So are tampons unnatural too? I mean, the eve certainly didn't use playtex sport to control her menstruation, right? Yeah, didn't think so. Everything we use on a daily basis can be considered "unnatural" in some way or another. The truth is that without condoms and oral contraceptives, we would have a lot more unwanted babies and STDs in this world.
wearing glasses/contacts is unnatural. what a bunch of dummy people wearing glasses and contacts. let's get back to natural practices people. HELL-OOOOO??
Ah, I get it now. It's called natural family planning because if you're a Catholic, then NATURALly you're PLANNING to have a FAMILY. It's just Protestants and other heathens who believe there might be more to life than keeping wifey barefoot and pregnant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Abstinence is the message of Ignoramuses and Hypocrites.
I used to go to conservative churches that teach that abstinence crap and I learned leaders of the churches often crack jokes about 30 and 40 year old virgins.
If you want to know the truth then visit my website and I'll show you the 3 Quick & Dirty Facts the 'Christian' Right will never tell you about premarital sex in the Bible!
"Abstinence is the message of Ignoramuses and Hypocrites?" How so? It may be hard, but despite what modern pop culture teaches, "hard" does not equal "bad." Also, what does it matter what a few church leaders did? If they didn't, would you actually sing a different tune? Rhetoric.
The PP video response above spells it all out. The real issue behind "reproductive rights" is what drives most of this type: the issue of behavior restriction. Contraception is all about behavior "rights." It's why after thousands of years of rather consistent thinking across all cultural boundaries, we randomly (or purposely) re-defined when life begins. It's why a certain president had to ask what does "is" mean? That's how far we veered from truth. Our behavior has forced us to re-define...
According to cell theory both haploid cells (sperm and egg) are alive before conception. These cells came from the parents, which in turn came from their parents,etc, etc. My point is that life started a while ago. Just to put that out there.
I just love the men who think the Pill is great. I guess that's because it only affects the woman's body. Let's put aside the fact the fact that proving that anything causes cancer is nearly impossible to do with certainty. Women die from blood clots in connection with the Pill on a regular basis. The risk is well known and accepted. If you loved a woman, you wouldn't put her at risk for permanent disability just so you can have sex whenever you want it.
Really? The newer versions of the pill have lower doses of hormones then when they firs came out and from the pills of the '80s. The risk of clotting is already low (unless there is a family history or a smoker) and now the lower doses further reduce this side effect. Please show me the data you are citing?
We started major cleanups around 1980 as you can see. Abortion and contraception had been legal concurrently for 7 years, so the breast cancer rates should have dropped off. Yet, they continued to increase from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7 women.
On the contrary. The superfunds are only the worst case. For the past 8 years environmental law has been loosened under the Bush administration, funding has been cut to fund the war. Off the top of my head i know that CFCs for example have a 1/2 life of 50years. So the ozone layer is just starting to mend itself. Other chemical's toxic properties are just being discovered like BPA.
There may be truth to this, but the cancer rates in those who have had abortion(s) and use contraception (artificial) have specifically risen. The environment idea can only be applied to society as a whole (or all those in a certain area) since we all live in the same environment. We don't all have abortions or use contraception.
If you knew about scientific and medical data then you would know that correlative and found data can lead to weak inferences. Also to draw the conclusion that they both lead to high cancer rates is the fallacy of weak analogy. It is feasible to think there is a link between hormones and cancer (seeing as how there are estrogen dependent cancers.); however it is absurd to try to link cancer to abortion...
Moreover the correlation could be made about anything else that has increased along with cancer, such as the number of morning coffee drinkers has increased, cancer rates have also increased. Therefore the cup of coffee one consumes before work causes cancer. And as to the link between cancer and abortion,
... Until there is more research done and in vitro testing (controlled lab tests) looking at the effects of hormonal contraceptives on non-cancerous tissue culture, then there can be no definite answer regarding this. And labs have indeed looked at the chemical properties of known carcinogens polluting the environment. DDT, phenols, BHC, 2,4-D.
"A 1/4 century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity" (Rachel Carson).
New York has 102 active National Priority Listed Superfunds and Illinois has 34 National Priority Listed Superfund sites. California's listings only made a distinction between active Superfunds and Brownfields sites. According to the US EPA California has 130 active Superfunds. 57 National Priority Superfunds in Texas and 624 active Superfunds in Florida
Using the data I have, there are a total 947 superfunds sites in the nations most populated states. 193 of those are National Priority
Why am I preaching to the choir? If you dont mind me asking, what are you studying? Because a grad student should know what I'm talking about. I know I'm studying hard, but an undergrad shouldnt be telling methodology and how to analyze scientific data.
Federal Superfund Law: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") evaluates hazardous waste sites around the country. Sites are rated under EPA's hazard ranking system for their potential threat to public health and safety. When a site receives a high enough score, it is placed on the National Priority List ("NPL"). Once a site is on the NPL, EPA begins a lengthy and complex cleanup process through the National Contingency Plan ("NCP").
In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more commonly known as the "Superfund." The law was designed to clean up the country's worst hazardous waste sites. As later amended, the Superfund law also established community "right to know" provisions to inform the public about sites where hazardous materials are stored and where toxic releases have occurred.
By the way, since contraception and abortion have been legalized, breast cancer rates have increased from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7 women, and they don't shown signs of stopping anytime soon. Good night and God bless.
Yes there is a correlation between them; however there is nothing to back that. It would be the same as saying the more you trim your nails you'll get breast cancer. Many women trim their nails, and there is an increase in breast cancer! That claim can be made with anything. I'm sure that I can find some obscure article to corroborate that statement.
Like the underground storage tank program, a tax on dry-cleaning chemicals funds the program. Under Florida law, owners and operators of either underground storage tank facilities or dry cleaning facilities will not be subject to enforcement action for releases if they have complied with the law's reporting requirements and have secured insurance to cover claims that may be filed by affected members of the public.
Breast cancer rates were still 1 in 22 women at the time. Toxins in low levels don't pose a significant threat to the human person. Even filtered water has a low level of toxins. Since crackdowns on chemical dumping have occurred and stricter regulations come about, shouldn't the breast cancer rate be decreasing then? The number of women on contraception has risen since it's legalization, and so has the breast cancer rate. Harmful chemicals have decreased though... Food for thought here.
Right we all know that low doses of methylmercury will kill you (yes it will). Read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." You might actually know something before you say stuff like "Toxins in low levels don't pose a significant threat to the human person." Fat soluble toxins can bioaccumulate in the body and build up. also if the fat stores it and one looses weight, then there is a surge of toxins released into the blood.
Even if your theory had truth to it, breast cancer rates would not be increased from 1 in 22 to 1 in 7. The link between abortion/contraception and breast cancer is too strong to ignore. Ignorance is not always bliss. You've been informed. If you are a woman and on contraception; it's time to get off and turn your fertility over to God (save sex for marriage). If you're a man and forcing your spouse to use contraception, then you need to man up and take responsibility.
While the combustion within a diesel engine might never be as clean as that in an internal combustion engine burning, say, compressed natural gas, catalysts and filters can make the exhaust emissions virtually as pure. The keys to the ULEV II Diesel Focus's low emissions are a very efficient NOx reduction catalyst and a soot-trapping particulate filter.
One example of the diesel future is a special Ford Focus recently unveiled by Ford Motor Company. The new diesel-powered research vehicle is said to meet California's Ultra Low Emission Vehicle II (ULEV II) standards. The vehicle uses co-fueling of diesel and urea, an ammonia-based compound, to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to levels previously not achieved with diesel technology.
The Diesel Technology Forum claims diesels can reduce fuel consumption by 30 to 60 percent in some automotive models, obviously a giant reduction. Further, those kinds of reductions can be accomplished with environmentally clean engines fitted with advanced exhaust emissions controls and after-treatment technology. That point of view was recently reinforced by a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
The main pollutants associated with poor air quality are sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM10), and volatile organic compound (VOCs). Cars are decreasing in their emissions and it is no secret that with each passing generation we are being born with healthier, and stronger immune systems than the previous generation.
As I just said, CAFE standards have not increased since 1985. For 24 years the federal fuel standards have not gone up from 27.5 mpg. I doubt your claim about stronger immune systems.
Prior to the legalization of contraception and abortion, one in twenty-two women would suffer from breast cancer. Now, those numbers have fluctuated to one in seven women. Do you see any correlation there?
Or it could also be the increased number of toxins released into the world. Things such as endocrine disruptors; which act as hormones but are not. Petrochemicals and other carcinogens are more prevalent in our environment today then ever before.
Pollution and global warming are not major concerns. It is not just a coincidence that almost right after the legalization of contraception and abortion, the U.S. breast cancer rates increased from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7. Vehicles are more eco-friendly and pollutants are not as big of a concern as you are making them out to be.
Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade 1973. Rachel Carson wrote an amazing book titled "Silent Spring" in 1962. This book was one of the first major publications blowing the whistle on harmful chemicals in the environment. Up until that point there was unregulated, unchecked chemical dumping. So much so that the US government set up the first "super fund" site at Love Canal, NY in 1980.
Cars are not more ecofriendly CAFE standards have not increased since 1985. For 24 years the federal fuel standards have not gone up from 27.5 mpg. Form '86 to '89 fuel standards fell. Moreover the EV1, GMs 0 emissions car, was killed in favor of the H1 hummer. Did you also note the increase of asthma coincidences with the increase cancer rates.
I wouldn't want to conduct such a test in the first place, because this would be abusing science. There are numerous sites and videos that show you the three ways in which contraceptives work. One- completely prevent ovulation from occurring. Two- Prevent a human life from implanting to the uterus. Three- Starve an embryo to death. Options two and three cause an abortion since human life begins at conception.
What are you talking about? Watch it again. Yes there is the primary mechanism of action, ovulation suppression. There is also 2 assumed secondary mechanism of action including the mucus thickening to hinder sperm's movement. The mucus is easy to test. The other assumed mechanism of action is thinning the endometrium to prevent implantation.
By my account that is 1 of 3 not your 2 of 3 count. And chances of that happening are very slim!
With over 17 million American women using the Pill and other chemical abortifacients, it is estimated that breakthough ovulation and pregnany occurs so often . . . that between 7 to 12 million newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb each year. And most of these women never even knew they were pregnant.
While using the Pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "Breakthrough Ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.
If you're using "birth control" products and you have a breakthrough ovulation that releases an egg, sperm can then reach and fertilize your egg. At that moment -- you would be pregnant!
The chances of that happing are next to impossible. The primary mechanism of action for all hormonal contraceptives is to prevent ovulation by suppressing the LH surge. The mucus is thickened impeding the sperms travel through the cervix. This all boils down to no egg + no sperm= no pregnancy. Almost all pregnancies while on hormonal birth control resulted from user error!
Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" Very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?
If take regularly then there is no "break through ovulation" almost all unwanted pregnancies happen due to user error. the other secondary mechanisms are hypothesized. Even so if endometrium is thin the possibility of fertilization while using hormonal contraception is low. Moreover an estimated 80% of all fertilized blastocysts never naturally implant.
Taking oral contraceptives for five or more years was associated with a doubling of cervical cancer risk in the newly published study.
While on contraception, a woman's chances of contracting an STD are increased by 10 percent. Now, let's focus on the anti-abortion side of contraception.
Other risks include being overweight, using hormone replacement therapy, taking contraceptives, drinking alcohol, not having children or having your first child after age 35 or having dense breasts.
That's because, she noted, incidence rates "have remained stubbornly high a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer was one in 22 in the 1940s, but by 2004, it was one in seven."
"Perhaps it is because the pill has long been the darling of feminists a veritable icon of female empowerment. In some circles, suggesting the pill might kill you is seen as tantamount to issuing a press release that women belong in the kitchen."
Mrozek noted that Queen's University professor Samantha King commented just a few weeks ago that people are not asking "the hard questions about whether we're spending [breast cancer research money] in the right way."
The study, which is available online through the Mayo Clinic or at the Polycarp Research Institute, is a meta-analysis of that sometimes-fatal link.
Dr. Kahlenborn focused on the younger, pre-menopausal women who had been on the pill before having their first child. He found 21 of 23 studies showed a connection between the pill and cancer, something that certainly should be alarming women.
I have, in fact I just saw on the news that the risk of clots has been greatly reduced with the new pills on the market. Further I can tell you that the only proof that has been presented to me stating that the pill causes cancer was an editorial and a poorly done meta analyses. So let me reiterate; show me what you have or stop making these crazy remarks!
I could tell you the sky is blue, but you want to think the sky is purple. There would be no point. I have already told you the truth; now it lies on your head.
No I can tell you that the blue results from light refracting around water vapor. however I would assume it could turn purple at sun up or sun set as the light hits the atmosphere at different angles.
See, I told you that you could tell me the sky is different colors. I never said that it would be wrong either. I got this information from a medical source. Also, you said that 80 percent of all fertilized eggs never implant. That translates to an average of one abortion per year, since human life begins at conception.
What medical source? I would love if you sent a message with the attached links so I can verify what you're telling me.
How did you figure that? That means that only 20% implant meaning (by your definition) that 80% are 'aborted' naturally each year. Meaning take the number of live births as you 20% and figure the other 80%.
While on contraception, on average, one embryo is starved each year. There are multiple links that prove the high doses of hormones in artificial contraceptives cause cancer.
These are ghouls with no medical ethics selling breast cancer for profit, and repeating drug company fantasies about effectiveness and "slight" risks !
These steroids are a group 1 carcinogen, right up there with asbestos and tobacco.
Notice the very crafty use of words to avoid the fact that these pills work AFTER conception and expel an embryo and thus starve him or her.
These are abortion pills that kill unborn children and destroy a woman's body.
Wow, I see that you really know your stuff (or not). I have yet to see a creditable source pin cancer on the pill. In fact most groups have to debunk these wild accusations.
Further, an almost 80% of eggs never naturally implant. NFP is more likely to cause this then the pill which suppresses ovulation.
Great testimonial. If more couples practiced NFP in their marriages, I believe the divorce rate would be a lot lower. (It's less than 5% I believe among couples who use NFP as it is)
I think 9 out of 10 doctors AND 97% of UN representatives would agree with this statement: "That dude from that youtube video about why you shouldn't masturbate or whatever is the last guy you should go to for advice about birth control, let alone ANYTHING."
The boner in the grey shirt who looks an awful lot like Tony Hawk's retarded younger brother said this:
"Even if doctors are prescribing it or the UN is funding it, it wouldn't be healthy."
Let me guess a couple things that this guy might do for a living: Construction worker. Barista. Youth Pastor. Subway sandwhich artist. Electronics department manager at wal-mart. Anything that has to do with wal-mart. Full-time faggot. I could go on and on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No...if you kill a person, you're not preventing her from existing; you're ending a life that has already begin. With coontraception, you're willingly preventing a new life from beginning. It's a separate concept but one that makes people feel ill at ease nonetheless.
You're still presupposing that he already exists before he is conceived. Think about it:
If a person hasn't even been conceived, he can't possibly exist. So you can't possibly be preventing *him* from doing anything, since there is no him. You're not acting immoraly towards him by preventing conception, because you can't possibly take *any* action towards him until he exists.
Exacty--there's no baby there. I think we're getting into a dispute over semantics, though:
Preventing conception from occurring (i.e. contraception) isn't an action against a person (since that person doesn't exist), so it's bad syntax to talk about it in terms of "preventing a person from existing," as if that person already existed.
It's perfectly acceptable syntax. "Contraception" means "against the start" of something, and the something they're trying to keep from starting is a new human being's life. What would YOU say they're trying to prevent?
The statement "Contraception prevents the event of conception from occurring," is syntactically correct. The statement "Contraception prevents a person from existing," is nonsense for the reasons I already clarified above. If you analyze both statements properly, you'll see the difference.
This may seem like hair-splitting, but it's actually quite important in a discussion about morality because we need to clarify exactly which persons are being affected by the decisions we're making. As I already said, if using contraception is immoral, it isn't because it commits some injustice against the CHILD because the child does not exist.
It's true NFP is used to avoid pregnancy. But avoiding pregnancy through abstinence is not contraception. Contraception ("Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures." - American Heritage Dictionary) means preventing pregnancy by some means OTHER THAN abstinence.
I agree about abstinence, you can't practice safe driving if you never set foot in a car.
For those who are not good with analogies: the car is the woman, safe driving being the safe sex/contraception/birth control.
None the less, NFP dose fall under the category 'sexual practices.' Although some call it a behavioral methods or 'natural methods.' But, yes, they do fall into the contraception category. Its oxymoronic!
Hi skamic88, Sorry you're still having trouble understanding this after all this time. It isn't possible to "abstain with the intent of preventing conception" and yet be sexually active at the same time, because if you're abstaining, you're not sexually active. Get it?
I truly hope you know what the term "sexually active" means. If a person who is "sexually active" practices periodic abstinence it is a sexual practice therefore fits the definition of contraception. The term is used (I assume you know) to describe some one who partakes in sexual acts on a regular basis (the users of contraception/nfp). That is (for all intensive purposes) married folk, or at least I hope they're sexually active.
Crystal clear, now lets see if you can understand me. A person using nfp abstains for 5 days. But they have sex before and after that 5 day span, therefore living a sexually active lifestyle.
I do understand you. You are looking at the overall effect, not the individual act of sexual intercourse. This is why you think that abstinence is contraception.
Man, you need to get out more. Yes, like on those long, redundant forms the nurses have you fill out before see the doctor. Next time you're there read the stuff next to the boxes before you check them. They say fun things like "are you sexually active" and "if yes on the last question, do you use any form of contraception" etc etc etc... Its not a hard idea to understand. It is a general term talking about the idea as a whole.
I guess my point was, when a friend (not a health care professional) asks you if you "used protection", they are referring to the individual act of fornication you engaged in last night, not the hundreds of other disease-infected sex partners you've made a habit of copulating with over a long period of time, thus necessitating the visit to the STD clinic and the redundant form the nurse gave you before the doctor would check you and refill your prescription.
Still it can be that a friend asks if you used protection for a longer time frame. However, I was talking about just getting a yearly physical (something everyone should have) not some "STD clinic ." Most people that I have come in contact with who use contraception are in long term monogamous relationships (typically not the ones worried about SDTs).
Just as an FYI you don't need to go to a clinic to refill a prescription; there are pharmacies now that do that.
But remember the vows that a couple takes at the altar when they get married. The priest asks "Will you accept children lovingly from God?" If you are artificially contracepting, you are preventing God from bringing Children, and aren't accepting them lovingly, thus violating your marriage vows. NFP is different because nothing you are doing artifically is preventing conception and you are leaving it in God's hands.
Plus sex is a total gift of self. You cant be total by witholding fertility.
See, unlike you, I don't delude myself and think only married folks have sex. Also I don't delude myself into thinking everyone wants the "openness to potential" kids every they have sex, or that people want kids at all.
You're right, sex is a gift. Enjoy it! It is unfair for NFP only users to live in fear of conceiving another child with every sexual act.
More over Jesus says "For the time will come when you will say, Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!."-Luke 23:28-30
and "If a man provide not for those of his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."-Timothy 5:8
One can practice contraception and not "violate your marriage vows." If at some point you want kids when you are ready, or have compleated your family.
Just because good things happen as a result of something, doesn't make that something morally acceptable (and those good things specified here are highly dubious). That's consequentialism that I mentioned elsewhere.
Oh dubious acne! Cause we all know that zits are full of doubt.
I love being literal so lets look at the definition of consequentialism- "the theory that ethical decisions should be made on the basis of the expected outcome or consequences of the action."
Sex in consequential outcome is a child. Nothing wrong with that, unless one is unready to welcome and love a said child.
But lets look at sex from the perspective of a teen, or a young collage grad, or single woman who is still playing the dating game and looking for Mr. Wright.
Where (sex=children) dose not fit the equation yet. Where the young couple dosn't have the monetary backing for such an investment, nor the mental or emotional capacity. Where the child will not be properly cared for, or worse yet neglected.
Of course the ends don't necessesarily justify the means, but I don't think you're seriously arguing that ends should play no role whatsoever in any moral decision--the aim of every moral action is to produce an end of some sort. Regardless, I think we both agree that it's immoral to use a rational being as a mere means to an end.
Right, but the ends should be considered though. We humans have foresight which can both be a gift and a curse. Where as a young sexually active person foresees a child. The means to avoid this fate could be: abstaining, abortion, or contraception. Some of which are more ethical then others, but the end stay the same.
As I said before, my problem with your argument is that it doesn't exist! I don't know what to argue against, because you haven't said anything. So I will ask again:
What is inherently immoral about using contraception?
As long as both people involved are consenting adults, I don't see how using contraception is using them as a means. Is some other ethical principle being violated? If so, what is it? Can you provide any rational justification at all for what you are saying?
I agree. Those who oppose contraception live in an idealistic bubble where premarital sex dose not exist, and if "NFP" were to fail they you would already be married and "open to children." However, we don't live in said world; so contraception and health education should be available for all that seek it.
One idea is that contraception introduces something artificial that interferes with the procreative aspect of sex.
Then there are those of us who, for secular reasons, just feel queasy about the act of preventing a person from coming into existence. Whether you believe in a higher power or not, that's pretty heavy, eh?
The "natural vs. artificial" argument is meaningless until you come up with good definitions for those terms. Once you do, it turns out to be meaningless anyway. See my post on the first video.
It most certainly isn't my place (nor my intention) to force you to use birth control! However, it's hard to argue that contraception is wrong because you feel that it's wrong.
You're also presupposing that people already exist somehow before conception. People get into heated arguments about when exactly persons begin to exist, but it's almost always at or after conception--not before. So it's meaningless to say you're "preventing" someone from coming into the existence, because that person doesn't exist yet to be "prevented."
Normally I would not just repeat myself, but frankly Pologameboy's thoughts are not worth it. To repeat: all one needs to know about Pologameboy is that he thinks NFP is the withdrawal method. He completely destroys his credibility with this. He might as well be a Klansman arguing racial theories.
When we speak of natural, we mean doing things in accordance with what they were designed for. It doesn't mean It-exists-in-nature=good. The naturalness argument, properly understood is valid and sound.
The notion that something is automatically good because it is naturally occurring is a fallacy. Poison ivy, nightshade, cobras are all natural and none-too-good for you. This metaphor fails because the color and flavor compounds in oranges are "chemicals" too
The funny thing is, I'm sure that orange is not an organic orange, and has many nasty chemicals on it. Your main argument- naturalness.. is completely flawed, darlings.
How are condoms not healthy? Please, provide me with an answer. Is it because they are not natural??? I'm sure none of you eat solely natural foods, nor wear solely natural fibers, nor use solely natural ways of transportation. Waging a war against something you clearly have a shallow understanding about...
everyone posting against NFP is assuming that NFP is only to 'avoid pregnancy'. Many couples around the world are using NFP to conceive life. Infertility is a huge problem among women trying to conceive in their later years or for those who have been on the pill. NFP teaches when the most fertile time in a woman's cycle is, for conception or to avoid.
We are posting about it being listed as a viable contraception. Weather people use it to conceive or not is out of the question. Thats great if they do! And I wish the best for them because theyre in a stable relationship etc etc...
Actually its worse then that, if not taken at the same time every day and she is 3 or more hours late in taking her P.O.P. then there is a chance of ovulation. So to reiterate its the person not the pills!
"Infertility is a huge problem among women trying to conceive in their later years or for those who have been on the pill" (karebonnar).
"karebonnar you can get pregnant within days of stopping the pill. I think it's the person whose eggs are to blame not the pill."
Ironically though, that's the same charge levied against NFP, that user error can contribute to high failure rates. But the people (rather than the method) are not the ones who get the blame there nearly as much.
New York doc have you ever tried to study NFP? Me and my wife have used it for 3 years and we have no children ever since then so I am pretty sure it is quite as effective. We treat sex as it was the only thing that we have to offer! Marriage is more than about sex! If condoms were so great, In high school I always wore a condom, I admit it protect me from other STD"S but it didn't protect me from te STD I contracted. NEw York doc I challenge you study NFP!
NAtural FAmily planning is good because it gives you self control. When we get married are women just sex tools that can satisfy mens need? Women are not sex objects! My wife suffered some bad side effects of birth control when we switch to NFP, she was much healthier. WE only abstain from sex certain times of the month. Its not the whole month. I encourage Heartin Tenn. to study the German Study on the NFP all you got to do is google it! GErman doctor proves NFP is just effective.
im sorry to hear that your wife had a bad experience . this proves that there are many forms of contraception, but the one that isnt right for you, should not be damned.
"We don't want to use contraceptives because we want to give ourselves to each other 'naturally.' I mean, what's more natural than charting menstrual cycles and checking mucus. Happens in the wild ALL THE TIME."
it is "whenever they want" if they are open to receiving life....since when did a child become the 'terrible result' of "getting each other off" (as society views it)...a child is the result of the perfect act of love, manifested as love itself, in the gift of life
since when did a child become the 'terrible result' of
In the real world not 'happy ever after land' next to never never land.
Go look at the ghettos, thrid world, all the girls with destroyed careers, social lives, dreams of travelling, education etc all ruined, set for a life of poverty, rejection and misery.
Often single mums struggle to find boyfriends and getting pregant early ruins your chances of success.
There are plenty of contraceptives that don't involve the use of chemicals or any harmful materials. + Why couldn't a couple "family plan" via contraceptives?
What does contraception have to do with processed food? Or are you just trying to make an analogy? Also is the NFP view against condoms as well? What about STDs? How do you deal with that using NFP? And maybe you could explain to me better, I don't understand; If according to NFP believers, God is the author of all life, how is using timing tricks to prevent a birth, any different than using a condom? You are still taking it into your own hands to prevent a birth...
There are no timing tricks??? That's what NFP is, timing your sex to avoid pregnancy. I know you don't like my name for it, "a timing trick", that just sounds bad, but whatever name you want to call it, it is the same thing. And you failed to answer any of my questions, that is how people learn.
I agree. I don't see how abstaining from sex for nearly half of a woman's menstral cycle is "giving everything to eachother" and "not witholding our fertility." By not having sex and following NFP, you're not only witholding your fertility, but also the intimate experience of lovemaking.
on average, my husband and I obstain for 8-10 days, 3-4 days during my period, and 6 days during peak ovulation. Last time I checked, there was approximately 30 days in a month. That leaves us with 20 or so days for prime passionate love making. How many times did you make love with your partner last month?
Sorry, I didn't think people would get snippy about "recreational" and "for enjoyment" because those two things are SOOOOOOO different. I put SOOOOO much spin on it. Why it's SOOOOO strawmanish of me.
"Roman Orgy" is still a fantastic counter-example. And the comment wasn't direct towards you.
Besides the fact that you are putting a "barrier" between you and you spouse? Philosophically it just doesn't make sense. The whole point of having sex is being intimate with the other...and then you put a barrier between...
You're attempting to argue that emotional barriers are equal to a thin piece of rubber. You're equating all birth control with condoms. If "barriers" are the problem, skin is far thicker. Pretending there's some comparison between actually controlling pregnancy and just guestimating when it would be less likely is beyond stupid. There's a reason NFP is permitted by the Church: It doesn't work! There's a word for NFP users... Parents!
Actually with a backup contraceptive it's probably quite safe. Though, when contraceptives fail nothing prevents a person from having the child, I actually know somebody's whose contraceptive failed and now has a lovely little girl. Finally, equating abortion with murder is just wrong. There is no comparison between a 4 week old clump of cells and a baby. Also, studies have shown that the vast majority of abortions are the result of unprotected sex (because that's how you get pregnant).
So are tampons unnatural too? I mean, the eve certainly didn't use playtex sport to control her menstruation, right? Yeah, didn't think so. Everything we use on a daily basis can be considered "unnatural" in some way or another. The truth is that without condoms and oral contraceptives, we would have a lot more unwanted babies and STDs in this world.
BuffyWillow760 5 days ago
Trolls go trollin' >,,,<
Wired4Life2 5 months ago
wearing glasses/contacts is unnatural. what a bunch of dummy people wearing glasses and contacts. let's get back to natural practices people. HELL-OOOOO??
ApollyonVirusXDV9000 6 months ago
nfp is contraception lol. ding ding ding, ding da dum
ApollyonVirusXDV9000 6 months ago
watch?v=ySj3D7Nlw7E
sk8412c 7 months ago
Ah, I get it now. It's called natural family planning because if you're a Catholic, then NATURALly you're PLANNING to have a FAMILY. It's just Protestants and other heathens who believe there might be more to life than keeping wifey barefoot and pregnant.
lesorciercalifornien 10 months ago
LMAO!
"Sure it's healthy. The university was giving them away to promote healthy living, so it's gotta be healthy."
TenderTrap86 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Abstinence is the message of Ignoramuses and Hypocrites.
I used to go to conservative churches that teach that abstinence crap and I learned leaders of the churches often crack jokes about 30 and 40 year old virgins.
If you want to know the truth then visit my website and I'll show you the 3 Quick & Dirty Facts the 'Christian' Right will never tell you about premarital sex in the Bible!
Not Another Generation (dot) com
NotAnotherGeneration 2 years ago
"Abstinence is the message of Ignoramuses and Hypocrites?" How so? It may be hard, but despite what modern pop culture teaches, "hard" does not equal "bad." Also, what does it matter what a few church leaders did? If they didn't, would you actually sing a different tune? Rhetoric.
SAINThoodSEEKER 1 year ago 2
The PP video response above spells it all out. The real issue behind "reproductive rights" is what drives most of this type: the issue of behavior restriction. Contraception is all about behavior "rights." It's why after thousands of years of rather consistent thinking across all cultural boundaries, we randomly (or purposely) re-defined when life begins. It's why a certain president had to ask what does "is" mean? That's how far we veered from truth. Our behavior has forced us to re-define...
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago 2
...anything that gets in the way of what we want.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
According to cell theory both haploid cells (sperm and egg) are alive before conception. These cells came from the parents, which in turn came from their parents,etc, etc. My point is that life started a while ago. Just to put that out there.
But, you bring up some interesting points.
skamic88 2 years ago
Great message guys! Keep it up. Plus, I love how these are playing off of the Mac vs. PC commercials. Awesome!
beth4017 2 years ago
haha.. i like your series.. good on you
7The7Truth7 2 years ago 3
perfect!! every vid gets better
emeraldmorn 2 years ago
I just love the men who think the Pill is great. I guess that's because it only affects the woman's body. Let's put aside the fact the fact that proving that anything causes cancer is nearly impossible to do with certainty. Women die from blood clots in connection with the Pill on a regular basis. The risk is well known and accepted. If you loved a woman, you wouldn't put her at risk for permanent disability just so you can have sex whenever you want it.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago 18
Really? The newer versions of the pill have lower doses of hormones then when they firs came out and from the pills of the '80s. The risk of clotting is already low (unless there is a family history or a smoker) and now the lower doses further reduce this side effect. Please show me the data you are citing?
skamic88 2 years ago
We started major cleanups around 1980 as you can see. Abortion and contraception had been legal concurrently for 7 years, so the breast cancer rates should have dropped off. Yet, they continued to increase from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7 women.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
On the contrary. The superfunds are only the worst case. For the past 8 years environmental law has been loosened under the Bush administration, funding has been cut to fund the war. Off the top of my head i know that CFCs for example have a 1/2 life of 50years. So the ozone layer is just starting to mend itself. Other chemical's toxic properties are just being discovered like BPA.
skamic88 3 years ago 2
There may be truth to this, but the cancer rates in those who have had abortion(s) and use contraception (artificial) have specifically risen. The environment idea can only be applied to society as a whole (or all those in a certain area) since we all live in the same environment. We don't all have abortions or use contraception.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
If you knew about scientific and medical data then you would know that correlative and found data can lead to weak inferences. Also to draw the conclusion that they both lead to high cancer rates is the fallacy of weak analogy. It is feasible to think there is a link between hormones and cancer (seeing as how there are estrogen dependent cancers.); however it is absurd to try to link cancer to abortion...
skamic88 2 years ago
Moreover the correlation could be made about anything else that has increased along with cancer, such as the number of morning coffee drinkers has increased, cancer rates have also increased. Therefore the cup of coffee one consumes before work causes cancer. And as to the link between cancer and abortion,
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
birth control is like abortion
hormonal birth control might cause cancer
therefore abortion causes cancer....
skamic88 2 years ago
... Until there is more research done and in vitro testing (controlled lab tests) looking at the effects of hormonal contraceptives on non-cancerous tissue culture, then there can be no definite answer regarding this. And labs have indeed looked at the chemical properties of known carcinogens polluting the environment. DDT, phenols, BHC, 2,4-D.
"A 1/4 century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity" (Rachel Carson).
skamic88 2 years ago
New York has 102 active National Priority Listed Superfunds and Illinois has 34 National Priority Listed Superfund sites. California's listings only made a distinction between active Superfunds and Brownfields sites. According to the US EPA California has 130 active Superfunds. 57 National Priority Superfunds in Texas and 624 active Superfunds in Florida
Using the data I have, there are a total 947 superfunds sites in the nations most populated states. 193 of those are National Priority
skamic88 2 years ago
Not when the numbers show it. BTW, I'm a grad student that studies plenty of research methodology. I dont' need a lesson from you, thanks.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago 3
Why am I preaching to the choir? If you dont mind me asking, what are you studying? Because a grad student should know what I'm talking about. I know I'm studying hard, but an undergrad shouldnt be telling methodology and how to analyze scientific data.
skamic88 2 years ago
Federal Superfund Law: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") evaluates hazardous waste sites around the country. Sites are rated under EPA's hazard ranking system for their potential threat to public health and safety. When a site receives a high enough score, it is placed on the National Priority List ("NPL"). Once a site is on the NPL, EPA begins a lengthy and complex cleanup process through the National Contingency Plan ("NCP").
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more commonly known as the "Superfund." The law was designed to clean up the country's worst hazardous waste sites. As later amended, the Superfund law also established community "right to know" provisions to inform the public about sites where hazardous materials are stored and where toxic releases have occurred.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
By the way, since contraception and abortion have been legalized, breast cancer rates have increased from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7 women, and they don't shown signs of stopping anytime soon. Good night and God bless.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Yes there is a correlation between them; however there is nothing to back that. It would be the same as saying the more you trim your nails you'll get breast cancer. Many women trim their nails, and there is an increase in breast cancer! That claim can be made with anything. I'm sure that I can find some obscure article to corroborate that statement.
skamic88 3 years ago
Like the underground storage tank program, a tax on dry-cleaning chemicals funds the program. Under Florida law, owners and operators of either underground storage tank facilities or dry cleaning facilities will not be subject to enforcement action for releases if they have complied with the law's reporting requirements and have secured insurance to cover claims that may be filed by affected members of the public.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Breast cancer rates were still 1 in 22 women at the time. Toxins in low levels don't pose a significant threat to the human person. Even filtered water has a low level of toxins. Since crackdowns on chemical dumping have occurred and stricter regulations come about, shouldn't the breast cancer rate be decreasing then? The number of women on contraception has risen since it's legalization, and so has the breast cancer rate. Harmful chemicals have decreased though... Food for thought here.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Right we all know that low doses of methylmercury will kill you (yes it will). Read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." You might actually know something before you say stuff like "Toxins in low levels don't pose a significant threat to the human person." Fat soluble toxins can bioaccumulate in the body and build up. also if the fat stores it and one looses weight, then there is a surge of toxins released into the blood.
skamic88 3 years ago
Even if your theory had truth to it, breast cancer rates would not be increased from 1 in 22 to 1 in 7. The link between abortion/contraception and breast cancer is too strong to ignore. Ignorance is not always bliss. You've been informed. If you are a woman and on contraception; it's time to get off and turn your fertility over to God (save sex for marriage). If you're a man and forcing your spouse to use contraception, then you need to man up and take responsibility.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
While the combustion within a diesel engine might never be as clean as that in an internal combustion engine burning, say, compressed natural gas, catalysts and filters can make the exhaust emissions virtually as pure. The keys to the ULEV II Diesel Focus's low emissions are a very efficient NOx reduction catalyst and a soot-trapping particulate filter.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
One example of the diesel future is a special Ford Focus recently unveiled by Ford Motor Company. The new diesel-powered research vehicle is said to meet California's Ultra Low Emission Vehicle II (ULEV II) standards. The vehicle uses co-fueling of diesel and urea, an ammonia-based compound, to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions to levels previously not achieved with diesel technology.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
The Diesel Technology Forum claims diesels can reduce fuel consumption by 30 to 60 percent in some automotive models, obviously a giant reduction. Further, those kinds of reductions can be accomplished with environmentally clean engines fitted with advanced exhaust emissions controls and after-treatment technology. That point of view was recently reinforced by a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Or we could switch to electric cars with zero emission.
skamic88 3 years ago
The main pollutants associated with poor air quality are sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM10), and volatile organic compound (VOCs). Cars are decreasing in their emissions and it is no secret that with each passing generation we are being born with healthier, and stronger immune systems than the previous generation.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
As I just said, CAFE standards have not increased since 1985. For 24 years the federal fuel standards have not gone up from 27.5 mpg. I doubt your claim about stronger immune systems.
skamic88 3 years ago
Prior to the legalization of contraception and abortion, one in twenty-two women would suffer from breast cancer. Now, those numbers have fluctuated to one in seven women. Do you see any correlation there?
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Or it could also be the increased number of toxins released into the world. Things such as endocrine disruptors; which act as hormones but are not. Petrochemicals and other carcinogens are more prevalent in our environment today then ever before.
skamic88 3 years ago
Pollution and global warming are not major concerns. It is not just a coincidence that almost right after the legalization of contraception and abortion, the U.S. breast cancer rates increased from 1 in 22 women to 1 in 7. Vehicles are more eco-friendly and pollutants are not as big of a concern as you are making them out to be.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade 1973. Rachel Carson wrote an amazing book titled "Silent Spring" in 1962. This book was one of the first major publications blowing the whistle on harmful chemicals in the environment. Up until that point there was unregulated, unchecked chemical dumping. So much so that the US government set up the first "super fund" site at Love Canal, NY in 1980.
skamic88 3 years ago
Cars are not more ecofriendly CAFE standards have not increased since 1985. For 24 years the federal fuel standards have not gone up from 27.5 mpg. Form '86 to '89 fuel standards fell. Moreover the EV1, GMs 0 emissions car, was killed in favor of the H1 hummer. Did you also note the increase of asthma coincidences with the increase cancer rates.
skamic88 3 years ago
I wouldn't want to conduct such a test in the first place, because this would be abusing science. There are numerous sites and videos that show you the three ways in which contraceptives work. One- completely prevent ovulation from occurring. Two- Prevent a human life from implanting to the uterus. Three- Starve an embryo to death. Options two and three cause an abortion since human life begins at conception.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Watch it again. Yes there is the primary mechanism of action, ovulation suppression. There is also 2 assumed secondary mechanism of action including the mucus thickening to hinder sperm's movement. The mucus is easy to test. The other assumed mechanism of action is thinning the endometrium to prevent implantation.
By my account that is 1 of 3 not your 2 of 3 count. And chances of that happening are very slim!
skamic88 3 years ago
With over 17 million American women using the Pill and other chemical abortifacients, it is estimated that breakthough ovulation and pregnany occurs so often . . . that between 7 to 12 million newly conceived children are killed by chemical abortions in the womb each year. And most of these women never even knew they were pregnant.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Tell me, where did you get the information for this. It seems like it would be impossible to test these numbers.
skamic88 3 years ago
While using the Pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "Breakthrough Ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.
If you're using "birth control" products and you have a breakthrough ovulation that releases an egg, sperm can then reach and fertilize your egg. At that moment -- you would be pregnant!
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
The chances of that happing are next to impossible. The primary mechanism of action for all hormonal contraceptives is to prevent ovulation by suppressing the LH surge. The mucus is thickened impeding the sperms travel through the cervix. This all boils down to no egg + no sperm= no pregnancy. Almost all pregnancies while on hormonal birth control resulted from user error!
skamic88 3 years ago
Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" Very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
If take regularly then there is no "break through ovulation" almost all unwanted pregnancies happen due to user error. the other secondary mechanisms are hypothesized. Even so if endometrium is thin the possibility of fertilization while using hormonal contraception is low. Moreover an estimated 80% of all fertilized blastocysts never naturally implant.
skamic88 3 years ago
Taking oral contraceptives for five or more years was associated with a doubling of cervical cancer risk in the newly published study.
While on contraception, a woman's chances of contracting an STD are increased by 10 percent. Now, let's focus on the anti-abortion side of contraception.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
contraception and STDs really? There may be a correlation but STDs can not be blamed on the contraceptives but the people using them.
skamic88 3 years ago
Other risks include being overweight, using hormone replacement therapy, taking contraceptives, drinking alcohol, not having children or having your first child after age 35 or having dense breasts.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
That's because, she noted, incidence rates "have remained stubbornly high a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer was one in 22 in the 1940s, but by 2004, it was one in seven."
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
"Perhaps it is because the pill has long been the darling of feminists a veritable icon of female empowerment. In some circles, suggesting the pill might kill you is seen as tantamount to issuing a press release that women belong in the kitchen."
Mrozek noted that Queen's University professor Samantha King commented just a few weeks ago that people are not asking "the hard questions about whether we're spending [breast cancer research money] in the right way."
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
The study, which is available online through the Mayo Clinic or at the Polycarp Research Institute, is a meta-analysis of that sometimes-fatal link.
Dr. Kahlenborn focused on the younger, pre-menopausal women who had been on the pill before having their first child. He found 21 of 23 studies showed a connection between the pill and cancer, something that certainly should be alarming women.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Do some research on your own.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Again with the redundancy!
I have, in fact I just saw on the news that the risk of clots has been greatly reduced with the new pills on the market. Further I can tell you that the only proof that has been presented to me stating that the pill causes cancer was an editorial and a poorly done meta analyses. So let me reiterate; show me what you have or stop making these crazy remarks!
skamic88 3 years ago
I could tell you the sky is blue, but you want to think the sky is purple. There would be no point. I have already told you the truth; now it lies on your head.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
No I can tell you that the blue results from light refracting around water vapor. however I would assume it could turn purple at sun up or sun set as the light hits the atmosphere at different angles.
skamic88 3 years ago
See, I told you that you could tell me the sky is different colors. I never said that it would be wrong either. I got this information from a medical source. Also, you said that 80 percent of all fertilized eggs never implant. That translates to an average of one abortion per year, since human life begins at conception.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
What medical source? I would love if you sent a message with the attached links so I can verify what you're telling me.
How did you figure that? That means that only 20% implant meaning (by your definition) that 80% are 'aborted' naturally each year. Meaning take the number of live births as you 20% and figure the other 80%.
skamic88 3 years ago
While on contraception, on average, one embryo is starved each year. There are multiple links that prove the high doses of hormones in artificial contraceptives cause cancer.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Show me!
skamic88 3 years ago
Do some research on your own.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
I have, that is why i said "show me."
Your response illustrates that you have nothing to back up your absurd statement.
skamic88 3 years ago
Dude, I'm just preaching from the Word, not looking for a fight.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Nor am I. I just want you to back up your preaching with fact.
So... show me!
skamic88 3 years ago
These are ghouls with no medical ethics selling breast cancer for profit, and repeating drug company fantasies about effectiveness and "slight" risks !
These steroids are a group 1 carcinogen, right up there with asbestos and tobacco.
Notice the very crafty use of words to avoid the fact that these pills work AFTER conception and expel an embryo and thus starve him or her.
These are abortion pills that kill unborn children and destroy a woman's body.
Look up Natural Family Planning.
unashamedevangelist 3 years ago
Wow, I see that you really know your stuff (or not). I have yet to see a creditable source pin cancer on the pill. In fact most groups have to debunk these wild accusations.
Further, an almost 80% of eggs never naturally implant. NFP is more likely to cause this then the pill which suppresses ovulation.
skamic88 3 years ago
that was a preetty good one
Xpycoctomos 3 years ago
critics of NFP should first get the facts. NFP works, my relationship with my husband only got better after we started NFP...so we are all for it!
elizaw4 3 years ago
Great testimonial. If more couples practiced NFP in their marriages, I believe the divorce rate would be a lot lower. (It's less than 5% I believe among couples who use NFP as it is)
apodino 3 years ago
What data are you citing? I smell an assumption!
skamic88 3 years ago
I think 9 out of 10 doctors AND 97% of UN representatives would agree with this statement: "That dude from that youtube video about why you shouldn't masturbate or whatever is the last guy you should go to for advice about birth control, let alone ANYTHING."
lonli4myboo 3 years ago
The boner in the grey shirt who looks an awful lot like Tony Hawk's retarded younger brother said this:
"Even if doctors are prescribing it or the UN is funding it, it wouldn't be healthy."
Let me guess a couple things that this guy might do for a living: Construction worker. Barista. Youth Pastor. Subway sandwhich artist. Electronics department manager at wal-mart. Anything that has to do with wal-mart. Full-time faggot. I could go on and on.
lonli4myboo 3 years ago
if you don't like the video then don't watch it. It's that simple.
Frankpwns79 3 years ago
How, may I ask, how one prevents one who already exists from existing?
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
By killing them, maybe? I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Could you clarify what exactly you're referring to? Was my last post unclear?
mcna0804 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No...if you kill a person, you're not preventing her from existing; you're ending a life that has already begin. With coontraception, you're willingly preventing a new life from beginning. It's a separate concept but one that makes people feel ill at ease nonetheless.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
You're still presupposing that he already exists before he is conceived. Think about it:
If a person hasn't even been conceived, he can't possibly exist. So you can't possibly be preventing *him* from doing anything, since there is no him. You're not acting immoraly towards him by preventing conception, because you can't possibly take *any* action towards him until he exists.
mcna0804 3 years ago 3
In the words of the late Gorge Carlen " not every ejaculation deserves a name"
skamic88 3 years ago
Well, then, if that's how you look at it, mcna, you don't NEED contraceptives at all! There's no baby there, right?
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
Exacty--there's no baby there. I think we're getting into a dispute over semantics, though:
Preventing conception from occurring (i.e. contraception) isn't an action against a person (since that person doesn't exist), so it's bad syntax to talk about it in terms of "preventing a person from existing," as if that person already existed.
mcna0804 3 years ago 2
It's perfectly acceptable syntax. "Contraception" means "against the start" of something, and the something they're trying to keep from starting is a new human being's life. What would YOU say they're trying to prevent?
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
The statement "Contraception prevents the event of conception from occurring," is syntactically correct. The statement "Contraception prevents a person from existing," is nonsense for the reasons I already clarified above. If you analyze both statements properly, you'll see the difference.
mcna0804 3 years ago 3
This may seem like hair-splitting, but it's actually quite important in a discussion about morality because we need to clarify exactly which persons are being affected by the decisions we're making. As I already said, if using contraception is immoral, it isn't because it commits some injustice against the CHILD because the child does not exist.
mcna0804 3 years ago 2
It's true NFP is used to avoid pregnancy. But avoiding pregnancy through abstinence is not contraception. Contraception ("Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures." - American Heritage Dictionary) means preventing pregnancy by some means OTHER THAN abstinence.
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
I agree about abstinence, you can't practice safe driving if you never set foot in a car.
For those who are not good with analogies: the car is the woman, safe driving being the safe sex/contraception/birth control.
None the less, NFP dose fall under the category 'sexual practices.' Although some call it a behavioral methods or 'natural methods.' But, yes, they do fall into the contraception category. Its oxymoronic!
skamic88 3 years ago
"...sexual practices..." If the person is sexually active and abstains with the intent of preventing conception, it is indeed a sexual practice.
skamic88 3 years ago
Hi skamic88, Sorry you're still having trouble understanding this after all this time. It isn't possible to "abstain with the intent of preventing conception" and yet be sexually active at the same time, because if you're abstaining, you're not sexually active. Get it?
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
I truly hope you know what the term "sexually active" means. If a person who is "sexually active" practices periodic abstinence it is a sexual practice therefore fits the definition of contraception. The term is used (I assume you know) to describe some one who partakes in sexual acts on a regular basis (the users of contraception/nfp). That is (for all intensive purposes) married folk, or at least I hope they're sexually active.
Get it?
skamic88 3 years ago
I'm sorry you're still having trouble. This might help:
If I abstain from sexual intercourse for 5 days, I am not sexually active during those days.
Make sense?
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
Crystal clear, now lets see if you can understand me. A person using nfp abstains for 5 days. But they have sex before and after that 5 day span, therefore living a sexually active lifestyle.
Do you understand (not a hard concept)?
skamic88 3 years ago
I do understand you. You are looking at the overall effect, not the individual act of sexual intercourse. This is why you think that abstinence is contraception.
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
Yes, but the use of contraception is typically talked about on a long term.
skamic88 3 years ago
You mean like when people ask "did you use protection?"
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
Man, you need to get out more. Yes, like on those long, redundant forms the nurses have you fill out before see the doctor. Next time you're there read the stuff next to the boxes before you check them. They say fun things like "are you sexually active" and "if yes on the last question, do you use any form of contraception" etc etc etc... Its not a hard idea to understand. It is a general term talking about the idea as a whole.
skamic88 3 years ago
I guess my point was, when a friend (not a health care professional) asks you if you "used protection", they are referring to the individual act of fornication you engaged in last night, not the hundreds of other disease-infected sex partners you've made a habit of copulating with over a long period of time, thus necessitating the visit to the STD clinic and the redundant form the nurse gave you before the doctor would check you and refill your prescription.
urbanh196398105 3 years ago
Still it can be that a friend asks if you used protection for a longer time frame. However, I was talking about just getting a yearly physical (something everyone should have) not some "STD clinic ." Most people that I have come in contact with who use contraception are in long term monogamous relationships (typically not the ones worried about SDTs).
Just as an FYI you don't need to go to a clinic to refill a prescription; there are pharmacies now that do that.
skamic88 3 years ago
But remember the vows that a couple takes at the altar when they get married. The priest asks "Will you accept children lovingly from God?" If you are artificially contracepting, you are preventing God from bringing Children, and aren't accepting them lovingly, thus violating your marriage vows. NFP is different because nothing you are doing artifically is preventing conception and you are leaving it in God's hands.
Plus sex is a total gift of self. You cant be total by witholding fertility.
apodino 3 years ago
See, unlike you, I don't delude myself and think only married folks have sex. Also I don't delude myself into thinking everyone wants the "openness to potential" kids every they have sex, or that people want kids at all.
You're right, sex is a gift. Enjoy it! It is unfair for NFP only users to live in fear of conceiving another child with every sexual act.
skamic88 3 years ago
1.having sex before marrage is wrong
2.you need to be open to kids if you want to get married
3.NFP works well due to human eror it may fail but so will contraception besides the fact its wrong and it also can screw with peoples bodies
4.get your facts straight before wining about Catholic teachings
Frankpwns79 3 years ago
Ok, tell me exactly where it says contraception is wrong in the Bible.
we'll work under the assumption that the people are married, and open to the possibility to children at a later date.
Now still using the most catholic of all, the bible, where dose it say contraception is immoral?
skamic88 3 years ago
More over Jesus says "For the time will come when you will say, Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!."-Luke 23:28-30
and "If a man provide not for those of his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."-Timothy 5:8
One can practice contraception and not "violate your marriage vows." If at some point you want kids when you are ready, or have compleated your family.
skamic88 3 years ago
well why noy use NFP
Frankpwns79 3 years ago
nfp wont work for everyone! There are many other forms of birth control. People should not only have one choice of contraception.
skamic88 3 years ago
most cotraceptives don't kill the babies but they interupt with the natural process and that is why its wrong
Frankpwns79 3 years ago
so would you have something against the doctors using a crash cart and adrenaline shot if you were to flat line?
skamic88 3 years ago
Just because good things happen as a result of something, doesn't make that something morally acceptable (and those good things specified here are highly dubious). That's consequentialism that I mentioned elsewhere.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Oh dubious acne! Cause we all know that zits are full of doubt.
I love being literal so lets look at the definition of consequentialism- "the theory that ethical decisions should be made on the basis of the expected outcome or consequences of the action."
Sex in consequential outcome is a child. Nothing wrong with that, unless one is unready to welcome and love a said child.
skamic88 3 years ago
But lets look at sex from the perspective of a teen, or a young collage grad, or single woman who is still playing the dating game and looking for Mr. Wright.
Where (sex=children) dose not fit the equation yet. Where the young couple dosn't have the monetary backing for such an investment, nor the mental or emotional capacity. Where the child will not be properly cared for, or worse yet neglected.
skamic88 3 years ago
So if the outcome would be neglect or inability to care for said child then the outcome or consequences would not be ethical or moral.
good idea swwaddel, consequentialism has yet again shed even more light on "NFP."
skamic88 3 years ago
Of course the ends don't necessesarily justify the means, but I don't think you're seriously arguing that ends should play no role whatsoever in any moral decision--the aim of every moral action is to produce an end of some sort. Regardless, I think we both agree that it's immoral to use a rational being as a mere means to an end.
mcna0804 3 years ago
Right, but the ends should be considered though. We humans have foresight which can both be a gift and a curse. Where as a young sexually active person foresees a child. The means to avoid this fate could be: abstaining, abortion, or contraception. Some of which are more ethical then others, but the end stay the same.
skamic88 3 years ago
As I said before, my problem with your argument is that it doesn't exist! I don't know what to argue against, because you haven't said anything. So I will ask again:
What is inherently immoral about using contraception?
As long as both people involved are consenting adults, I don't see how using contraception is using them as a means. Is some other ethical principle being violated? If so, what is it? Can you provide any rational justification at all for what you are saying?
mcna0804 3 years ago
I agree. Those who oppose contraception live in an idealistic bubble where premarital sex dose not exist, and if "NFP" were to fail they you would already be married and "open to children." However, we don't live in said world; so contraception and health education should be available for all that seek it.
skamic88 3 years ago
One idea is that contraception introduces something artificial that interferes with the procreative aspect of sex.
Then there are those of us who, for secular reasons, just feel queasy about the act of preventing a person from coming into existence. Whether you believe in a higher power or not, that's pretty heavy, eh?
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
The "natural vs. artificial" argument is meaningless until you come up with good definitions for those terms. Once you do, it turns out to be meaningless anyway. See my post on the first video.
It most certainly isn't my place (nor my intention) to force you to use birth control! However, it's hard to argue that contraception is wrong because you feel that it's wrong.
mcna0804 3 years ago 3
You're also presupposing that people already exist somehow before conception. People get into heated arguments about when exactly persons begin to exist, but it's almost always at or after conception--not before. So it's meaningless to say you're "preventing" someone from coming into the existence, because that person doesn't exist yet to be "prevented."
mcna0804 3 years ago 2
it is healthy and reduces cancer. helps with zits. Helps my cramps. see these are facts.
chesirekitkat 3 years ago 2
I've blocked pologameboy as a result of using beyond PG-13 language.
eskyguard 3 years ago
you really like to block people.
skamic88 3 years ago
Normally I would not just repeat myself, but frankly Pologameboy's thoughts are not worth it. To repeat: all one needs to know about Pologameboy is that he thinks NFP is the withdrawal method. He completely destroys his credibility with this. He might as well be a Klansman arguing racial theories.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Using the earth is moral. WANTON and gratuitous destruction of the earth is immoral.
swwaddell 3 years ago
hmmm... dose it not say in Genesis 2:15 to take care of the earth?
"to work it and take care of it."
Not abuse it... thats using your morals!
So swwaddell have we come to an agreement, in which it is wrong to abuse, gratuitously destroy, etc the Earth?
skamic88 3 years ago
All contraception, properly understood, is immoral. Iow, there is no right one.
swwaddell 3 years ago
But destroying the earth is immoral also. Darn just can't win.
neillob11 3 years ago
When we speak of natural, we mean doing things in accordance with what they were designed for. It doesn't mean It-exists-in-nature=good. The naturalness argument, properly understood is valid and sound.
swwaddell 3 years ago
The notion that something is automatically good because it is naturally occurring is a fallacy. Poison ivy, nightshade, cobras are all natural and none-too-good for you. This metaphor fails because the color and flavor compounds in oranges are "chemicals" too
TorturedLogik 3 years ago
The funny thing is, I'm sure that orange is not an organic orange, and has many nasty chemicals on it. Your main argument- naturalness.. is completely flawed, darlings.
atvr333 3 years ago 2
How are condoms not healthy? Please, provide me with an answer. Is it because they are not natural??? I'm sure none of you eat solely natural foods, nor wear solely natural fibers, nor use solely natural ways of transportation. Waging a war against something you clearly have a shallow understanding about...
atvr333 3 years ago 2
everyone posting against NFP is assuming that NFP is only to 'avoid pregnancy'. Many couples around the world are using NFP to conceive life. Infertility is a huge problem among women trying to conceive in their later years or for those who have been on the pill. NFP teaches when the most fertile time in a woman's cycle is, for conception or to avoid.
katebonnar 4 years ago 2
We are posting about it being listed as a viable contraception. Weather people use it to conceive or not is out of the question. Thats great if they do! And I wish the best for them because theyre in a stable relationship etc etc...
skamic88 3 years ago
karebonnar you can get pregnant within days of stopping the pill. I think it's the person whose eggs are to blame not the pill.
chesirekitkat 3 years ago
Actually its worse then that, if not taken at the same time every day and she is 3 or more hours late in taking her P.O.P. then there is a chance of ovulation. So to reiterate its the person not the pills!
"Infertility is a huge problem among women trying to conceive in their later years or for those who have been on the pill" (karebonnar).
skamic88 3 years ago
"karebonnar you can get pregnant within days of stopping the pill. I think it's the person whose eggs are to blame not the pill."
Ironically though, that's the same charge levied against NFP, that user error can contribute to high failure rates. But the people (rather than the method) are not the ones who get the blame there nearly as much.
lwriv7 3 years ago
New York doc have you ever tried to study NFP? Me and my wife have used it for 3 years and we have no children ever since then so I am pretty sure it is quite as effective. We treat sex as it was the only thing that we have to offer! Marriage is more than about sex! If condoms were so great, In high school I always wore a condom, I admit it protect me from other STD"S but it didn't protect me from te STD I contracted. NEw York doc I challenge you study NFP!
latinflava05 4 years ago
NAtural FAmily planning is good because it gives you self control. When we get married are women just sex tools that can satisfy mens need? Women are not sex objects! My wife suffered some bad side effects of birth control when we switch to NFP, she was much healthier. WE only abstain from sex certain times of the month. Its not the whole month. I encourage Heartin Tenn. to study the German Study on the NFP all you got to do is google it! GErman doctor proves NFP is just effective.
latinflava05 4 years ago
a) NFP is absolutely not as effective as condoms
b) Condoms don't manipulate hormones
NewYorkDoc79 4 years ago
im sorry to hear that your wife had a bad experience . this proves that there are many forms of contraception, but the one that isnt right for you, should not be damned.
neillob11 3 years ago
Excellent video.
surfinpure 4 years ago
"We don't want to use contraceptives because we want to give ourselves to each other 'naturally.' I mean, what's more natural than charting menstrual cycles and checking mucus. Happens in the wild ALL THE TIME."
NewYorkDoc79 4 years ago
And of course NFP people have sex whenever they want...as long as it fits within a particular window.
Wait a minute...thats not "whenever they want" at all.
HeartinTennessee 4 years ago
it is "whenever they want" if they are open to receiving life....since when did a child become the 'terrible result' of "getting each other off" (as society views it)...a child is the result of the perfect act of love, manifested as love itself, in the gift of life
katebonnar 4 years ago
Katenonnar
quote
since when did a child become the 'terrible result' of
In the real world not 'happy ever after land' next to never never land.
Go look at the ghettos, thrid world, all the girls with destroyed careers, social lives, dreams of travelling, education etc all ruined, set for a life of poverty, rejection and misery.
Often single mums struggle to find boyfriends and getting pregant early ruins your chances of success.
Adtoption or rejection causes worse problems
Pologameboy 3 years ago 3
I loved the line "the university was giving them away to promote healthy living, so it's gotta be good for me".
mk00040 4 years ago
Note to all.
If you use any profanity on this I will block you, no questions asked. No warning given.
eskyguard 4 years ago
Great video, awesome!!!!! :)
felistigris76 4 years ago
There are plenty of contraceptives that don't involve the use of chemicals or any harmful materials. + Why couldn't a couple "family plan" via contraceptives?
jelifsh 4 years ago
Exactly jelifish, well said.
TheOnlyKingArthur 4 years ago
Because contraceptives are anti-family. The pill and IUDs cause spontaneous abortions all the time
felistigris76 4 years ago
What does contraception have to do with processed food? Or are you just trying to make an analogy? Also is the NFP view against condoms as well? What about STDs? How do you deal with that using NFP? And maybe you could explain to me better, I don't understand; If according to NFP believers, God is the author of all life, how is using timing tricks to prevent a birth, any different than using a condom? You are still taking it into your own hands to prevent a birth...
TheOnlyKingArthur 4 years ago
There are no timing tricks. NFP is just as effective as the pill. You should learn more about it.
Kayeh622 4 years ago
There are no timing tricks??? That's what NFP is, timing your sex to avoid pregnancy. I know you don't like my name for it, "a timing trick", that just sounds bad, but whatever name you want to call it, it is the same thing. And you failed to answer any of my questions, that is how people learn.
TheOnlyKingArthur 4 years ago 2
I agree. I don't see how abstaining from sex for nearly half of a woman's menstral cycle is "giving everything to eachother" and "not witholding our fertility." By not having sex and following NFP, you're not only witholding your fertility, but also the intimate experience of lovemaking.
soccerchick43001 4 years ago 2
This is in response to TheOnlyKingArthur's comment previously.....
soccerchick43001 4 years ago
on average, my husband and I obstain for 8-10 days, 3-4 days during my period, and 6 days during peak ovulation. Last time I checked, there was approximately 30 days in a month. That leaves us with 20 or so days for prime passionate love making. How many times did you make love with your partner last month?
katebonnar 4 years ago 2
I don't see "sex for enjoyment" in the comment. I see "recreational sex". Why do you feel you have to spin the words? Good night.
TheCatholicNews 4 years ago
Sorry, I didn't think people would get snippy about "recreational" and "for enjoyment" because those two things are SOOOOOOO different. I put SOOOOO much spin on it. Why it's SOOOOO strawmanish of me.
"Roman Orgy" is still a fantastic counter-example. And the comment wasn't direct towards you.
Tatarize 4 years ago
Somebody replied to my comment, but I don't even remember what I said, and it's not here now. Was it deleted?
Judge373 4 years ago
Hit the button at the bottom to view all posts. It will show you the post tree and you can easily find the person who replied to you.
Tatarize 4 years ago
Is there any reason (other than the Pope's edict) you can't use barrier contraception when NFP tells you to abstain??
fullbirdcorporal 4 years ago
Besides the fact that you are putting a "barrier" between you and you spouse? Philosophically it just doesn't make sense. The whole point of having sex is being intimate with the other...and then you put a barrier between...
richbudd 4 years ago
I hate barriers. That's why before I get intimate with a woman, I remove her skin.
Tatarize 4 years ago
ok, so that comment just removed all your credibility...
richbudd 4 years ago
You're attempting to argue that emotional barriers are equal to a thin piece of rubber. You're equating all birth control with condoms. If "barriers" are the problem, skin is far thicker. Pretending there's some comparison between actually controlling pregnancy and just guestimating when it would be less likely is beyond stupid. There's a reason NFP is permitted by the Church: It doesn't work! There's a word for NFP users... Parents!
Tatarize 4 years ago
Because it's just "beyond stupid" or because you know what you are talking about Tatarize?
Contraceptives fail too Tat. You know what that leads to? Abortion.
"There's a word for Contraception users..." Murderers
I'd rather be a parent then a killer.
thealphacrow 4 years ago
Actually with a backup contraceptive it's probably quite safe. Though, when contraceptives fail nothing prevents a person from having the child, I actually know somebody's whose contraceptive failed and now has a lovely little girl. Finally, equating abortion with murder is just wrong. There is no comparison between a 4 week old clump of cells and a baby. Also, studies have shown that the vast majority of abortions are the result of unprotected sex (because that's how you get pregnant).
Tatarize 4 years ago