Pro-Life Issues
Natural Family Planning
Natural family planning (NFP) is a method used to help a couple determine when sexual intercourse can and cannot result in pregnancy. During each menstrual cycle, one of a woman's ovaries releases an egg. This process is called ovulation. The egg moves toward the uterus through the fallopian tubes, where fertilization may take place. An unfertilized egg may live for up to 12 hours. The egg will be shed later during the menstrual period if it isn't fertilized. A woman is most likely to become pregnant if sexual intercourse takes place just before or just after ovulation. A woman is fertile for only about 100 to 120 hours during a month.
During the menstrual cycle, a number of changes occur in a woman's body. By keeping track of these changes, couples can plan when to have intercourse and when to avoid intercourse, depending on whether they are trying to achieve or avoid pregnancy.
NFP is not the 'rhythm method'. The rhythmn method is based on calendar calculations of previous menstrual cycles. This method doesn't allow for normal changes in the menstrual cycle, which are common. The rhythm method isn't nearly as reliable as NFP and is generally not recommended.
How does it work?
Two methods of natural family planning are currently taught. The first is the mucus or ovulation method. In this method, the days just before and just after ovulation are determined by checking the woman's cervical mucus. When a woman is most likely to become pregnant, the cervical mucus is stretchy, clear and slick. The mucus during this time looks and feels much like an uncooked egg white.
The second method is called the symptothermal method. With this method, the woman takes her temperature each day with a basal body temperature thermometer and writes it down on a chart. At the time of ovulation, a woman's temperature will rise slightly (about .9°F). The woman also checks the consistency of her cervical mucus like she does with the mucus method. She may also notice other changes, such as pain in the area of the ovaries, bloating, low backache and breast tenderness.
In both methods, couples use a chart to keep track of the changes in the woman's body.
NFP uses no birth control drugs or devices, so there are no risks to a woman's health. Practicing NFP involves respecting the body and how it functions, while artificial methods use medications or devices whose purpose is to thwart the body's normal function. Every drug has potential side effects, which may be worth risking when trying to restore good health, but normally, we don't take a drug product unless it is necessary to cure or relieve something that is wrong with us. Birth control drugs, however, treat your perfectly healthy, natural fertility as a disease. They are unnecessary, which makes accepting the risks of their side effects even more needless.
It is common to assume chemical birth control (the Pill, the Patch, Depo Provera) and invasive devices or surgery (the Intrauterine Device or IUD, vasectomy, or tubal ligation) are perfectly safe because they are used so widely. Not so. There are many undesirable and even risky side effects to every artificial method. Some of these side effects are more a nuisance (weight gain, irritability), and others quite serious (increased risk of blood clots, stroke, or some types of cancer). Yet they are all unnecessary.
How effective is it?
NFP can help a couple avoid pregnancy if the couple receives training from a specialized instructor and if they carefully follow all of the instructions provided. (Ask your doctor how to find an instructor who is specially trained in teaching natural family planning.)
The Los Angeles Study conducted by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health & Human Services) compared the different systems of NFP under similar conditions and concluded "There were no method failures in the STM (Sympto-Thermal Method) group."[1] A 'method failure' is an unplanned pregnancy.
However, as with any method of birth control, if a couple doesn't follow the instructions completely, these methods will be much less effective.
Ecological breastfeeding
When a mother breastfeeds, she cannot become pregnant because her breastfeeding is naturally suppressing ovulation. As many breastfeeding mothers know, lactational amenorrhea (absence of menstrual periods as a result of breastfeeding) does affect their ability to get pregnant. Breastfeeding mothers who remain amenorrheic have less than a two percent chance of becoming pregnant in the first six months postpartum.
Many breastfeeding mothers find they remain amenorrheic longer than six months, especially those that practice ecological breastfeeding (or 'eco-breastfeeding'). Eco-breastfeeding is a form of nursing in which the child's frequent suckling postpones the return of the mother's fertility.
In Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing, Sheila Kippley describes ecological breastfeeding as the kind of nursing that most effectively spaces babies: nursing on cue, keeping baby close, providing all nourishment and liquids at the breast for the first five to eight months, and nursing to comfort the baby. It does not include the use of bottles or pacifiers, mother-baby separation, parent-imposed feeding schedules or restriction of night nursings. All of these practices limit the nipple stimulation that suppresses ovulation.
Studies have shown that mothers who follow the standards of ecological breastfeeding will experience, on the average, 14 to 15 months after childbirth without menstruation. [2] Some mothers experience an earlier return of fertility, and others experience a later return of fertility. On the average, however, ecological breastfeeding spaces babies approximately two years apart.
For more information on NFP: Couple to Couple League.
For more information on ecological breastfeeding, NFP and More.
Notes:
1 Maclyn E. Wade, et al., "A random prospective study of the use-effectiveness of two methods of natural family planning," Am J Ob and Gyn 141:4 (15 Octo 1981).
2 Robert L. Jackson, MD, "Ecological Breastfeeding and Child Spacing," Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 27. No. 8, 1988.
