Trying "not" to say? But that's exactl\y what I "am" saying.
NFP is intentionally reducing the probability of conception. That's true, as such. Yes, if you have sex during an infertile time, you can avoid pregnancy. And if you have sex during a known fertile time, you can achieve pregnancy. Avoiding or achieving pregnancy by cooperating respectfully with normal sexual function: that's the idea. You get it: so do I.
"The only difference between NFP and contraception is that most who practice the former can’t admit that it really is the latter, albeit, a rather poor one."
That's emphatically not true. NFP cooperates with, and respects, normal sexual function. Contraception counteracts, and disrespects, normal sexual function. In terms of one's sttitude toward the design--- and the Designer --- they are as opposite as 'Yes' and 'No'.
Contraception as a method treats normal fertility as a disease: something to be technologically extirpated. NFP as a method treats normal fertility as something sacred: to be wisely enjoyed, or wisely refrained from if the timing isn't right.
This whole thing cannt be undertood if you don't connect sex and sacredness. But as you increasingly DO connect sex and sacredness, it becomes as clear as daylight. That was my experience, for sure. My husband and I couldn't grasp it until we did it: and then we found ourselves saying, "Wow. This changes everything."
And NFP is also not "poor" in any respect. It is an excellent way to either avoid or achieve pregnancy while wonderfully deepening the meaning and the sanctity of the natural sexual design. (There's that word again.)..I've never heard anybody say that about a contraceptive method.
This, if nothing else, shows how NFP is intended to compliment a woman's body versus breaking it. We recently pulled the NFP charts out of the drawer after waiting three years for a baby to just kinda show up. Now I'm enjoying feet up my ribs.