Talk:Natural family planning/Archive 1

message: any particular reason that the link to Woomb (Billings Method) was removed from the natural family planning page?Wanfactor 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Is this considered inappropriate advertising? I thought the link may be relevant since the product in question is created for the purpose of Natural Family Planning for couples. There are a few other products that are more inexpensive. Would a link to a site reviewing the product (rather than selling it) be better?
*http://omsoul.com/srchNFP.php?srchnfp=Ladycomp
*http://gadgets.engadget.com/2004/08/02/lady-comp/ (outdated price info)
*http://www.ladycomp.com/
*http://www.totallycatholic.com/nfp.htm
*http://www.bioself.com/ (bioself)
*http://www.johnleemd.com/store/more_ovu-tech.html (Ovu-Tech)
About.com also mentions "Persona, Clear Plan" as well as "PFT 1-2-3 Kit, Maybe Baby, Fertility Tracker"... which use different approaches.
:My main concern with the LadyComp and other ovulation detectors is their low effectiveness rates when used to avoid pregnancy.  They do very poorly when confronted with multiple estrogen peaks, the software for detecting the temperature shift makes occasional errors (it only takes once to get pregnant!), and the clinical experience rules they use pre-o is more liberal than most FA or NFP teachers prefer.
:Secondly, if you have the time and motivation to take your temperature and get a saliva reading every day, and do a vaginal reading to confirm post-o status (which doesn't always work) - what's the big deal about taking your temperature and observing cervical mucus when you urinate?  It's quite a bit cheaper, a properly trained woman/couple making their own charts is much more effective, and I don't see any reason manual charting is more difficult than using a computerized ovulation detector. Lyrl 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Comp (and similar products) 

message: Do you really think it should link to sexual intercourse? The Marital Act has a specific meaning which is a particular subset of the article on sexual intercourse. An unintentional association between 'alternate' forms of 'sexual expression' may occur, which appears to be in contradiction to the discussion of abstinence and chastity in the context of natural family planning. Wanfactor 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like it should link to something, for users who haven't come across the term before.  Perhaps someone would create an article on 'marital act'?  Or link it to the procreation article, but add some content there to that effect?  Or, perhaps the intercourse link could instead be put on the word 'intercourse' later in that paragraph.Lyrl 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would be wise to approach Catholic teaching from the Theology of the Body perspective that it is sexual differentiation that is meant to draw man and woman together. The Natural Law approach is both not specifically Catholic (other than because few other religions use that approach) and not technically theology. Creating a 'marital act' article might end up being redundant with sexual intercourse since 'marital act' does not have a unique definition. Wanfactor 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marital Act link 

message: I feel like it's repetitive to say some methods of NFP can have a 1% failure rate, and then say its failure rate compares favorably with artificial methods.  Either one statement or the other should be sufficient, but both just make the introduction too long.
The use of the word 'unnatural', which has a negative connotation, is POV.
The Standard Days Method - the one that uses CycleBeads - is already mentioned in the opening paragraph.  Adding a sentence about CycleBeads as if they are a seperate method is misleading.  Lyrl 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12-Jan-05 revert 

message: "It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse as barrier methods sometimes do"
Which interferes more with spontaneity: waiting four seconds to put on a condom, or waiting a week to have sex?  I think both interfere differently, and which is desireable from the spontaneity perspective is pretty subjective; it seems a matter of personal preference.  Thoughts on how to clarify this? yEvb0 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse in the same way as barrier methods can"? Lyrl 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spontaneous"? 

message: "NFP has no possible side effects, unlike chemical and hormonal contraceptives..."
I have heard that it can result in children accidentally being conceived from old sperm leading to a higher rate of birth defects. 86.129.163.177 10:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the several studies on this issue have conflicting results as to whether old sperm produce a higher rate of birth defects.  Secondly, couples trying to conceive by having random intercourse are likely to accidentally conceive from old sperm.  Couples trying to conceive by using NFP know when they ovulate, so they can time intercourse appropriately to ensure the availability of fresh sperm.  The possible increased risk to accidental pregnancies would seem to be balanced by the possible decreased risk to intended pregnancies.  In any case, I don't think the issue has enough evidence either way to be addressed in this article.Lyrl 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we accept all that (which I don't really), "more deformed children" is a "possible side effect" so the statement "...no possible side effects..." is false and should be removed. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether the issue of birth defects should be addressed at all is a separate matter and depends on whether the evidence of deformity is credible. If there is credible evidence, this should be included because NFP exists almost purely for religious-moral reasons and if is creates something as immoral as avoidably deformed babies, that is a relevant issue. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No possible side effects? 

message: There is a very common usage of the word "Natural family planning" that is synonymous with Fertility awareness and possibly natural birth control (just search google). It seems very POV to say that NFP is always religiously motivated, when that does not cover all uses of the word. I would propose merging those 2 other articles here. I want to see what other people think, and I want to know what sort of sources people have to back up the usage of these 3 terms. I posted a couple links at Talk:Rhythm Method.--Andrew c 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural birth control includes "abstinence, methods of fertility awareness, the Lactational Amenorrhea Method, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), and possibly heat-based contraception... anal sex and oral sex, inasmuch as they are sexual activity with no or a low risk of conception, may also be described as a natural birth control method. Promoters of possible herbal contraceptives such as wild yam, Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot), or neem may refer to the herbs as natural birth control."  This is MUCH broader than either FA or NFP.  I will post on the FA vs. NFP argument at Talk:Rhythm Method since that seems to be the active place for that discussion. Lyrl 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible merge proposal 

message: From the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth (see the references section) 0.2% of American women aged 15-44 use fertility awareness.  0.7% use Rhythm - that's over three times as many!
In addition to Rhythm still being (compared to FA, at least) very popular, the Standard Days Method is highly promoted in developing countries because it is so easy to teach.
While FA teachers certainly consider Rhythm obsolete, they are somewhat biased, being FA teachers and all.  Saying that Rhythm is "generally considered obsolete" is simply not accurate. Lyrl 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a less POV way of putting this would be to say that modern FA is advocated by western doctors because it is more accurate/reliable than the rhythm method, right?--Andrew c 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FA isn't usually understood or promoted by doctors much at all.  FA instructors are not usually doctors, but rather women's or public health experts.  I think perhaps we could say in the NFP article that Rhythm is just less accurate, since it's still taught, apparently, but in the FA article say that it's not (as I believe it already does). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhythm method obsolete? 

message: The FA article describes NFP as religiously-motivated.  I thought it was, but I know more about FA than NFP, so we could use some discussion on the matter.  NFP prohibits barrier methods during fertile times and orgasmic acts outside of marital intercourse.  What is the motivation for that, if not religious?  I can see people who are not particularly religous using NFP, but not strictly following those guidelines.  In that case, they'd be practicing FA, not necessarilty NFP, am I right?  MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religiously motivated 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Three sections ("Rationale", "Benefits", "Disadvantages") have been tagged in their entirety as unreferenced, even though each section already has references to at least some of its statements.  I believe I can find references for all of this material (or make minor modifications if other editors believe they are necessary), but before I go spending my time tagging every sentence: could someone clarify exactly what material they are contesting? Lyrl 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who tagged those sections, and I'm not contesting anything. We just need to make sure wikipedia is verifiable. The first section "Rational" says "Catholic doctrine holds"... what Catholic doctrine? I perhaps there is one citation that can cover that whole section, but whenever we claim a POV holds a belief, we should cite those claims (also, does Humanae Vitae need a fuller citation, or is the wikilink good enough?) Same thing for the next two section. There may be just one or two citations that cover all those claims, but I think this would be a better article with those backing it up, if you know what I mean. I'll see if I can't help find some citations as well.--Andrew c 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Response: I'm not sure if this claim is OR. While it may make perfect sense to you and I, it isn't verifiable (or anything but OR) if another reliable, published source didn't make the connection first. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and we cannot be the first source to report on information. --Andrew c 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced tags 

message: This article seems to be a mishmash of two very different topics. One is the methods of Natural Family Planning, and the other is the philososphy/motivations of the people using Natural Family Planning. Natural Family Planning could be quite simply defined as any of several methods of family planning that do not involve sterilization or contraceptive devices or drugs; coitus is avoided during the fertile time of a woman's menstrual cycle (http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/natural_family_planning) without reference to the motivation that the person may have for using such a method. On the other hand is the Catholic philosophy which is likely the motivation for many people using NFP. Catholic sexual teaching  is a whole topic in and of itself, and there are various approaches to be taken to it, including Natural Law, Church Tradition, and the personalist approach of John Paul II. Since the page about Fertility Awareness Methods appears to be covering most of the methods of Natural Family Planning from a methodological aspect, perhaps Natural Family Planning could exist as a subtopic in that section (and redirect to it), and a different page about Catholic Sexual Ethics could be started with information about Catholic teaching. In the current state of the article, the definition of the phrase Natural Family Planning does not match either with other sources or even with the Catholic understanding of the idea, since through Natural Law, Natural Family Planning belongs to the natural world and not to Catholic theology. (In other words, the conclusions about contraception that the Catholic Church reaches do not come from its religious knowledge, but rather from an analysis of human nature that is possible for anyone, including non-Catholics.)  Wanfactor 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religously Motivated NFP? 

message: One of my edits (adding commentary that a cause and effect relationship between NFP use and divorce had not been studied) was recently reverted on the basis that studies are "not capable of demonstrating a cause-effect relationship".
But - I thought exploring cause-effect relationships was the entire point of randomized clinical trials?  It would be entirely possible to randomize a group of people to receive NFP instruction vs. instruction in other family planning methods.  While a portion of each group would choose methods other than what they were instructed in, there would be some bias to choose the methods they had the most knowledge of.  Measures of relationship satisfaction in such a randomized study would reveal more information about the effect of NFP on relationships than correlation studies that have been done so far.
Even measuring relationship satisfaction instead of looking at divorce rates would provide more information.  There are certainly groups of people who will stay in relationships despite being unhappy.  For example, older people more commonly tolerate unhappy marriage, vs. younger people getting divorced when they are unhappy - though average relationship satisfaction is the same across age groups.
The current studies do not explore the NFP-divorce relationship nearly as much as it can be explored.  And I think some statement about that lack is important to that section. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not possible to study cause and effect relationships? 

message: If a study were possible to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship, which studies are by nature incapable of demonstrating, the divorce-rate ratio among NFP users would be as close to a cause-effect relationship as is possible. Nevertheless, it is not possible for a study to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship.  Remember, to appropriately demonstrate a cause-effect relationship in a scientific study, one must eliminate ALL extraneous factors perfectly. Any study of human beings is incapable of such a controlled environment - it is not possible for a hypothetical study to rule out socioeconomic status, religiosity, cultural conditioning, ethnicity, and so on.  Therefore, your comment about studies not demonstrating a cause-effect relationship is a fallacious straw man, because this study is not possible ... ever.  No study of human beings could ever meet the qualifications to elevate it to cause-effect status.  That's why scientific studies are replicated over and over and over again.  However, what the NFP-divorce study DOES demonstrate is a statistically significant correlation between NFP practice and marriage survival.  In light of this, any editorialization that "no studies exploring a cause and effect relationship between the use of NFP and lowered divorce rates have been carried out" (which is not possible for a clinical study, due to a multiplicity of uncontrollable external factors) is an unfortunate misleading of the reader from an otherwise statistically significant positive correlation between NFP use and marriage longevity.El Clarque
::I have not claimed that a study could positively demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between NFP and divorce.  But more studies could certainly explore the issues further, as I outlined above.  For example, are users of NFP more willing to suffer unhappy marriages than non-users, thus accounting for the lowered divorce rate?  Or are they less willing to tolerate unhappy marriages, but their marriages are so much happier the divorce rate is lower anyway?  These issues have simply not been explored.  I do not mean to imply that there is any evidence against NFP creating better marriages - but I think it very important to note the lack of research in this area. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Causality is notoriously difficult to prove through observational studies, so that sentence could be omitted. On the other hand it may be fair to note that these citations are not published or peer reviewed studies. That being said most so-called 'research findings' are not peer-reviewed, published, or for that matter even impartial. (eg. drug companies doing trials on their own drugs.) Wanfactor 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not possible to demonstrate cause and effect relationships in studies of human beings ... too many factors 

message: I plan to edit the article to say "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" throughout.  "Pregancy rate" is more courteous to people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy;  it's more neutral, less negative.  I'm giving an opportunity for discussion here first before making the change.  --Coppertwig 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" 

message: I have a number of objections to the recent edit of the intro:
*It stats that natural family planning is a method (singular) that is equivalent to FA with behavoir restrictions.  My perspective is that the term natural family planning encompasses (currently) three types of methods.  LAM is a set of behavior practices to reduce fertility, not a way to be aware of fertility.  And FA teachers don't want to touch Rhythm with a ten foot pole; while arguably they are both ways to be aware of probably fertility, I think there are equally good reasons to distinguish the observational methods from the statistical methods.
*While natural family planning is most commonly defined by users as methods approved by the Catholic Church, non-Catholic also use the methods, with behavior restrictions, for their own religious reasons (see the book "Open Embrace").  I believe the new hatnote and intro fail to include this group of users.
*Creighton and Billings (organizations that promote mucus-only methods) are the largest NFP organizations in the world.  I don't think the statement "NFP generally refers to the Sympto Thermal Method" is accurate.  People who don't realize NFP involves behavoir restrictions, or that there is more than one kind of NFP, use the term interchangably with FA.  Thus the hatnote linking to the FA article. But I believe the article would be better if is chose a definition and stuck with it, rather than switching back and forth between the definition used by most users of NFP (multiple methods, with behavoir restrictions) and the definition used by many secular American sources that do not actually practice NFP or FA (interchangable with FA).
*The Rhythm Method has the same effectiveness as the contraceptive sponge and cervical cap.  While these are not held up as models of effectiveness, people generally don't refer to them as "ineffective" - correctly used, they do prevent a large number of pregnancies.
*I find "cervical mucus" a much more succint and equally useful description as "mucus qualities found at the cervix, or mucus qualities found at the vulva".  I also completely fail to see the relevance of a long paragraph on one specific method (Billings) in the introduction to an article that is not about specific methods.
*I believe many people find the failure rates of natural family planning methods to be of great interest - the recent edit completely deleted all mentions of failure rates.
I'm sure the previous version was guilty as accused of being unobjective and poorly structured.  But I don't think this new edit made things any better.  Any suggestions? Lyrl    Talk     C   03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it; there were too many errors, several opinions, and irrelevant information.  Joie de Vivre 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This article has been categorized with methods of determining fertility for purposes of periodic abstinence since July 2006.  It was recently removed from the birth control sub-category :Category:Periodic abstinence (diff).  The editor who removed this category nominated the periodic abstinence category for deletion.  A statement made at the deletion discussion was that including this article in a sub-cat of :Category:Methods of birth control such as :Category:Periodic abstinence was opposed because the editor was "concerned that Catholic theological concepts are being categorized as discrete methods of birth control".
I believe that this article should be categorized with articles describing methods of fertility awareness, primarily because the term is so commonly used interchangeably with fertility awareness, with no religious connotations (    ).  NFP is also by far the more common term, with 545,000 Google hits vs. 154,000 for fertility awareness.  Categories are supposed to be navigationally useful, and someone familiar with the non-religious usage of NFP (and not familiar with the term "fertility awareness") would not be looking for it in a religious category.  What do others think? Lyrl    Talk     C   20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am not a category purist. They work to roughly group similar concepts together. While technically, NFP may not be a method in itself, it should still be grouped together in the behavioral methods category. Also, because NFP has been used interchangeably with the rhythm method and FA at times (with no religious connotation), in those instances the term is being used to describe a specific method of BC. The term is more common, and Lyrl makes some good arguments above. So yeah, I'd support categorizing this in with the other similar articles. -Andrew c 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a rough consensus at Categories for discussion to create a new :Category:Fertility awareness.  Per the above discussion, I would like to include this article in the new category. Lyrl    Talk     C   01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category - should this article be grouped with fertility awareness related articles? 

message: This article has been moved to :Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of :Category:Periodic abstinence, :Category:Fertility awareness, and :Category:Natural family planning.  Please bring up any concerns at :Category talk:Periodic abstinence.  If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category move 

message: The article says "The Catholic church permits sex during pregnancy, and after the woman goes through menopause." I don't think the word "permits" is really the correct one to convey the Church's position. The church "permits" sex between a married couple pretty much all the time - sex being seen as a natural healthy part of a marriage relationship. What is the informational purpose of this sentance in the  first place? j-beda 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording was introduced here by an editor with whom I had a number of conflicts.  I did not like that change, but chose to avoid a fight with that editor at that time.  I'd be perfectly fine if you changed or modified that wording now. LyrlTalk     C   01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... permits sex ... 

message: OP -- This should not be here.  This article is not about the roman catholic church.  Why should it be considered an ADVANTAGE that NFP is in accordance with an irrational organization that has no good reason for only "allowing" this method of BC?  It should be listed as a DISADVANTAGE that this complies with the catholic church's dogma.   I have removed this from the advantages for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.203 (talk • contribs) 
:First of all, this article is about the family planning method approved by the Roman Catholic Church (see the top of the article.) It's already sourced that NFP is approved by the Catholic Church. Removing this because you believe the Church is "irrational" is a point-of-view claim. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, and that means we can't remove parts of articles just because we disagree with them personally. Chardish (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages: In accordance with Roman Catholic teachings 

message: I had added the following webpage for the Ladycomp and Babycomp:
www.healthybirthcontrol.com
for the reason that the webpage is dedicated to the full scientific research data on these monitors.
Research on these monitors show that the Ladycomp has THE SAME EFFECTIVENESS as the birth control pill, the reliability of which is unmatched in any other form of natural contraception.
In addition, it is far simpler, faster and less messy to use than charting, taking the mucus, urinating etc etc.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyakarani (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these claims independently verified? Furthermore, judging by your contributions you appear to be a single-purpose account intended to promote this particular product and website on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core policies in order to productively help the encyclopedia. Thanks. - Chardish (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''www.healthybirthcontrol.com'' 

message: Yuck, what a nightmare, this shound never have ended in this manner, i wish you guys all the best getting the article to GA. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindsight 

message: You mean MAKE IT CLEAR, like putting a banner at the top that says "This article is about methods of family planning approved by the Roman Catholic Church. For a more general use of the term, see fertility awareness," or having the first sentence read something like, "Natural family planning (NFP) is a term referring to the family planning methods approved by the Roman Catholic Church."  
Oh, wait.  That's how the article already begins.  
Where exactly does the confusion come in again?  Do you think readers forget this information by the time they get to the next section?  Don't you think that the 36 mentions of the word Catholic in the article would remind them?  Just like the article says (twice!) at the very top, NFP really is a specifically Roman Catholic thing.  The rest of the world is over at fertility awareness.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Natural Family Planning" occurs much more often in the medical literature than "Fertility Awareness": 840 pubmed hits for NFP versus 96 for FA (and 39 of these 96 hits also include "Natural Family Planning").  I thus think NFP is the more medically common term.  Another term, which for philosophical reasons is my preferred term, is "periodic abstinence" (179 hits on pubmed).  Pruss (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic only