Pages

Friday, July 25, 2014

The Basics of Natural Family Planning

[Today's guest post by JoAnna Wahlund is part of our paid blogging program.]

Judging by the comments after last week’s post regarding pro-lifers and contraception, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding regarding Natural Family Planning (NFP). Since July 20-26 is NFP Awareness Week, I decided to provide this basic overview of NFP to clear up any misconceptions (no pun intended!) and provide additional information for those who are interested in learning more about it.

What is Natural Family Planning? 
NFP is a method of avoiding or achieving pregnancy (it can serve either purpose depending on the intent of the users) by identifying the biological markers that indicate natural fertility or infertility (basal body temperature, cervical mucous, presence of certain hormones in urine) so that users can either avoid or engage in sexual intercourse, depending on their intention. It can also be used to monitor gynecological health and identify possible problems. NFP is "natural" in that it does not utilize synthetic hormones or substances, barriers, or invasive devices.

Isn’t NFP also called “the rhythm method”? 
No, although this is a common misconception. The rhythm method (also called “the calendar method”) is essentially the most basic type of NFP, but it is also the least effective. The rhythm does not take into account a woman’s biological markers that indicate levels of fertility. Instead, it is entirely dependent upon the assumption that every woman has a clockwork 28-day cycle, with menstruation occurring on day 1 and ovulation occurring on day 14. That's only true for roughly 30% of women, and many outside factors – diet, nutrition, stress, illness – can affect the length of each cycle even for women who do have regular cycles.

I've often heard other women say that they can't use NFP because they have irregular cycles, and unfortunately that's a common myth which hearkens back to the misconception of NFP = rhythm method. Many women are told by their OB/GYNs that they have “irregular” cycles when they simply have a longer cycle length – say, 35 days instead of 28. (I once had a 75-day cycle. Thankfully, that wasn't typical!) NFP works with any and all cycle lengths.

What are the types of NFP? 
They include, but are not limited to, Billings, Creighton, Sympto-Thermal, and Marquette, as well as the Fertility Awareness Method (FAM). For brevity's sake I'll only discuss these, but there are many additional forms that are offshoots of these methods.

Billings Ovulation Method: The Billings Ovulation Method of NFP (BOM) is named after Drs. John and Evelyn Billings, but was developed by many different medical professionals based on extensive research which began in 1953 (you can read a comprehensive history of its development here). Its focus is on detecting fertile periods by charting the quantity, quality, and consistency of cervical mucous was well as the sensation at the vulva.

Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System (CrMS) is a modification of the Billings method and was developed in the late 1970s by Dr. Thomas Hilgers. It is the basis for NaPro Technology, which specializes in treatment of infertility and menstrual cycle disorders. Like Billings, it tracks the biological marker of cervical mucous.

The Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) builds off of the mucous observations of the Billings and Creighton methods and adds another biomarker: basal body temperature (BBT), which is the body's temperature each morning immediately after waking but prior to rising. (The temperature will be low in the first part of a woman's cycle but spike once ovulation has occurred.) The correlation of BBT to a woman’s menstrual cycle was discovered by German priest Fr. Wilhelm Hillebrand in the 1930s. STM was not widely taught in the United States until John and Sheila Kippley, in partnership with Dr. Konald Prem, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, founded the Couple to Couple League International (CCLI) in 1971.

The Marquette Method of NFP was developed in 1999 at Marquette University. It integrates the Clearblue Easy Fertility Monitor with the other biological markers of fertility mentioned above.

The Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) is essentially a secularized approach to the Sympto-Thermal Method. For decades, nearly all NFP promotion was done by the Catholic Church and related entities. Toni Weschler changed that in 1995 with the publication of her book “Taking Charge of Your Fertility.” The main difference between FAM and other NFP methods is the (optional) addition of using condoms during the fertile period to prevent pregnancy, as opposed to abstinence.

What do you call people who practice NFP? Parents!
HAHAHAHAHA! I've only heard that one half a million times.

In all seriousness, the effectiveness of NFP for avoiding pregnancy is comparable to contraceptive methods such as the birth control pill:
  • An extensive sampling of effectiveness for the Creighton method yielded a perfect use success rate of 99.5% and a user failure rate of 3.2%. 
  • The Billings Method has been taught in China, Indonesia, and India, and studies there resulted in a perfect use rate of 99%, with a user failure rate of around 5%. 
  • A 2007 study of STM/FAM in Germany found that the perfect use success rate was 99.6% – comparable to that of the birth control pill. The user failure rate was 1.8%, compared to the Pill's user failure rate of 9%. 
  • A 2004 study published in the journal Contraception (as summarized on the Marquette University NFP site, here) found a higher user failure rate for fertility awareness methods, an average of 10%, but again perfect use rates were 98-99%.
The CDC cites a user failure rate for “natural family planning or fertility awareness” methods as 24%, but they don't cite any statistics for how that number was reached. I suspect that that number more accurately reflects the user failure rate for the rhythm method, which is around 25%.

So why choose NFP over other methods? 
One huge advantage to NFP is the lack of side effects. Hormonal birth control, such as the pill, has a wide range of possible side effects. It's inappropriate for many women, particularly smokers, because it increases the risk of blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks. It is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization, and has a negative effect on the environment as well. 

IUDs may migrate out of the cervix and into other organs, sometimes perforating the uterus. If pregnancy occurs while an IUD is in place, doctors will often recommend aborting rather than risk having the IUD embed itself in the placenta or, worst case scenario, in the child. 

Activist Erin Brockovitch has started a website warning women about the potential side effects of Essure, a procedure that implants metal coils in the fallopian tubes and is marketed as non-invasive permanent birth control. A recent lawsuit alleges that “the coils migrated out of [the complainant’s] fallopian tubes and, eventually, led to five hospitalizations, a hysterectomy, and auto-immune and adhesion disorders.” 

Barrier methods (e.g. condoms) obviously don't carry those risks, although they may cause reactions in people who have undiagnosed latex allergies. Condoms are often used incorrectly (for example, if they are carried around in a wallet or pocket, they are more prone to break). And, of course, many people just don't like how barrier methods feel.

NFP doesn't pose those problems. An added benefit to NFP is that it can help women identify cycle abnormalities or other health problems that affect their cycle – for example, PCOS. It can also be used to pinpoint date of conception and provide more accurate pregnancy dating (which can help avoid unnecessary inductions or other interventions for babies who are thought to be overdue or too small for their alleged age). 

Another point in NFP's favor: financial considerations. As the recent Hobby Lobby brouhaha made evident, many people are concerned that women will be unable to purchase their own contraceptives in the absence of an employer subsidy. This isn't an issue with NFP, as most methods are so inexpensive that there are few startup costs and/or ongoing costs. 

Of all the methods I've discussed, the most expensive is the Marquette Method. The Clearblue Easy Fertility Monitor costs about $150, and requires the ongoing purchase of test sticks. My husband and I use the Marquette Method right now, and since we're still using the postpartum protocol we go through about a box of sticks (around $40) a month (but this is only temporary until my cycles resume and we begin using the regular protocol instead of the postpartum protocol); those who use the regular protocol will typically use about 10 sticks a month and only need to buy a new box of test sticks once very three months. (Most insurance companies won't cover these costs since Marquette is not an “approved” contraceptive method by the FDA, but some women have used money in Health Savings Accounts to purchase them.) 

Back when we used the Sympto-Thermal method, we spent $10 on a basal thermometer and $40 on charting software, both of which lasted us about a decade. The charting software was optional; I could have kept paper charts but I liked the computerized version which allowed me to upload my charts for review by our instructor (this was way back in 2003 when there weren't a lot of Internet options available). Now, there are dozens of smartphone and tablet apps as well as web apps that do the same thing for free or for a much cheaper cost. 

Billings and Creighton are similarly inexpensive; you can use a paper chart with stickers (not sure of the cost of those as I've never used them) or use electronic apps to keep your chart. 

Where do I go if I want to learn more? 
Couple to Couple League International (Sympto-Thermal Method) 

145 comments:

SPLfan said...

Interesting details. I'd always just thought that at the ideological level NFP - Catholicism = FAM, while on a practical level NFP + condoms = FAM.

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

JoAnna, thanks so much for writing this piece! I really wanted to respond to a few items in last week's post myself, but I just didn't get to it. Looking back at the comments, there are so many embarrassingly off-topic, overly-critical items that I couldn't even really find many talking about NFP initially so I stopped looking. (Sidenote: Fellow readers, I like sharing some of my favorite posts with others and I feel like comments like some of the ones on that post are so embarrassing to our intelligence as a group that I am second-guessing sharing things...)

Anyway, I am a Creighton Model instructor myself and we chose the method based on my need to stay away from hormonal BC (I'm at a high risk for blood clots because I have lupus) and the fact that condoms are, well, awful. Religion wasn't a part of it at all. We used the method to postpone pregnancy for the first 4 years we were married and then to conceive (we did immediately). It's extremely effective and really beneficial for infertility couples and women with endometriosis and PCOS, rather than just "treating" with the pill (the pill "treats" nothing--it just masks the symptoms and then these women come off to get pregnant and can't because the actual problem has not been corrected).

I also noted some serious discrepancies in the description of NFP and how it works on the CDC's website--there is just enough information there to be dangerous. About 30-40% of what is there is correct, but the rest is not and if that's what a person went by to try to use it they would not be all that successful. The failure rate is also ridiculous--that rate is including EVERY natural method (including rhythm) so when you consider that, 24% really isn't too bad.

So glad SPL chose to highlight NFP today! Thanks again!

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

You're fairly correct there, on a simplistic level. For me though, what I always figured is this: barrier methods have wide-ranging failure rates (perfect use vs. typical use), but if a barrier method is going to fail, it's going to fail when you are fertile. So those failure rates you are used to seeing are including use on days that a woman couldn't even get pregnant to begin with. What would the failure rates look like if we only looked at effectiveness on days of fertility? That's enough for me to think, eh, we'll just abstain if preventing pregnancy is important!

Chalkdust said...

You can also keep track of your fertility symptoms using an ordinary spreadsheet program--I use OpenOffice because it's free.

argent said...

Okay, I agree with most of your comment, but it's always irritating when people say "HBC doesn't treat PCOS, it just masks the symptoms". PCOS is not a disease that can be cured. The definition of "treating" PCOS is controlling the symptoms. I'm well aware that I'd probably need hormonal intervention to induce ovulation if I ever wanted to become pregnant, but as a college student I'd really like my symptoms managed for now!

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Have you ever heard of a surgery called an ovarian wedge resection? From what I have been told my NaPro doctors, it used to be a more common surgery to treat PCOS. One of my fellow Creighton practitioners had this surgery last year, conceived her baby 2 months later and just delivered him last month. I'd really encourage you to look into how Creighton and NaPro could help you. Even if you weren't ready for surgery right now, you could chart and have your hormone levels regulated properly and that would in fact control those symptoms you're having.

Max said...

"What I always figured is this: barrier methods have wide-ranging failure rates (perfect use vs. typical use)"



Wouldn't that be the same for any type of birth control, including NFP? Assuming, of course, that every single person currently using some form of NFP does always do so perfectly?

Elizabeth Doecke said...

Fertility Friend is a good website for tracking your cycles. The basic stuff is free, then you can pay for the fancy extras.

argent said...

Yes, as you can see, lack of progesterone is an issue because it causes the uterine lining to become excessively thick, leading to heavy (in my case dangerously heavy) bleeding, endometrial hyperplasia, and cancer. Being on a long-acting progestin-only contraceptive prevents ovulation, keeps my uterine lining from building up, and keeps it thin, which protects me from heavy periods and cancer risk. Ingesting a different source of progestin might have a similar protective effect, although it wouldn't have the potential to protect me from pregnancy or take away my periods.

argent said...

Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding you, but I looked up ovarian wedge resection and it seems like the intent is to promote ovulation and thus fertility? I don't plan on having biological kids, ever. So it doesn't seem applicable to me, but I do appreciate the advice and the discussion. While I really like the way the hormones I'm taking now are affecting my physiology, I am still on the lookout for solutions that have less of an antiandrogen effect.

argent said...

I think what she's saying is this: say a given barrier method has an effectiveness of 90% per couple per year (meaning given 100 couples with a 'normal' frequency of PIV intercourse, 10 couples per year will have a pregnancy).

Since all 10 of these pregnancies occurred during the fertile period, these couples might have just as well been using no contraceptive method during their infertile periods.


Using NFP/FAM to determine the fertile period, and then using this barrier method during the fertile period and no method at other times would still give you an effectiveness rate of 90%--no better than the barrier method alone.

Max said...

That doesn't follow. The success rate for NFP is a function of (a) identifying fertility and (b) not having sex during this time.


Lets say you are 90% effective at doing this. If condoms work 90% of the time, you get to 99% effectiveness if used one all the time and something less than 99% if you only used one during (a), provided that at least some of the error rate with regards to NFP is due to inaccurately predicting or identifying (a).


But my original point is that NFP is subject to the same actual v. perfect use problem as condom use or the pill. Its one reason IUDs have a much better success rate.

Marauder said...

Thank you so much for mentioning that the Marquette Method has a postpartum protocol; I'm 33 weeks pregnant with my first baby and I'm trying to figure out how all this postpartum NFP stuff works, and this gives me something else to look into. :)

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Creighton Model is also great PP--there are some methods that are really challenging during that time, but Creighton has ways of handling things like continuous mucus (yellow stamps). But some people feel like Marquette just sounds easier PP :-) The important thing is doing the right research and finding the right method for YOU :-)

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Max, I'll say I didn't actual follow you there. BUT, you're absolutely right and I never intended to imply that NFP methods aren't subject to the same method effectiveness vs. user effectiveness (perfect vs. typical use) stats as any other method of family planning. JoAnn even mentions that above. I know that when I do intros for Creighton I mention a 99% method rate and about 96% user rate.

My point was only that for me and for my husband, we figured rather than use a condom during a time of fertility and hope it didn't break or that it didn't have one of those teeny tiny holes in it, we stood a better chance of just plain not having sex during that time.

Marauder said...

I'll have to look into that one too; my husband and I took the Billings class before we got married, but we ended up actually doing something that looked more like Sympto-Thermal. Thanks. :)

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Oh, and then my other point when I said there is a "wide range" of effectiveness for barrier methods is just that there's usually only a few percentage points of difference between other methods perfect vs. typical use stats and it always seems that barrier methods have a much wider range between the two.

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

You mentioned in your first comment "if you ever wanted to get pregnant" so I just assumed this was something you might want in the future. (If you do want biological children, now you know NaPro is there for you!)

You're right that just supplementing your body's progesterone and assisting your reproductive system to return to a "normal" state wouldn't also solve your issue of preventing pregnancy. But I guess the way I see it is that it's a body system that isn't working properly and optimal health comes with making sure all of those pieces are working together properly, especially our hormones. Yes, an OWR would promote ovulation and therefore fertility, but you're supposed to be fertile--it's a sign of health. The reproductive system is more or less the only body system where we don't work as actively to treat problems (think if you had a cardiac issue or GI issue or musculoskeletal issue). Restoring your normal ovulation may seem counter-intuitive to your desire to not get pregnant, but it's definitely not counter-intuitive to your overall health. (You can always go to those non-hormonal barrier methods with a FAM approach once you get everything straightened out.)

All the being said, it's always your job to figure out what's best for you. I'm just glad that I've had the opportunity to share some with you because I feel like there are so many women who just don't know all their options (especially when it comes to the infertility aspect). I have one PCOS client and one endo client and both had no idea there was any other option for them until they met me and that makes me sad for women's health.

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

You're welcome and good luck!

Chalkdust said...

I think that you are talking about two different things here.

Max, you seem to be thinking of a plan of, "Use NFP to identify the fertile period, don't have sex at all during the fertile period, and use condoms the rest of the time," which is better than either NFP or condoms on its own.

The other option is, "Use NFP to identify the fertile period, use condoms during the fertile period, and don't use condoms the rest of the time," which is worse than either NFP or condoms on their own but allows for more (or more enjoyable) sex.

Michelle Ewing said...

I still haven't found anything on NFP saying how to switch from hormonal birth control (IUD for me) to NFP

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

That's probably just because there's not a lot of info out there on the internet to TEACH NFP methods since they are best learned from a trained and qualified instructor. I'd be happy to give you an idea of what that would be like privately. Though, obviously, the first step is having the IUD removed and beginning to chart. Charts can look a little wonky as your hormones return to normal, but it's a totally possible transition. Let me know if you want more information!

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Ahhh, thank you, Chalkdust. I now understand Max's point. Yes, I suppose for a woman who wasn't particularly good at identifying her fertility condoms *might* increase that effectiveness. (I'd actually be really interested to compare stats between a couple using condoms all the time AND NFP with a couple using only NFP) However, one thing to consider is that the use of latex and spermicides can result in altered mucus which has the potential to cause confusion with observations meaning the woman might not really ever improve at her observations or truly gain confidence in herself to make those observations.

I guess I feel like if you're going to use condoms every time anyway, why waste time making observations and charting? I think that's why FAM couples (NFP users who use barrier methods during the fertile time) don't bother with the barriers except when they are fertile.

ana said...

Just for the record: John and Sheila Kippley are no longer associated with ccl . They would like to be contacted at nfpandmore.org for all of their original NFP education

ana said...

Michelle: contact NFPIntntl to download their book; John and Sheila Kippley cover how to chart in many special situations regarding Pills, plus other non-injectibles, plus, hormonal shots on pages 87 to 95 of Chapter 5 in their book, "Natural Family Planning, The Complete Approach". See nfpandmore.org ; come on over to NFP! We love it !

ana said...

PS: Michelle: you will also be working with Sheila ^^ on learning natural family planning if desired. Natural Family Planning International has many options for you!

ana said...

How exciting ^^Marauder! Please look into Sheila Kippley's books on how breastfeeding affects fertility as well. No one covers it better. She differentiates culturally nursing, exclusively nursing or ''ecologically'' breastfeeding. You will have even a better idea after exploring her 3 nursing books and/or the chapter in her NFP book: "NFP:The Complete Approach". They are at nfpandmore.org as well. They would love to hear from you! They do cover charting with bottlefeeding as well. Best wishes!

KelleyAnnie@Over the Threshold said...

Great point about the difference between exclusive and ecological BFing. Commonly misunderstood. Will have to check out the books myself!

ana said...

^^Marquette's goal w/the urine checks was to sometimes maybe reduce Phase One / pre-ovulation abstinence, is my understanding; it has no advantage over symptothermal for effectiveness; it is best to be charting dryness+ temps for most effective w/urine checks - there are caveats w/the urine check, still, such as low readings/false readings; also, a bit complicated to get the urine....don't recommend it personally myself...also lots of cups/paper/strips, friends have said...???

ana said...

The most scientific is the "Seven Standards" book; many references to studies done, yet an easy read....also, the latest published; small - I read it in two days.

Melissa Hunter-Kilmer said...

My husband and I used STM starting in 1979. We learned it from a kind of hippieish book and it worked just fine. We had four children (five pregnancies) when we wanted them. As you can tell from the start date, we didn't use charting software, so all we really needed was a thermometer, graph paper, and a lot of dedication. I've always thought that one reason STM isn't more widely used is that nobody's making big money from it.

Marauder said...

Thanks. :)

Basset_Hound said...

In 1993, we decided we wanted a second child. We had gone for almost a year without protection, and still had nothing to show for it. We used this method "in reverse" and it didn't take long before I got pregnant.

Basset_Hound said...

Greetings to an old friend. I hope you and baby are doing well.

MamaBear said...

Marauder, Been watching for you. Hope you and baby are both doing well. :)

Marauder said...

Yep, we're doing fine! The baby's room just got wallpapered this weekend. :)

Marauder said...

Hi! We're doing fine and are in the final stages of getting all the physical stuff (room, supplies, et cetera) together. Thanks for the good wishes. :)

MamaBear said...

Doing pretty good. Still in remission, but also still in treatment. Had treatment on Friday, so not feeling real good this weekend, but at least it is only monthly. Going to have another grandbaby this winter. Another one for me to spoil!
I bet you have the baby's room really cute.

Russell Crawford said...

70 percent of all conceptions die before the end of the first trimester. So a person that chooses to have sex, regardless of the type of birth control used, will have made the choice to let 70 percent of any conceptions die. Pro lifers simply make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die by choosing to use NFP. A choice to have sex is clearly consent to abort most of your babies.

Russell Crawford said...

You understand that 70 percent of any conceptions you created died naturally? So working in reverse would have been consent to abort 70 percent of your babies. The only way to not kill babies is through 100 percent abstinence.

Feemster said...

Go to Google Images...and Google late term abortions. See how Russell Crawford prefers that your conception dies.

Marauder said...

Congratulations on the grandbaby! Yay for remission, hope you feel better soon.

dudebro said...

Late term abortion pix prove nothing without the right provenance.

Basset_Hound said...

my best friend's step aunt's sister's cousin's (once removed) neighbor makes ==$71/hr== on his laptop trolling conservative and pro life web sites to post nonsensical and thoroughly STUPID comments to clog discussion threads and bring the site to its knees. Why last month, his paycheck was $14759. He bought a new SUV! Go to WWW.GEORGESOROSSUCKS.COM

Basset_Hound said...

It's too bad the two moms don't live in the same town. Then you could set up Play Dates.

Basset_Hound said...

I'll bet you can't remember what it was like not to be pregnant, can you? But glad to hear the end is in sight, and that the two of you are well. Do you have any names picked out?

Feemster said...

Nothing except that we've been killing human beings and owe the Nazis an apology.

dudebro said...

Should women who have aborted their pregnancies get the death penalty in your opinion? That's what we did to the Nazis. Hung by the neck until dead. You think the same should happen to women who have aborted?

Ann said...

Very few Nazis ever actually saw the end of a rope or even ended their days behind bars.

dudebro said...

Feemster said *even worse* than the Nazis.

That's pretty damning.

Ann said...

Feed the trolls toppence a bag tuppence tuppence tuppence a bag

dudebro said...

That's what he said.

Are you suggesting that life in prison would be a better punishment for women who abort?

Griffonn said...

What a stupid argument.

100% of women who get abortions die sooner or later. Therefore, it's okay to murder them. Is that what you're saying?

Russell Crawford said...

No, I am saying that the most human life possible should be saved. that can only occur if pro lifers quit murdering innocent babies to save fetuses.

Marauder said...

Yep, names are picked but are being kept secret from everyone but "Marauder Junior's" grandparents. :)

Feemster said...

Nice attempt at obfuscation. I'll settle for the fact that you finally admitted that it's the same thing. What do you think will eventually happen to a notion that slaughters it's own innocent Children. Let me see. Maybe their borders will be over run and religious fundamentalists from another part of the world will steal their future???? Yeah.....that's probably it. Hope you enjoy it. You created it.

myintx said...

Great post!

dudebro said...

Yeah we all know that you want to send brown children back to Honduras so they can be murdered.

Hey...that's what rich countries did to the Jews prior to the holocaust. Denied them entry. In fact, pro life Ireland took in fleeing Nazis while simultaneously refusing entry to Jewish refugee CHILDREN.

Griffonn said...

What a stupid argument. I take it you couldn't think of anything honest, so you went for nonsensical?


People like you always seem to think hate is an adequate substitute for logic.

Feemster said...

Actually......I'm in the process of trying to provide housing to one of those children. I would gladly prove that to you....not because I care what you think about me....but because right now they need sponsors. I'm sure you really want to help them....not just win an argument.


The number in Brownsville is 956-702-4088 if you're interested. It took me over a week to actually find the people who are truly housing these kids. Why...because most of the internet sites claiming to be helping are either religious organizations or left wing political orgs using this situation for fund raising. Either way it's using these kids as pawn. There are a lot of people willing to talk smack about these poor kids....not many who are willing to help them.

Feemster said...

Hey dudie-o. Unless you can get pregnant and carry a child to term you really shouldn't be on the internet talking about women's reproductive rights. Isn't that what all you pro-aborts like to say?? Funny isn't it. The biggest promoters out there for killing these poor children are invariably men. The law allowing abortion was written by men. The supreme court that upheld it was comprised of mostly men. And men are the ones who gain financial freedom from the death of their off spring. It's a man's law. It has nothing to do with helping women all though men have done an awesome job of marketing that idea to them.

Russell Crawford said...

Your ad hominem fallacies show that you don't have a valid argument. Answer this. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can kill them and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to murder the fetus. Why?

Russell Crawford said...

Because 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester, any consent to use NFP is consent to abort 70 percent of what you believe are babies.

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Griffonn said...

I don't have to choose.

The idea that saving fetus necessarily means killing babies shows desperation on your part.

Russell Crawford said...

If you were really pro life, you would save your own murdered babies first.

Russell Crawford said...

You had a chance to save 70 percent of the conceptions you created and chose instead to force the birth of the fetuses of others. why murder your own babies instead of saving the.

Russell Crawford said...

Why is it ok to murder your won fetuses, but wrong for others to abort. A nation that kills its born babies to save its fetuses cannot stand.

Russell Crawford said...

Any second you spend "saving" a fetus is a second when you have chosen to let 1.8 born babies die. That is insane.
Andy time you spend forcing the birth of a fetus of another woman is a second of time you have spent letting 70 percent of your own conceptions die. That is insane.

Russell Crawford said...

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Neil Snyder said...

Pretty sure the state of being murdered precludes the possibility of being saved.

Neil Snyder said...

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

Neil Snyder said...

"Won" fetuses? Won in what? From whom?

Russell Crawford said...

If you have a duty to save your own babies, and you do, and you choose to let them die, that is "murder by omission." Look it up.

Neil Snyder said...

But I'm already talking to you, and you understand it. Explain it to me.

Neil Snyder said...

I saved a fetus AND saved 1.8 born babies one second ago. What else you got for me?

Russell Crawford said...

If you have children, your duty is to take care of them. If you don't feed them, don't give them medical care and don't protect them then you have committed the crime of "murder by omission.". Pro lifers claim that there fertile eggs are their babies. They claim they have all the rights as other babies. For that reason, failure to save and protect your zygotes is murder by omission.

Russell Crawford said...

While you were typing your smart ass lie, 1.8 more died. You murdered them and the ones you lied about as well.

Duck said...

Hm. I guess children dying of disease is murder by omission too then. Better start arresting all their parents.

Duck said...

Nope, I've been saving 1.8 baby per second since I started reading this thread. Get on my level bro.

Russell Crawford said...

Neil, you have a choice, 70 percent of your conceptions by NFP are dying. You can choose to save them or you can let them die and attempt to force the birth of a fetus. It is your choice. And pro lifers choose to let their won babies die, along with the born babies of others. What is your choice. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Russell Crawford said...

Here are pictures of some that are dying, which ones did you save. If you spend 60 seconds here then 108 die. What are the names of the ones you saved?

Duck said...

I choose Pikachu.

Russell Crawford said...

If you have a duty to save the children and instead choose to save a fetus, then yes, you are their murderer.

Russell Crawford said...

That is only one, what is the name of the others and at least 108 more. So give me the names of 216 babies you saved. Or admit you are lying. Or don't, it is obvious you are lying, no more info is needed.

Duck said...

Justin, Scott, Dewey, Mariko, Nancy, Paul, Michael, Chris, Steve,
Nick, Frank, John, Tom, John, Ed, Judy, Hal, Sebastian, Ron, Seth, Andrew, Dana,
Matt, John, Craig, Judy, Steve, Brad, Dan, Ajay, Pat, Mark, Chris, Hersh, Craig,
Jim, George, David, Dana, Michael, Charlie, Bin, John, Stanley, Ryan, Ryan, Joel,
Shailesh, Eddie, Rachel, Saba, Ashim, Jesse, Alessandra, Jae, Dae, Dan, Richard,
Will, Will, Will, Daan, William, Sanjay, Brandon, Jack, Robert, John, Robert, Brian,
Brian, Bridget, Brook, Leo, Eric, Eric, Michael, Matt, Charlie, Charlie, Robert,
Chris, Brian, Kirstie, Christina, Christine, Bryan, Sam, Chris, Canon, Brandon,
Calvin, Dana, Amanda, Barry, Chuck, Walt, Tim, Steve, Clive, Tom, Stuart, Rob, Terrance,
Jagjit, Nancy, Patrick, and Patrick.

GET ON MY LEVEL BRO!

Russell Crawford said...

You might as well keep on typing and posting, they are dying faster than you can save them.

Duck said...

I'm multitasking, like the octopus who plays the drums.

Russell Crawford said...

Every second you spend typing, 1.8 babies die.

Russell Crawford said...

If you are multitasking, then you are murdering 1.8 babies every second you spend saving a fetus.

Duck said...

What if I go to the bathroom instead of saving children? Does that still count?

Russell Crawford said...

You have a choice, you can save babies or you can let them die. Your choice is to murder babies.
A nation that murders its babies to save its fetuses is doomed.

Duck said...

So you hate octopi, is what you're saying.

Russell Crawford said...

If you spend 1 second in the bathroom, then 1.8 born babies die. You have a choice, you may go to the bathroom or you may choose to save babies. I go to the bathroom and let the babies die. As do most people. But people that are not pro life do not murder babies to save fetuses and have no duty to save either. So we are not murderers. But you are.

Russell Crawford said...

I will let an octopi or fetus die to save a baby. You will murder a baby to save a fetus. That is the difference between us.

Duck said...

Then I will never poop again! Thanks for your guidance Russell. I've come out of this a better, more ethically consistent person!

Russell Crawford said...

Neil, you have a choice in life. You can save babies or you can kill them and save a fetus. You still murder babies, right. So you are still a murderer.

Duck said...

Uh, I think we're a bit more different than that. For instance, I am a duck, and you are a nonspecific chart. I am way cuter and fuzzier than you.

Russell Crawford said...

Trying to avoid the argument with ad hominem fallacies will not work. You remain a murderer.

Duck said...

I already stopped pooping Russel, what more do you want from me?!

Duck said...

*cute and fuzzy* murderer, if I am indeed that.

Russell Crawford said...

A nation with pro lifers that use NFP and kills its own babies rather than saving them, cannot stand. Why must you murder your own babies? Why not stop. NFP is consent to murder and abortion.

Russell Crawford said...

Your ad hominem fallacies will not lessen your responsibility to save your own babies.

Duck said...

Russel, I can see the top of the page too. You can't hide from me up here.

Russell Crawford said...

Your ad hominem fallacies will not make your murders go away.

Russell Crawford said...

Your ad hominem fallacies will not hide your errors.

Duck said...

So if I understand you correctly, I must be pro-choice if I want to use the bathroom with a clear conscience?

Duck said...

"Ad hominem" sounds complicated. Could you elaborate?

Russell Crawford said...

No, you must not murder your own babies.

Russell Crawford said...

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent

Duck said...

But I haven't attacked you.

Russell Crawford said...

That is your argument

Duck said...

But you said if I'm pro-life and I go to the bathroom, I'm murdering babies. So I have to be pro-choice to use the bathroom.

Russell Crawford said...

No, that is a misstatement. You said that if you go to the bathroom you are murdering your babies. I accepted your confession.
It is my belief that you have a duty to save your babies from harm and then go to the bathroom

Duck said...

"If you spend 1 second in the bathroom, then 1.8 born babies die. You have a choice, you may go to the bathroom or you may choose to save babies."

- Russell Crawford

Russell Crawford said...

You had the option. I didn't say you are a murderer, you just confessed to murder, if that was your choice.

Duck said...

"...people that are not pro life do not murder babies to save fetuses and have no duty to save either. So we are not murderers. But you are."

- Russell Crawford

Duck said...

Ooh, I wouldn't want to be guilty of perpetuating a fallacy. I'm trying to be intellectually honest like you, see?

According to you, If I'm pro-life then every second I'm not saving babies, I'm murdering them. Therefore I must be pro-choice to go to the bathroom.

Griffonn said...

I'm amused at the idea that you might really believe that.

But what's even more amusing is that you think other people will be swayed by that incredible logic of yours.

Basset_Hound said...

You missed Barbara.....I assume you saved her too...

dudebro said...

Riiiight.

Which is why, you said this:

Feemster


8 days ago

Those Honduran Children....as you call them....are about 80 percent
teenage males (16-18) There are children in need all over the world. It
would make far better sense to help them where they live.....instead of
using then as pawns in a political game. They people who want them
here....want to use them for cheap labor and to drive down wages for
American Citizens. So no....I don't support that.

Russell Crawford said...

I am not surprised by the amusement you find in killing your own children. You are sick. But it is the murder of the children of others that concerns me. I will make certain to warn people of your inability to reason through the facts that cause you to murder.

Russell Crawford said...

Well in the first instance that is another ad hominem fallacy.

-------- with regard to your other comments------

No, you are making another straw man. I say something that is very clear. You have a choice of whom to save, you may save an innocent baby or you may let it die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let the born baby die. It does not matter if you are pro life, you are a murderer no matter what you claim-- as long as you claim to save babies.

Russell Crawford said...

That comment came after you had already confessed here:

Then I will never poop again! Thanks for your guidance Russell. I've come out of this a better, more ethically consistent person!

Griffonn said...

With chainsaws.

Don't forget the chainsaws.

Feemster said...

The issue of closing our borders.....a completely different matter. I absolutely stand by the statement you've quoted. We don't need to throw our borders open to teenage males of the age (16-18) that I posted. I lock the doors to my house. You do too. Only an idiot doesn't control who comes in and out of their home. It's pretty much the same with the border. We've made and passed immigration laws. Our President swore to uphold them. This is his creation.


The question as to what we should do with the Children who are being used as pawns in this political nightmare is another issue all together. What is the right thing to do now that they are here?? Dump them off in strange cities with no resources. That's what the Feds are doing. I've seen the Federal Housing units too. They are hell holes. I would leave no child in the hands of the federal government. I am pro-life because I love children. I don't just use them for subject matter in ideological discussions....the way that you do. The fact that you have badly misinterpreted the intentions of people on our side shows how little you actually know about the issue. You won't find any secular groups helping these children. Virtually all the organizations involved are Christian Most of those are pro-life faiths. Don't believe me? Check for yourself.


You threw the gauntlet down. Prove how much you care. Call that number, It's for Catholic Charities in Brownsville. You can also contact Caritas in Austin Texas. Help one of these kids. It'll make a much better man out of you.

Russell Crawford said...

It is fun for you. You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or let them die and save fetuses instead. You like to joke that you kill your babies with chainsaws. How cute.

Russell Crawford said...

A nation that kills its born babies in an effort to force the birth of unwanted fetuses cannot survive.

Suba gunawardana said...

I personally never say "unless you can get pregnant you shouldn't be talking about women's reproductive rights". considering there are PLENTY of sound logical non-sexist arguments for abortion.



ASSUMING you are correct in that "It's a man's law":

-It's probably the best man's law ever passed, considering it helps women and children just as much as men. maybe more.

-Being a man you probably should uphold this "man's law".

Feemster said...

There are plenty of sound arguments against abortion too. Such as......it's murder and will eventually be why this country finally fails.

dudebro said...

.it's murder and will eventually be why this country finally fails.

Please elaborate.

Suba gunawardana said...

That old broken record has been rebutted so many times. Do you want to go through the whole thing again?

Feemster said...

Would it matter. I've shown you pictures of the victims. Would the real blood of innocents even affect your heart. Probably not. For one reason or another you've decided that your life and convenience is all that matters. To h4ll with anyone else. How could I persuade you it matters??? Look around you. Since I was in my 20's I've watched the murder rate skyrocket. We're involved in wars all over.....and nobody cares. People everywhere you look are treated like trash. How can I convince you that these things don't just occur in a vacuum. Because human life is no longer sacred....none of our lives are safe or valuable.....ever. And for most people today....the most dangerous place they will ever be in in their own mothers womb. It's a pretty sick world you guys are building. But hey...you win the argument. That's what matters.

dudebro said...

What if you knew that the late term abortion photo was from a pregnancy that was killing the mother, say eclampsia, and there was no choice but to remove the fetus?

What then?

Suba gunawardana said...

Yes the situation for the living is bad, due to crime, child abuse, lack of resources etc. Now how exactly would you help this situation by forcing millions more unwanted children into it, only to be neglected abused and abandoned?

Pictures of abused & murdered CHILDREN are far more gruesome than some fake fetal porn.

ana said...

Kellie^^ you mentioned Creighton and "religion was not part of it at all" - is Creighton Instruction a Catholic entity?

I think it is single-sign but have not spoken to anyone Creighton....

dudebro said...

Answer the question.

Feemster said...

If the woman is going to have to go through a labor and delivery anyway, there is no reason whatsoever to kill the baby. If the mother’s life is at stake, all that needs to be done is deliver the baby. Then, do your medical best to save both the child and its mother.

There is no reason to kill these babies. There is no medical reason. No moral reason. No situation that requires it.

In some instances, late-term abortions are performed on very young girls. Proponents don’t argue their case, because they don’t have one. They simply point to the young girl and yammer about how can anyone “force” her to have a child. Their whole argument is based on the magic rewind fantasy abortion.

It ignores the fact that a late-term abortion will put the young girl through a much harsher labor and delivery than she would experience if she received life-saving medical care designed to save both her and her baby. It ignores the reality that the baby is already here. There is a child.

All late-term abortion does is kill the child. It does not save the mother anything. It is not “necessary” and it is not done to “save” “desperate” women.

There is no reason for late-term abortion.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/04/there-is-no-reason-for-late-term-abortion/#ixzz38zoneVv1

Feemster said...

I did answer the question.

dudebro said...

So you're the kind of sicko who'd force a 9yo rape victim to give birth, like that little girl in Brasil?

dudebro said...

Hydatidiform moles are people too. They are 100% human. Their only crime is to have the wrong number of chromosomes. To kill a molar pregnancy is deeply ableist.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Late to the party here, but I've been using the postpartum protocol since my son was born last October. You can email me at jrwahlund@gmail.com if you have questions! Also, there's a Marquette Method NFP group on Facebook, and the forums at nfp.marquette.edu are very, very helpful.

Chalkdust said...

Not even the wrong number--an egg with no chromosomes penetrated by two sperm has 46 chromosomes, just like you. They're just from the wrong source.

secularprolife.org said...

I just have one thing to say that it was Drs. John and Evelyn Billings, together with Professor Erik Odeblad, the expert on the cervix and the differentiation of the "G", "L" "S" and "P" mucus and their functions, together with Professor James Brown, the estrogen world expert who conducted over 850,000 hormonal assays to establish that the Billings chart shows the precise timing of ovulation, who made up the scientific collaborative team behind the Billings Ovulation Method™. Sue Fryer, longtime Billings instructor.

secularprolife.org said...

Refuted.

secularprolife.org said...

The proof is you murder babies.