Pandora's Nfp

[Aloysius]

if you are having problems conceiving, then you use NFP. very simple; no problem there. It's only when it becomes periods of avoidance and periods of spacing that it moves into a non-ideal situation because of econmic, health, or psychological factors outside of your control

if you are not, I see no reason to use it. but there may be reason to chart your cycle anyway, but not necessarily plan around it. if there are no circumstances disrupting the normal flow of sex within marriage (ie one which does not plan conception one way or the other, as marriage has been done in Christianity since the beginning) then the normal flow should continue allowing children to come in in God's timing and God's planning.

adoption is an extra-ordinary situation in the good sense of the word extraordinary. if you are well off enough to not only feel free to engage in the marital act but also bring in existing children to take care of, that is commendable. if you are unable to conceive physically as a married couple, then taking in children to take care of is commendable. this is certainly not contrary to the idea that the MARITAL ACT should be, in the ideal situation, left as an organic mystery; that it should not be made subject to human will as if it was the parents who decided when they should conceive rather than God.

our work as co-operators and co-creators ends, in the normative ideal situation, with when and where we will conceive a child. that should be left as a more organic mystery (if it is at all possible, ie these unfortunate circumstances do not impede it) by which we humbly accept God's family planning rather than our own. This is all directly indicated by Pius XII's Casti Conuubi (sp?) and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and the constant teaching of the Church; I'm not pulling it out of thin air.

I am not saying that all begetting of children should not have a factor of the will involved; just that the majority of the organic begetting should ideally be left to mystery and God's plan. When circumstances necessitate it, we make it our decision as to when and where to conceive. But if circumstances do not necessitate it, we are not free to go direct all family planning according to our own will (I quoted a paragraph in Humanae Vitae which said something directly to this effect a bit ago) as if we knew what was best; the Church still describes the preferred model for those who can acheive it as one which does not have planned parenthoods mechanically timed according to the will of the parents but responsible organically timed parenthoods which should only be made subject to the will of the parents as cases necessitate.

[cmotherofpirl]

Al the ideal was the garden of Eden...
NFP is necessary in a Catholic marriage to space out births between pregnancies to ensure the health of mother, child and the marriage. Otherwise you will have an exhausted unhealthy mother, and trust me there will be no marital intimacy from that point until mum is again a healthy "happy camper." And if mum ain't happy, NOBODY is happy.

[marielapin]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1222978' date='Mar 30 2007, 09:21 AM']Al the ideal was the garden of Eden...[/quote]

That's what I keep thinking. No one here questions the Church teaching on this Al, we are mostly questioning your insistance on intellectual idealism. I myself am somewhat of an idealist, but not so much as you are. All it takes is a big slap in the face with reality to make you recoil and realize things are not so simple or ideal, and how much we really lost with the Fall.

Even with NFP, we still cannot directly control when we conceive. This is where I think the disconnect is coming here. Even with a normal, healthy couple, it can take an [i]average[/i] of six months to conceive. Its not like you can plan for an April or spring baby and schedule it in or something. There are a few ladies who may be that fertile, but for most of us the thought is ridiculous. When you are open to life and you are using NFP to try and conceive and it still takes over half a year, it gets frustrating, especially if you feel you are being called to be a parent. This is not even counting the pain of miscarriages along the way, when your body needs time to recoup. It shows you how little in control you really are compared to God.

There is a lot more mystery to this than you are giving it from your intellectualized approach. I think that is what we are trying to get across.

Edited March 30, 2007 by marielapin

[cmotherofpirl]

It like the difference beween reading about labor and experiencing it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222502' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:23 PM']Because the ideal is to not excercise your will over when and when not to have children.

It seems to me that using it to conceive children would normally involve spacing children as well. if you're going through marriage without taking this into your own hands and find that you're not able to just conceive by just participating in the marital act under normal schedules, it'd be fine to plan to have a child. I have no problem with that. but automatically implied in the planning of children is USUALLY spacing and postponements, so if those aren't involved it's not less than the ideal to use it to plan to have children you wouldn't have conceived otherwise.[/quote]
I don't think there's any problem using it to conceive. Here's another good reason: having sex too frequently can lower fertility. That's because a woman's body attacks sperm (300 million sperm to start out with, most of them are killed by phagocytosis when the white blood cells attack them, and most of them never get past the birth canal, then about half enter the wrong fallopian tube, and only a few hundred to a few thousand reach the egg). So if you're just wanting to conceive, but have no intention to avoid children, then it is reasonable not only to want to wait for your fertile time (because if you have sex before just before the fertile time, there may be significantly less sperm and lower chances when the fertile time come around), but to want to know when that fertile time is so that you can be sure not to have sex too many times (because the antibodies build up if you have sex too many times and your chance of getting pregnant actually decreases).

God bless,

Micah

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1223838' date='Mar 31 2007, 11:32 AM']So if you're just wanting to conceive, but have no intention to avoid children, then it is reasonable not only to want to wait for your fertile time (because if you have sex before just before the fertile time, there may be significantly less sperm and lower chances when the fertile time come around), but to want to know when that fertile time is so that you can be sure not to have sex too many times (because the antibodies build up if you have sex too many times and your chance of getting pregnant actually decreases).[/quote]
When a women is near her time of fertility she wants sex ALL the time, so go luck on that one :lol_grin:

[-I---Love]

(because the antibodies build up if you have sex too many times and your chance of getting pregnant actually decreases). - where is this from? this is a scary thought!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1225832' date='Apr 1 2007, 04:13 PM'](because the antibodies build up if you have sex too many times and your chance of getting pregnant actually decreases). - where is this from? this is a scary thought![/quote]
I don't believe this is exaclty the way it happens Some women can actually be allergic to their husbands sperm , but that is very rare indeed.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I just wonder...

If periodic continence was the theme of the day way back when we didn't have all this NFP knowledge-- i.e., when the situation was serious enough to actually try and avoid conceiving... what purpose is NFP really serving other than promoting a contraceptive mentality (using NFP to avoid conception IS contraceptive, it's just not "artificial")? I really struggle with this. I do not want to use NFP if/when I get married. If I shouldn't be conceiving a child, then it seems simple enough to not have sex. People will grumble about "wanting it" and the unitive aspect of sex, and while I don't deny those things, it just seems to me that we've lost the true sense of self-control and drawing close as spouses through means other than sexual intercourse. Using NFP as a means of avoiding conception promotes a contraceptive mentality that I just cannot fathom being truly acceptable. (NFP to conceive, on the other hand, if you're having troubles... GREAT!)

(...this is the reason that Fides will probably never find a husband and eventually join a convent)

[Aloysius]

too bad for you, I'm already taken. haha


here's my problem with the way people are treating NFP: they're making it out to be this positive good that is basically necessary for marriage. But the Magisterium did not do that, the Magisterium specifically praised the possibility of going through marriage without having to have recourse to NFP. it spoke of using NFP only when circumstances necessitated it. there are plenty of folks who marry and do not use NFP, and they do just fine at conceiving. I'm thinking of some traditionalist catholics I've heard talk about NFP, they don't use it. they don't find it necessary. Now I don't necessarily follow some of their conclusions (namely they think NFP probably isn't necessary for most people who use it), I don't presume to judge. But what I do know is that NFP was NEVER meant as if it were a positive good in itself which is somehow necessary to a healthy marriage.

If all this is really THAT true about conception, then how did people even conceive before we knew about NFP?

the only thing is about spacing for health; to which I say: why not just don't have sex? you have a newborn to take care of, there are more important things to be done... you can go a few months without it, seriously.

like I said fromt he beginning of the discussion: IF you're having difficulty conceiving, then planning with NFP is totally fine. But that's one of those unfortunate situations that arises to bring its necessity. It would be better, if it were possible, to simply go through your marriage without directly planning; but using it to conceive I don't have a problem with; its the corresponding and clearly connected times of using it to not conceive which are usually directly attached to using it to conceive. Because usually that's inseperable; if you're planning to conceive at one point, that usually means you're no longer planning not to conceive.

if it comes out of the ideal situation of not using NFP, then it's fine. but usually, people not using NFP generally end up conceiving. sure, if you're not conceiving then make a plan... but if you can get by without having to make such a plan then you should do so.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228195' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:52 AM']the only thing is about spacing for health; to which I say: why not just don't have sex? you have a newborn to take care of, there are more important things to be done... you can go a few months without it, seriously.[/quote]

And the health thing doesn't only apply to spacing. If a woman is observing her cervical mucus, then she can use that to document changes, which can help to detect such things as cervical cancer much earlier than she would normally be able to notice something wrong. And yes, spacing is important, and for me it would have to be about a year or so in between children because of my low body weight. Otherwise, I'd probably miscarry, as my mother & grandmother both did in the same situation, multiple times.

[marielapin]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1227857' date='Apr 2 2007, 09:15 PM']using NFP to avoid conception IS contraceptive, it's just not "artificial")?[/quote]

Using NFP to avoid is not objectively contraception.


NFP vs. Contraception

"Isn’t NFP the same as contraception if a married couple is using it to postpone or avoid a pregnancy that they are not ready for?"

The short answer is "No." The reason is, contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marriage act; NFP does not. In some ways, that may seem like a small difference, but in reality, the difference is huge and very important.

Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always taught that married couples have the right to "plan" their families, provided this is done in a responsible and just manner, and is done with the proper motivation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (emphasis in original text)

So, it is not "birth regulation" that the Church opposes, but selfishness and any immoral means of accomplishing that.

The Church teaches us that it was God who made us male and female, and therefore, it was by His design that the marriage act has the dual purposes of the procreation of offspring and the nurturing of love between the spouses. These purposes, designed into the marriage act, must always be respected in order to follow God's will. When a couple deliberately frustrates the procreative potential of the marriage act through contraception, they are acting against God's plan and design for marital love. On the other hand, when a couple who have a "just reason" for avoiding pregnancy choose instead to abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time of the cycle, they are not acting in violation of God’s design.

Abstaining from the marriage act does nothing to deliberately change the procreative potential of the marriage act because there is no act. Again, it is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a just reason, but how a couple postpones or avoids conception can be sinful or it can be virtuous.

Author Christopher West addresses the difference between contraception and NFP in his book, Good News About Sex & Marriage:

Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an antireligious person walking past a church. What might each do?

Let's say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the antireligious person goes inside the church and desecrates it. (I'm framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.) Which of these three persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last, of course.

Husbands and wives are called to be procreative. If they have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they are free to be non-procreative. But it's a contradiction of the deepest essence of the sacrament of marriage to be anti-procreative.

To put it another way, the Church calls spouses to love each other as they were created in the image and likeness of God. When a couple contracepts, they are deliberately acting to change the way one or both of them were created; i.e., their actions are saying to God, "We don't like your design and have a better idea." When a couple uses NFP and abstains during the fertile time, they are respecting God's design and honoring it by waiting for the infertile time.


[url="http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php"]http://ccli.org/nfp/contraception/NFPvsContraception.php[/url]


As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that "we don't want children at this time", there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing "family planning", but "family avoidance"!

There are differences between NFP and artificial birth control, but let these suffice for now. As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person's answers to some very basic questions like, "What is marriage?" What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?" Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be "used", and it fails to acknowledge God's place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God's plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage. Every couple owes it to themselves to learn more about it!

--Fr. Frank Pavone

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html[/url]

[marielapin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228195' date='Apr 3 2007, 02:52 AM']here's my problem with the way people are treating NFP: they're making it out to be this positive good that is basically necessary for marriage.

If all this is really THAT true about conception, then how did people even conceive before we knew about NFP?

the only thing is about spacing for health; to which I say: why not just don't have sex? you have a newborn to take care of, there are more important things to be done... you can go a few months without it, seriously.[/quote]

I don't think NFP is necessary for all marriages, but I do think it is a positive good and a gift and should not be treated in a "last resort" type mentality. It is only knowledge and respect of our bodies, and is therefore a knowledge and respect for God, since He is our Creator and we are formed in His Image. Using it properly is in line with the constant teaching of the Church on responsible parenthood.

(I particularly like what Paul VI has to say about responsible parenthood (what it is, and what it isn't) in his Encyclical Letter on the Regulation of Birth:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm)"]http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm[/url]

Some people did not or could not conceive before NFP or better knowledge of the human body/hormones. Then you have the women that would routinely die in childbirth or even before, due to a poor constitution and a bad miscarriage.

Not having sex is what one use of NFP is.

Edited April 3, 2007 by marielapin

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]Using NFP to avoid is not objectively contraception.[/quote]

I disagree. The sentence itself even betrays a bias. "Using NFP to AVOID"... what are we avoiding? Conception. This is why I phrased it that way in my response. It IS objectively trying to separate the two ends of the marital act. It is trying to achieve the union of the spouses through sexual intercourse without procreation. This is contraception.

Abstaining from sexual intercourse also is a means of avoiding conception, but not having sex is not using the marital act separately from its dual end: procreation and union of the spouses. I don't think NFP is "wrong" per se, I think it's dangerous ground. It gets used like a contraceptive. NFP has become in many well-meaning minds akin to "Catholic contraception." And it certainly lends itself to that misinterpretation by separating procreation and the union of the spouses. One might contend that NFP doesn't separate procreation because it does nothing to manipulate the act of intercourse. But this manipulation is not a physical one, but a mental one. "We can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant"-- if reasons are grave enough to avoid conception, aren't they grave enough to avoid the risk of conception?

[marielapin]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1228733' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:10 PM']I disagree. The sentence itself even betrays a bias. "Using NFP to AVOID"... what are we avoiding? Conception. This is why I phrased it that way in my response. It IS objectively trying to separate the two ends of the marital act. It is trying to achieve the union of the spouses through sexual intercourse without procreation. This is contraception.[/quote]

Contraception means "AGAINST" conception, not avoiding it. Contraception is a deliberate frustration of the marital act, NFP is a respect of it. Contraception does separate the two ends of the marital act. NFP confirms the two ends. They are not the same. I do agree that one can use NFP in a contraceptive and therefore sinful mentality (when selfishness rules them), but the Church teaches that NFP is good when used for just or serious reasons. This is similar to how you can use medical knowledge for good, and in respect and homage of the Creator, or how you can use that same knowledge it for selfish or evil reasons.

Edited April 3, 2007 by marielapin

[marielapin]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1228733' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:10 PM']Abstaining from sexual intercourse also is a means of avoiding conception, but not having sex is not using the marital act separately from its dual end: procreation and union of the spouses.

But this manipulation is not a physical one, but a mental one. "We can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant"-- if reasons are grave enough to avoid conception, aren't they grave enough to avoid the risk of conception?[/quote]

What do you think NFP is? You admit that not having sex is not using the marital act seperately from its duel end, yet this is what NFP is.

When you are using NFP in accordance to the teaching of the Church, and obeying Gods will as the most important, this is not how you think. This mentality is OPPOSITE to the one taught in NFP. The Church would not approve something which perpetuates and encourages this mentality.

Added note: To use NFP in league with Church teaching is to be PERPETUALLY praying and trying to discern God's will, to be in constant communication with your spouse, and in constant assessment of your own situation economically, physically and emotionally. This is incompatible with the "we can have sex and not worry about having babies" mentality, which divorces procreation from sex.

Edited April 3, 2007 by marielapin

[marielapin]

[quote name='marielapin' post='1228715' date='Apr 3 2007, 02:55 PM']I don't think NFP is necessary for all marriages, but I do think it is a positive good and a gift and should not be treated in a "last resort" type mentality.[/quote]

I want to clarify this because on reading this again I realized that what I meant should be phrased differently, to avoid misunderstanding.

I do not think NFP is necessary in all marriages. I think the knowledge that NFP is founded on is good, just as our bodies are good, but that in all knowledge, it can be perverted and used for selfishness or evil. What I meant by "last resort" (this was not a good phrase) is that I do not think that NFP should be viewed as "best of evils" type of way, that it is only slightly better than using artificial contraception because of the fact that it has the word "natural" in it and that the Church "allows" it.

The Church does approve NFP in the right conditions but also approves and encourages large families. I do think that those who promote NFP should make sure to make the distinctions clear of how and when it should be used.

[Birgitta Noel]

Here's an interesting thing to consider. Most of these documents to which we're referring were written in the 1950s and 1960s, correct?

I'm not familiar with when the Billings method was established, but I know that the Creighton method has only been around since the 1980s (maybe even the late 80s).

So, my point is this. A lot of what we're citing as positive reasons for a woman to track her cycle may not only not have been in the minds of those writing the documents, they may not have been in any one's minds. Thus, with this knowledge if the Church were to "re-write" those documents today they might make some mention in them about the benefits of NFP to the woman's health.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Aloysius]

I don't agree with taking NFP out of its proper context as a last resort. I still hold in line with Casti Conubii and, I believe, Humanae Vitae, that it really ought to be a last resort.

You betray yourselves by saying, on the one hand, that NFP is a positive good and all of those other things which have been attached to it on this thread; and on the other hand, saying it may not be for all marriages.

why do I say that? because the case is attempting to be made here that without NFP 1) there will be more miscarriages 2) women will have bad health effects 3) it will be hard to conceive at all... all these evils are brought upon marriage by the lack of NFP according to this line of reasoning.

I reject that charecterization. women died during childbirth due to poor medical knowledge; maybe it included procreating too soon after one child sometimes but mostly it was because doctors back then could not deal with complications the way doctors can nowadays.

as regards the whole 'too much sex makes conception less likely' thing: that totally makes sense and I understand it very well. periods of abstinence are good for that.

there is a difference between periods of abstinence, like after one baby is born or during lent or something; St. Paul himself mentions periods of abstinence; and NFP. NFP is having your cake and eating it too, and that is why it must be thought of as a last resort. Now, as I've been clear to mention the whole time: I'm not critiquing those who choose to use it because of circumstances, but I do believe circumstances must be present to use it. and those circumstances must rise to the occassion of actually providing a JUST CAUSE for having your cake and eating it too, for continuing marital intimacies whilst actively planning no children at that time. in the normal flow of marriage, there will be pregnancies, births, and then periods of long abstinence whilst the newborn is being taken care of. NFP is not necessary, just a period of abstinence. when Humanae Vitae speaks of spacing children, it does not mean this natural time period which would seem necessary for the health of the mother in every marriage, it means spacing them for years and years because of necessity.

Everywhere the Church speaks on NFP, she puts it in the context of a last resort. If circumstances make it not good for you to responsibly have children for a time, then use NFP. If you're having trouble conceiving; then hey, why not try NFP? but it never endorses "hey, let's decide to have no more than 3 children and make them each be three years apart" and it never contradicts the previous magisterial teaching which indicates that the ideal form of marriage would be one that accepts children out of God's providence rather than directly excercising their wills over it.

This quote from Casti Conubii I take as a direct endorsement of this paradigm of accepting children from providence
[quote]80. Even by the light of reason alone and particularly if the ancient records of history are investigated, if the unwavering popular conscience is interrogated and the manners and institutions of all races examined, it is sufficiently obvious that there is a certain sacredness and religious character attaching even to the purely natural union of man and woman, "not something added by chance but innate, not imposed by men but involved in the nature of things," since it has "God for its author and has been even from the beginning a foreshadowing of the Incarnation of the Word of God."[60]This sacredness of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises from the divine origin we have just mentioned, from its purpose which is the begetting and education of children for God, and the binding of man and wife to God through Christian love and mutual support; and finally it arises from the very nature of wedlock, whose institution is to be sought for in the farseeing Providence of God, whereby it is the means of transmitting life, thus making the parents the ministers, as it were, of the Divine Omnipotence. To this must be added that new element of dignity which comes from the sacrament, by which the Christian marriage is so ennobled and raised to such a level, that it appeared to the Apostle as a great sacrament, honorable in every way.[61][/quote]

And I have already shown where Paul VI endorses this selfsame paradigm of resigning your will to providence in procreation.

It is the difference between a man coming up to the priest and being given the Eucharist by the priest and a man coming up to the priest and picking up his own host to consume. The former is preferable, the latter not permitted unless a grave reason necessitated it (say the priest's hands had been cut off, or even he had terrible arthritis and could not even hold the host.) It is totally fine if it must be done, but there is a breach in the symbology of receptiveness which must not be allowed to overtake the mindset.

I really cannot tell if we are reading the same documents when you say "it shouldn't be seen as a last resort"... everything I read from the Magisterium indicates to me that that is precisely what it is: a last resort. sure, it may be commonly needed and when it is it is perfectly fine and moral to be used, but it is still a non-preferable last resort.

As for the difference in methodology of NFP used: when the documents are examined for their doctrinal and idealogical base, we can find an idealogy in them which is totally applicable even to a method which has some of the good benefits described. Why? Because the methodology is merely the tracking of cycles, NOT the planning of children. The idealogical and doctrinal base of these documents is all about using the knowledge of cycles to plan children as a last resort; but obtaining the knowledge is an entirely different matter. knowing the cycle better and understanding it better for your health is different than using that knowledge to decide when to have and not have children.

but this is a distinciton I think keeps being overlooked. Of course, I started this thread with a breach in this distinction in mind; thinking that the knowledge would inevitably affect the planning of families no matter what. But I think I can re-establish the distinction: there is knowing the cycle, and then there is using the knowledge of the Cycle to plan when to have and not have children. The latter is what is called NFP, Natural Family Planning; the former is not. So when I refer to NFP as a last resort, that doesn't mean getting to know the cycle is a last resort. You can proceed through the marriage completely knowledgeable about the cycle but only decide to use that information if circumstances arise which make it necessary.

[marielapin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229255' date='Apr 4 2007, 12:36 AM']As for the difference in methodology of NFP used: when the documents are examined for their doctrinal and idealogical base, we can find an idealogy in them which is totally applicable even to a method which has some of the good benefits described. Why? Because the methodology is merely the tracking of cycles, NOT the planning of children. The idealogical and doctrinal base of these documents is all about using the knowledge of cycles to plan children as a last resort; but obtaining the knowledge is an entirely different matter. knowing the cycle better and understanding it better for your health is different than using that knowledge to decide when to have and not have children.

but this is a distinciton I think keeps being overlooked. Of course, I started this thread with a breach in this distinction in mind; thinking that the knowledge would inevitably affect the planning of families no matter what. But I think I can re-establish the distinction: there is knowing the cycle, and then there is using the knowledge of the Cycle to plan when to have and not have children. The latter is what is called NFP, Natural Family Planning; the former is not. So when I refer to NFP as a last resort, that doesn't mean getting to know the cycle is a last resort. You can proceed through the marriage completely knowledgeable about the cycle but only decide to use that information if circumstances arise which make it necessary.[/quote]

Then we actually agree. I'm glad you mentioned this distinction because I think that was what was at issue here. In my last post you will see that I wanted to reword my "last resort" phrase. I consider myself to use NFP to track fertility, but you are right, using it to plan is different. Using NFP to plan should be used as a last resort. I just don't like it being labeled as something bad. Just because something is not ideal, does not mean it is bad. And "Pandora's Box" has the connotation of being something bad, to me.