It shows that you believe the "proof" of the effectiveness of NFP is how few children we have. If I tell you we have only two, you would think us prudent and well-disciplined. If I tell you 6, you would presume that NFP didn't work, and that we are foolish to use it.
Ok, I will rephrase. How many unplanned pregnancies have you had while on NFP?
In all cases, the children are not viewed as unique Gifts from God, made in His Image and Likeness, and inestimable in value. They are instead seen as a burden, a possession, and a sign of our ignorance if we want more than whatever the politically correct number should be. At it's heart, the love of contraception - and it's fruit, abortion - is a selfish anti-child attitude that disassociates sexual intercourse from the begetting of children.
That's because children are, in fact, burdens as well as blessings. Have you never heard of the gift of a white elephant? A white elephant is sacred and precious, and the gift of one is a demonstration of high esteem - but caring for it can ruin the recipient and keep them from being able to adequately care for the rest of their family. It is not selfish to acknowledge the fact that one more child (or a dozen more, if one really leaves things 'in God's hands') seriously compromises the ability of most families to adequately clothe and educate the children that they already have.
It is also because sex in humans has a hugely important function (pair bonding) that has nothing to do with conceiving children.
You think you are making some kind of feminist point here - the because a woman most desires sexual union during her most fertile time, and since NFP keeps a woman from having sex at that time - it's somehow anti-woman.
That is such a laughable piece of logic that I just have to walk over it a bit....
Why is it illogical to say that a bc method that denies women satisfaction but asks little of men is less than equitable?
It is scientifically verifiable that one of the primary side effects of the Birth Control Pill is libido suppression.
Yes, I know. The pill also makes one gain weight and puts one at slightly higher risk of dangerous clots. That's why I'm glad that there are bc methods other than the birth control pill.
...the BCP, a drug invented by a man...
...who was funded by a woman, in an era during which it was extremely difficult for women to break into the sciences, and virtually impossible for them to get funding once they got there...
Now that makes sense to you? This is "healthy"?
Many women use the pill because the trade-offs are worth it to them. It's not my chosen method, but it's not my business to tell other women where their balance of trade-offs should be. Likewise, I wouldn't be challenging you on NFP if you weren't misrepresenting it and attacking everyone who uses other methods.
NFP is only information gathering. Whether a couple decides to have sexual relations or not is completely a separate process.
It forces the woman to decide between enjoying sex and preventing conception.
I suppose if you view sex as some kind of instinctual urge that must be satisfied - as some kind of animal instinct - then perhaps you are really upset about being subject to a natural instinct you think unfair.
I do think that sex is a natural instinct, but it's not that it 'must' be satisfied; it's that we are happier organisms if we acknowledge our drives so that we can satisfy them in a healthy manner. Why do you think it's always sanctimonious right-wing politicians who get caught with their pants around their ankles? The ones who deny that they have drives are the ones who have the hardest time controling themselves when a strong temptation arises.
The sex drive is far more 'fair' than it used to be, thanks entirely to modern methods of birth control; it will hopefully be more fair yet in the future, as more methods are developed and made available for use.
That is to say you would see the desire to have sex the most during the fertile time as somehow "unfair" for women.
Not at all. Couples have plenty of options for birth control - especially including vasectomies and/or tubal ligations - that allow both the man and the woman to enjoy sex at its optimum. That is perfectly fair.
If that is so, then your issue is not with men, it is with God, for that is how he designed female fertility.
Leaving untouched the preachiness, 'God' also designed our knees and backs to give out in our 40's, heart attacks, strokes, early death for men, and a host of other 'natural' conditions that most people have no problem whatsoever altering and making 'more fair' through the miracle of modern science-based medicine. It is only when health care starts touching women's fertility that the religious right suddenly starts crying about how birth control is 'unnatural' and 'against god's plan.'
Sex is for BOTH the man and the woman in the relationship.
It certianly should be.
Your argument that it is for only the man pits the husband against the wife, the woman against the man, in a battle for the most autonomous "use" of their sexual powers.
I wasn't arguing that that is how it should be; I was arging that that is what NFP makes it into.
It is evident that you, by setting up this dichotomy, view sexuality as something you "get satisfied". A completion of your own needs. That is the fruit of the "was it good for you" mentality toward "sexual expression". You only ask that question if you are having sex to suit yourself.
A man who claims that female satisfaction is irrelevant and/or selfish can only ever be a terrible lover. Sorry, but making love is, in fact, partly about physical satisfaction for both parties. That's the way it is. That's the way 'god' designed it to be, if you insist on that language.
In fact, the marital embrace is intended by God to be a mutual gift of self. An outpouring of the tenderness of intimacy and union that "...makes the two flesh one", and the two hearts as one.
again leaving alone the preachy god talk, of course sex is about pair bonding - and isn't wanting to please one's partner a huge part of that for BOTH parties, not just the woman?
Hearts side by side, and conjoined in a manner of intimacy that I can only hope is a foreshadow of standing in the presence of Jesus Christ Himself.
Oh, I really didn't want to know that...
What you lack is imagination and a romantic heart.
What you lack is a firm grounding in reality. You can preach to your litter of kiddies about pie and education in the sky all you want, but I want to feed and educate mine here and now, before they die.
