facts claiming that women can conceive at any time, what they mean is that there is not any universal day of "each and every" cycle that is known to be a day where "each and every" women could not conceive; yet it is still true that if one knows when ovulation has taken place in a specific then they can know the days where one was not likely to have been fertile.
So therefore, NFP basically works as you see enough of a warning to start abstaining before ovulation and then see with confidence when ovulation has occurred therefore you know each individual cycle when to abstain and there is minimum risk of surprise pregnancy.
Does this seem correct? Or am I incorrect and conception really can take place on "any" day of "every" cycle regardless of when ovulation takes place? therefore, when people say that pregnancy can occur any day of the cycle it really means exactly just that.
--------
Secondly, though sperm can potentially survive a lot of days, if one only has intercourse when the physical conditions of the woman's body are not hospitable to the sperm, then there is little chance that it would survive long enough until ovulation takes place as it will dry out.
Does this sound correct? Or is it possible that even in harsh conditions sperm can always survive up to a week therefore there is always possibility that intercourse had at any point up to a week before ovulation could lead to conception? Or is it that though it is possible it would be seen as very very rare.
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
Can I ask where you read that a woman can be fertile all month? To me, that doesn't even make sense. If an egg can only survive 24-48 hours, she would be having to produce one that often to constantly have one available. Not happening, it is already rare that a woman produces 2 in a cycle making fraternal twins possible. Unless they are just making radical claims to sell you ABC, I would say they mean that you can't just say all women ovulate on the 14th day of their cycle, for some it would be the 10th or some the 21st.
As to the part about being able to get pregnant right after menstruation, that is sort of true but a) the woman would know she was fertile the minute her period stopped, so no surprise fertility there and b) if a woman was having fertile cervical mucus the last few days of her period, she would probably know even if she was bleeding, it would change the discharge. and c) the atmosphere would be pretty hostile for sperm during menstruation.
As to super sperm living 7 days, my question would be-under what conditions? It would be unlikely sperm would live in hostile infertile condidtions long enough to make it to live in nourishing happy conditions for another 3-5 days until ovulation. So maybe theoretically possible but really astronomically unlikely.
So, yes, your conclusions in your second post are the right answers. Is someone trying to talk you out of NFP? or are you reading the internet too much and making yourself paranoid? I know I am sometimes my own worst enemy when I try to research things.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1869 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:24 pm |
|
| For all involved questions about NFP and reproduction in general, I highly recommend contacting the Couple to Couple League.
____________________
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 12:49 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
