Contraception Post-Y2K

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Friends,

I have seen only a few references to a topic that has to have crossed many peoples' minds: birth control, post-Y2K. Let me suggest something that could be revolutionary in that regard.

My wife and I were introduced to Natural Family Planning (NFP) about 6 years ago through the local Catholic diocese (we were not Catholic at the time). When I took the course I remember thinking, "This is the best kept secret on the planet!" NFP definitely does not stand for "Not For Protestants." It is not just a "Catholic thing"; it could truly be a revolutionary concept in the world if it were widely disseminated.

NFP is not to be identified with the infamous "rhythm method." NFP is based on solid scientific research into women's fertility. It works. We have two children (so far ;-) spaced at 3 1/2 and 14 months by conscious choice. Many of our friends also use the method with excellent results.

There are many advantages to this method:

* It is 99% effective when properly followed; this is as effective as any artificial contraceptive, including the Pill.

* It is completely chemical and drug-free. There are no unpleasant side effects.

* It's free!

* It can be taught to anybody: rich or poor, educated or not, the scholar or the illiterate.

* The method may also be used to achieve pregnancy; if you're having trouble in this regard, check it out.

* Significant anecdotal evidence indicates that it builds stronger marriage relationships, as couples spend more time communicating about their fertility/sexuality and men take a more active role in family planning.

* It achieves the philosophical goal of valuing a woman's fertility as a healthy, natural and good gift rather than as an unpleasant and intrusive "condition" that requires various drugs/poisons to control and/or eradicate.

* It is the only morally acceptable family planning option for Catholics.

The only "downside" is the need for periodic abstinence during fertile periods. Even this time can be marriage-enhancing, if used to cultivate greater non-sexual intimacy. I personally have found this aspect of the method to be frustrating at times but, frankly, cultivating greater self-restraint hasn't hurt me a bit and my wife respects me for that.

If you are interested in using NFP then by all means 1) get formally trained through your local Catholic diocese or Couple to Couple League, 2) begin to use the method prior to the year 2000, 3) do this as a couple; it takes both of you to make this work.

 

Feel free to contact me at djpalm64@yahoo.com if you have any questions. Here are some links to educate and get you started:

An excellent overview may be found at: www.usc.edu/hsc/info/newman/resources/primer.html

The Web site of the "inventor" of the methods may be found at: www.billings-centre.ab.ca/

Couple to Couple League specializes in NFP training: www.ccli.org



-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), December 08, 1998

Answers

There's only one drawback that I can see: This system requires that both participants possess a functioning brain. Many of the world's breeders don't. Many of them can barely manage the various artificial forms of birth control.

But thanks for the post, it might enlighten someone out there!

-- Ben Dair (not@aol.com), December 08, 1998.


Thanks for the contribution David! Definitely an alternative worth looking into for those that are on the pill and devices that may not be available post Y2K.

Ben, "breeders" will be needed if Infomagic is right, don't you agree? Not sure I want to see your answer ;>

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.


Want to see an insightful movie that covers this topic?

I highly recommend "A Handmaid's Tale"

Well worth a watch.

****To Robert A. Chef --- if you're here -- No, no,.....I said "A Handmaid's Tale", not "A Handmaids Tail".

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 08, 1998.


Excellent post -- and I'd like to point out as a RN, I see more and more references to NFP as a viable alternative in medical literature.

Anita E.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), December 09, 1998.


I misspoke in my initial post. NFP is not the only morally acceptable family planning option; it's just the most effective (by far). Catholics (and others who understand the moral problems of contraception) could also use "environmental breastfeeding" (described in the first resource link in my post) or the old-style "rhythm method", although this latter method is very ineffective. That's it, as far as I know. I just wanted to be accurate.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), December 09, 1998.


David Palm,

Now, that name reminds me of another useful alternative to intercourse.

-- patty palm (and her five sisters@hand.com), December 09, 1998.


Hi Patty, how have you been?

Do you remember me? I 'dated' you a lot when I was a teen.

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), December 09, 1998.


Hi patty, are we still on for 9:30? But seriously folks,

on the topic of NFP, I must say that I am seriously prejudiced against the whole Catholic enterprise, having been raised one. That being said, I've looked into NFP a little bit and found it to be a brilliant system, well supported by scientific evidence. Given the considerable downsides of other birth-control methods I would say that NFP is the best overall; and I will be recommending it to my better half when she returns to me from the States. It's also the best system for a post-y2k scenario, seeing as it doesn't rely upon the (soon to crumble) pharmaceutical/medical infrastructure. While on the topic of contraception, it occured to me to recommend y2ker's to stock up on free condoms which are often available at colleges, clinics, kindergartens etc, because they'll be a brilliant barter item, and/or you'll always know a friend or too who could make use of them. As for the pill, it might be a good time to do a little doctor-shopping, filling many scripts, getting repeat doses...stocking up basically, even if one needs to employ grey-market tactics that in normal times might be considered immoral and probably illegal. Bending the rules (assuring that no-one gets hurt) is necessary sometimes in the normal course of things, impending grave disasters grant us lots more leeway. Time to get "creative."

-- humptydumpty (dunno@shitantic.com), December 10, 1998.


<< I must say that I am seriously prejudiced against the whole Catholic enterprise, having been raised one. >>

Now what was the logical connection there?

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), December 10, 1998.


The logic is that the Pope forbids contraception, encourages prolific good catholic families, but gives no advice as to how to feed and college educate the numerous rugrats.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 10, 1998.


I suppose I shouldn't do this. But here goes:

1. The Pope does not forbid contraception, God does. The popes have no authority to change the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church on matters of faith or morals (contraception falls into the second category, obviously). Their job is to guard and pass on what has been passed on to them. That's why Paul VI didn't (couldn't) change the Church's teaching on contraception, even when the polls said that's what the people wanted, even when he personally wanted to change it. His reasons are well stated in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/paul.vi/humanae- vitae.html).

2. The popes regularly inveigh against intrusive government encroachment on the freedom and ability of families to provide for their childrens' needs. Just about every American family could afford several more children if the damn government weren't taking its several pounds of flesh.

3. The Catholic Church provides a massive system of heavily subsidized educational facilities to help parents educate their children. Every Catholic school I have personal knowledge of has significant discounts for families with more than one child at the school. In a nutshell, the Church puts its money where its mouth is.

4. In the social encyclicals of earlier this century (especially by Leo XIII), the socially oriented documents of Vatican II (see e.g. Gaudium Et Spes), and recent encyclicals by Pope John Paul II there is a great deal of teaching on the right ordering of society so that parents can provide properly for their family.

You have read those documents, haven't you Chris? And you have read Humanae Vitae also, so that you know why the Catholic Church forbids contraception? Maybe you have; if so, great, but most people haven't. Rather, most people snipe at the Church's teaching against artificial contraception without a clue why the Church teaches this. Easy to criticize out of ignorance; much harder to counter the actual teaching.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), December 10, 1998.


Thanks, Franklin.

Chris, I think you would agree that there is no logical connection between "I was raised a Catholic" and "I'm prejudiced against the whole Catholic enterprise." Just fill in some other class/group/race ("I was raised an African-American...") into those sentences and try them on for size.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), December 10, 1998.


This is a very viable alternative. My wife and I have used it successfully for years.

-- John Smith (me@you.com), December 15, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ