A few weeks ago my partner and I attended a few marriage classes we are required to take in order to get married in the Catholic Church. One class focused on sex and touched on natural family planning. I know what you are thinking, a couple who has 10 children practice natural family planning because they pay no attention, do not use any birth control and let themselves get pregnant. Am I right? Or maybe something along those lines? I guess I also thought this myself before I took the class. It turns out its not the real case.
The Catholic Church supports the use of natural family planning which is used to avoid pregnancy and to get pregnant. The most common method and most effective method is Sympto-Thermal. In this method you chart the primary signs of fertility which are: cervical mucus, basal body temperature, and cervical changes as well as secondary signs. Doing this every morning at the same time will give you data, the real numbers to show you your cycle and which exact day you move from being not fertile to fertile- when you release an egg. The huge indicator is when your temperature increases and decreases. You do not have to have a "regular cycle" in order to chart and make this method work. It allows you to work with your own cycle and body.
This method is also known as Fertility Awareness to physicians, however it is not looked at as a good method to avoid pregnancy alone. In order for this to work you must abstain from sex during the fertile period and be very strict with it. According to a report in Europe's Human Reproduction Today journal there is a study that was done with results published in 2007 on the effectiveness of natural family planning. The rate of unplanned pregnancies was around 0.4% per year meaning out of the 900 women who took part of study, 1.8 per 100 became pregnant. For something to be rated just as effective as the hormonal birth control pill, there should be less than one pregnancy per 100 women in a year.The rates in the study translated to one pregnancy per 250 women per year, which then in this study makes natural family planning just as effective. I found this piece of information pretty awesome to say the least. There are certain factors going into it, like only having sex when your temperature changes correctly to avoid pregnancy and the period of abstinence- but that can be true of the pill. You have to take it the same time every day, and it doesn't work well when you are super sick; there are still small risks of getting pregnant. However, it must be noted that this method is not easy. You must be very studious and stay on task with charting everyday because your cycle can change from month to month. If you become lazy, the effectiveness goes out the window.I think this is a misunderstood method and can be a great option for some couples.
My next thought after learning all the scientific data about this method was, is this a feminist method to go about planning a family and avoiding pregnancy? You are working with your body, listening to it. It tells you exactly when you can get pregnant and when it's less of a risk. You are not ignoring your body and letting a pill control your cycle. Being one with your body to me is very feminist. You also respect your body in a sense that you trust it to do what it was made to do, let you know what is going on. I feel you take control of your body and reproductive system in a very intimate way that you cannot do otherwise. Do you think it is a feminist method?
5 comments:
I don't get it. I thought any method which was used to avoid pregnancy is considered 'birth control'. It's just different when it's facilitated by prescription drugs or latex? But we're allowed to use prescriptions for other indications? The Catholic Church just sounds like a lot of hypocrisy to me. Not to mention probably the most sexist Christian organization in existence today. Interesting affiliation for a feminist, but that's just my $.02
This post is very interesting. I think that the connection you make between your body and your feminism, the issues of control and of self-awareness, is exactly what all women should consider when choosing BC methods. Many girls get started on the Pill at a very young age, myself included, and do not understand what they are being subjected to, for example, being under the influence of strong hormones that affect the brain and body, becoming life long customers of pharmaceutical companies that make 1,000% profit on their products, and the lack of self-awareness and opportunities to control and make proper, well informed decisions that affect their own bodies.
Last year I did some research on my own because I was fed up with not feeling like I was in control. (Doctors pushing new options (often the new 'trends'), the costs of it all, always feeling unsure, etc.) I found out about a great non-hormonal option that lasts for 10 years and costs around $600 ($5/month when used the full 10 years) and of course, in most cases insurance cover all or some of the costs. The IUD- my doctors never brought it up to me as an option in all my years suffering under the effects of hormones, and after some research I found it is widely used in the western world, but not in the US. ($5/month for an IUD vs $35/month for the Pill... hm... perhaps the pharmaceutical corporations are worried about losing profits?)
Anyway, without getting off track about conspiracies and such, I just thought I would add that if you are looking for a non hormonal option, the IUD is great. I agree with you on your feelings on the importance of being in control our own bodies, as well as allowing natural processes of the body to occur as they normally would. Natural planning is something I never considered because I was always under the impression of all the stereotypes you listed in your intro. I had no idea it could be so effective! In any case, I think you are taking a very feminist approach regarding this decision and I wish you much luck and success in which ever method you end up choosing!
To Anonymous:
I wasn't discussing the defintion of birth control here, don't know how you got confused with that.
The Catholic church can be sexist, but so can MANY other Christian organizations. Just because something is sexist doesn't mean it's evil. I grew up Catholic and I don't want to throw that part of me away just because I am a feminist. The Catholic church actually has some interesting history with feminism, the two cross paths a lot. Ever hear of Feminist Theology? Many feminists stay in the church to help it progress to better things.
Also, in regards to the birth control pill vs. other medications. The recommendation of the church to use natural family planning is on the basis that they think taking that pill says you do not accept the possibility of children, which is a God given gift. It doesn't really have to do with the fact that its drugs and hormones, which then solves your dilemma about medications for sicknesses. The church believes in medication, and does not see that as a major concern with the birth control pill.
A friend was telling me just last week, her son-in-law, Harrison, who is a doctor, just attended a conference in Omaha. This was put on by the Catholic Conference of Bishops and was about natural family planning. Harrison is a devout Baptist, and came away from the conference VERY impressed.
Birth control pills shuts down the body and this in not what nature intended. This is causing many health issues in women, including cancer.
Then there's the morning after pill; if you were careless. Where in this are people accepting responsibility for their actions....there's a pill for everything. Again, not healthy.
Also because women use the pill they may have had different partners, over time. Later when they try to start a family and can't, this is when they find they have clematis and will never conceive. What Harrison learned at this conference is what he wants to present to women as a viable and healthier option.
It's not about about being Catholic, it's about being healthy now and many years from now.
It isn't about the definition of birth control; it is about the concept of it. Which ever way you cut it, the idea is that you're finding a way to have 'relations' without it resulting in a pregnancy.
"The Catholic Church supports the use of natural family planning which is used to avoid pregnancy..."
"The recommendation of the church to use natural family planning is on the basis that they think taking that pill says you do not accept the possibility of children, which is a God given gift."
Can't someone take the pill who wants kids - just not right now? Or is it only okay if you use a method prescribed by the Church? If we believe kids are really a "God given gift" shouldn't we be squeezing them out as often as we can? As for health risks I guess I'd need to see some studies with quantitative empirical data to either prove or disprove the risks of other methods like 'the pill'.
I'm not saying throw away the part of your life that's about the good memories you've had with friends and family - I'm saying you don't need a church or it's ridiculous doctrine to make those memories. I applaud the efforts of those who strive to improve the Church, but when a structure is corrupt at the foundation... well, good luck with that.
Post a Comment