I wonder if insurance would pay for this
Check this out. NFP for the extremely lazy (that's me).
All you do is take your temperature with it once a day and it does the rest. Don't ask me how, I have no idea. But a lot of people seem to be happy with it. It even tells you if it thinks you're pregnant as early as four days after conception, and whether it will be a boy or a girl.* (*results not guaranteed, says the disclaimer)
It's $500, but I'd never have to chart again. Or buy a pregnancy test. Or touch mucus. Or look at mucus. Or think about mucus.
Yeah, I think I'm sold.
All you do is take your temperature with it once a day and it does the rest. Don't ask me how, I have no idea. But a lot of people seem to be happy with it. It even tells you if it thinks you're pregnant as early as four days after conception, and whether it will be a boy or a girl.* (*results not guaranteed, says the disclaimer)
It's $500, but I'd never have to chart again. Or buy a pregnancy test. Or touch mucus. Or look at mucus. Or think about mucus.
Yeah, I think I'm sold.
posted by K.H. at 6/26/2006 08:18:00 PM
6 Comments:
I am just investigating Catholocism at this point, so I like reading your blog.
But I don't understand why it's okay to prevent conception in one way but not another? Can anyone explain the idea behind this? Should you just leave it all up to God? And if you are allowed to interfere, why is it okay to interfere by timing intercourse for non-fertile times but not okay to interfere by taking a hormone or using a barrier method? Any clarification is much appreciated. I hope you don't take my comments as criticism, I am just trying to better understand.
Well, NFP is supposed to be used for "serious reasons only." Serious reasons can vary by couple. For some, it is financial considerations that make them want to postpone pregnancy. For some, it is emotional stability. For some, it is physical health.
As to why NFP is acceptable but condoms are not, heres is an excerpt from a column at Catholic Answers:
----------
"Q: A friend challenged me on the Church's teaching about contraception. He said it doesn't make sense to permit the rhythm method while banning artificial means such as the pill. He said these are just two different ways of doing the same thing--contracepting.
A: Your friend is overlooking a number of important differences between contraceptive and natural means of avoiding pregnancy.
First, to talk about the "rhythm method" without qualification can be misleading. Many people think only of the old calendar-rhythm method. Contemporary methods are usually called Natural Family Planning (NFP) and are more effective than the older technique.
Second, the mere fact that artificial contraception and NFP have the same end in view, avoiding pregnancy, doesn't mean they're morally equivalent. There's nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy, per se, under certain circumstances. It's the means use to do so which are of concern here.
For example, you can support your family by honest work and diligence or you can rob banks to do it. The end is the same in both instances, but that doesn't mean the means used are morally equivalent. Honest labor is moral. Theft isn't.
Third, NFP isn't contraception. In contraception an action is taken which prevents conception. In NFP, no such action occurs. Instead, sexual relations are avoided when conception is likely to occur.
Fourth, contraception attacks the good of procreation. It acts directly against procreation because some action is taken to thwart that good. Contraception treats procreation as an evil--as something to be acted against. NFP treats procreation as a good, but not one which necessarily needs to be pursued right now.
Fifth, contraception violates the natural link between the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act. This link, as Humanae Vitae teaches, is established by God and may not be broken by man on his own initiative (Humanae Vitae, no. 12). NFP doesn't alter the marital act in any way.
Is it possible to misuse NFP? Yes. It can be used to exclude children from marriage altogether, and that is counter to one of the purposes of marriage. It can be used to exclude children for selfish, unchristian reasons. In such instances, the purpose for avoiding pregnancy is disordered, but not the means (NFP)."
-------
An excellent read on the subject is "Life-Giving Love" by Kimberly Hahn. She writes in an approachable, down-to-earth style and really boils these difficult teachings down to their elements. I highly recommend her book, it's available at Amazon.com.
Thanks, CC. The third reason is the only one that for me, really answers the question. Thanks for the clarification and teh book suggestion.
Oh I want a Lady Comp as well... I don't use NFP thought... we are not Catholic but we use something similar called Ferility awarness method so the Lady Comp would be great for me too I am planning to save up for it I think... it would be well worth it!
Rebecca, check out this link for more on your question:
http://www.catholicmom.com/nfp0404.htm
Hi, Rebecca,
I'm a convert, too, and the Church's teachings on birth control were the last hurdle I had to overcome. I ended up surrendering it to God and after my surrender came further understanding, but here's what really finally hit home for me:
When we contracept with artificial means, we are deliberately untying the knot between the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual union, as mentioned in the Catholic Answers tract above. But, using NFP to postpone a pregnancy acknowledges:
1. Children are *always* a blessing from God
2. We, for some serious reason, cannot welcome that blessing right now (but we're not closing the door forever, either.)
3. We therefore have to make a sacrifice (abstaining during the fertile time.) And make no mistake -- it is a sacrifice. NFP can be a cross, but that cross helps us to see the infinite value of a life.
Does that make sense?
Great blog! Love reading your thoughts here.
Post a Comment
<< Home