Postpartum NFP question

agapecarrie

Lalath,

I first didn't answer the question because I was under time crunch, but honestly, I do find your tone quite over the top on this one...I NEVER claimed Creighton is perfect. Ever ever ever did I claim that. 2nd, I never implied there was no method failure, and your hyperbole question with "are you implying that creighton has never had a method failure" didn't really need a respone...especially because 3 ) you answered it yourself.

Creighton is a very different philosophy, as I've noted several times. Take the class to understand the ins and outs of it, I can't really. Except that you did explain it really well, you just don't empathize with it, as you've admitted.

If there is a 2% chance of getting pregnant, then there is still a chance, and if you use the day of 2% chance, then you are doing achieving related behavior. This 2% is in comparison to many women, not just the one user making the decision. Creighton is completely in the moment symptom based, and not based on past experiences, so while the stat may be 2% in general, for this particular cycle and this woman, it could be 50%. I don't understand why you are so adamant that they MUST use a sliding scale mentality of how likely pregnancy is. This has nothing to do with creighton declaring a couple's intention. Creighton says what days a pregnancy can occur. A couple decides whether they want to avoid or achieve, and makes the decision accordingly. I LOVE THIS. 

One correction. Creighton always says "END OF FOURTH DAY". the 4th day isn't available till the end of it.  Pre-peak days are only available at the end of the day (and I think, only every other day, but I could be wrong on that). 

I want to emphasize something here to everyone (including lurkers), while I think its great answering questions and stating different rules, please do not take this as factual instruction to follow, as the teachers/books are the best source. 

professorscience

I still think that it's more of an attitude thing. For example, Billings has a threeday rule for postpeak. If H and I have sex on Day 3, and our goal is to avoid, we're being less cautious or less "conservative" than someone else might be. Obviously we're engaging in "achieving" behavior, but the likelihood of pregnancy actually occurring is very low, as PPs have stated. At this point I really feel like we're splitting hairs over language.

lalaith50

[QUOTE].I NEVER claimed Creighton is perfect. 
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

<div>That's why I said you "say things that <em><strong>sound like</strong>..."</em></div><div>(not just this post, but I'm not going to go back through old posts looking for examples right now.)</div><div>Your tone can be very abrasive, know-it-all, and inflexible, especially when talking about Creighton. And I don't think that does the method any service.</div><div>
</div><div><div>[QUOTE]You cannot use creighton "conservatively" or "liberally" there is no such distinction in creighton. You are either avoiding or achieving. That is one reason why I like creighton method philosophy.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]</div>
[QUOTE] That distinction doesn't exist in Creighton.  This is doubting your own observations, NOT using the method differently... If you are using the method to avoid, then those are abstaining days. 
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE] </div><div>(that was in response to "there is always a chance that I missed or misidentified CM." This could include CM that could be <em>imperceptible</em>, not just doubting your observations.)</div><div>
</div><div>I spent several posts (which seem to have been wasted,) trying to show/explain how it is possible for the METHOD to fail, and how some people might choose to add their own days/rules to be even more "careful" or "conservative." </div><div>
</div><div>It's not as black and white as "You cannot use Creighton 'conservatively' or 'liberally'." </div><div>Creighton, like any method, has a failure rate, and like any method, has days that are more or less likely to result in pregnancy.</div><div>
</div><div>While most people in our world wouldn't admit this, if you're having <em>sex</em> then you are in some way "open to pregnancy," since either your NFP method or form of birth control could fail. </div><div>So, <em>of course</em> there should be some sort of sliding scale! It's possible, but highly unlikely to get pregnant <em>before</em> any CM has been detected, in <em>any</em> method. People who are learning various methods should be aware of that, so that for example they can use that information to determine if that miniscule risk is "worth it." The same thing could be said for after ovulation. In <em>any method</em> ovulation could be mis-identified and there is a miniscule chance one could get pregnant. </div><div>So, yes. Starting with simply not having sex, there IS a sliding scale of your chances to get pregnant, and people can and will use those chances to be "more or less conservative."</div>

Riss91

So, basically, there's this rule that most methods have, where those who look to avoid would abstain 3/4 days (depending on the method) after a pre-peak observation is noted. A couple can choose to go AGAINST the method in either direction (abstain for only 2 days, or abstain for 6 days). Obviously, these are rules for a reason. But we know that 3/4 days isn't everyone's magic number. It isn't like your are fertile everyday for those 4 days and then magically overnight into Day 5, you are all of a sudden infertile. Some women may no longer be fertile after 2 days, some may be fertile after 4. Given that we can each choose how many days to abstain, and our cycles aren't perfect replicas from one to the next - we may "cut it close" at times and at other times have a large "cushion". So, a couple can choose to abstain for 6 days, instead of 4.

You can look at that from 2 perspectives:
- The couple is not following the method
- The couple is being more conservative/liberal with the rules of the method

ElisabethJoanne

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_postpartum-nfp-question?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:88d726c5-a414-4667-af72-d22e0abc501ePost:90803dc6-5bd5-44c3-8e75-6d915c39771d">Re: Postpartum NFP question</a>:
[QUOTE]So, basically, there's this rule that most methods have, where those who look to avoid would abstain 3/4 days (depending on the method) after a pre-peak observation is noted. A couple can choose to go AGAINST the method in either direction (abstain for only 2 days, or abstain for 6 days). Obviously, these are rules for a reason. But we know that 3/4 days isn't everyone's magic number. It isn't like your are fertile everyday for those 4 days and then magically overnight into Day 5, you are all of a sudden infertile. Some women may no longer be fertile after 2 days, some may be fertile after 4. Given that we can each choose how many days to abstain, and our cycles aren't perfect replicas from one to the next - we may "cut it close" at times and at other times have a large "cushion". So, a couple can choose to abstain for 6 days, instead of 4. You can look at that from 2 perspectives: - The couple is not following the method - The couple is being more conservative/liberal with the rules of the method
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

From a semantic perspective, I think those people adjusting the number of days have to be following a method poorly. I like the analogy above about adding more pepper to a recipe. If you're doing the observations a method requires, and making decisions based on those observations, it seems you're following the method in some way. You're certainly not following no method. But for more precise methods, any adjustment in "against the rules." A devotee of the method is going to say, "Well, you're not doing what I told you. You're doing your own thing." I guess we could say each couple that makes any adjustment to a method's recommendations is making a new method just for them, but that seems kind of silly. So, I like "following a method poorly" or "following the method imperfectly" or "following the method with adjustments."

Riss91

I guess I just don't see adding an EXTRA day of abstinence as the same as "following it poorly" unless you were trying to achieve.

I might see emliminating one day of abstinence as "following it poorly" if you were trying to avoid.

lalaith50

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_postpartum-nfp-question?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:88d726c5-a414-4667-af72-d22e0abc501ePost:fa63ec9b-c87a-4ce9-97a8-f1835bd2a530">Re: Postpartum NFP question</a>:
[QUOTE]I guess I just don't see adding an EXTRA day of abstinence as the same as "following it poorly" unless you were trying to achieve. I might see emliminating one day of abstinence as "following it poorly" if you were trying to avoid.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]
Definitely. No method of NFP ever says that you HAVE to have sex.

professorscience

Again, this is all in the vocabulary you choose to use.  If a couple is charting to keep track of cycles, but occasionally ignores a rule, I would just call that "using less caution," and not "poor use."  If the couple knowingly ignores a fertility sign and acts counter to what they say their goal is, they're not really misusing the method, just ignoring the rules.

Now, if a couple has no clue what they're doing (the anecdote from TCOYF about the couple that thought simply by charting they were a-ok comes to mind) and is just going at it whenever, that could be qualified as misuse.

agapecarrie

I have not been "know it all" or "abrasive" in my language about Creighton. People are automatically emotionally attached to music, their home city, and now, NFP method. If someone says "St. Louis is better than Chicago". They are going to feel defensive if they love Chicago. Then, there can be lists given in why they think such a thing, which are facts about the city. Fact: St. Louis has AB brewery, chicago doesn't. Now, you can get mad at me for stating that all you want, that doesn't make it any less true. 

I've never stated one method is better. I've stated why I LOVE Creighton method, and then the facts about the method, some of that in comparison to others. 

The reason here, is that it is hard objective facts. I simply state ONLY facts, and Creighton is adamant about being black and white with things. There are some references to users of STM that talk about using conservatively, only phase 3, etc etc. Creighton makes no such distinction, and this is very important to the method of Creighton. I'm not just making it up. It's not absrasive to say so. 

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_postpartum-nfp-question?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:88d726c5-a414-4667-af72-d22e0abc501ePost:6eeb0d50-a92a-4f83-a6cb-1727d3e83deb">Re: Postpartum NFP question</a>:
[QUOTE]Again, this is all in the vocabulary you choose to use.  If a couple is charting to keep track of cycles, but occasionally ignores a rule, I would just call that "using less caution," and not "poor use."  If the couple knowingly  ignores a fertility sign and acts counter to what they say their goal is, they're not really misusing the method, just ignoring the rules. Now, if a couple has no clue what they're doing (the anecdote from TCOYF about the couple that thought simply by charting they were a-ok comes to mind) and is just going at it whenever, that  could be qualified as misuse.
Posted by professorscience[/QUOTE]

Well, you don't have to use NFP if you're not married and having sex for one thing, right?

ElisabethJoanne

agape, I'll admit to knowing basically nothing about Creighton except what you've told me/us, but I don't see how any NFP method can be black and white.

First, TTA and TTC aren't black and white. A lot of people aren't "trying" one way or the other, but they might be doing observations for various reasons, or just out of habit. To label an action as TTA or TTC just doesn't make sense to me. I think you backed down from this a bit - "TTC activity" v. "acitivy in line with TTC" [or TTA] but I'm just going to reiterate the distinction.

Second, any NFP method has conflicting goals. Used for TTA, or while TTA, it's to have sex without making a baby. We all know there's only 1 way to 100% avoid baby-making. On some level, any TTA method creates a gray area. What NFP is supposed to do is increase the contrast in the shades of gray.

And here there's another facet that comes up. We have attitude (really trying, not really caring, not trying very hard). We have observable actions (observing, recording). And we have knowledge. Some NFP methods impart more knowledge than others. It's conceivably possible to give a couple a bunch of observable symptoms and tell them "these symptoms indicate fertility, these don't." Most NFP methods explain a bit more about the biology behind the symptoms beyond fertile/infertile. "This mucus helps sperm swim into the uterus." "The clots in the blood are the old endometrium."

Knowledge is power, but the more knowledge one has, the more one might tweak a method. Creighton teachers may not like that tweaking, but, again, I'm hard pressed to say that someone doing the observations Creighton teaches, with the awareness Creighton provides, is then not doing Creighton because she tweaks a rule, especially when we consider that we're working only in gray areas, and the whole point of NFP is the biology stays it's usual gray. A NFP method might help us sort out the gray into likely-fertile and likely-infertile moments, but the more knowledge the NFP method gives us, the more we understand how-likely-fertile. And, as someone pointed out above, 10% chance of conceiving might be likely-fertile to one couple (in that a TTA couple will not have sex with a 10% chance of conceiving) and likely-infertile to another, on the practical level.

It's the difference between "perfect use" and "typical use."

professorscience

Whoa whoa whoa.

I think we can all agree that Dallas is better than both Chicago or St. Louis.  

mica178

Fertility is never black and white.  All these methods are pretty good for TTA (over 99% effective for perfect use -- and what Christian presumes perfection?), but even the strictest use for TTC is only about 25%.  

Also, Creighton assumes that sperm lives 1-3 days.  There has been some research that some can live up to 5-7 days after ejaculation in women.  How can Creighton claim to be black and white with those numbers and their methods?

ootmother2

lala
PM

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_postpartum-nfp-question?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:88d726c5-a414-4667-af72-d22e0abc501ePost:24715c7a-64d4-49aa-aded-2ba73a4d4d75">Re: Postpartum NFP question</a>:
[QUOTE]Fertility is never black and white.  All these methods are pretty good for TTA (over 99% effective for perfect use -- and what Christian presumes perfection?), but even the strictest use for TTC is only about 25%.   Also, Creighton assumes that sperm lives 1-3 days.  There has been some research that some can live up to 5-7 days after ejaculation in women.  How can Creighton claim to be black and white with those numbers and their methods?
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

<div>I'm going to try one more time with this.  this isn't the kind of black and white I'm talking about. </div><div>
</div><div>First, 5-7 days would only be possible if the right kind of mucous is present. Creighton allows for that. </div><div>
</div><div>2nd, I'm copying right from the book, p 27, to explain what I mean by black and white. </div><div>
</div><div>There are a number of basic principles which lay the foundation for the proper use of the method instructions. </div><div>--</div><div>-- Users of Crms are free to use the method to either achieve or avoid as they so choose.</div><div>---To achieve pregnancy the days of fertility are used.</div><div>--to avoid pregnancy, the days of infertility only are used.</div><div>--- using days of fertility abandons the method as a method to avoid and adopts the method as a method to achieve</div><div>--- there are no "taking chances" with the Crms .The method is either used as a method to acheive or avoid</div><div>--THe instructions to avoid pregnancy as they relate to obseversations, charting and genital contact have been developed so that, when used correctly, the method is over 99% effective as a method to avoid. When users choose to deviate from these instructions they have chosen a less effective means to avoid and have adopted a more effective means of achieving. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

ootmother2

sheesh mica, don't they teach this to you in medical school?

mica178

OOT, I'm self-taught.  NFP is not commonly taught in most US medical schools.  And the numbers generated for the effectiveness of the Creighton method were done by the Pope Pius VI Institute.  It'd be nice if a study was done to look at the effectiveness by a non-Catholic instution.  I personally believe that NFP works, but I think there was a strong bias in the aforementioned study.

ootmother2

a strong bias?

oh noes

ElisabethJoanne

Thanks for clarifying, agape. "The method is either used as a method to acheive or avoid." I just don't understand how that works in practice. I guess I'd make the distinction between "using" the method and "practicing" the method. "Using" would include the attitudes/intentions. "Practicing" is just the observations, etc. [My personality likes names and distinctions. Others might not care.]

I can also envision situations where "When users choose to deviate from these instructions they have chosen a less effective means to avoid and have adopted a more effective means of achieving" isn't true. I don't know the instructions or lots of the biology, but I do know that lots of women have just a short period of time each month they're fertile, and I know some men have to wait 2 or more days between ejaculations. It's certainly possible that a TTC couple could "use" a day when the woman is somewhat, but not most, fertile that forces them to skip her most fertile day of the cycle.

A good method will take into account male issues as well, but this hypothetical seems a biologically gray area. It's not the best behavior for TTC, but it's not TTA either.