Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Vasectomies, Tubal ligation and religion/faith/God (moral or wrong)
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 9:10AM #31
karbie
Posts: 3,299

tmarie--that's exactly why it got that nickname. Trust me, you haven't missed anything by not having PMS. Perhaps that female teacher who told all of us the only reason to have any problems like cramps and migraines with your periods was because you were fighting becoming a woman had never experienced any herself. It didn't make it any less of a crock to hand out to members of your own sex. Or maybe if she'd told me when I was 11--I tried her mode of thinking; guess what? Didn't work!


 


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 4:23PM #32
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 22, 2009 -- 2:44PM, karbie wrote:


  The " Vatican Roulette" refers to the Rhythm Method as laid out by RC doctrine,  NOT  modern fertility awareness. HINT: the thermometer to check for an increase in temperature to mark ovulation as "cheating" might have been a clue.


 Actually, you may run into some of the PC followers here who consider birth control of ANY kind to be the same as genocide.


If you've bothered to read many posts, you'll see that I am in favor of birth control and I've never said that it had to be done with chemicals. I have no problem with modern methods of pinpointing ovulation; that's why I have a son and a nephew.


Feel free to assume ignorance and prejudice where they don't exist, though.




The phrase "Vatican Roulette" is anti-catholic code speak, and is a clear sign of your own prejudice.


The "Rhythm Method" you appear to be referring to is in actuality called the Calander Rhythm Method, and is not specificed by Catholic Church doctrine, and has not been taught professionally in 30 years.  It fell out of favor when modern fertility awarness methods became available in the 1950's $ 1960's.


Cross checking the positive sign of temperature rise against the negative sign of mucus dry up is simply observing normal human fertility signs.  If it's "cheating", then God provided the cheat sheet....


Again, what you don't know about modern fertility awareness is a lot....

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 4:34PM #33
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 23, 2009 -- 8:01AM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Just goes to show, BHR, that jj knows NOTHING about women.   If he knew ANY thing, he'd know that not all women have "bodily signs".  But then, we all know the Church and its lackeys don't care about women, except as beasts of burden to be controlled.


I don't have any "bodily signs".  I have never been regular... Never had pms.  Never had any idea when, or if anything would happen.


The rythm method ONLY works for those who get up at the same time every day.  Those who can take their temp, before they get out of bed, AT THE SAME TIME every day.   Many, MANY of us don't have that luxury.  I've gotten up at 4 am for kids' school field trips.  Now, sometimes I get up at 6 to go to work, sometimes I get to sleep in until 8, if we're going on a trip I'm up at 4 to finalize all details and get the car loaded.  




The "rythm method", as you so deftly spelled it, doesn't require a thermometer.


The taking of the temperature is just one sign, and is not absolutely necessary for modern fertility awareness anyway.  In my house,the temperature taking job is mine.  I have taken my wife's temperature at the same time for over 12 years.  It's no more difficult than brushing your teeth or your hair.


You are being pompous and silly.

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 5:33PM #34
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

my problem with the rhythm method, or NFP, or whatever  you want to call it, is that it essentially kowtows to the idea that sex is for the man in the relationship.  Most women enjoy sex more when they are fertile, which is precisely the time when they cannot have it with NFP. 


NFP, in other words, is just one more method that places the burden on the woman instead of the man.


Just out of curiosity, JJ, how many children have you and your wife had since you started NFP?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 6:13PM #35
karbie
Posts: 3,299

My cousin converted to RC when he married and all 3 kids of course go to Catholic schools.Everyone in the family has been fine about it all along; go to their First Communions, etc and buy things from them we don't need for fundraisers for their school. My Grandpa was baptized RC but ended up not being raised that way because the orphanage he ended up in wasn't a RC one. So when my cousin converted it was more like the completion of a circle than anything else.


I wasn't raised to be against anything on religious grounds.


The phrase you dislike so intensely is hardly original. I hadn't heard of it until doing a term paper on the various methods of family planning, along with side effects and rate of effectiveness. That was back in the early 1970's and at that time using a thermometer to detect ovulation to prevent pregnancy was still considered "cheating" because it required an artificial aid instead of relying strictly on the calendar for family planning. Got it?


So you take her temperature every morning ? Good for you--and there is no sarcasm implied here. That would have been a problem for us because of the varying shifts my husband has worked during the 32 years we've been married as of this October.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2009 - 10:47PM #36
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

Yes, Karbie, the whole temp thing is a problem for a lot of people.  It would have been difficult for me to take mine when I was trying to keep my daughter from dying at 6 in the morning, and while I was planted by her bedside while she was in the hospital.


Charlie's health, alone, would have interfered with any nfp for us.


Plus with a vasectomy there is no worry.   After that first year, once we knew he was sterile, no more condoms, no more pills... sex was fun again.  Sex without worry is the best kind.


So, I don't care what the old fogies in Rome say... Until they have to live a real life, support children, pay bills, work... they're not going to dictate how many kids I have.

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2009 - 10:23AM #37
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 23, 2009 -- 5:33PM, bluehorserunning wrote:


my problem with the rhythm method, or NFP, or whatever  you want to call it, is that it essentially kowtows to the idea that sex is for the man in the relationship.  Most women enjoy sex more when they are fertile, which is precisely the time when they cannot have it with NFP. 


NFP, in other words, is just one more method that places the burden on the woman instead of the man.


Just out of curiosity, JJ, how many children have you and your wife had since you started NFP?




An interesting question.  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.


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.  


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....


First,


It is scientifically verifiable that one of the primary side effects of the Birth Control Pill is libido suppression.  Why?  Because the main hormonal trigger of the BCP - ovulation suppression - is accomplished by manipulating the hormonal signals in a woman's body to have it believe it is pregnant.  So, the BCP, a drug invented by a man, "frees" a woman to have sex anytime she wants by tricking her body into thinking it's pregnant.  Now that makes sense to you?  This is "healthy"?


Second,


NFP is only information gathering.  Whether a couple decides to have sexual relations or not is completely a separate process.  Nothing in the process of monitoring fertility inhibits the natural state of a woman's body.  Yet, you think this is somehow limiting a woman to be at the service of a man.  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.


That is to say you would see the desire to have sex the most during the fertile time as somehow "unfair" for women.  If that is so, then your issue is not with men, it is with God, for that is how he designed female fertility.


Third,


Sex is for BOTH the man and the woman in the relationship.  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.  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.


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.  I can love my parents in an "upward" fashion, and I love my children in a "downward" fashion, but I love my wife as an equal.  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.


What you lack is imagination and a romantic heart.  This culture has numbed you into believing your sexuality is for your use, when in fact it is a gift for you to offer to your spouse, or to God, and through that selflessness, discover the Real Love of Life.

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2009 - 10:28AM #38
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 23, 2009 -- 6:13PM, karbie wrote:


My cousin converted to RC when he married and all 3 kids of course go to Catholic schools.Everyone in the family has been fine about it all along; go to their First Communions, etc and buy things from them we don't need for fundraisers for their school. My Grandpa was baptized RC but ended up not being raised that way because the orphanage he ended up in wasn't a RC one. So when my cousin converted it was more like the completion of a circle than anything else.


I wasn't raised to be against anything on religious grounds.


The phrase you dislike so intensely is hardly original. I hadn't heard of it until doing a term paper on the various methods of family planning, along with side effects and rate of effectiveness. That was back in the early 1970's and at that time using a thermometer to detect ovulation to prevent pregnancy was still considered "cheating" because it required an artificial aid instead of relying strictly on the calendar for family planning. Got it?


So you take her temperature every morning ? Good for you--and there is no sarcasm implied here. That would have been a problem for us because of the varying shifts my husband has worked during the 32 years we've been married as of this October.




No sarcasm taken.... and congratulations on beating the odds.  Thirty two years of marriage requires a lot of giving and self sacrifice, and should be cheered as a great virtue!!


Yes, shiftwork is a hassle.  Of course, it hassles many things other than just practicing NFP.


And the temperature sign is just one of the two primary signs.  It happens to be the only sign I can help with, for while I consider my wife and I to be very close, I draw the line on helping with the mucus sign.....

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2009 - 10:30AM #39
johnnyjoe
Posts: 2,218

Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:47PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Yes, Karbie, the whole temp thing is a problem for a lot of people.  It would have been difficult for me to take mine when I was trying to keep my daughter from dying at 6 in the morning, and while I was planted by her bedside while she was in the hospital.


Charlie's health, alone, would have interfered with any nfp for us.


Plus with a vasectomy there is no worry.   After that first year, once we knew he was sterile, no more condoms, no more pills... sex was fun again.  Sex without worry is the best kind.


So, I don't care what the old fogies in Rome say... Until they have to live a real life, support children, pay bills, work... they're not going to dictate how many kids I have.




You don't either.


God decides how many kids you have.  For all your fertility, even when you blunt it with a surgery, a barrier, or a chemical, you cannot provide the spark of life.  You are only given the material means, not the REAL part - the soul.

"If Samson could slay 1000 Philistines with only the jawbone of an ass,
think what God could do with a complete ass."
St. John Vianney
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2009 - 10:39AM #40
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

Jun 25, 2009 -- 10:30AM, johnnyjoe wrote:


Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:47PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


Yes, Karbie, the whole temp thing is a problem for a lot of people.  It would have been difficult for me to take mine when I was trying to keep my daughter from dying at 6 in the morning, and while I was planted by her bedside while she was in the hospital.


Charlie's health, alone, would have interfered with any nfp for us.


Plus with a vasectomy there is no worry.   After that first year, once we knew he was sterile, no more condoms, no more pills... sex was fun again.  Sex without worry is the best kind.


So, I don't care what the old fogies in Rome say... Until they have to live a real life, support children, pay bills, work... they're not going to dictate how many kids I have.




You don't either.


God decides how many kids you have.  For all your fertility, even when you blunt it with a surgery, a barrier, or a chemical, you cannot provide the spark of life.  You are only given the material means, not the REAL part - the soul.




 


Hmmm...  Then God agreed with me... Cuz that vasectomy took and I haven't looked back since.  No more kids and no regrets.

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook