Posted on 07/11/2013 1:20:45 PM PDT by 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
It is interesting to note that some of the save the planet people are in with the eugenics crowd, and many of them would be happier to see a serious population decline.
I really don't think they have thought out how that would occur, the resultant demographic, nor the retrograde nature of such 'progress'.
As such, it seems they have no qualms about protesting things which may be (but not necessarily always) of benefit to humanity, and seldom recognize more fundamental issues of cultural or even species survival.
Progesterone only products such as the mini pill, Norplant and DepoProvera rarely prevent ovulation. They are almost 100% abortifacients.Thank you for this information. Threads like this are so important because I don't think everyone knows this (I didn't!), and I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who take these pills (or any birth control pill), that they do not want to self-abort their children by taking these chemicals. Thanks again!
Yes: if the messenger is a liar, the message is a lie.
Good, then you would be the person to explain why Catholic Relief Services helps fund contraception and abortion.
Maybe it’s a quality control problem. The brand I used NEVER broke and I’m sure I went through 1000’s of them over 8 years. Maybe I’m giving people too much credit my IQ is only 125, not really genius but then I’m also not a moron.
Perhaps it has more to do with self control and fear of pregnancy than with proper technique and application. I doubt the usage statics and would be willing to bet there was little concern for pregnancy because they had an “out” through abortion (which I am strongly against). Rather than simply being responsible up front and letting their base instincts take over they just “go with it”.
Coincidentally when we did decide to have children it happened the first try. The second pregnancy also happened the first try (after using condoms in between). Both pregnancies were 100% planned, so it is completely possible and really not that complicated.
If the average person can’t do it then we have serious problems ahead and not from just unwanted pregnancies.
Nobody criticizes CRS more loudly than conservative prolife Catholics. That there are sinners in the Church, and bishops in collusion with them, is no surprise. CRS does what they do despite the teachings of the Church, not because of them. Their time is short.
“Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into the sewage system in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.”
It’s a very serious problem:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/11/02/your-dad-had-more-testosterone-than-you.html
Chesterton on birth control/population control: In 1925 Chesterton wrote an introduction to Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol in which he said that “The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not.”
I’m going to surprise you: I’m going to half agree with you.
The contraceptive mentality, itself, is contrary to God’s plan to bring life into the world. And I do fault elements within the Catholic church for being more anti-abortion than pro-life when it comes to “natural contraception.”
My wife and I were coming out of debt and very concerned about our finances, and it was very difficult to let go and let God decide if we were to conceive. A year ago, I had a son, and I’ve enjoyed immensely every day of my life since. Nothing is better.
We tried NFP for a little while, but it didn’t feel natural, and we became convicted that God didn’t intend us to use family planning at all.
This article, however, was inspired less by evangelization, and more by the surprise at how enormous the lies are spread by the proponents of Planned Parenthood and artificial contraception.
This article, however, has more of a political purpose than a spiritual one. And those are competing purposes, sometimes. But I rather regret not emphasizing more, “don’t have sex if you’re not willing to have a baby.”
IMHO, most definitely. Male babies in utero are highly susceptible to the influence of natural and synthetic hormones in the mother’s bloodstream. Adult males have experienced a rapid collapse in sperm count over the past several decades leading to widespread male infertility. We now understand that some of these changes that lead to low adult sperm counts actually occur in utero and are very susceptible to hormonal influence. And it is also likely to be contributing to the upswing in gender identity issues as well as homosexuality.
There are water filters that removes these hormones from drinking water. If I was a woman of childbearing age I would most definitely be using one if I thought I might be or become pregnant, to protect any male children conceived.
We taught NFP for ten years but got out of it for similar reasons to what you just described. Furthermore we always wanted a large family. After our third child God never sent us any more. Teaching couples to avoid pregnancy when we wanted more children just became a burden we weren’t willing to carry any more.
Catholic Relief Service (CRS) does NOT fund contraception or abortion. Nor does it give to groups which do. However, many Catholics (such as Dr. Kopp) are scandalized by CRS’ cooperation with groups which do not share the Catholic Church’s values.
One such funding recipient is CARE International. No fund were used to provide abortions or contraception, but CARE International President Helene Gayle lobbied the U.S. Senate to overturn the pro-life Mexico City Policy. This is not even a case where funds given to one “benign” pocket prevent withdrawals from that pocket by a more sinister pocket, as is usually the case when dealing with funding controversies. Every penny given to CARE International was another penny spent on truly humanitarian purposes. But the funding of CARE International as an intermediary, nonetheless, burninshes CARE’s reputation and prestige, which CARE has then used for evil purposes.
The Catholic Church has been the standard-bearer for opposing artificial contraception. No other major church in America opposed contraception in the 1970s. But it is infected with liberals and compromisers, and cleaning up relationships between Catholic humanitarian agencies and liberal-promoting outside organizations such as CARE is the outward sign of the great and critical power struggle within the American episcopacy.
Just a side note: I just saw that CRS is headed by Bishop Kicanis, who was scheduled to be the next President of the US Council of Catholic Bishops. His unprecedented defeat was a key battle in the war I just mentioned between orthodoxy and liberalism.
“And she probably would have been annoyed if he had called her Fred.”
Same difference. They are statistical rates, and experience varies with individuals. To believe that what works “pefect” more often, statistically, will work “perfect” for everyone who applies that means “perfectly” is simply innaccurate advice. People have to find what works best for them, not what the statistics say.
The data on ultra low divorce rates among couples using NFP comes from this study:
By Mercedes Arzú Wilson
FAMILY OF THE AMERICAS FOUNDATIONExcerpt:
Comparative Divorce Rates
The main objective of this study was to discern if couples who practice NFP are less likely to be divorced than those who do not; so a more direct comparison of groups of similar age and beliefs was necessary. Figures 9 and 10 indicate support for this hypothesis.
Figure 9: NFP Adjusted and NSFG Adjusted Data - Current Marital Status
The NFP respondents (99%) are far more likely to be married, than the NSFG respondents (82%), and are also far less likely to be divorced (0%), separated (0%) or cohabitating (0%) than the NSFG are to be divorced (9%), separated (5%) or cohabitating (4%). Thus 18% of the NSFG Catholics of the purified sample are either divorced, separated or cohabitating as compared with 0% of the NFP respondents. The difference between the NFP couples who are currently married (99%) and the NSFG currently married couples (82%) is 17%, which is an impressive difference.
The reason the divorce rate among NFP couples increased from 0.2% to 3% in the adjusted tabulations is because the statistician is using a smaller number of couples in a concentrated age group (21-44 years). The divorce rate in the Catholic NSFG group increased from 7% to 15%. The NFP Catholics who have never divorced is 97%, while the NSFG Catholics is 85%. The difference between these is 12%, which is also noteworthy.
Figure 10: NFP Adjusted and NSFG Adjusted Data - Ever divorced
Figures 9 and 10 provide support for the idea that using NFP among Catholics is associated with family stability. Further research is required in order to determine if this relationship is in any sense causal, or whether the relationship between practicing NFP and family stability is due to other factors common to these couples, including their strong religious beliefs and practices, and if these developed after they began practicing NFP.
If it is found, after further studies are conducted, that religiosity is a primary factor in marital stability together with respect for the natural law through the practice of NFP, all the more important to prioritize a more faithful adherence to one's chosen faith. Such findings would provide strong reasons for advocating religious beliefs and practices among the general population who desire a fruitful and lasting marriage. If Natural Family Planning is the main reason for the spouse's conversion towards strong religious beliefs and practices, then NFP should be given top priority in all marriage preparation courses around the world.
Divorce Rate Statistics
It is interesting to note that other studies endorse our findings on the increased number of divorces. They attribute the cause to the widespread use of artificial birth control. Robert T. Michaels and former Secretary of Education, William Bennett reported the following findings:
- 50% of the rise in divorce rates from the 1 960's to the mid 1 970's has been attributed to the increased use of artificial birth control8.
- There has been a 400% rise in the divorce rate in the U.S. between 1960 to 1990.9 (Widespread use of artificial birth control began in the 1 960's and led to increased promiscuity followed by abortion and an increase in divorce rates.)
- The much slower rate of increase of divorce in Japan and Japan's refusal to adopt the pill through the early 1 970's seems to support the hypothesis that the contraceptive revolution is partially responsible for the rise in U.S. divorce rates.10
- Statistical evidence of the commonly held belief that the presence of children, in particular young children, inhibits divorce.11
Pollster Lewis Harris has claimed that "the divorce rate of 50% in the United States was an inflated number, due to the Census Bureau noting that during one year there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. Someone did the math without calculating the 54 million marriages already in existence."12 However, the divorce rate climbed after World War I (to 10% and then down again to 4%), and World II (to 18% and then down to 8%). Yet in the mid-sixties, after the introduction of birth control, the rate climbed steadily for nearly 20 years to about 23% and has remained level.
Divorce Rates In The General Population
Even though our NFP survey is not a random study, but is national in scope, the NSFG and GSS surveys were random. The following graph illustrates the current marital status of all three studies as well as that of the subsample of the GSS ever married Catholics. However, a definitive comparison cannot be made because of the age difference among the NSFG (15 to 44), the GSS and the GSS ever married Catholics (18 and older), and the NFP (21 to 66) survey groups. Nevertheless, the adjusted age comparisons previously reported in Figure 9 showed only a small difference.
Figure 11: NFP, NSFG, GSS and GSS Ever Married Catholics Data
At the time of the surveys, 98% of NFP, 49% of the NSFG, 54% of the GSS and 68% o the GSS Ever Married Catholic women, wee married. Those divorced constituted 0.2% of NFP, 7% of NSFG, 12% of GSS and 13% of GSS Ever Married Catholics, while separated women were 0% of NFP, 3% of NSFG, and 4% of both GSS and GSS Ever Married Catholics. NFP respondents had the lowest percentage of cohabitation (0.4%), in comparison to the NSFG (7%) and GSS (7%), and the ever-married Catholics in the GSS survey with a low rate of 2% had the second lowest percentage. Widows comprised 1% of NFP, 0.5% of NSFG, and 15% of both GSS and GSS Ever Married Catholic groups.
As we observe the marital status of the four groups surveyed, we can't help but wonder whether this curious phenomenon is in great part due to the advantages of observing and respecting the natural law within their marriage through the use of Natural Family Planning. The impressive low divorce rate seems to be closely linked to the practice of NFP, but a future matched sample study would enable us to make a more accurate comparative study. It cannot be denied that NFP fosters communication and intimate conversation between spouses, as they need to be aware of their combined fertility and infertility. In contrast, it appears that those who have not been given this enrichment have considerably higher divorce, separation and cohabitation rates. Is it possible that a critical element is missing in the marriages of the other groups surveyed? Could the missing element be practicing and sharing the responsibility of Natural Family Planning? Marriages in violation of the natural law seem to be in a state of instability due to the lack of chastity within their marriage, resulting in poor communication and cooperation and the denial of mutual responsibility in the area of responsible parenthood. Those couples seem to move from marriage to separation and divorce without ever experiencing permanence in their marital vocation.
Those who adhere to the religion of Darwinism, knowingly or not, reduce the existence of humanity to a climb from the mud to self-deification, with only latent 'primitive forms' along the way, survived by the 'fittest'.
That self-aggrandizing linear worldview fails to acknowledge that humanity can (and has) undergone periods of cultural backsliding, and can undergo cultural regression overall in the face of all its technical progress. Strip away the technical achievements from that life and the remainder is nasty, brutish, and short.
The arrogance (pride) of a culture which deems itself no longer in need of the moral constraints which enabled its technical development is a prelude to its downfall, where a humble and moral culture--one which acknowledges its creator and daily thanks Him can continue to develop so long as it remains so.
Preach it, sister!!
You know that EVERY Christian prior to 1930 agreed to that? HOw? Did you time travel and ask each and every one of them?
Or let me guess.......
If they disagree with you, they aren't Christians, therefore by default, they HAD to have been Christians, therefore the claim can be made that ALL Christians prior to 1930 agreed with you.
How convenient......
“All of Christianity, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic unanimously taught since the times of the Apostles that contraception was always sinful and that Onan died for it. It is incontrovertible and uncontested that this is a fact.”
When I read the verse for the first time and without council from anyone I gathered God was angry because Onan disobeyed him not because he spilled his seed (subtle distinction). I’m sure it’s been debated over and over and maybe there is additional context in other writings that can confirm or deny which it was that made God angry. It’s worth noting I’m a Protestant not a Catholic.
“But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
