|It is a super stretch to say that NFP is capable of altering a woman's cycle, it's not.
She wasn't referring to a woman's menstrual cycle, but to the cycles in a relationship - at least, that's how I read it.
|Also it is a super stretch to assert that because some tiny subset of the population recognizes that 'Birth Control' is a misnomer, that it doesn't matter and doesn't advance the sales of said 'control' methods. What is that if not 'weasel wording'??? I regularly converse with fairly intelligent women, and the reaction is universally shock & awe when Depo, the Nuva Ring, or even Vasectomy fail to deliver on their promises or gasp, cause negative health effects.
OK, first: a "tiny subset" of the population? I think a sizeable majority know that BC has failure rates - most people know someone who's conceived a baby on one or more forms of BC. (I know of dozens, and it's not a subject I discuss frequently!)
And it's not hidden by the manufacturers - they are legally required to disclose on the packets that BC isn't 100% effective (I think the brand of condoms we use says, rather conservatively, that they "reduce the instances of pregnancy and transmission of STDs", or something).
As I have said before on this thread, "birth control" isn't the most accurate term, technically. "Birth probability reduction" (or actually, "conception probability reduction" or "implantation probability reduction", depending on the type of BC) would be more accurate. Then again, one could take the larger view and say that by and large, BC does control birth - just not eradicate it completely. "Control" is used in plenty of instances which don't imply complete, 100% success rates.
Does the sale of birth control promote the mentality that one can control birth? Well yes, obviously. To some extent, you can
. Just as you can with NFP/FAM, which are also "marketed" on that basis. (NZ's Natural Fertility site's slogan is "Conception or Contraception - You Choose".) I don't see how, say, The Billings Method (the book), which spends chapters and chapters detailing how to time sex so as not to get pregnant, isn't marketing the idea of control. That's the point. People don't use NFP just for kicks: they use it to avoid getting pregnant
(and sometimes to conceive, which is another form of controlling the reproductive process - and interestingly, one that some QFers find immoral).
|Then there is the question of where you are putting your faith, I personally feel more in control putting my faith in God's design than putting my faith in any pill or device.
In... control? That's an interesting word to choose, given your argument.
I agree to some extent - the physiological and psychological effects of hormonal birth control can be horrible. Fertility is a complex system to mess around with. Barrier methods, on the other hand, have far fewer issues. And one can simultaneously put one's faith in God and
birth control, for the record...
|Just also pointing out that the Billing's method is not NFP, NFP is always Symptothermal.
Are you sure? My SIL uses the Billings method and calls it NFP; and the head of Natural Fertility NZ specified that FAM was sympto-thermal and NFP was typically Billings.
|you aren't going to demolish the CC's teachings on sexuality using logic on a mommyboard, so at this point, I don't see what the point is
The point is to investigate the truth-claims the CC makes about birth control and to determine whether or not they are logical, Biblical and right. It probably won't cause the Pope any sleepless nights, no; but it might make someone on this board who has been guilted into not using BC rethink the arguments she has heard. Or it might not. Maybe someone will spot a flaw in my logic, convince me with argumentation that the Catholic position is correct and turn me into a member of Holy Mother Church. I don't know. I enjoy debating theology. You're free to walk away at any time if you don't.
|I would argue that they are more open to procreation than those using NFP since they are more likely to conceive.
I'd say they are definitely more biologically
open to procreation, but whether or not they are more mentally/spiritually open to it would depend on the individual couple.
I think, though, that the term "open to life" is also somewhat weaselly. It implies a binary - "closed to life" - which sounds like something nobody would want to be. But I don't think a couple who are really
hoping not to get pregnant (say, a wife on chemotherapy, with the couple using FAM as well as condoms and spermicide in order to lessen their chances of conceiving) are necessarily in a spiritually worse place than a couple whose attitude is "Meh, we'd rather not get pregnant for another month, but whatever". You know? There are valid reasons for a woman to really, really not want to conceive and even to be devastated should she test positive. That's OK. What she does
about the accidental pregnancy becomes a moral issue, but feeling "closed to life", as it were, before conception - really not wanting to be pregnant - isn't unholy or a sin. It's just how life is sometimes.