God gave women cycles to NATURALLY choose when to have children. What God sees sex as is fully giving your love to your spouse. When you have sex with your spouse, you are giving your love and everything you have freely to them to show that love. Using a contraceptive is having someone say: I love you and I love you freely and I give all I have to you,EXCEPT my fertility...The truth isn't afraid of anyone...It's the people who are afraid of the truth. NFP has been wonderful for my wife and me.
I say wait until marriage to have sex as sex is a gift to be shared with each other that was given by God as a wedding present to those who married each other. Marriage based on true love, not how great the sex is. Those who feel the need to go on a test drive first, may not win the race for true love.
I love these videos. I'm dating a wonderful man right now and we are going to use NFP when we are married. We are abstinent right now, waiting til marriage. I have to let people know that it is wonderful. I made the mistake of having pre-marital sex in the past when I dated my ex. I can defintiely say that abstinence is great. It's helping my boyfriend and I to grow deeper in love with each other.
You can be born with an STD. There are hundreds of children in Africa that die from AIDs every year. Even children in the United States are born with AIDs or other STDs. What are they to do?
So you would deny two lovers the opportunity to experience the most beautiful and passionate act possible? To me that seems like the greater sin than wearing a condom.
Is it wrong to deny somebody the experience of getting high? Denying someone an experience is not wrong when the experience is sinful. (It would be wrong to risk somebody's life unnecessarily.) If a child is born with an STD, will he/she ever be old enough to have sex? (I'm genuinely curious.)
A couple of websites that I found said that the life expectancy of someone born with HIV is about 20 years if they have the proper treatment. Of course there is going to be people who die before and after that though. If untreated the life expectancy is much much lower. But i guess where you and I disagree is just that I don't think sex outside of marriage is a sin and you do. Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me ;)
Thanks for the info. I don't expect everybody to agree with me either - I just want them to think my religion is irrational or the result of brainwashing or something. (I've had people tell me that.) : )
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.
We have tens of thousands of starving orphans all over the world, so I say lets break out the condoms and take care of the children we already have. Also how does having seven screeming children increase your intimacy.
Interesting use of the extreme when trying to make a point. I don't see how orphans have anything to do with artificial contraception, at least not in the way you imply. Actually there is a direct link between birth control and the divorce rate, which ironically "boomed" in the same period of history. THIS is how you draw the link from contraception to abandoned children, by way of divorce and sexual promiscuity. Save the diversive tactic. It's the same one the pro-abortion crowd uses.
There you go deploying the "strong evidence" of correlation proving causation. Where is you peer reviewed non-biased data? Exactly there is none. One could say the same for watching tv, this too was made popular during the same time. Or how about processed food? Most research suggests that it was a myriad of factors due to social change. More often than not, children in smaller families are better taken care of as more resources can be allocated to him/her...
... This is a different reproductive strategy that focuses on quality over quantity. It is a cultural phenomenon that has been observed as medical science advances (thus child mortality rates drop) and reliable methods of spacing children are made available.
That is a rather subject generality don't you think? The issue isn't large v.s. small families it's about the union between husband and wife and what is and isn't contrary to the union. If you can't wrap your brain around that, fine, but don't criticize something that you apparently are not even willing to try to understand.
That would also be like me saying: "why worry about a YouTube video made by some seminarians that will overwhelmingly be viewed by those who already share their position?" "Why not just comment on videos containing your position and leave others alone?" This would be following your logic. It isn't an arguement. It's a distraction tactic.
I thought that with NFP, you're supposed to avoid sex when the women is fertile and has the most desire for sex. When you want to have sex, you can't. And when you can't have sex, you don't want to? I want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.
Fellow Christians,There is a "hate crimes bill" S909 that was devised by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in order to criminalize Christianity. Any Good Christian who stands up for traditional marriage or who protests the murder of millions of babies by abortion will be subject to possible fines or jail time. Check out truthtellers and watch Rev Ted Pike's videos explaining the danger and then call your Senators toll free at 877-851-6437 and tell them NO on S.909 Save our Constitution.
I wrote a book The Ultimate Goal of Life and stumbled on Sacred Genetic Code Theory that explained actually what now I see as Humane Vitae from Scientific and Logical clues and evidence. Thank you for sharing the video. I am delighted
With men traditionally wanting at least some share in the decisions of his family and with the trendy "Go-Green" movement out there, why wouldn't you go natural with reproduction FIRST?....the plastic bags can wait.
familys sizes are deflated from what they were just 50 years ago. the poulation boom is simply a result of people living way longer then they used to. did u know not a single EU nation has enough children per woman to even sustain its population?
That is the point. Due to the demographic transition (people living way longer [lower death rate], better health care, low infant mortality, affluence/standard of living, and [post] industrialization) of Europe, they can no longer sustain large population growth; both with natural resources and fiscally.
The Earth has never seen this many people at once. Especially with China and other developing nations demanding more affluence. Those Western Nations know how dire "replacement fertility" is..
For example, Germany is 1/3 the size of texas with a population of 82,329,758 people; whereas Texas has a population of 24,326,974people. To put this in prospective, Germany has almost 4 times the population of texas with about 1/3 the land and resources.
Although those countries may not be able to sustain their inflated populations, their natural resources (timber, soil, water etc...) will not be exhausted.
With 6.7 billion and 65.1% of child bearing age (15-64 years) according to the CIA World Book. This is a finite place with only enough resources to support about 2.5 billion if everyone lived like Americans!
I don't disagree with taking a hard look at the way Americans live. However, I wouldn't use excuses like this to argue for less life on earth. Besides, ppl don't use contraception because they believe they are doing mankind a favor....especially not in America...give me a break!
Less life on earth? The 6th great extinction is at OUR hands! Our overpopulation and over consumption is putting pressure on all other forms of life. You're right, many are not doing it for that reason, but some educated people are partaking in replacement fertility. Its not a favor to mankind... its a favor to everything else!
A garden without children is a barren and dead place. But seriously, one can be a good steward of the earth without trying to bring the human race to extinction. And by the way, birth control pills require all sorts of manufacturing, and the residual chemicals that remain in the urine of women who take them pollutes the water ways.
True, the hormones are flushed into the waterways, but that still dose not confront our little problem of 6.76 billion people on earth. With 65% of the population at childbearing age that number is going to climb even higher. But no you right, we need to be concerned about the hormones in the waterways, those very hormones that can be filtered out. Those hormones that will naturally break down, these lipids (hormones are sterol lipids) that can be catabolised by enzymes...
... A garden with nothing but humans is a barren and dead place. Why, because we killed everything else for "resource extraction." Because our hardwood floors are some how more important that some animal's homes in the Amazon. We are charged with being good stewards of the earth in Genesis 2:15, yet we are failing to do our duty!
But yes lets instead worry about the processing of the yams to extract and refine the natural plant sterol in order to make the pill's hormones.
Who said anything about a world with nothing but humans? First, that scenario is an impossibility. Humans would die out long before that happened. Second, we find more abundant substitutes every day for things that are scarce. Third, as a woman, I find your desire to pump chemicals in women so men can have sex a very degrading attitude. I understand there is a male pill that is less dangerous than the female pill, but it can cause "shrinkage." Why don't you take that?
Actually it causes roid rage or male aggression due to unchecked testestrone levels, but i see your point. It is a shame that the research into male contraceptives is going so slow. I think men around the world are and have been ready for male contraceptives. At any rate we are loosing more and more species everyday. The loss of biodiversity is a terrible reality. So what exactly are we finding abundant substitutes for? We humans have no regard for other living things here on earth...
Did it ever occur to you that species have come and gone long before man even came onto the scene? Remember when they were blaming DDT for the extinction of an owl species. Turns out it was going extinct due to a larger owl encroaching on its habitat! We can't be playing policeman to nature. We need to focus on minimizing our usage of scarce things and try not to foul our nest.
Abundant substitutes? Bamboo for hardwood, kudzu to make paper instead of trees.
Kudzu?!? The invasive vine that has taken over the southern 1/2 of the country? Once again a testament to humanity's great destructive power. I agree we need to minimize our impact (of 6.7 billion people); however we need to do a lot more then the feeble attempts. Need i remind you that DDT almost wiped out the peregrine falcon before we found out what was causing it? You are right in saying that species have come and gone long before man even came onto the scene, but never this fast!
I didn't say we should grow kudzu in the wild. It could be contained. The point is that it grows faster than just about any other plant known to man and it would be sustainable.
I'd seriously like to see some back up on your claim that species are disappearing faster than ever. Seems to me the ice age killed quite a few species, and very quickly, I might add.
Yes, there have been 5 mass extinctions that were of natural causes and wiped out vast numbers; however some speculate that we are in a 6th mass extinction caused by human activity. A good read is E.O. Wilson's "the future of life" and an essay he wrote called "The Current State of Biological Diversity." Those are the best complications of the data for the masses without reading each report and journal article.
I found another fascinating compilation of data, called Plan B 3.0: (I think there is now a Plan B 4.0; however I have not read this iteration) by Lester Brown.
You should know all about instant gratification, LOL! However, what you are providing as evidence is enviro-prop, not science. It also doesn't compare what is happening today to what has happened throughout history. That's what I'm looking for, not propaganda that advances a political agenda.
I thought of you when I was watching the news, and decided to pass it along. However, you just think that non-biased stories about gods cute fauna in peril. How exactly is saving the environment a political agenda? What would any politician have to gain from environmentalism?
Why cant you accept the fact that we have an effecting on every other living creature on Earth? And as to knowing about instant gratification, yes, I am American and thats all we know!
er, statisticaly NFP based relationships last longer. no strings attached, that's just the way it is. if it is because their relationships aren't based on sex, then all that shoes is how cool NFP is.
... Most of the US' national wild areas are set aside with the intent to extract their spoils at a later date (thus, the controversy over A.N.W.R.). There is a difference between preservation and conservation; where we practice preservation. I have digressed. The human population has destroyed and encroached upon many natural habitats (i.e, more large predators in suburbs and populated areas) and forced many animals to extinction or to the brink of extinction (dodo, bison, arabian oryx, etc).
We have! "Americans consumed a total of 4.908 billion pounds of seafood in 2007" (NOAA). From '06 to '07 there was a drop of 24,384 tons of imported sea food (department of commerce). We have forced the land to produce more through the green revolution and both industrial revolutions. Ps. 10:3 - "the greedy man curses and spurns God"
Sounds like your solution would involve even more tampering with nature, as well as more labor and expense. NFP has no negative impact on the environment and it works (I know from personal experience.)
Also, 6.76 billion people would be no problem at all if people in the developed world lived in a low impact way. It's not the folks in the third world that are using up resources at an unacceptable rate, it's us, with our lower than replacement rate fertility. Simply put, we're pigs.
Naturally, we are pigs. We could sustain a higher population if we lived in a low impact way. But thats just un-American! We aspire to such affluence, and inspire the third world to fallow in our huge eco-footsteps. Now China and India are also wanting a higher standard of living. We demand such a high standard of living, and enjoy it so much that few American would choose to part with it. For example people buying hummers and SUVs over smaller fuel efficient hybrids (or even the hybrid SUVs)!
I'm going to ignore your red herring, and bring the subject back on track. You and I aside, the bigger picture is that something needs to be done. Moreover this video dose nothing to address any issues besides 1/2 truths and made up facts (like that nfp is 99% effective). We live in a modern age, lets implement our modern brains and technology to fix the mess we made!
"You and I aside?" This is where someone like you loses the intended audience. He is speaking exactly to me (and my wife)! If you can't relate, maybe you are the problem. If you don't like it, don't listen. You can't judge our relationship and our choices. You are a little to young to be bucking up to me anyway, so take a hike.
Cool your jets! The intended audience is anyone and everyone. I can relate perfectly well, but thats not the point of the argument. I'm not judging you, nor did I bring you into this (nor your wife). Quite frankly that dose not concern me in anyway. My gripe is with the video's information (or lack of) and you claiming that all other forms of birth control and abortion cause cancer. However instead of defending you claim you bring your life and wife into it... why?
There is some correlational evidence that links abortion to cancer. It doesn't mean that its a strong correlation, but for now one can neither claim that it is definitely related or definitely not-related. The real point is that there needs to be more studies. I'm in healthcare and I can't understand why this isn't an area of greater concern and research. Why don't we hear of this, at least from the side of a concern that should be explored? Did these folks in the video step over the line....
and make some technically-unscientific claims? SURE....but do they have a point that there needs to be more investigation at the very least? Definitely. The fact of the matter is that this video would not bother you if you hadn't already made your mind up about this issue. I don't know your political leanings, but if I were a betting man, I would say you don't have the same view and bitterness toward the lack of evidence in other areas like global warming, which is much more mainstream.
Apologies for the detour...Anyway, you claimed that I said "all forms of birth control" caused cancer. If I said this, it was a mistake. There is no reason to believe condoms do. I never said or alluded to this.
The evidence supporting global warming in indeed there, just no one cares to listen to it. If you were a betting man, i think you could guess thats I'm studying ecology. And yes there needs to be more research there too! There needs to be more all around research here and everywhere... There are many forms of birth control that are forgotten about, caps, sponges, spermicide, IUDs... thats too big of a generalization....
.. Also when looking at even hormonal contraception the distinction between progesterone and combination hormonal needs to be made. Threshold levels, and concentration. Moreover when looking at the study data there needs to not be a biased sample size, compare all breast cancer patients to those who took the medication in question and also compare it to the whole population to see if the correlational is independent or not.
The only data I have see is the correlational between cancer and first child. However i do agree with you that this is an area that needs more study. I do believe the line was crossed when claims are made with out the facts to support them. I glad to see that someone in the healthcare industry is involved in this forum.
I think part of what the "control freaks" would say is that people are being told that Artificial forms of Birth Control is a perfectly wonderful and healthy option. The risks are rarely spoken of (like the fact that all pills can act as an abortafacient... that should matter to most traditional protestant Christians) and NFP is rarely ever spoken of. Also, there is quite a bit to show that ArtifBC has spurred on many societal evils (divorce, abuse, misogeny).read about it.
Yes it has risks, everything has risks! Every time you wake up (or fall asleep), leave your house, climb into your car, take the freeway and go to work; those all have their own risks!
Secondly the pill is not an abortafacient. According to the mayo clinic "about 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage". WebMD says "about 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a miscarriage". not to mention that about 25% of fertilized ova never implant.
You admit they have risks, but most peole don't knwo what those are and don't know that there are risks. The average person has more access to knowledge about the risks of diarrhea medication than the Pill. And what about miscarrigages? That wasn't intentional. At least let people make an informed decision making it plainly known that the Pill creates a hostile environment int eh womb which, if a fertalized egg comes, will disallow implantation. many conservatives consider that abortion.
Everything has risks, yes. However not many risks have been corraborated and others are speculation. There is a difference between a gut felling and science. The known and undisputed side effects can be easily accessed on web sites like webMD or Planned Parenthood's. Moreover the doctor who prescribes the pill is required to give a consultation on side effects, dosing etc.
The pill is not an abortifacient. The chances of ovulation and the sperm penetrating the thickened cervical mucus is low
I disagree. My wife and I have used NFP exclusivly for one and a half years and we haven't had a pregnancy. NFP has changed a lot since the older Rhythm method and is a lot more reliable.
It still dose not change the fact that she is an WFP baby. You can argue all you want about "how great nfp is" and such, but the fact of the matter dose not change.
That is exactly whats wrong with contraception. Unfortunately in this society when most perople are in a relationship, its all about the sex and people don't learn how to truly love each other. This is why NFP is so beautiful. It is not only 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, but it also promotes communication between husband and wife and brings them closer in their relationship. And those times you do have to abstain, reminds you of how to love without having sex.
Really, why is it the best? Why would it be better then anything else? who says its the best? And my age old question... Where in the bible (besides Gen. 38:8-10) dose it say birth control is evil?
"Hi, i'm some ugly chick that got asked by Dan, the new youth pastor, to be in some gay video about masturbating or some stupid thing. I think my husband is noble when he leaves his load in me because that makes sense to a retarded, blind, kneejerk conservative idiot like me. I also can't act."
NFP is not a tangible thing; NFP is "Natural Family Planning," a system of birth based on the woman's menstrual cycle. It is also commonly called the Calendar or Rhythm Method. This method has been promoted heavily by the Roman Catholic Church in the past. Unfortunately, failure rates (unplanned pregnancies) of as much as 23% with normal use make this a far less effective and far more dangerous "birth control" technique (No disease protection, for example). Sources can be cited if desired.
NFP and the Rhythm/Calendar method are actually two completely different things. At best, you could call Rhythm a very outdated proto-type version of NFP, but that's even stretching it.
And failure rates are highly subject to interpretation. It depends greatly on whether the two people use the method correctly. If they do, NFP has a higher success rate than most artificial contraceptives.
yes failure rates are subject to interpretation, that is by a lab tech or researcher! Then there are ideal use and typical use. but seeing as only a few methods have only ideal rates (iud, depo, implant) all other methods are subjected to typical failure rates.
And yes NFP includes rhythm, but seeing as how the term 'NFP' is so loosely tossed around clear clinical results don't matter. However if you were to mention Symptothermal then we would be on the same page
No, NFP isn't the rhythm method. The rhythm method is calendar-based and wasn't very useful for women with irregular fertility cycles. NFP allows couples to use actual science to monitor their fertility.
No, sticking a finger up there is not science nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific!
If people were saying things like they use the ladycomp as contraception, use a bbt thermometer, or test for Lh hormone to see if she has ovulated. Those things are calibrated and the results can be reproduced.
To the best of my knowledge 'nfp' has never been studied as thoroughly as other methods of birth control!
Well, maybe, Skamic, the best of your knowledge could use an overhaul. Making statements such as "nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific" merely reveals a bias on your part, and that you're not really here to learn anything.
What science is comes out of the church? Look at the shared history of the church and science! Even the "science" promoted by the church is not empirical! Not the point though, why would I want to learn from this biased organization? We all know how non-biased and empirical a seminary can be (yes, that was sarcasm). Look at Newman's tests of evidence:
Feel free to stay on topic, skamic. I've found that when people like you are sorely losing a debate, you begin talking about Galileo and the Inquisition and everything except the issue at hand.
hmmm, ok! let me reiterate. "We all know how non-biased and empirical a seminary can be (yes, that was sarcasm). Look at Newman's tests of evidence:"
the "seminary" was in reference to eskyguard "...written, acted, and edited by Catholic seminarians..."
Furthermore Newman's tests of evidence, was something I picked up in my comm 101 class. It is a way to test the evidence used in a scholastic paper, speech, presentation etc.
Finally I looked at the history of the church and science coexistence in as rational to "nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific."
So how did i deviate from the subject at hand?
Moreover, I'll admit my bias, but I went into depth about more scientific devices that would aid in taking data it know if indeed a woman had ovulated.
So you stated the obvious; and I implied those things like Galileo and the Inquisition, but it was you who stated it not me.
By circumventing the points that NFP is biology-based, not some mystical sacrament of a system and that atheists and agnostics can reap its many benefits. Just because something is endorsed by a church doesn't mean it's not technological or biological.
Well skamic, thanks for making my argument for me. NFP is vastly superior in this. It only costs the state the time to educate in nfp, and means they don't have to burden the healthcare system shoveling pills and condoms on everyone.
Lets ignore the health care system for just one second. "NFP is vastly superior in this." How so? Maybe in that its failure rate is high. Young people who have very little self restraint will find them selves pregnant.
Ok, now onto the health system. First of all there are already programs to make contraception accessible for example title X, the 'green card' in California or the 'pink card' in Illinois. So not that much stress will be put on the system.
On top of that, more people will need to be educated in sexual education. Some young people don't even know what a cervix is let alone its mucus.
Another thing is additional costs in NFP with things like the Ladycomp (or other such devices), basal thermometers, speculum etc. So no it is not only "...the time to educate in nfp..."
All you have demonstrated is that life is difficult, which isn't particularly controversial. What you haven't done is make a valid argument. Poor women with children does not prove contraception is moral.
Poor people are unable to take care of them selves let alone unplanned children. Also young girls who make a mistake and find themselves pregnant, get kicked out and end up on the streets. But if they had access to plan b, or a comprehensive sexual education then maybe some of them would not take the risk. Or would know what to do in case they took that risk!
Ends justifying the means is not just Machiavelli. St. Paul says the same concept in different words by telling us we may not do evil that good may come of it.
I have done volunteer work. But that is neither here nor there. However, I can't really blame you for wanting to talk about me and my alleged shorcomings instead of the hopeless position that is contraception. It's a loser and I hope you are starting to see that. God bless you.
yes, but you quoted Machiavelli not St. Paul in romans 3:8! If so then quote Paul in the first place.
No I'm trying to make you understand! I too have done my fair share, and I have seen what despair these people face with lack of access to even the proper health care let alone birth control! To come back to the same place time and time again, and see the same woman with a different baby every time! It breaks your heart!
To wonder weather the state took it away, or if it has died! When you talk to them, they tell their story! Its not one of the middle class bubble of protection you and I have! To know that you can't take care of the children she already has!
This should never be a competition, and if it is to you then god have mercy on your soul!
None of these dubious attempts to paint children as a curse that destroys futures amount to "contraception is morally acceptable". Rather it is tired old consequentialism, that the ends justify the means.
Please don't quote Machiavelli. And yes it is true. Have you ever voluntereed at a women's shelter, or a soup kitchen? Have you seen the young girls no more then 15, years old already with children? 2/3 teens at the age of 16 are sexually active! did you know that!
Subject at hand: The reference to playing russian roulette with someone's future. Where did we get this inhuman notion that children are a curse? Yes, children require many changes, but it doesn't destroy people's future. I've recommended ccli-dot-org several times. There you will find info about how Nfp uses objective and reliable observation for determining fertile and infertile times.
Or we can pray and hope that little sally can go to med school, or law school. Because she dose not have children to support. Or rent to pay cause her parents kicked her out for getting knocked up. Or that she can't get a good job due to the fact that she's a pregnant teen. No thats not a ruined future at all.
Personally I don't care what you treat my posts like. I'm perfectly willing to listen and pateintly respond to anyone who isn't obviously a hostile brickbat hurler here to urinate on other people for holding to something they don't like. But like I said elsewhere, let's get back to the subject at hand.
ann, I realize it may read simplistically, but the Truth is sometimes like that. To wit: If you are not ready for children, you are not ready for marriage and sex. Most importantly, ALL of us, man or woman, are called to chastity. Let me recommend Dawn Eden's book, The Thrill of the Chaste.
Briefly, I should point out that woman (and men who of course are part of the baby-making equation) are not required to have as many children as possible. God bless you.
Then how else are you not going to have children? With someone's future at stake, it is like playing russian roulette! You can't posable know if she she has ovulated or not. It's basically your best guess.
Without contraceptives, women either have to be virgins or baby-making machines. I'd rather not be either... I don't want to have kids until I'm in my 30's. I'm a pre-med pscyh major and I plan on going to med school later. I could not do this w/o birth control, and there is NO WAY I could ever be a doctor w/o it either. I feel like encouraging women not to use contraceptives is like another way of controlling women.
As mentioned on the video 1, 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.
Again, Natrual doesn't mean animal. Whether during a woman's most fertile time is her most "horniest" (a dubious proposition, she's not a cat), we can rationally chose, and those choices are either moral or immoral. NOT doing something is only immoral if there is a duty to do something.
And once again, the only reason nfp users are more likely to become pregnant is because they WANT to get pregnant because that is what marriage is for. Condoms are immoral in addition to putting a physical barrier between couples, they put a spiritual one as well through sin. If a couple can't provide a proper home etc, then they should not be getting married. You know that is the Truth-- come in, the water is fine.
balderdash! true love dose not = children! two can show/vow love for each other with out children. in fact a leading cause of divorce in the US is caused by the stress of children (and money that raising kids demands)
Condoms are immoral in addition to putting a physical barrier between couples
NONSENCE. THATS JUST LIES FROM THE WITCH BURNER, INQUISITION, SEXSIT ABUSE CULT THATS CHRISTINANITY AS GETTING GIRLS PREGANT TAKES THEIR FREEDOM AND POWER BUT MORE SO MAKES MORE FOLLOWERS TO GIVE MONEY IN DONATIONS AND GIVE THE CULT MORE POWER
Yep, NFP users CAN have sex whenever they want. It's just they're far more likely that they will become pregnant. These methods are mildly effective at best. I don't like how these videos portray people who use contraceptives as not being as close in their relationships. I think condoms are fine, and they provide a much greater chance of avoiding pregnancy before a couple can provide a proper home and lifestly for a child.
but then again if they are having sex whenever they want then thats not contraception nor 'NFP.' therefor nulling that statement, because thier "use" (or lack there of) periodic abstinence as a birth control method. not practicing what they preach! tisk tisk
"As a matter of fact, they said NFP users can have sex whenever in a pervious video. A TOTAL LIE."
Not at all. As Obi Wan would say, "Your thoughts betray you. You are assuming that sexual activity must take place in terror of pregnancy, which must be avoided at all costs. That's the telling lie. As Yoda would say, "I sense much fear in you."
Human's don't really have a time when they can't get pregnant. It's biology, and fact (oh yes, i forgot, most of you don't believe in science...). 25% FAILURE RATE!!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
eeeeehhhhh... i beg to differ, using a model of the "ideal 28 day cycle" there are times that it is almost impossible to get pregnant, but the cycle isnt ideal, and is hard to predict ovulation, or know if a woman has ovulated twice, or is having break through bleeding, or other fluctuations in her cycle that would through off the "NPF observations."
so yes and no! there are times when a woman is drastically less likely to get pregnant.
well, i don;t think that NFP is intended for people who are promiscuous. The video does state those state that it is a dialogue between the spouses to use this method I am sure, if during theit dialogue they realize that having a baby at that point in time would be something not healthy( like not being able to provide the basics or the mother being sick for some reason that if she got pregnat would compromise her life or the baby's a great deal) they might decide not to have sex for some time.
Both sides didn't provide a persuasive argument and left out a lot. I personally think most methods of birth control are smart, and NFP seems like a meothod (only its natural). Sucks that the users of NFP have to abstain 12 out of 28 days unless they want a baby. THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT NOW DIDN'T THEY?
As a matter of fact, they said NFP users can have sex whenever in a pervious video. A TOTAL LIE.
ok first of all nft can be carried out by a single woman (therefore not "needing two"). also where exactly do you come off saying that a couple using birth control cant love each other? i have just celebrated 2 years with my lovely girl friend and we have employed any number of contraceptive from steroidal to barrier and nft to some extent.
in other countries and cultures we would already be married! and according to old church law we are too. but yes a couple can partake is intercourse and still love each other... who are you to tell me that i dont love my girl friend? and another thing, the reason that the church damned sex was for 2 reasons; so bastards werent born out of wedlock and that the clergy abused Indulgences related to sexual favors.
I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do and I will pray for you but until you have had free intercourse with no barrier or contraceptive between you and your partner, you have no idea of what 'giving yourself' to each other means. The church didn't damn sex,the jewish law did thousands of years before the church even existed. Sex outside of marriage was considered sinful before the days of David
please tell me what "the church" is based upon? could it be judaism? and for most practical implication Judaism and Christianity are both Abrahamic religion (we cant forget about Islam too). so ideas started in the Jewish religion were passed along to Christianity! please stop telling how i feel, no matter how hard you try you'll never know how i feel. so pray all you want but come back and we'll have a little chat once you have actually have some experience with this topic.
free intercourse with no barrier or contraceptive between you and your partner,
Is immoral unless trying to get pregant as putting somone at risk much in the same way the makers of the titanic did not add enough lifeboats.Sex outside marriage is fine if safe sex & U are sufficiently educated. No nonsence like beliving the pull out method works. All that matters is U are consentual & taking safety precautions, nobody is too young, no animals.
I don't understanding how abstaining from sex is "giving one's fertility." A healthy Catholic couple should be able to express their love for one another without daily temperatures and checking cervical mucus. If anyone has facts rather than stereotypical biases I'd like to know. I was leaning toward NFP for awhile, but stuff like this really turns me off from the idea.
I think nfp is great if that's what works for you, but i hate that statistic that "nfp users stay together with almost no divorce." That's b/c most nfp users are catholic and don't believe in divorce in the first place. whether they use nfp or not, if they're devout catholics, they're not getting a divorce. don't tie the 2 together,
Unfortunately, Catholics have a rather high divorce rate ... and, divorce is not considered against morals, it is only remarriage that puts one out of communion. Also, many non-catholics use NFP and they also show a much lower divorce rate than others in their religion.
God gave women cycles to NATURALLY choose when to have children. What God sees sex as is fully giving your love to your spouse. When you have sex with your spouse, you are giving your love and everything you have freely to them to show that love. Using a contraceptive is having someone say: I love you and I love you freely and I give all I have to you,EXCEPT my fertility...The truth isn't afraid of anyone...It's the people who are afraid of the truth. NFP has been wonderful for my wife and me.
avengedangel2002 5 months ago
watch?v=ySj3D7Nlw7E
sk8412c 7 months ago
I think that contraception also has a woman involved. If not, then he's masturbating and doesn't have to worry about pregnancy.
spinemelter2000 8 months ago
"She finds me nobel" haha, I love the way he says that.
Minxcomix 9 months ago 2
I say wait until marriage to have sex as sex is a gift to be shared with each other that was given by God as a wedding present to those who married each other. Marriage based on true love, not how great the sex is. Those who feel the need to go on a test drive first, may not win the race for true love.
patsaxon 1 year ago
I like the "She finds me noble"
victoire1834 1 year ago
"She finds me noble!" xD Great videos you guys!
pianofanatic18 1 year ago 2
I love these videos. I'm dating a wonderful man right now and we are going to use NFP when we are married. We are abstinent right now, waiting til marriage. I have to let people know that it is wonderful. I made the mistake of having pre-marital sex in the past when I dated my ex. I can defintiely say that abstinence is great. It's helping my boyfriend and I to grow deeper in love with each other.
Trustworthyalma 1 year ago 18
@Trustworthyalma
Best wishes! :-)
EuropeanProLifer 1 year ago
Love the last two lines of this "Your happiness disgusts me." "We know."
I've been practicing NFP for 18 years, and that is the side effect that artificial contraceptors are most annoyed by!
NFPwife 1 year ago 18
What about STD's? NFP does not protect against STD's. Thats half of the reason to wear a condom.
YesHipsLox 1 year ago
Most NFP users assume that sex is for marriage only, so if you're both virgins, you won' t have to deal with STDs.
forgodandourlady 1 year ago
@forgodandourlady
You can be born with an STD. There are hundreds of children in Africa that die from AIDs every year. Even children in the United States are born with AIDs or other STDs. What are they to do?
YesHipsLox 1 year ago
Not have sex.
forgodandourlady 1 year ago
@forgodandourlady
So you would deny two lovers the opportunity to experience the most beautiful and passionate act possible? To me that seems like the greater sin than wearing a condom.
YesHipsLox 1 year ago
Is it wrong to deny somebody the experience of getting high? Denying someone an experience is not wrong when the experience is sinful. (It would be wrong to risk somebody's life unnecessarily.) If a child is born with an STD, will he/she ever be old enough to have sex? (I'm genuinely curious.)
forgodandourlady 1 year ago
@forgodandourlady
A couple of websites that I found said that the life expectancy of someone born with HIV is about 20 years if they have the proper treatment. Of course there is going to be people who die before and after that though. If untreated the life expectancy is much much lower. But i guess where you and I disagree is just that I don't think sex outside of marriage is a sin and you do. Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me ;)
YesHipsLox 1 year ago
Thanks for the info. I don't expect everybody to agree with me either - I just want them to think my religion is irrational or the result of brainwashing or something. (I've had people tell me that.) : )
forgodandourlady 1 year ago
This is a great video, very creative! I like the message.
njfworld 2 years 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
We have tens of thousands of starving orphans all over the world, so I say lets break out the condoms and take care of the children we already have. Also how does having seven screeming children increase your intimacy.
phoenixsong20 2 years ago
Interesting use of the extreme when trying to make a point. I don't see how orphans have anything to do with artificial contraception, at least not in the way you imply. Actually there is a direct link between birth control and the divorce rate, which ironically "boomed" in the same period of history. THIS is how you draw the link from contraception to abandoned children, by way of divorce and sexual promiscuity. Save the diversive tactic. It's the same one the pro-abortion crowd uses.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
There you go deploying the "strong evidence" of correlation proving causation. Where is you peer reviewed non-biased data? Exactly there is none. One could say the same for watching tv, this too was made popular during the same time. Or how about processed food? Most research suggests that it was a myriad of factors due to social change. More often than not, children in smaller families are better taken care of as more resources can be allocated to him/her...
skamic88 1 year ago
... This is a different reproductive strategy that focuses on quality over quantity. It is a cultural phenomenon that has been observed as medical science advances (thus child mortality rates drop) and reliable methods of spacing children are made available.
skamic88 1 year ago
@skamic
That is a rather subject generality don't you think? The issue isn't large v.s. small families it's about the union between husband and wife and what is and isn't contrary to the union. If you can't wrap your brain around that, fine, but don't criticize something that you apparently are not even willing to try to understand.
SAINThoodSEEKER 1 year ago
That would also be like me saying: "why worry about a YouTube video made by some seminarians that will overwhelmingly be viewed by those who already share their position?" "Why not just comment on videos containing your position and leave others alone?" This would be following your logic. It isn't an arguement. It's a distraction tactic.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
good work :)
God bless
7The7Truth7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fags
Cheekyuk0 2 years ago
cute and awesome vid! thanks for making it
emeraldmorn 2 years ago 2
I thought that with NFP, you're supposed to avoid sex when the women is fertile and has the most desire for sex. When you want to have sex, you can't. And when you can't have sex, you don't want to? I want to make sure I'm understanding it properly.
spinemelter2000 2 years ago 4
@spinemelter2000
No.
First, there is no rule for the time when women have their most desire for sex. They're different.
Second, when the woman is fertile, you know that you have to use condoms.
Third, it is pretty frequent, that women who take the pill don't ever have much desire for sex at all.
tselampe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fellow Christians,There is a "hate crimes bill" S909 that was devised by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in order to criminalize Christianity. Any Good Christian who stands up for traditional marriage or who protests the murder of millions of babies by abortion will be subject to possible fines or jail time. Check out truthtellers and watch Rev Ted Pike's videos explaining the danger and then call your Senators toll free at 877-851-6437 and tell them NO on S.909 Save our Constitution.
standupforfreedom153 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wrote a book The Ultimate Goal of Life and stumbled on Sacred Genetic Code Theory that explained actually what now I see as Humane Vitae from Scientific and Logical clues and evidence. Thank you for sharing the video. I am delighted
UltimateGoalOfLife 2 years ago
With men traditionally wanting at least some share in the decisions of his family and with the trendy "Go-Green" movement out there, why wouldn't you go natural with reproduction FIRST?....the plastic bags can wait.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
Let's see... the inflated human population is the cause of just about all environmental problems. NFP is as natural as "natural gas."
skamic88 2 years ago
I'm out of town and away from the net. Glad I am. Lol
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
familys sizes are deflated from what they were just 50 years ago. the poulation boom is simply a result of people living way longer then they used to. did u know not a single EU nation has enough children per woman to even sustain its population?
MSMninja 2 years ago
That is the point. Due to the demographic transition (people living way longer [lower death rate], better health care, low infant mortality, affluence/standard of living, and [post] industrialization) of Europe, they can no longer sustain large population growth; both with natural resources and fiscally.
The Earth has never seen this many people at once. Especially with China and other developing nations demanding more affluence. Those Western Nations know how dire "replacement fertility" is..
skamic88 2 years ago
Comment removed
skamic88 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... Even so w/ lower rates of fertility.
For example, Germany is 1/3 the size of texas with a population of 82,329,758 people; whereas Texas has a population of 24,326,974people. To put this in prospective, Germany has almost 4 times the population of texas with about 1/3 the land and resources.
Although those countries may not be able to sustain their inflated populations, their natural resources (timber, soil, water etc...) will not be exhausted.
Sources
CIA World Factbook
US Census Bureau
skamic88 2 years ago
That was great. Keep up the good work guys!
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Love the videos, guys!
My favourite line - "She finds me noble!", 1:00
jcrook1987 2 years ago
lies, lies, lies.... I'm a Catholic. NFP is not very effective birth control. Use it only if you really want kids.
Brittian86 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
With 6.7 billion and 65.1% of child bearing age (15-64 years) according to the CIA World Book. This is a finite place with only enough resources to support about 2.5 billion if everyone lived like Americans!
We are supposed to take care of the garden right?
skamic88 2 years ago
I don't disagree with taking a hard look at the way Americans live. However, I wouldn't use excuses like this to argue for less life on earth. Besides, ppl don't use contraception because they believe they are doing mankind a favor....especially not in America...give me a break!
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
Less life on earth? The 6th great extinction is at OUR hands! Our overpopulation and over consumption is putting pressure on all other forms of life. You're right, many are not doing it for that reason, but some educated people are partaking in replacement fertility. Its not a favor to mankind... its a favor to everything else!
skamic88 2 years ago
A garden without children is a barren and dead place. But seriously, one can be a good steward of the earth without trying to bring the human race to extinction. And by the way, birth control pills require all sorts of manufacturing, and the residual chemicals that remain in the urine of women who take them pollutes the water ways.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
True, the hormones are flushed into the waterways, but that still dose not confront our little problem of 6.76 billion people on earth. With 65% of the population at childbearing age that number is going to climb even higher. But no you right, we need to be concerned about the hormones in the waterways, those very hormones that can be filtered out. Those hormones that will naturally break down, these lipids (hormones are sterol lipids) that can be catabolised by enzymes...
skamic88 2 years ago
... A garden with nothing but humans is a barren and dead place. Why, because we killed everything else for "resource extraction." Because our hardwood floors are some how more important that some animal's homes in the Amazon. We are charged with being good stewards of the earth in Genesis 2:15, yet we are failing to do our duty!
But yes lets instead worry about the processing of the yams to extract and refine the natural plant sterol in order to make the pill's hormones.
skamic88 2 years ago
Who said anything about a world with nothing but humans? First, that scenario is an impossibility. Humans would die out long before that happened. Second, we find more abundant substitutes every day for things that are scarce. Third, as a woman, I find your desire to pump chemicals in women so men can have sex a very degrading attitude. I understand there is a male pill that is less dangerous than the female pill, but it can cause "shrinkage." Why don't you take that?
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Actually it causes roid rage or male aggression due to unchecked testestrone levels, but i see your point. It is a shame that the research into male contraceptives is going so slow. I think men around the world are and have been ready for male contraceptives. At any rate we are loosing more and more species everyday. The loss of biodiversity is a terrible reality. So what exactly are we finding abundant substitutes for? We humans have no regard for other living things here on earth...
skamic88 2 years ago
Did it ever occur to you that species have come and gone long before man even came onto the scene? Remember when they were blaming DDT for the extinction of an owl species. Turns out it was going extinct due to a larger owl encroaching on its habitat! We can't be playing policeman to nature. We need to focus on minimizing our usage of scarce things and try not to foul our nest.
Abundant substitutes? Bamboo for hardwood, kudzu to make paper instead of trees.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Kudzu?!? The invasive vine that has taken over the southern 1/2 of the country? Once again a testament to humanity's great destructive power. I agree we need to minimize our impact (of 6.7 billion people); however we need to do a lot more then the feeble attempts. Need i remind you that DDT almost wiped out the peregrine falcon before we found out what was causing it? You are right in saying that species have come and gone long before man even came onto the scene, but never this fast!
skamic88 2 years ago
I didn't say we should grow kudzu in the wild. It could be contained. The point is that it grows faster than just about any other plant known to man and it would be sustainable.
I'd seriously like to see some back up on your claim that species are disappearing faster than ever. Seems to me the ice age killed quite a few species, and very quickly, I might add.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Yes, there have been 5 mass extinctions that were of natural causes and wiped out vast numbers; however some speculate that we are in a 6th mass extinction caused by human activity. A good read is E.O. Wilson's "the future of life" and an essay he wrote called "The Current State of Biological Diversity." Those are the best complications of the data for the masses without reading each report and journal article.
skamic88 2 years ago
I found another fascinating compilation of data, called Plan B 3.0: (I think there is now a Plan B 4.0; however I have not read this iteration) by Lester Brown.
skamic88 1 year ago
For instant gratification, go to yahoo news videos, click on science, scroll down 11 times, look for "Eaten to Extinction."
other yahoo news videos include "Prairie Dog Update," "Bees In Trouble," "Florida Panther Update," "Guns in National Parks," "Wildlife Crime Scenes,"
Just a few videos i saw in passing that made me think of you.
skamic88 2 years ago
You should know all about instant gratification, LOL! However, what you are providing as evidence is enviro-prop, not science. It also doesn't compare what is happening today to what has happened throughout history. That's what I'm looking for, not propaganda that advances a political agenda.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
I thought of you when I was watching the news, and decided to pass it along. However, you just think that non-biased stories about gods cute fauna in peril. How exactly is saving the environment a political agenda? What would any politician have to gain from environmentalism?
Why cant you accept the fact that we have an effecting on every other living creature on Earth? And as to knowing about instant gratification, yes, I am American and thats all we know!
skamic88 2 years ago
er, statisticaly NFP based relationships last longer. no strings attached, that's just the way it is. if it is because their relationships aren't based on sex, then all that shoes is how cool NFP is.
MSMninja 2 years ago
... Most of the US' national wild areas are set aside with the intent to extract their spoils at a later date (thus, the controversy over A.N.W.R.). There is a difference between preservation and conservation; where we practice preservation. I have digressed. The human population has destroyed and encroached upon many natural habitats (i.e, more large predators in suburbs and populated areas) and forced many animals to extinction or to the brink of extinction (dodo, bison, arabian oryx, etc).
skamic88 2 years ago
"We are charged with being good stewards of the earth in Genesis 2:15, yet we are failing to do our duty!"
LOL! See Genesis 1:28!
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
We have! "Americans consumed a total of 4.908 billion pounds of seafood in 2007" (NOAA). From '06 to '07 there was a drop of 24,384 tons of imported sea food (department of commerce). We have forced the land to produce more through the green revolution and both industrial revolutions. Ps. 10:3 - "the greedy man curses and spurns God"
Heb. 13:5 - be content with what you have
skamic88 2 years ago
Sounds like your solution would involve even more tampering with nature, as well as more labor and expense. NFP has no negative impact on the environment and it works (I know from personal experience.)
Also, 6.76 billion people would be no problem at all if people in the developed world lived in a low impact way. It's not the folks in the third world that are using up resources at an unacceptable rate, it's us, with our lower than replacement rate fertility. Simply put, we're pigs.
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Naturally, we are pigs. We could sustain a higher population if we lived in a low impact way. But thats just un-American! We aspire to such affluence, and inspire the third world to fallow in our huge eco-footsteps. Now China and India are also wanting a higher standard of living. We demand such a high standard of living, and enjoy it so much that few American would choose to part with it. For example people buying hummers and SUVs over smaller fuel efficient hybrids (or even the hybrid SUVs)!
skamic88 2 years ago
Maybe you were supposed to have children. You hopped in the sack didn't ya?
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
I'm going to ignore your red herring, and bring the subject back on track. You and I aside, the bigger picture is that something needs to be done. Moreover this video dose nothing to address any issues besides 1/2 truths and made up facts (like that nfp is 99% effective). We live in a modern age, lets implement our modern brains and technology to fix the mess we made!
skamic88 2 years ago
"You and I aside?" This is where someone like you loses the intended audience. He is speaking exactly to me (and my wife)! If you can't relate, maybe you are the problem. If you don't like it, don't listen. You can't judge our relationship and our choices. You are a little to young to be bucking up to me anyway, so take a hike.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
Cool your jets! The intended audience is anyone and everyone. I can relate perfectly well, but thats not the point of the argument. I'm not judging you, nor did I bring you into this (nor your wife). Quite frankly that dose not concern me in anyway. My gripe is with the video's information (or lack of) and you claiming that all other forms of birth control and abortion cause cancer. However instead of defending you claim you bring your life and wife into it... why?
skamic88 2 years ago
There is some correlational evidence that links abortion to cancer. It doesn't mean that its a strong correlation, but for now one can neither claim that it is definitely related or definitely not-related. The real point is that there needs to be more studies. I'm in healthcare and I can't understand why this isn't an area of greater concern and research. Why don't we hear of this, at least from the side of a concern that should be explored? Did these folks in the video step over the line....
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
and make some technically-unscientific claims? SURE....but do they have a point that there needs to be more investigation at the very least? Definitely. The fact of the matter is that this video would not bother you if you hadn't already made your mind up about this issue. I don't know your political leanings, but if I were a betting man, I would say you don't have the same view and bitterness toward the lack of evidence in other areas like global warming, which is much more mainstream.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
Apologies for the detour...Anyway, you claimed that I said "all forms of birth control" caused cancer. If I said this, it was a mistake. There is no reason to believe condoms do. I never said or alluded to this.
SAINThoodSEEKER 2 years ago
The evidence supporting global warming in indeed there, just no one cares to listen to it. If you were a betting man, i think you could guess thats I'm studying ecology. And yes there needs to be more research there too! There needs to be more all around research here and everywhere... There are many forms of birth control that are forgotten about, caps, sponges, spermicide, IUDs... thats too big of a generalization....
skamic88 2 years ago
.. Also when looking at even hormonal contraception the distinction between progesterone and combination hormonal needs to be made. Threshold levels, and concentration. Moreover when looking at the study data there needs to not be a biased sample size, compare all breast cancer patients to those who took the medication in question and also compare it to the whole population to see if the correlational is independent or not.
skamic88 2 years ago
The only data I have see is the correlational between cancer and first child. However i do agree with you that this is an area that needs more study. I do believe the line was crossed when claims are made with out the facts to support them. I glad to see that someone in the healthcare industry is involved in this forum.
skamic88 2 years ago
Have you tried it? I have, and it worked flawlessly. I never got pregnant while using NFP to prevent conception--ever!
HammerofHeretics 2 years ago
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Pacisdiligo 3 years ago
NFP is 99% effective! I'm a huge fan of NFP.
3peekaboo3 3 years ago
I'm not a religious freak or anything, but they had some pretty valid points!
kcballintyp 3 years ago
such as?
skamic88 3 years ago
I think part of what the "control freaks" would say is that people are being told that Artificial forms of Birth Control is a perfectly wonderful and healthy option. The risks are rarely spoken of (like the fact that all pills can act as an abortafacient... that should matter to most traditional protestant Christians) and NFP is rarely ever spoken of. Also, there is quite a bit to show that ArtifBC has spurred on many societal evils (divorce, abuse, misogeny).read about it.
Xpycoctomos 3 years ago
Wow really...?
Yes it has risks, everything has risks! Every time you wake up (or fall asleep), leave your house, climb into your car, take the freeway and go to work; those all have their own risks!
Secondly the pill is not an abortafacient. According to the mayo clinic "about 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage". WebMD says "about 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a miscarriage". not to mention that about 25% of fertilized ova never implant.
skamic88 3 years ago
Those societal evils were around long before contemporary contraceptives. Divorce, abuse and misogyny have been around for a long time.
I hope you know that, and don't think that these are new ideas!
skamic88 3 years ago
You admit they have risks, but most peole don't knwo what those are and don't know that there are risks. The average person has more access to knowledge about the risks of diarrhea medication than the Pill. And what about miscarrigages? That wasn't intentional. At least let people make an informed decision making it plainly known that the Pill creates a hostile environment int eh womb which, if a fertalized egg comes, will disallow implantation. many conservatives consider that abortion.
Xpycoctomos 3 years ago
Everything has risks, yes. However not many risks have been corraborated and others are speculation. There is a difference between a gut felling and science. The known and undisputed side effects can be easily accessed on web sites like webMD or Planned Parenthood's. Moreover the doctor who prescribes the pill is required to give a consultation on side effects, dosing etc.
The pill is not an abortifacient. The chances of ovulation and the sperm penetrating the thickened cervical mucus is low
skamic88 3 years ago
I think this is a pretty good video
laf0707 3 years ago
Wow, everyone is so negative...
laf0707 3 years ago
The problem isn't about having sex every day or just once a month.
The problem is that NFP hardly works.
I am actually a NFP-child, and my mother was still studying when she NFP-had me.
AnnaSheckley 3 years ago 3
I disagree. My wife and I have used NFP exclusivly for one and a half years and we haven't had a pregnancy. NFP has changed a lot since the older Rhythm method and is a lot more reliable.
danalad 3 years ago
It still dose not change the fact that she is an WFP baby. You can argue all you want about "how great nfp is" and such, but the fact of the matter dose not change.
skamic88 3 years ago
*NFP baby (typo)
skamic88 3 years ago
"I'm an NFP" is that a synonym for asshole ?
freelostforever 3 years ago 4
what ever freelostforever....sounds like you like being lost and confuse this with true freedom.
elizaw4 3 years ago
"Freedom"?
Since when is being confined to having sex about once a month or less, freedom?
When properly used, contraceptives can allow people to have sex every day if they want. :)
Using them properly is easy too, you just have to follow the instructions.
I know a couple who've had sex almost everyday. Guess what? She only got pregnant when they quit using them.
Felidaise 3 years ago 2
That is exactly whats wrong with contraception. Unfortunately in this society when most perople are in a relationship, its all about the sex and people don't learn how to truly love each other. This is why NFP is so beautiful. It is not only 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, but it also promotes communication between husband and wife and brings them closer in their relationship. And those times you do have to abstain, reminds you of how to love without having sex.
apodino 3 years ago
Since when is being horny "beautiful"?
And it is NOT 99 percent effective.
It has about a 14% failure rate.
Felidaise 3 years ago 2
you catholic control freaks stink
freelostforever 3 years ago
control freaks? were not telling you what to do were telling you whats best for you to do.
Frankpwns79 3 years ago
Really, why is it the best? Why would it be better then anything else? who says its the best? And my age old question... Where in the bible (besides Gen. 38:8-10) dose it say birth control is evil?
skamic88 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Hi, i'm some ugly chick that got asked by Dan, the new youth pastor, to be in some gay video about masturbating or some stupid thing. I think my husband is noble when he leaves his load in me because that makes sense to a retarded, blind, kneejerk conservative idiot like me. I also can't act."
lonli4myboo 3 years ago
Yay spam!
Strangely ironic!
skamic88 3 years ago
NFP is not a tangible thing; NFP is "Natural Family Planning," a system of birth based on the woman's menstrual cycle. It is also commonly called the Calendar or Rhythm Method. This method has been promoted heavily by the Roman Catholic Church in the past. Unfortunately, failure rates (unplanned pregnancies) of as much as 23% with normal use make this a far less effective and far more dangerous "birth control" technique (No disease protection, for example). Sources can be cited if desired.
ianolson21 3 years ago
NFP and the Rhythm/Calendar method are actually two completely different things. At best, you could call Rhythm a very outdated proto-type version of NFP, but that's even stretching it.
And failure rates are highly subject to interpretation. It depends greatly on whether the two people use the method correctly. If they do, NFP has a higher success rate than most artificial contraceptives.
lwriv7 3 years ago
yes failure rates are subject to interpretation, that is by a lab tech or researcher! Then there are ideal use and typical use. but seeing as only a few methods have only ideal rates (iud, depo, implant) all other methods are subjected to typical failure rates.
And yes NFP includes rhythm, but seeing as how the term 'NFP' is so loosely tossed around clear clinical results don't matter. However if you were to mention Symptothermal then we would be on the same page
skamic88 3 years ago
No, NFP isn't the rhythm method. The rhythm method is calendar-based and wasn't very useful for women with irregular fertility cycles. NFP allows couples to use actual science to monitor their fertility.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
No, sticking a finger up there is not science nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific!
If people were saying things like they use the ladycomp as contraception, use a bbt thermometer, or test for Lh hormone to see if she has ovulated. Those things are calibrated and the results can be reproduced.
To the best of my knowledge 'nfp' has never been studied as thoroughly as other methods of birth control!
skamic88 3 years ago
Well, maybe, Skamic, the best of your knowledge could use an overhaul. Making statements such as "nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific" merely reveals a bias on your part, and that you're not really here to learn anything.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
What science is comes out of the church? Look at the shared history of the church and science! Even the "science" promoted by the church is not empirical! Not the point though, why would I want to learn from this biased organization? We all know how non-biased and empirical a seminary can be (yes, that was sarcasm). Look at Newman's tests of evidence:
Access (no)
Accuracy (no)
Recency (yeah)
Relevance (maybe)
Objectivity (no)
Reliability (no)
Consistency (yeah)
Corroboration (biased sources)
skamic88 3 years ago
Feel free to stay on topic, skamic. I've found that when people like you are sorely losing a debate, you begin talking about Galileo and the Inquisition and everything except the issue at hand.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
hmmm, ok! let me reiterate. "We all know how non-biased and empirical a seminary can be (yes, that was sarcasm). Look at Newman's tests of evidence:"
the "seminary" was in reference to eskyguard "...written, acted, and edited by Catholic seminarians..."
Furthermore Newman's tests of evidence, was something I picked up in my comm 101 class. It is a way to test the evidence used in a scholastic paper, speech, presentation etc.
skamic88 3 years ago
Finally I looked at the history of the church and science coexistence in as rational to "nor would anything promoted by the church be scientific."
So how did i deviate from the subject at hand?
Moreover, I'll admit my bias, but I went into depth about more scientific devices that would aid in taking data it know if indeed a woman had ovulated.
So you stated the obvious; and I implied those things like Galileo and the Inquisition, but it was you who stated it not me.
skamic88 3 years ago
"So how did I deviate from the subject at hand?"
By circumventing the points that NFP is biology-based, not some mystical sacrament of a system and that atheists and agnostics can reap its many benefits. Just because something is endorsed by a church doesn't mean it's not technological or biological.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
Ha, "...the points that NFP is biology-based..."
biology tells the body to get pregnant and have sex during the time NFP users must abstain. Its hardly biological at all.
Don't says its natural either; because my neighbors dog is in heat, and i don't see her putting a paw up there to check her cervical mucus.
skamic88 3 years ago
whats a NFP?
Godwill3 3 years ago
Well skamic, thanks for making my argument for me. NFP is vastly superior in this. It only costs the state the time to educate in nfp, and means they don't have to burden the healthcare system shoveling pills and condoms on everyone.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Lets ignore the health care system for just one second. "NFP is vastly superior in this." How so? Maybe in that its failure rate is high. Young people who have very little self restraint will find them selves pregnant.
Ok, now onto the health system. First of all there are already programs to make contraception accessible for example title X, the 'green card' in California or the 'pink card' in Illinois. So not that much stress will be put on the system.
skamic88 3 years ago
On top of that, more people will need to be educated in sexual education. Some young people don't even know what a cervix is let alone its mucus.
Another thing is additional costs in NFP with things like the Ladycomp (or other such devices), basal thermometers, speculum etc. So no it is not only "...the time to educate in nfp..."
skamic88 3 years ago
skarmic88 you need to hear this.
What do you call someone who uses NFP?
A parent.
hahahah i think youd like that
chesirekitkat 3 years ago 3
hahahaha corny but i agree.
skamic88 3 years ago 2
All you have demonstrated is that life is difficult, which isn't particularly controversial. What you haven't done is make a valid argument. Poor women with children does not prove contraception is moral.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Poor people are unable to take care of them selves let alone unplanned children. Also young girls who make a mistake and find themselves pregnant, get kicked out and end up on the streets. But if they had access to plan b, or a comprehensive sexual education then maybe some of them would not take the risk. Or would know what to do in case they took that risk!
skamic88 3 years ago 2
Ends justifying the means is not just Machiavelli. St. Paul says the same concept in different words by telling us we may not do evil that good may come of it.
I have done volunteer work. But that is neither here nor there. However, I can't really blame you for wanting to talk about me and my alleged shorcomings instead of the hopeless position that is contraception. It's a loser and I hope you are starting to see that. God bless you.
swwaddell 3 years ago
yes, but you quoted Machiavelli not St. Paul in romans 3:8! If so then quote Paul in the first place.
No I'm trying to make you understand! I too have done my fair share, and I have seen what despair these people face with lack of access to even the proper health care let alone birth control! To come back to the same place time and time again, and see the same woman with a different baby every time! It breaks your heart!
skamic88 3 years ago
To wonder weather the state took it away, or if it has died! When you talk to them, they tell their story! Its not one of the middle class bubble of protection you and I have! To know that you can't take care of the children she already has!
This should never be a competition, and if it is to you then god have mercy on your soul!
skamic88 3 years ago
The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no concern.
proverbs 29:7
skamic88 3 years ago
None of these dubious attempts to paint children as a curse that destroys futures amount to "contraception is morally acceptable". Rather it is tired old consequentialism, that the ends justify the means.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Please don't quote Machiavelli. And yes it is true. Have you ever voluntereed at a women's shelter, or a soup kitchen? Have you seen the young girls no more then 15, years old already with children? 2/3 teens at the age of 16 are sexually active! did you know that!
skamic88 3 years ago
Subject at hand: The reference to playing russian roulette with someone's future. Where did we get this inhuman notion that children are a curse? Yes, children require many changes, but it doesn't destroy people's future. I've recommended ccli-dot-org several times. There you will find info about how Nfp uses objective and reliable observation for determining fertile and infertile times.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Or we can pray and hope that little sally can go to med school, or law school. Because she dose not have children to support. Or rent to pay cause her parents kicked her out for getting knocked up. Or that she can't get a good job due to the fact that she's a pregnant teen. No thats not a ruined future at all.
skamic88 3 years ago
Personally I don't care what you treat my posts like. I'm perfectly willing to listen and pateintly respond to anyone who isn't obviously a hostile brickbat hurler here to urinate on other people for holding to something they don't like. But like I said elsewhere, let's get back to the subject at hand.
swwaddell 3 years ago
I'm fine with that, seeing as how you deviated from the topic at hand with those personal attacks.
Oh and for those "hostile brickbat hurler here to urinate on other people." Turn the other cheek.
skamic88 3 years ago
ann, I realize it may read simplistically, but the Truth is sometimes like that. To wit: If you are not ready for children, you are not ready for marriage and sex. Most importantly, ALL of us, man or woman, are called to chastity. Let me recommend Dawn Eden's book, The Thrill of the Chaste.
Briefly, I should point out that woman (and men who of course are part of the baby-making equation) are not required to have as many children as possible. God bless you.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Then how else are you not going to have children? With someone's future at stake, it is like playing russian roulette! You can't posable know if she she has ovulated or not. It's basically your best guess.
skamic88 3 years ago
Without contraceptives, women either have to be virgins or baby-making machines. I'd rather not be either... I don't want to have kids until I'm in my 30's. I'm a pre-med pscyh major and I plan on going to med school later. I could not do this w/o birth control, and there is NO WAY I could ever be a doctor w/o it either. I feel like encouraging women not to use contraceptives is like another way of controlling women.
annpetasupporter 3 years ago 2
Sorry... I mean do you people just want want women to be moms, end of story? :/ Please enlighten me if I'm wrong...
annpetasupporter 3 years ago 2
What can I say? Posting contemptible things yields cotemptuous responses.
swwaddell 3 years ago
So therefor I should treat you comments with contempt too?
Luke 6:32
At least live by what you defend!
skamic88 3 years ago
As mentioned on the video 1, 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
Wow! I commend you for attacking him personally!
do you know what Ad Hominem is?
Here it goes a little something like this:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
skamic88 3 years ago
fake science? The fertility cycle is obsevable and with various methods can be determined with precision. Try ccli-dot-org for more info.
swwaddell 3 years ago
Fake science alert! FAKE SCIENCE ALERT!!
atvr333 3 years ago
Again, Natrual doesn't mean animal. Whether during a woman's most fertile time is her most "horniest" (a dubious proposition, she's not a cat), we can rationally chose, and those choices are either moral or immoral. NOT doing something is only immoral if there is a duty to do something.
swwaddell 3 years ago
And once again, the only reason nfp users are more likely to become pregnant is because they WANT to get pregnant because that is what marriage is for. Condoms are immoral in addition to putting a physical barrier between couples, they put a spiritual one as well through sin. If a couple can't provide a proper home etc, then they should not be getting married. You know that is the Truth-- come in, the water is fine.
swwaddell 3 years ago
balderdash! true love dose not = children! two can show/vow love for each other with out children. in fact a leading cause of divorce in the US is caused by the stress of children (and money that raising kids demands)
neillob11 3 years ago 2
QUOTE
Condoms are immoral in addition to putting a physical barrier between couples
NONSENCE. THATS JUST LIES FROM THE WITCH BURNER, INQUISITION, SEXSIT ABUSE CULT THATS CHRISTINANITY AS GETTING GIRLS PREGANT TAKES THEIR FREEDOM AND POWER BUT MORE SO MAKES MORE FOLLOWERS TO GIVE MONEY IN DONATIONS AND GIVE THE CULT MORE POWER
Pologameboy 3 years ago
Yep, NFP users CAN have sex whenever they want. It's just they're far more likely that they will become pregnant. These methods are mildly effective at best. I don't like how these videos portray people who use contraceptives as not being as close in their relationships. I think condoms are fine, and they provide a much greater chance of avoiding pregnancy before a couple can provide a proper home and lifestly for a child.
sonicsustain 3 years ago
but then again if they are having sex whenever they want then thats not contraception nor 'NFP.' therefor nulling that statement, because thier "use" (or lack there of) periodic abstinence as a birth control method. not practicing what they preach! tisk tisk
neillob11 3 years ago
"she finds me noble!!"
haha i love this line!
ushineon4me 3 years ago
"As a matter of fact, they said NFP users can have sex whenever in a pervious video. A TOTAL LIE."
Not at all. As Obi Wan would say, "Your thoughts betray you. You are assuming that sexual activity must take place in terror of pregnancy, which must be avoided at all costs. That's the telling lie. As Yoda would say, "I sense much fear in you."
swwaddell 3 years ago
Hm... it's a shame that made no sense. I like star wars.
crazybrunett93 3 years ago 2
I agree, star wars kicks ass!
But this makes no sense. It sounds like swwaddell is agreeing with the person she is quoting, but then negates that... MAKE UP YOUR MIND
None the less, star wars=good movie
skamic88 3 years ago
Human's don't really have a time when they can't get pregnant. It's biology, and fact (oh yes, i forgot, most of you don't believe in science...). 25% FAILURE RATE!!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
atvr333 3 years ago
eeeeehhhhh... i beg to differ, using a model of the "ideal 28 day cycle" there are times that it is almost impossible to get pregnant, but the cycle isnt ideal, and is hard to predict ovulation, or know if a woman has ovulated twice, or is having break through bleeding, or other fluctuations in her cycle that would through off the "NPF observations."
so yes and no! there are times when a woman is drastically less likely to get pregnant.
neillob11 3 years ago
but all in all it still has a failure rate of 9-25% with typical use
neillob11 3 years ago
NFP has a 25% failure rate, people. It does NOT protect against STD's or HIV.
Too bad that wasn't listed in the video. I bet people who use this 'method of birth control' also have very high STD rates.
atvr333 3 years ago
well, i don;t think that NFP is intended for people who are promiscuous. The video does state those state that it is a dialogue between the spouses to use this method I am sure, if during theit dialogue they realize that having a baby at that point in time would be something not healthy( like not being able to provide the basics or the mother being sick for some reason that if she got pregnat would compromise her life or the baby's a great deal) they might decide not to have sex for some time.
coockie3 3 years ago
The actors looked very awkward and uncomfortable.
Both sides didn't provide a persuasive argument and left out a lot. I personally think most methods of birth control are smart, and NFP seems like a meothod (only its natural). Sucks that the users of NFP have to abstain 12 out of 28 days unless they want a baby. THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT NOW DIDN'T THEY?
As a matter of fact, they said NFP users can have sex whenever in a pervious video. A TOTAL LIE.
crazybrunett93 4 years ago 3
Great observations! such a biased and skewed information is presented.
How exactly is it natural to abstain during a woman's most fertile and subsequently her horniest time during her cycle?
neillob11 3 years ago
so very true, great video!
buckr02 4 years ago
"I'm only going to have sex with you if you use a condom. Do you have one?"
"Why yes, of course I do. And of course I'll wear it."
Guess two are involved in that decision....
NewYorkDoc79 4 years ago 3
ok first of all nft can be carried out by a single woman (therefore not "needing two"). also where exactly do you come off saying that a couple using birth control cant love each other? i have just celebrated 2 years with my lovely girl friend and we have employed any number of contraceptive from steroidal to barrier and nft to some extent.
neillob11 4 years ago
its NFP you tool
and you and your girlfriend can't claim to love each other by celebrating in an act reserved for marriage
katebonnar 4 years ago
in other countries and cultures we would already be married! and according to old church law we are too. but yes a couple can partake is intercourse and still love each other... who are you to tell me that i dont love my girl friend? and another thing, the reason that the church damned sex was for 2 reasons; so bastards werent born out of wedlock and that the clergy abused Indulgences related to sexual favors.
neillob11 4 years ago
I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do and I will pray for you but until you have had free intercourse with no barrier or contraceptive between you and your partner, you have no idea of what 'giving yourself' to each other means. The church didn't damn sex,the jewish law did thousands of years before the church even existed. Sex outside of marriage was considered sinful before the days of David
katebonnar 4 years ago
please tell me what "the church" is based upon? could it be judaism? and for most practical implication Judaism and Christianity are both Abrahamic religion (we cant forget about Islam too). so ideas started in the Jewish religion were passed along to Christianity! please stop telling how i feel, no matter how hard you try you'll never know how i feel. so pray all you want but come back and we'll have a little chat once you have actually have some experience with this topic.
neillob11 4 years ago
quote
free intercourse with no barrier or contraceptive between you and your partner,
Is immoral unless trying to get pregant as putting somone at risk much in the same way the makers of the titanic did not add enough lifeboats.Sex outside marriage is fine if safe sex & U are sufficiently educated. No nonsence like beliving the pull out method works. All that matters is U are consentual & taking safety precautions, nobody is too young, no animals.
Pologameboy 3 years ago
sEX IS NOT RESERVED FOR MARRIAGE.
Marriage is a big expensive party and promises to a cult with a history of war, abuse, torture and terrorisim.
Not exactly moral.
If amrriage worked nobody would want to get divorced. Happy ever after is a lie pedaled to kids who dont know better.
Pologameboy 3 years ago
I don't understanding how abstaining from sex is "giving one's fertility." A healthy Catholic couple should be able to express their love for one another without daily temperatures and checking cervical mucus. If anyone has facts rather than stereotypical biases I'd like to know. I was leaning toward NFP for awhile, but stuff like this really turns me off from the idea.
timmymycat 4 years ago 4
I think nfp is great if that's what works for you, but i hate that statistic that "nfp users stay together with almost no divorce." That's b/c most nfp users are catholic and don't believe in divorce in the first place. whether they use nfp or not, if they're devout catholics, they're not getting a divorce. don't tie the 2 together,
spikeschilde621 4 years ago 2
Unfortunately, Catholics have a rather high divorce rate ... and, divorce is not considered against morals, it is only remarriage that puts one out of communion. Also, many non-catholics use NFP and they also show a much lower divorce rate than others in their religion.
LavonaRann 4 years ago