Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Personal birth control experiences Birth Control in the Catholic Church
- links to other thread on the BB will not work.
Susan
Member
November 30, 2002, 06:36 PM
Personal birth control experiences
this thread is being featured to encourage sharing about experiences using different forms of birth control.
see also this thread for other experiences.


My own experiences with birth control have been very positive. I've been married well over a quarter of a century to the same man and birth control is not a problem for us and never was. I think one of the most important factors is that both parties agree. It's the agreement that is important, not the use or non use of birth control.

We are both Catholics and have used various methods of birth control over the years. Our method has changed depending on what best suited our needs at the time in question.

The pill allows for a great deal of freedom and is great for newlyweds. The couple can concentrate on getting to know each other's likes and dislikes without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.

Condoms with a spermicidal foam is nearly as effective as the pill. It simply takes more time and planning and shifts more responsibility to the man.

However, condoms can fail and that should be taken into consideration. We once received a letter from a condom manufacturer notifying us that a certain batch of their condoms were defective.....Nice of them to tell us, after we
had used the entire package!

We've also had condoms blow out (despite following directions), get lost, and simply
disappear...for a while anyway.

So, despite the use of birth control, pregnancy can still happen, so a sexual relationship should not be entered into without this consideration.

As far as the use of birth control being objectively evil among spouses. This simply isn't true. Making love with one's spouse isn't evil! This is nonsense! Making love with one's spouse strengthens the marriage, makes the difficult times easier, and helps to heal the
hard times.

In over a quarter of a century, we've never suffered any ill effects from the use of birth control.

Thank God for this wonderful way to
strengthen our marriage bond!

Susan

[This message was edited by moderator on December 29, 2002 at 11:22 AM.]
Editor
Member
November 30, 2002, 09:15 PM
See also this thread for other shared experiences. Let's hear from others about how ABC or NFP in your marriage.

Thanks for starting the thread, Susan.

I shared on the thread above about our experience of NFP for 15 years during which time we had three children. When we decided we were ready for our fourth a few years after that, we merely discontinued using the barrier methods we had decided upon and conceived shortly thereafter. Couples using ABC aren't necessarily saying they've permanently closed the door on having more children; certainly not any more than couples using NFP.

[This message was edited by Editor on November 30, 2002 at 09:27 PM.]
Susan
Member
December 01, 2002, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Editor:
See also http://dialogue.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=6096067251&f=9436001351&m=9316019551 for other shared experiences. Let's hear from others about how ABC or NFP in your marriage.

Thanks for starting the thread, Susan.


Susan:
If you'd like to consolidate my post with the other thread, that might be a good idea...Also, the title could be changed to 'testimonials'...I'd like to read about the experiences of other people in this area, too.

Editor:
I shared on the thread above about our experience of NFP for 15 years during which time we had three children. When we decided we were ready for our fourth a few years after that, we merely discontinued using the barrier methods we had decided upon and conceived shortly thereafter. Couples using ABC aren't necessarily saying they've permanently closed the door on having more children; certainly not any more than couples using NFP.


Susan:
Yes, I read your sharing about this in the other thread. My husband and I also found various forms of birth control helpful in plannning our family. And, I agree, it certainly doesn't close the door on having more children.

I hope to hear more testimonials.

Susan
awfltdoc
Member
December 15, 2002, 05:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Susan:
My own experiences with birth control have been very positive. I've been married well over a quarter of a century to the same man and birth control is not a problem for us and never was. I think one of the most important factors is that both parties agree. It's the agreement that is important, not the use or non use of birth control.

We are both Catholics and have used various methods of birth control over the years. Our method has changed depending on what best suited our needs at the time in question.

The pill allows for a great deal of freedom and is great for newlyweds. The couple can concentrate on getting to know each other's likes and dislikes without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.

Condoms with a spermicidal foam is nearly as effective as the pill. It simply takes more time and planning and shifts more responsibility to the man.

However, condoms can fail and that should be taken into consideration. We once received a letter from a condom manufacturer notifying us that a certain batch of their condoms were defective.....Nice of them to tell us, after we
had used the entire package!

We've also had condoms blow out (despite following directions), get lost, and simply
disappear...for a while anyway.

So, despite the use of birth control, pregnancy can still happen, so a sexual relationship should not be entered into without this consideration.

As far as the use of birth control being objectively evil among spouses. This simply isn't true. Making love with one's spouse isn't evil! This is nonsense! Making love with one's spouse strengthens the marriage, makes the difficult times easier, and helps to heal the
hard times.

In over a quarter of a century, we've never suffered any ill effects from the use of birth control.

Thank God for this wonderful way to
strengthen our marriage bond!

Susan


Susan, I apologize if this sounds like I am attacking you. And I'm not trying to tell you what to do. smile

"The couple can concentrate on getting to know each other's likes and dislikes without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy."

First, If a newlywed couple did get pregnant who is to say that God didn't want that to happen? Who other than God dares to dictate creation? You? Me? or Satan? Follow me here, because this is the same lie that occured with our first parents. Satan lied to Eve. He told her she could be like God, all she had to do is eat of the forbidden tree (ABC?). Eve wanted to be like God. To know the difference between right and wrong. To use her own freewill and conscience to decide for herself how she would live her life. And yes, Adam fell too. We all suffer from evil, suffering, pain, etc. But God did not create these evils, no this was created by the "abuse of freewill" to quote Fr. John Corapi, SOLT.

One last comment. If ABC is sinful, esp. if gravely sinful, why would satan persecute a conracepting couple? If I were satan, I'd leave ya thinking how great your marriage is so that the couple would hopefully die in mortal sin.

Anthony Waldroup, MD
Editor
Member
December 16, 2002, 09:11 AM
First, If a newlywed couple did get pregnant who is to say that God didn't want that to happen? Who other than God dares to dictate creation? You? Me? or Satan?

Doc, doc, doc! Stop it now! You're making a complete ass of yourself here and I'm beginning to doubt that you're a M.D.

Pregnancy happens when a sperm and egg unite. Period. This can happen on a first date, in an incestuous rape, and even in a test tube. Making pregnancy out to be some kind of direct intervention of God and saying nonsense like "who is to say that God didn't want that to happen?" displays a naivete' about human reproduction that doesn't even deserve a serious response.

Human procreativity is a sharing in God's creativity; God is surely involved in the procreative process, but there are also biological processes at work which don't become suspended in immoral situations like rape and incest. Explaining pregancies as "God's will" is disingenious, at best. Our sharing in God's creativity through the use of human sexuality obliges us to use this power carefully and responsibly.

I strongly recommend you spend more time reading the forum and web site before continuing to post every idea that comes off the top of your head. Slow down . . . listen . . . reflect . . . then speak.
awfltdoc
Member
December 20, 2002, 08:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Editor:
_First, If a newlywed couple did get pregnant who is to say that God didn't want that to happen? Who other than God dares to dictate creation? You? Me? or Satan? _

Doc, doc, doc! Stop it now! You're making a complete ass of yourself here and I'm beginning to doubt that you're a M.D.

Pregnancy happens when a sperm and egg unite. Period. This can happen on a first date, in an incestuous rape, and even in a test tube. Making pregnancy out to be some kind of direct intervention of God and saying nonsense like "who is to say that God didn't want that to happen?" displays a naivete' about human reproduction that doesn't even deserve a serious response.

Human procreativity is a sharing in God's creativity; God is surely involved in the procreative process, but there are also biological processes at work which don't become suspended in immoral situations like rape and incest. Explaining pregancies as "God's will" is disingenious, at best. Our sharing in God's creativity through the use of human sexuality obliges us to use this power carefully and responsibly.

I strongly recommend you spend more time reading the forum and web site before continuing to post every idea that comes off the top of your head. Slow down . . . listen . . . reflect . . . then speak.


LOL, I'm makeing an ass of myself? Look I have yet to call someone an ass on this board. I am no doubt seeing your true colors editor a wolve in fox clothing. I assume you want me to listen, learn, and pat you on the back for all the dissident teaching spewing forth. Well, I won't.

"Our sharing in God's creativity through the use of human sexuality obliges us to use this power carefully and responsibly"

Right On Editor

"Explaining pregnacies as "God's will" is disingenious' at best."

What, are you on crack? Are you saying that some pregnancies are not God's will. Well, how do you explain that with you doctorate level theology you claim to have, eh?

Anthony Waldroup, MD

[This message was edited by awfltdoc on December 20, 2002 at 08:28 PM.]
Charles
December 20, 2002, 10:42 PM
quote:
What, are you on crack? Are you saying that some pregnancies are not God's will. Well, how do you explain that with you doctorate level theology you claim to have, eh?


Taunting the Editor who has announced his or her departure can hardly be considered anything but cowardly.

Since I also have a doctorate in theology, I will tell you that the term "God's will" is being used by you in a very narrow manner. The Editor actually tried to explain to you how there is a natural dimension to this which doesn't necessarily tell us anything about God's will (as in God's intention), but it seems this went right over your head. If one is not careful, then one could wind up saying that a rape which brought the consequence of a pregnancy must be God's will, for God would not "bless" such a union with a conception unless God wanted it to happen. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?

Be careful how you use the term "God's will." Assigning it a meaning which serves your purposes while tuning out other nuances which have been offered is a poor discussion tactic.
ThomasMore
February 06, 2003, 08:44 PM
Note to Susan,

As the editor has kindly pointed out, from a Catholic viewpoint, pregnancy 'happens when a sperm and egg unite' (this being distinct from the dominant medical understanding of pregnancy occuring with implantation).

If that is the case then the pill, having the propensity to actually allow conception to occur followed very likely by expulsion due to its affect on the uterine lining, is an unacceptable form of "contraception" and would be more thoughtfully labelled 'abortafacient'.

Although I agree that the procreative and unitive aspects of sex need not be in unison at all times. It is equally true that they shouldn't be divorced via chemical killing agents. No amount of getting to know one another can justify the destruction of human life and the undermining of its inherent dignity.

It is the same view of human dignity which informs our support for the poor and for the alienated and oppressed. If we lose that basis of authentic Christian mission, especially over something as relatively unimportant as sexual fun-times, then we might as well cast-off our Christianity in its entirety now for the incarnation would have been rendered meaningless.

In Christ,

ThomasMore
Susan
Member
February 07, 2003, 07:04 AM
If that is the case then the pill, having the propensity to actually allow conception to occur followed very likely by expulsion due to its affect on the uterine lining, is an unacceptable form of "contraception" and would be more thoughtfully labelled 'abortafacient'.

Thanks, Tom. However, I think if you check out the effects of various birth control pills, you will see that they operate in various ways and not all are what some might consider "abortafacients."

Tom wrote:
It is the same view of human dignity which informs our support for the poor and for the alienated and oppressed. If we lose that basis of authentic Christian mission, especially over something as relatively unimportant as sexual fun-times, then we might as well cast-off our Christianity in its entirety now for the incarnation would have been rendered meaningless.

Tom, what you are calling "sexual fun-times" are not unimportant but the very glue that holds marital unions together. Are you married?
Sex is very, very, very, very important.(and even more verys) The Incarnation proves it.

In Christ to you, too.

Susan
ThomasMore
February 07, 2003, 11:16 AM
Dear Susan,

Firstly, in retrospect it was probably not a good idea to open my first post with 'Note to Susan'. This may have suggested that I was being reactionary or self-righteous, which was not my intention. I was not meaning to sound patronising but I can certainly understand how I might have been so construed.

Secondly, I am interested in your apparent refutation of my blanket condemnation of all "contraceptive" preparations currently amassed under the popular name, "the pill". I must query your statement that: 'I think if you check out the effects of various birth control pills, you will see that they operate in various ways and not all are what some might consider "abortifacients."

I think that this is a gross simplification of the haze surrounding this matter, the inference being that if I simply looked around for a bit I would discover the "truth" that not all preparations have or can have an abortifacient effect. Such a consensus does not exist.

I think a more accepted proposition is that no "pill", particularly given the individuality of the user, can guarantee against ovulation (if there was such a thing, I would not have a problem with it). In that case we must weigh up the relative value of sexual enjoyment and marital unitivity and, on the other hand, human life. In my view, the latter should win out every time in our communal Christian estimation. My central assertion in the last post was simply that inherent human dignity is, in my opinion at least, the foundational principle of all Christian thought and mission.

Thirdly, in referring to my use of the phrase "sexual fun-times" you omitted the word 'relatively'. My use of this phrase was a slight dig, I admit. That said, I do believe that the unitive function of sex is important.
However, without meaning to be personally offensive, I do think your asking me whether I am married or not is intellectually inane. It seems to be a common rhetorical move on this site - as if there was a unified consensus amongst married people as to the importance of sex in their relationship. Or perhaps there is simply a consensus amongst "enlightened" or "liberated" married couples who share your position.

Also, I am not at all comfortable with your contention that sex is 'the very glue that holds marital unions together'. I should like to think that if my wife or myself ever became physically incapacitated in a way that made sex impossible or simply too difficult that our marriage would last. I know it would. Certainly I like those times we spend together and believe that they bring us very much closer but I know that our bond transcends bodily physicality to the extent that eventually the absence of sex wouldn't matter so much.

Lastly, in using the word 'relatively' in the last post I did not mean to contend that sex was unimportant but rather that a couple's preference for sex at any time is not "up-there" in terms of cosmological importance with God's charging us to Christian mission and His associated ethics.

Very much in Christ, as I am sure you are.

ThomasMore
anon
February 07, 2003, 12:19 PM
there's enough info available on what is abortifacient or not but i'd bet Susan is closer to being right on this point

as for inanity, get used to it because from the history of her posts she's apparently more caught up in interpersonal list dynamics than substantive birth control discussions

as for that -sex is the glue- statement, that's the type of attitude you that every misogynistic male (so well parodied in your Spongish-feminist) would receive as music to his ears

good luck scoring Tom!
moderator
Administrator
February 07, 2003, 07:13 PM
fyi to all. please read the web page on the home site about birth control pills and their abortificent nature. there is a good, balanced treatment there.

also a reminder that this thread is for sharing personal birth control experiences. we're getting away from that into debate, so start a new thread if needed--not like there aren't already a lot of debate threads open. Wink