Can we talk birth control (again)? (cc)

[Aubrey]

I've researched & agonized & now I need to decide something...sometime...soon. If I tell y'all what I'm looking for, can you help?

 

First, dh & I feel really done. We've always wanted 4, & we're really happy w/ them, & we're surprised at the "complete" feeling.

 

However, since newbie is only 5 weeks old, we realize that in a couple of yrs, the exhaustion & elation could pass & leave us wanting more. Plus, many, many people have expressed regret at permanent options. So...we're going to *at least* wait a yr or 2 to decide anything like that.

 

Plus, there are the ethical implications. Although we've been round & round the issue our entire marriage & esp the last 9 mos, we still haven't settled on what we believe w/ regard to bc. At this point, we're going w/ the idea that where there is no clear command, we're supposed to use wisdom, prudence, etc. But because we're not sure about that, we want to leave ourselves open to obeying a different call should He make it clear to us that *we* are not supposed to use bc. Does that make sense?

 

I've never used bc pills. Partly, I dutifully went & got a rx in sufficient time before the wedding, but then...I don't know...I felt...weird. I figured it was just the *idea,* but some friends explained the abortifacent quality of the pill, & dh & I used NFP after the wedding instead.

 

At this point, I consider NFP to be rather difficult & poss unscriptural, since it calls for abstinence for reasons *other* than prayer & fasting. I think it's rough on a marriage, &...boy, I like the fact that it's natural, but frankly, it makes me mad. It seems sexist, lol. Since I'm nursing, though, I really don't want the risks anyway.

 

I'm not militant or legalistic about this--I want to make the best choice I can w/ the info I have, but I also believe God's grace is great enough that there's room for mistakes. W/ the info I have, though, dh & I have not found anything beyond c*ndoms we're comfortable w/, kwim? And...w/ this many dc, we're kind-of ready to explore...more effective approaches. We've discussed just straight abstinence, lol, if that tells you how...full our plate is. Child-wise, you know.

 

This post is pretty muddled at this point. I guess what I'm asking is, w/in the framework I've described, is there anything other than c*ndoms I should consider? TY!

[5kidsforME]

I've researched & agonized & now I need to decide something...sometime...soon. If I tell y'all what I'm looking for, can you help?

 

First, dh & I feel really done. We've always wanted 4, & we're really happy w/ them, & we're surprised at the "complete" feeling.

 

However, since newbie is only 5 weeks old, we realize that in a couple of yrs, the exhaustion & elation could pass & leave us wanting more. Plus, many, many people have expressed regret at permanent options. So...we're going to *at least* wait a yr or 2 to decide anything like that.

 

Plus, there are the ethical implications. Although we've been round & round the issue our entire marriage & esp the last 9 mos, we still haven't settled on what we believe w/ regard to bc. At this point, we're going w/ the idea that where there is no clear command, we're supposed to use wisdom, prudence, etc. But because we're not sure about that, we want to leave ourselves open to obeying a different call should He make it clear to us that *we* are not supposed to use bc. Does that make sense?

 

I've never used bc pills. Partly, I dutifully went & got a rx in sufficient time before the wedding, but then...I don't know...I felt...weird. I figured it was just the *idea,* but some friends explained the abortifacent quality of the pill, & dh & I used NFP after the wedding instead.

 

At this point, I consider NFP to be rather difficult & poss unscriptural, since it calls for abstinence for reasons *other* than prayer & fasting. I think it's rough on a marriage, &...boy, I like the fact that it's natural, but frankly, it makes me mad. It seems sexist, lol. Since I'm nursing, though, I really don't want the risks anyway.

 

I'm not militant or legalistic about this--I want to make the best choice I can w/ the info I have, but I also believe God's grace is great enough that there's room for mistakes. W/ the info I have, though, dh & I have not found anything beyond c*ndoms we're comfortable w/, kwim? And...w/ this many dc, we're kind-of ready to explore...more effective approaches. We've discussed just straight abstinence, lol, if that tells you how...full our plate is. Child-wise, you know.

 

This post is pretty muddled at this point. I guess what I'm asking is, w/in the framework I've described, is there anything other than c*ndoms I should consider? TY!

 

We use gel and have never gotten pregnant while using it. It costs more then condoms but I and dh (sorry TMI!!) like it better.

[Rosy]

Have you considered a diaphragm? They're less, um, obtrusive than condoms, but still a barrier method.

[Aubrey]

Have you considered a diaphragm? They're less, um, obtrusive than condoms, but still a barrier method.

 

My mw suggests one after ea baby, but...I'm scared to try new things, lol! I've *heard* (probably somewhere wildly unreliable) that they're easier to...misuse.

 

Ftr, c*ndoms are fine w/ us...we were just interested in something...w/ a higher rate of effectivenes, iykwim. Technically, though, they've only failed us once in nearly 10 yrs. And when they did, I was expecting it, since I'd been dreaming for about 3 mos that we were about to get pg.

 

So maybe I'm just paranoid, but previously if we'd gotten pg when we weren't planning to, it wasn't *that* big of a deal. Now? You know, I think we'd still receive it as the Lord's will & all, but it would take a little more...effort...to muster the faith, lol.

[Nakia]

Have you considered a diaphragm? They're less, um, obtrusive than condoms, but still a barrier method.

 

I was going to suggest a diaphragm as well. We used one after our first daughter. It was a pain in the rear to use, but effective. HTH!

 

ETA: I was posting at the same time as you.

[Jami]

I have so much empathy for you, Aubrey! I know exactly how you're feeling, that's exactly where we were 4 years ago after #3 was born just three years after #1. I was exhausted and overwhelmed. Dh was recovering from depression. So we spent the next two years trying to figure out if we were DONE permanently or not. We actually had the V scheduled twice, but canceled. Our ages and the ages of our children gave us pause from making that final decision.

 

But we knew we needed a serious break. So we combined NFP and c*ndoms. During "safe" days we enjoyed being bc free and when we reached the "dangerous" part of my cycle we used bc. And managed to be baby-free for 4 years. :001_smile: And I assume we'll return to this approach post-baby. At least for a few more years, till we both really feel certain that we're done adding to our family, biologically anyway.

 

I probably feel less sure about permanent options than dh does. But neither of us feel any huge conviction to avoid all bc options.

 

Good luck. I agree with your decision to wait a few more years before making any unalterable decisions. At least wait until the littlest is 3...that's when the fog started lifting for us.

 

Jami

[Laurie]

 

 

 

 

 

I've never used bc pills. Partly, I dutifully went & got a rx in sufficient time before the wedding, but then...I don't know...I felt...weird. I figured it was just the *idea,* but some friends explained the abortifacent quality of the pill, & dh & I used NFP after the wedding instead.

 

 

 

 

!

 

Same timing...and I actually started taking the pills and they definitely made me feel physically "weird" so I quit taking them. And today I thank God that I didn't keep taking them!

 

I'm not at all pro-bc pills, but I'm confused about something. I'm not a medical person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "abortifacent quality". I was under the impression that most bc pills work by suppressing ovulation...if no egg is released from the ovaries there's no "abortion" involved unless the person taking the pill considers some type of prevention as abortive, in which case a headache has an "abortifacent quality", too.

 

But like I said, I'm not pro-bc pill, but for a different reason. Women who use the pill are exposing themselves to more estrogen at a time when their bodies are already making estrogen. This exposure to high levels of estrogen before menopause, and then possibly adding more years of estrogen exposure with Hormone Replacement Therapy after menopause, is dangerous because estrogen fuels cancer growth. My own opinion is that bc pills are dangerous, and especially so for women who have a family history of breast cancer or other hormonally driven cancer. When I got married I didn't know I had a family history...but I know now and I am truly thankful that I listened to my body when it "spoke" to me!

[dirty ethel rackham]

I'm not at all pro-bc pills, but I'm confused about something. I'm not a medical person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "abortifacent quality". I was under the impression that most bc pills work by suppressing ovulation...if no egg is released from the ovaries there's no "abortion" involved unless the person taking the pill considers some type of prevention as abortive, in which case a headache has an "abortifacent quality", too.

 

 

 

I'd have to look up the specifics, but it is my understanding that bc pills work in 3 ways.

1 - suppress ovulation,

2 - If an egg is released, the hormones thicken fluids to prevent the little swimmers from fertilizing that egg ,

3 - prevent implantation if an egg is released and happens to become fertilized. It is this third means that many consider to be the abortifacient quality.

[Catherine]

how to insert it corrrectly. Practice multiple times in the prescriber's office so that it is easy, natural and reproducible. Incorrect placement is one of the chief reasons for failure. I'll give no further details....

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think it's rough on a marriage, &...boy, I like the fact that it's natural, but frankly, it makes me mad. It seems sexist, lol. Since I'm nursing, though, I really don't want the risks anyway.

 

 

 

I am curious, Aubrey. What is it about NFP that you consider to be sexist? Everything I have read about NFP says that the responsibility falls on the couple jointly, not on the individual, to monitor fertility and to jointly make the decision. Is it that you feel that you are shouldering that responsibility? How is it more sexist than a diaphram or other internal barrier methods? Or is there something else I am missing.

[Jill- OK]

I'm not at all pro-bc pills, but I'm confused about something. I'm not a medical person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "abortifacent quality".

 

...that some BCPs have a 'fail safe' that makes the lining of the uterus less friendly to implantation.

 

Some folks consider the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg, 'abortifacent'.

 

As far as the OP...we did something like what Jami described; NFP combined with other measures during fertile times.

 

IMO, NFP provides an awareness of your fertility that is helpful no matter what other means you're using, and it can provide a freedom if you're in an infertile time and don't want to mess with the other stuff. Whereas, if you're using other means, solely...you've got to really use them, every time, for them to work, KWIM?

 

(FTR, I don't believe NFP is unscriptural, if it's absitnence by mutual decision. We've mutually abstained out of mutual respect, for other reasons, plenty of times; I believe the verse you're speaking of uses the word 'defraud', which would mean keeping 'favors' from your partner, when he/she would really like them, rather than mutually deciding not to engage. Just have to get those two cents in. ;-)

[Osmosis Mom]

I wouldn't use NFP while nursing, that's for sure, if oyu feel this strongly about not getting pregnant, Aubrey.

 

Are you completely against IUD? It can bring real peace and se#ual freedom at least if you use the non-hormonal one. However, the hormonal one might work for you. I'd research the biological aspect of it. Not sure when you beleive a pregnancy is a pregnancy, but some theories say it isn't a pregnancy unless there is implantation so a fertile egg in itself would not be a pregnancy. But, it's your call.

 

There is also mini-pills which have a much less hormonal interference and can be used safely while breastfeeding. You do have to take them within the same couple of hours daily, but they are otherwise pretty painless.

 

I know some who used the con@om together with gel, just to be extra sure (and they never conceived).

 

Good luck! Just remember what nursing is NOT a way to not get pregnant so don't get wild experimenting before you decide on an option.

[8filltheheart]

.

(FTR, I don't believe NFP is unscriptural, if it's absitnence by mutual decision. We've mutually abstained out of mutual respect, for other reasons, plenty of times; I believe the verse you're speaking of uses the word 'defraud', which would mean keeping 'favors' from your partner, when he/she would really like them, rather than mutually deciding not to engage. Just have to get those two cents in. ;-)

 

ETA.....oops, meant to put that I agree with Jill. :)

 

NFP recognizes the wisdom of our creation by the Creator. He created the human f*rtility cycle. Recognizing how God created f*rtility and abstaining during that time.....I am not sure how that is unscriptural. For us personally, it is a time of prayer and sacrifice, if not fasting. It is not a "permanent" decision. It is meant to be a conscious, prayerful consideration month by month.

[Aubrey]

I am curious, Aubrey. What is it about NFP that you consider to be sexist? Everything I have read about NFP says that the responsibility falls on the couple jointly, not on the individual, to monitor fertility and to jointly make the decision. Is it that you feel that you are shouldering that responsibility? How is it more sexist than a diaphram or other internal barrier methods? Or is there something else I am missing.

 

Because of a woman's cycle of interest. The only times of the mo that are non-fertile are times when...well... there's less interest.

 

I'm probably a little more sensitive because a) I have a short cycle, & b) we also abstain during...my *cycle.* It adds up, iykwim.

[Aubrey]

...that some BCPs have a 'fail safe' that makes the lining of the uterus less friendly to implantation.

 

Some folks consider the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg, 'abortifacent'.

 

Yes. I realize it's a gray area, & I don't want to imply that it's wrong for other, but our boundaries lie somewhere this side of impeding implantation.

 

As far as the OP...we did something like what Jami described; NFP combined with other measures during fertile times.

 

IMO, NFP provides an awareness of your fertility that is helpful no matter what other means you're using, and it can provide a freedom if you're in an infertile time and don't want to mess with the other stuff. Whereas, if you're using other means, solely...you've got to really use them, every time, for them to work, KWIM?

Yep. I'm really glad we started w/ NFP; I learned a lot about a lot. ;) But our combo would probably be BOTH instead of either/or, lol, just. to. make. sure.

 

(FTR, I don't believe NFP is unscriptural, if it's absitnence by mutual decision. We've mutually abstained out of mutual respect, for other reasons, plenty of times; I believe the verse you're speaking of uses the word 'defraud', which would mean keeping 'favors' from your partner, when he/she would really like them, rather than mutually deciding not to engage. Just have to get those two cents in. ;-)

 

I know it's an unusual POV & poss completely off, but...after seeing the way it effected our marriage, I hesitate to view abstinence as...a good idea. And there's a strong implication (among whom? I'm not sure!) that even among married couples, abstinence is somehow "holier." It's easy to think that way, honestly.

 

Ok, I hope I haven't offended anyone. I guess my point is, I think NFP is a GREAT bc method, *except* that it has neg effects on *some* marriages. There are other issues w/ us that add to that, so really, whether scripture supports it or not should not have been my point. It is a method that I think is preferrable for *us* not to use.

[Jami]

Because of a woman's cycle of interest. The only times of the mo that are non-fertile are times when...well... there's less interest.

 

I'm probably a little more sensitive because a) I have a short cycle, & b) we also abstain during...my *cycle.* It adds up, iykwim.

 

 

I agree, Aubrey. NFP alone can be a challenge given WHEN we tend to be most interested. And I can imagine a short cycle would add to the frustration...or a dozen kids in rapid succession (in my case).

[8filltheheart]

LOL!! Well, when it comes right down to it.....if you look at it that way, the entire thing is s*xist. I mean either your pregnant or you have the other outcome. Ummm......it all comes back to the fact that it is the way we were deliberately created. To be extremely opinionated and blunt......you have 2 choices: either embrace the Creator's plan or artificially control it.....that is pretty much what it boils down to. Which way you want to go, you have to decide.

[Jami]

LOL!! Well, when it comes right down to it.....if you look at it that way, the entire thing is s*xist. I mean either your pregnant or you have the other outcome. Ummm......it all comes back to the fact that it is the way we were deliberately created. To be extremely opinionated and blunt......you have 2 choices: either embrace the Creator's plan or artificially control it.....that is pretty much what it boils down to. Which way you want to go, you have to decide.

 

Just out of curiosity, would you say that NFP artificially controls things or not? While NFP is certainly *natural*--meaning barrier/pill free, to avoid intimacy during the most fertile time of a woman's cycle (if one is spacing or limiting children) seems counter to the natural plan designed by the Creator as well. :001_smile:

 

Jami

[cathmom]

I agree that NFP is often presented as being "marriage-building" but I don't think it necessarily is. However, if a couple is Catholic like we are, it's NFP or complete abstinence. NFP is very effective if used properly, despite its limitations.

[8filltheheart]

I wouldn't say it artificially controls things b/c you are specifically employing gifts that God bestowed upon mankind: reason and f*rtility cycles. Man is not supposed to give way to base instincts, hence the need to control our free will (or otherwise my life would be so much easier and I would just let my teenager go as out of control as he seems bent on being.) We are gifted with reason. We are called to be prudent and wise. Nothing about living a life for Christ is a solitary act. They all work in conjunction.

 

All that said, in our marriage, it is a time for prayer and we do offer it prayerfully as a sacrifice. Not having more children for us is a sacrifice b/c we love kids. If I weren't so tired and our mentally ill teenager exasperating me to the edge, I would love to have more. For my dh, his concerns are more on the economic side that become much more prevalent as they get older and psy bills adding up. We try not to approach NFP selfishly.

[Aubrey]

ETA.....oops, meant to put that I agree with Jill. :)

 

NFP recognizes the wisdom of our creation by the Creator. He created the human f*rtility cycle. Recognizing how God created f*rtility and abstaining during that time.....I am not sure how that is unscriptural. For us personally, it is a time of prayer and sacrifice, if not fasting. It is not a "permanent" decision. It is meant to be a conscious, prayerful consideration month by month.

 

I hope I've clarified my meaning in other posts. I understand the Catholic position on this (for the most part), & it is. so. close. to what we believe that... it's hard to reject that option. Does that make sense?

 

I can see that interfering w/ reproduction should give one serious pause. I can see that I don't want to end a life, even accidentally. I want to agree w/ God in proclaiming Life.

 

But IF that doesn't mean no bc ever (& I think it's poss that it *does* mean that, but...I can't do that right now), then what forms of bc *are* ok? From the POV of the life forming inside, of course NFP would be ok. Since c*ndoms neither destroy sperm nor prevent implantation, we have felt that these are ok, too. We haven't found anything else we're comfortable w/, but that's not to say that nothing else exists or that we're completely right.

 

From the POV of a marriage, though, I feel like NFP has a way of saying no to life. Of course there's the physical connection that's prevented, & that's one question. The part that concerns me, though, is the prevention of the...emotional/spiritual connection. The role of s*x in that is inexplicable, imo, but there nonetheless.

 

Honestly, abstinence is too easy for us, & that is the problem. In the past, this has led to distance & apathy, &...a level of infrequency that has to be actively guarded against. Because otherwise, we've fallen into... a platonic relationship. This is not just my pov, it's a medical condition w/ dh, one that we were told after #3 would likely prevent us from having more children. Maybe I shouldn't be worried about bc at all, lol, but since we had our 1st real surprise after this...information...I don't know...

[Aubrey]

Just out of curiosity, would you say that NFP artificially controls things or not? While NFP is certainly *natural*--meaning barrier/pill free, to avoid intimacy during the most fertile time of a woman's cycle (if one is spacing or limiting children) seems counter to the natural plan designed by the Creator as well. :001_smile:

 

Jami

 

Yes--*this* is part of my point! :001_smile:

[PeterPan]

Aubrey, I totally understand where you're coming from, because those would be our views (on NFP, bc, etc.), if we had had that problem instead of the opposite. Can I ask if you're taking the baby to bed with you? Not to be tacky, but between the obvious inconvenience (ornery baby waking up right at THAT time, hehe), the frequency of nursing seems to help stave off fertility. I noticed your last two are close, so that's why I ask. I understand there's a huge spread in women though and how that works out. With dd, my cycles came back at 6 weeks despite co-sleeping, no pacifiers, the whole nine yards. Needless to say I was horrified! I called the midwife and she had me take some herbs to stop it. That worked till about 9 months, however I've talked with women who get 1-2 YEARS of reprieve by nursing on cue (not stretching the times), no pacifiers, etc. Nuts, I even know someone who gets 2 years WITH using pacifiers, go figure.

 

I figure lactational ammenorhea is G*d's gift to women and we should use it for as long as we can (or want). May I be so fortunate this time and not have a repeat of the 6 weeks thing!

[Aubrey]

Aubrey, I totally understand where you're coming from, because those would be our views (on NFP, bc, etc.), if we had had that problem instead of the opposite. Can I ask if you're taking the baby to bed with you? Not to be tacky, but between the obvious inconvenience (ornery baby waking up right at THAT time, hehe), the frequency of nursing seems to help stave off fertility. I noticed your last two are close, so that's why I ask. I understand there's a huge spread in women though and how that works out. With dd, my cycles came back at 6 weeks despite co-sleeping, no pacifiers, the whole nine yards. Needless to say I was horrified! I called the midwife and she had me take some herbs to stop it. That worked till about 9 months, however I've talked with women who get 1-2 YEARS of reprieve by nursing on cue (not stretching the times), no pacifiers, etc. Nuts, I even know someone who gets 2 years WITH using pacifiers, go figure.

 

I figure lactational ammenorhea is G*d's gift to women and we should use it for as long as we can (or want). May I be so fortunate this time and not have a repeat of the 6 weeks thing!

 

Yep, my fertility has returned more quickly w/ ea one, despite all of the above. Last time, it was so soon that I, too, called my mw, thinking that the postpartum...whatever...had returned. She just laughed. :glare:

 

We planned #2, & conceived w/...little effort. It took us over a yr to conceive #3.

[LisaKinVA]

Hey Aubrey -- you've just posted my question! DH and I are dealing with the same issues, in the same way -- and same reasoning. Although, I think at nearly 40 I'm a few years older :D

 

We've been doing NFP and condoms for most of our married life. I started with Depro-Provera shot (once a quarter), No cycle at. all. Talk about freedom :D . The worst part about that for me was the weight gain. 15# in 2 years :tongue_smilie:. Apparently, it is now also associated with reducing bone density (long term use).

 

If it weren't for the weight and bone-density thing, I'd probably try that again.

 

I'm planning on having this conversation with my midwife tomorrow -- I'll post what she tells me after I return home.

 

So, we're stuck -- I'm nervous about hormones, etc. And with my advancing age, my cycles are becoming a bit more erratic, making NFP more unreliable...

[LisaKinVA]

Aubrey, I totally understand where you're coming from, because those would be our views (on NFP, bc, etc.), if we had had that problem instead of the opposite. Can I ask if you're taking the baby to bed with you? Not to be tacky, but between the obvious inconvenience (ornery baby waking up right at THAT time, hehe), the frequency of nursing seems to help stave off fertility. I noticed your last two are close, so that's why I ask. I understand there's a huge spread in women though and how that works out. With dd, my cycles came back at 6 weeks despite co-sleeping, no pacifiers, the whole nine yards. Needless to say I was horrified! I called the midwife and she had me take some herbs to stop it. That worked till about 9 months, however I've talked with women who get 1-2 YEARS of reprieve by nursing on cue (not stretching the times), no pacifiers, etc. Nuts, I even know someone who gets 2 years WITH using pacifiers, go figure.

 

I figure lactational ammenorhea is G*d's gift to women and we should use it for as long as we can (or want). May I be so fortunate this time and not have a repeat of the 6 weeks thing!

 

Not to be a party pooper, but... don't count on any change.

 

With #1, my period arrived at 7 weeks

With #2, my period arrived at 6.5 weeks.

With #3, my period arrived at 6 weeks

With #4... let's just say it arrived concurrent to the end of the after pgcy cleansing, and less than 6 weeks!

 

All of this despite nursing on demand, co-sleeping, no pacifiers...I share your pain :tongue_smilie: literally (my only gift of lack Aunt Bertha staying away is when I'm pregnant).

[Jill- OK]

I guess my point is, I think NFP is a GREAT bc method, *except* that it has neg effects on *some* marriages. There are other issues w/ us that add to that, so really, whether scripture supports it or not should not have been my point. It is a method that I think is preferrable for *us* not to use.

 

I appreciate your clarification on this. There's certainly several practices that work great for others that don't work well in my marriage, lol. :tongue_smilie:

 

I get where you're coming from. (Or, "I smell what you're stepping in", as we say 'out here'. ;-)

[dirty ethel rackham]

Thanks for clarification. I get what you mean. It is my only "natural" time of interest (meaning without relationship encouragement.) That "relationship encouragement" means different things to different people. It's a love language thing.

[cathmom]

Because of a woman's cycle of interest. The only times of the mo that are non-fertile are times when...well... there's less interest.

 

 

 

This can also be true for men. My dh has noticed that he is much more interested when I am fertile.

[teachermom_7]

I know these things got a bad "rap" back in the 70's and 80's, but they're an easy, automatic form of birth control you never have to fool with. You have it put in in a dr's office (most insurances cover it), no surgery, no anesthesia, and if you decide later you want more children, all you have to do is have it removed. There's no hormones to wait to leave your system or any adverse side effects.

 

There are two primary ones on the market today ~ Paraguard and Mirena. The Mirena is a hormone based IUD, so it works much like birth control, you just don't have to take a pill everyday. It lasts 5 years.

 

The Paraguard is copper, and in the words of my doctor "ain't nothing getting past copper!" I had mine in for 3 years and never had a bit of problems. It lasts for 10 years.

 

One note about your thinking about anything permanent, give it ALOT of thought!! Dr's won't tell you before you have it done, but there's just something about it after you've had it done that sinks in that you'll NEVER have any more children. I had mine done due to health problems (repeat molar pregnancies), and I so wish there would have been another option. I LOVE my children and thank God for them daily, but there's still a part of me that would love the opportunity to have more. Just give it serious thought. Once it's done, it's DONE!!

[Joanne]

The Mirena is a hormone based IUD, so it works much like birth control, you just don't have to take a pill everyday. It lasts 5 years.

 

I'm 42; DH is 56. He has grown kids, my kids and grandkids. We are, indeed, done.

 

In a reality I'll never understand, God put approximately a decade between when ( I think) women should consider not having babies and the female body's ability to conceive.

 

I chose the Mirena. I know that for many reading here, it's not an option because one of the ways it might work is to prevent implantation, and many readers consider that an abortion.

 

I've prayed, researched and discussed with my DH. It was very painful to have inserted, I had some severe cramping that day and was "off" (think minor surgery).

 

My periods have lessened, I don't have to worry about taking a pill, romance is unencombered and it will last until nearly menopause.

[Camy-7 boybarians 1 lady]

This is a great book, which teaches a nutshell version of NFP.

 

It works if you take the advice of the author! She even gives you a 'quickstart' chapter to get going as soon as possible. Obviously, it takes time to get to know your cycle.

 

Blessings,

 

Camy

[cathmom]

In a reality I'll never understand, God put approximately a decade between when ( I think) women should consider not having babies and the female body's ability to conceive.

 

Can you clarify what you mean here please?

[SonshineLearner]

How about a Lady Comp? http://ladycomp.com/ There's one for "no pregnancies" and one for with "no baby or yes I want a baby:-)" They last 10 yrs I think? And it's suppose to be as reliable as the pill with nothing ingested. Take a look and see if you like it. (I get no commission for putting this on here:-)

 

Carrie:-)

[Jami]

I wouldn't say it artificially controls things b/c you are specifically employing gifts that God bestowed upon mankind: reason and f*rtility cycles. Man is not supposed to give way to base instincts, hence the need to control our free will (or otherwise my life would be so much easier and I would just let my teenager go as out of control as he seems bent on being.) We are gifted with reason. We are called to be prudent and wise. Nothing about living a life for Christ is a solitary act. They all work in conjunction.

 

All that said, in our marriage, it is a time for prayer and we do offer it prayerfully as a sacrifice. Not having more children for us is a sacrifice b/c we love kids. If I weren't so tired and our mentally ill teenager exasperating me to the edge, I would love to have more. For my dh, his concerns are more on the economic side that become much more prevalent as they get older and psy bills adding up. We try not to approach NFP selfishly.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I know for myself I live with a divided mind about these things. On the one hand I completely embrace what you've said about the Christian calling not being a solitary one and the need for sacrificial living and I think an openness to children within a family reflect this. Then there's the part of my mind that knows our (dh and my) human limitations, my gifts and resources as a mother and teacher (or where I lack those), and understands how our marriage best functions and the part intimacy plays in that. I never find an easy balance between my ideals and my reality. ;)

 

Jami

[Joanne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joanne

In a reality I'll never understand, God put approximately a decade between when ( I think) women should consider not having babies and the female body's ability to conceive.

Can you clarify what you mean here please?

 

For lifestyle, biological, financial, energy, resources and specific procreation issues, many women consider not having babies past 40.

 

Menopause doesn't start until around 50.

 

I find the gap interesting.

[6packofun]

Iwe combined NFP and c*ndoms. During "safe" days we enjoyed being bc free and when we reached the "dangerous" part of my cycle we used bc. And managed to be baby-free for 4 years. :001_smile: And I assume we'll return to this approach post-baby. At least for a few more years, till we both really feel certain that we're done adding to our family, biologically anyway.

 

This is what worked for us as well. (I had my tubes tied after c-section with baby 6, though) :)

[Sammy]

Sounds to me like both you and your husband are "convicted" about being done. That thought came from somewhere. :) Go with whichever form of bc you are comfortable with and which is effective.

[PeterPan]

Wow, I've never met anyone else who had it return so quickly while fully nursing, let alone 2! But then it's not exactly the kind of thing you go asking about, lol. Well hmph, I don't know what will happen this time. Last time though, my midwife had a couple herbs that, when taken together, did totally kick it till 9 months. That would at least buy y'all some time. I was just hoping this time would be different for me, which it sounds like it won't. Ugh. Gotta think about this. Want babies, but not sure I want them THAT fast, kwim? The old body might give out!

[cathmom]

Frankly, I like that my periods come back pretty quickly. Because that way I can use NFP and know exactly where I am in my cycle instead of assuming that I am infertile or abstaining completely.

[PameliaSue]

The Paraguard is copper, and in the words of my doctor "ain't nothing getting past copper!" I had mine in for 3 years and never had a bit of problems. It lasts for 10 years.

 

NOT true... unfortunately.

 

My friend and next door neighbor got pregnant with the paraguard copper IUD!

Thankfully her doctor was able to safely remove the IUD and she was able to have a healthy pregnancy and delivery... now they have Emma.

[Zelda]

There are two primary ones on the market today ~ Paraguard and Mirena. The Mirena is a hormone based IUD, so it works much like birth control, you just don't have to take a pill everyday. It lasts 5 years.

 

The Paraguard is copper, and in the words of my doctor "ain't nothing getting past copper!" I had mine in for 3 years and never had a bit of problems. It lasts for 10 years.

 

 

 

One benefit of Mirena over bcp is that the hormones are released locally and only a small amount gets into the blood stream. Hormones don't take a first pass through your digestive/liver/kidneys.

 

But, as mentioned, it is possible for an egg to be fertilized but it will not be able to implant b/c the uterine lining is too thin.

[phathui5]

We also have four children and feel like we're complete, at least in terms of biological children. We use condoms because there's no other method I'm really comfortable/happy with.

[yslek]

I'm about to have my Mirena removed. I've had it for about 6 mos, and have gained 5-10 lb. :glare: Also, my body composition has changed. :glare::glare:

 

So it's back to NFP and Diaphragm (during fertile times).

 

I gained a bunch of weight when I tried the minipill in the past as well. I guess my body doesn't like progesterone or something. :D I'd really hoped that Mirena would be different since it's such a low dose, but no luck. After dealing with 4 mos of spotting on the thing, I now have no monthly anything, so that part is nice. Not worth the weight gain, though; it doesn't feel healthy for me.

 

The Ladycomp thing looks intersting; I'll have to check that out.:)

 

(Sorry if this is TMI)

 

Kelsy

[Chris in VA]

Aubrey, I just wanted to thank you for starting this thread. I have almost exactly the same thoughts as you, and I appreciate the tender and honest way you shared them.

 

I think that temperature thingy sounds pretty darn good. I'd say stick with condoms, and maybe take your temp, too.

 

It's just a relief to find someone who has the same viewpoint as I do.

[KS_]

Along the same lines is contraceptive foam. Dh and I don't care for condoms, and we've been using foam for our entire marriage. It's fairly simple and easy and not permanent :)

[Zelda]

I'm about to have my Mirena removed. I've had it for about 6 mos, and have gained 5-10 lb. :glare: Also, my body composition has changed. :glare::glare:

 

I have heard of that possible side effect. Others too. As far as I can tell I'm fine (over 2 years). I thought it might be making my PMS moodiness worse but the only way to know if that's the case is to go off of it. Things haven't gotten that bad yet.

[PameliaSue]

I started with Depro-Provera shot (once a quarter), No cycle at. all. Talk about freedom :D . The worst part about that for me was the weight gain. 15# in 2 years :tongue_smilie:. Apparently, it is now also associated with reducing bone density (long term use).

 

If it weren't for the weight and bone-density thing, I'd probably try that again.

 

Before my dh took one for the team in December we used NFP and a condom or withdrawal the rest of the time. Ten years and no surprises. We got pregnant when we were intentionally not preventing pregnancy. My cycles are like.clock.work. So the withdrawal was only for those couple of days leading up to ovulation... to prevent the waiting around sperm and then condoms for the 3-5 day when I was really close to ovulation or ovulating.

 

I did quite a bit of research on bc and if my dh wasn't so adamant on being done and wanting a vasectomy than I would have chosen Depo. Our personal convictions lean toward not preventing implantation if fertilization happens to occur.

 

Depo prevents ovulation but does not have the abortificant properties of other bc by preventing implantation by affecting the lining of the uterus. It isn't a daily method (pill) or a disruptive method (condom, diaphragm). It is safe to use while breastfeeding.

 

Bone-density is a factor but depo can be used for 2 years before it is suggested another form of bc be used. A lot of teenagers choose depo and so a lot of the concern was for these young women never acquiring good bone density in the first place...link. You can do things to help your bone-density and studies have shown that Depo-Provera's effects on bone density appear to be largely reversible...link. Two years isn't a very long time in the scheme of things but it is a good cushion of grace.

 

It's a hard one and I can relate.

[BizyPenguin]

Aubrey, I totally understand where you're coming from, because those would be our views (on NFP, bc, etc.), if we had had that problem instead of the opposite. Can I ask if you're taking the baby to bed with you? Not to be tacky, but between the obvious inconvenience (ornery baby waking up right at THAT time, hehe), the frequency of nursing seems to help stave off fertility. I noticed your last two are close, so that's why I ask. I understand there's a huge spread in women though and how that works out. With dd, my cycles came back at 6 weeks despite co-sleeping, no pacifiers, the whole nine yards. Needless to say I was horrified! I called the midwife and she had me take some herbs to stop it. That worked till about 9 months, however I've talked with women who get 1-2 YEARS of reprieve by nursing on cue (not stretching the times), no pacifiers, etc. Nuts, I even know someone who gets 2 years WITH using pacifiers, go figure.

 

I figure lactational ammenorhea is G*d's gift to women and we should use it for as long as we can (or want). May I be so fortunate this time and not have a repeat of the 6 weeks thing!

 

That would be me! I had no menstruation for 12 mos. with ds and no menstruation for 14 mos. with dd. We still used cond*ms as back up, though. I nursed on demand... did co-sleeping with babies...no pacifiers. It was so wonderful having no periods for so long!!

 

Best wishes Aubrey!

[CactusPair]

Ummmm.....out of curiosity....about di*phrams...

 

a long while back I remember reading about the possibility of di*phrams becoming dislocated with certain positions (non-missionary) and then failing as bc

 

my mom warned me about this, too, when I got married

 

does anyone know about that or had this happen to them?

 

I never used one bec. of that particular concern

 

 

PS: Aubrey, of course it's up to you and your dh, but if you're worried about cond*m failure you may want to consider using foam or other spe*rmicide with them. That combined method is considered highly effective, I believe. C*nd*ms alone have worked for us throughout 17 years of marriage, but we're textbooky about following the rules precisely.

 

I agree with you about NFP restrictions falling during the wife's *happiest* time--not fair at all! We've tried it, but it's not something I'd feel comfortable doing for us longterm. I tried bc pills for 1 mon.--never again! Ever!

 

Best wishes