60% of women having unplanned children used birth control. Here's why it doesn't work.

http://www.wopular.com/60-women-having-unplanned-children-used-birth-control-herex27s-why-it-doesnx27t-work ^ | Dangus

[dangus]

Failure rates of common birth control methods:

Symptom-based fertility awareness ("modern Natural Family Planning"): 1.8%

Cervical cap: 6.7%

Combined oral contraceptive pill: 8-9%

Note: "Combined" oral contraceptive pills combine estrogen-based drugs with abortifacients. So without "undetected miscarriages" (i.e., dead babies), this rate would be higher.

Ortho-Evra patch: 8-9%

Nuva Ring: 8-9%

Diaphragm: 12-16% (depending on source)

Male Latex Condom: 15-18% (spermicide-treated, depending on source)

Coitus Interruptus: 18-22% (depending on source)

Rhythm Method: 24-25% (depending on source)

Contraceptive Sponge: 24-32% (depending on whether the woman had been previously pregnant)

Spermicide: 28% (without condom)

Please note the following:

> Condom use is no more effective than coitus interruptus.

> An 18% failure rate does NOT mean that only 18% of women who use this method will ever get pregnant. It means that it reduces pregnancies 82%. So if a women would normally get pregnant after an average of three months without using a condom, she will now get pregnant after only sixteen months.

> Even presuming failure rates are completely independent, using a male condom with a contraceptive sponge combined is still THREE times LESS effective than modern NFP. (15% * 32% is 4.8%, compared to 1.6%)

Now, I believe that you should consider "typical-use" failure rates. But a lot of people reading this are probably jumping out of their seats to deny that condoms have a 18% failure rate. But the "perfect use" failure rate is still higher than the typical-use failure rate for modern NFP, and still three times higher than perfect-use NFP. And I believe that "perfect use" is completely unrealistic: the male partner has to hold the condom on with his hand while he does a one-hand pushup over his partner. And no double dipping without showering between acts!

Also worth noting, the standard-days rhythm method, carefully used, has a failure rate LOWER than the typical-use condoms, plan B, contraceptive sponges, combined diaphragm and spermicide, Nuva Ring, or combined oral-use contraception, and even perfectly used contraceptive sponges, cervical caps, diaphragms, Plan B, or common applications of spermicide.

So why are so many people so convinced that artificial contraception is necessary to prevent overpopulation?

I believe the problem is this: NFP reminds people of the need for responsibility. But modern sexuality is all about compulsivity. What artificial contraception provides

[metmom]

Preventing conception is preventing conception, whether it’s by mechanical means or *timing*.

It’s total hypocrisy to excuse one method just because one thinks they have good reasons for it and can justify it to themselves, and then condemn others.

[count-your-change]

A quote from LifeSiteNews:

“Catholic Relief Services gave over $13 million to pro-abortion group in 2012 LifeSite News 7-10-13

“Our pro-life educational and advocacy work is severely hampered, to the detriment of untold numbers of our brothers and sisters in the developing world, when groups like CARE can say that they enjoy a good working relationship with the Catholic Church,” said Fr. Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International. He said this is the case “even if behind the scenes one finds that no Catholic money goes directly to their anti-life projects.”

The key weasel word there is “directly”. Money is fungible, what is not spent one place can be used elsewhere.

It's like giving money to a political party and saying it doesn't benefit a party candidate.

[count-your-change]

So now you would deign to answer “a vicious anti-Catholic spammer” who lacks the proper ‘Christian demenor...blah blah blah’???

You have nothing to say here.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Please provide a link or a reference to the writings of any Protestant or any other Christian prior to this past century that said contraception was not sinful. Good luck. I've searched but was never able to find one.

There's a reason for that.

[dangus]

I believe I covered all that in my article.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I’m sure it’s been debated over and over

Actually, no, prior to 1930 it was never debated, anywhere, in Christian writings. The interpretation of the Onan incident has been unanimously upheld by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics until just 4 generations ago.

Therefore anyone who proposes an alternative interpretation has the obligation to disprove the prior unanimous interpretation and prove their own.

Fortunately Deuteronomy 25:5 gives us the key to its proper interpretation, and that was certainly taken into consideration by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics until just 4 generations ago.

[count-your-change]

You started by saying:

“Catholic Relief Service (CRS) does NOT fund contraception or abortion. Nor does it give to groups which do.”

But that has been shown to be false. Messengers and their message, remember?

[dangus]

You know that EVERY Christian prior to 1930 agreed to that? HOw? Did you time travel and ask each and every one of them?

Given that 19th century denominations were very outspoken in their moral teachings and that nondenominationalism was unheard of, it's quite easy to check on this data.

John Calvin: I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

Martin Luther: The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. . . . But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. . . . Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men and women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage...But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him.

John Welsey wrote an entire commentary, "Thoughts on the sin of Onam", to wit: "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord — and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."

Saint Augustine: Marital relations even with a lawful wife, are unlawful and degrading when the conception of a child is deliberately frustrated. This was the sin of Onan, and God struck him dead because of it.

The Anglican Communion: We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers – physical, moral and religious – thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children -- Resolution 68, Lambeth Conference of 1920

[RockyMtnMan]

Deuteronomy 25:5 speaks of an obligation to marry your brothers wife and conceive a child there is no mention of “spilling seed”. Which leads me back to God was angry Onan disobeyed his will not because he ejaculated outside the wife. None of which leads to unproductive ejaculation as a reason he was struck down. Maybe I’ve missed something.

[dangus]

No, CARE does NOT fund contraception or abortion. But exactly as I stated in my first mention of Catholic Relief Service, the head of CARE does agitate for contraception and abortion.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

When the Anglicans apostatized on contraception in 1930, the other churches, and even the Washington Post, were indignant at this new heterodox position that no prior Christians had ever made:

The Lutheran Church

 

*       "Birth Control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th century renewal of pagan bankruptcy."

— Dr. Walter A. Maier, Concordia Lutheran Theological

     Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

The Methodist Church

 

*       "The whole disgusting [birth control] movement rests on the assumption of man's sameness with the brutes. ... Its [the Federal Council of Churches] deliverance on the matter of birth control has no authorization from any churches representing it, and what it has said I regard as most unfortunate, not to use any stronger words. It certainly does not represent the Methodist Church, and I doubt if it represents any other Protestant Church in what it has said on this subject."

— Bishop Warren Chandler, Methodist Episcopal Church South,

     April 13, 1931.

The Presbyterian Church

 

*       "Its [Federal Council of Churches] recent pronouncement on birth control should be enough reason, if there were no other, to withdraw from support of that body, which declares that it speaks for the Presbyterian and other Protestant churches in ex cathedra pronouncements."

— The Presbyterian, April 2, 1931.

The Catholic Church

 

*       "In order that she [the Catholic Church] may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, she raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew:  any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

— Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, Section 4,

     Paragraph 4.

——————————————

*       "Since a week ago last Saturday we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the very logic of their ways and in fifty or one hundred years there will be only the Church and paganism. We will be left to fight the battle alone — and we will."

— Father Fulton J. Sheen of the Catholic University of America.

     "Comments ..... and Comments On the Report of The Federal

     Council of Churches of Christ in America." The American Birth

     Control League's Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4

     (April 1931), page 143.

————————————

*       "Liberal Protestantism is really (so it seems to us and we speak with all respect for the noble solicitude it displays for human welfare, its passion for the building up of a better order of society) a new religion, but it is no longer Protestantism — it is pagan humanitarianism, it is the creed of social service built on shifting and unstable experiments, but not on the demonstrated facts of materialistic science."

— Editorial from The Commonweal of March 29, 1931. "Comments .....

     and Comments on the Report of The Federal Council of Churches

     of Christ in America." The American Birth Control League's Birth

     Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4 (April 1931), page 142.

 

The Secular Press

 

*       "Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous."

—   The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

See post 228. The Protestant reformers understood what I’m saying quite clearly.

[RockyMtnMan]

I see that, it doesn’t change my natural reaction to reading the passages. Why has God not struck down (other) men for masturbation if that is the true reason? It’s clear he strikes down those who defy his will but in that instance two actions were taking place making it a ambiguous interpretation. Again, only my opinion I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.

[discostu]

No actually it doesn’t, that’s you making things up.

Here’s proper condom use:
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html

And none of those steps are mentioned.

[mlizzy]

Good one, Salvation... :)

[mlizzy]

The data on ultra low divorce rates among couples using NFP comes from this study:

The Practice of Natural Family Planning Versus the Use of Artificial Birth Control: Family, Sexual and Moral Issues

Thank you! I knew this data was out there somewhere...

[CynicalBear]

>>So are you guys strict providentialists who even in the face of your children dying from starvation<<

Once again you show lack of faith that God will provide when He gave children. I never for one minute doubted that God would provide for my family. If He had given us 10 children I have no doubt in my mind that God would not have allowed them to starve. After all, children are a gift from God for His faithful and you words of “in the face of your children dying from starvation shows a lack of faith that God will provide.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Where is your disdain for your fellow anti-Catholics on this thread bending over backwards to justify the use of contraception? I’m not doing that.

Just a wee bit hypocritical to call me out on this and not them, don’t you think?

[CynicalBear]

>>Where is your disdain for your fellow anti-Catholics on this thread bending over backwards to justify the use of contraception?<<

Find for me from my posts where I either condemned or condoned contraception whether it be Catholic or non. My point with you was that your statements indicated to me a lack of faith in God’s providing. I’m sensing a problem with your reading comprehension. It seems to be a problem with many Catholics. Somehow they seem to have an agenda or belief in their head and inject that meaning into what they read. Or are you simply trying to deflect? Again, please show where I either condemned or condoned the use of contraception. You would have to in order to make the charge that I don’t have disdain for “fellow anti-Catholics” for the justification of contraception as you have “injected” the idea that I did have disdain for Catholics using contraception. I did neither.

>>Just a wee bit hypocritical to call me out on this and not them, don’t you think?<<

SHOW ME where I said anything about the use of contraception either positive or negative. If you can’t please don’t accuse me of being a hypocrite simply because of your reading comprehension problems.

[metmom]

Red herring.