Effectiveness of NFP and/or any kind of birth control

I was thinking (always dangerous with me).

The record for the most children in any family (in the UK) as far as I know is 18. This is held by a Free Presbyterian lady in Skye who married at 17 and who doesn’t believe in contraception OR NFP. She had her eldest child at 42 I think.

That means, in 25 years, she has had 18 children. In turn, that means that for 18x 9 months = 13yrs 6mths, she was not able to conceive. That means, in 11yrs 6mths she conceived 17 times. That means, of 136 potential conceptions, only 18 actual conceptions occurred.

Consequently, even the most fertile couple in the world have less than a 12% conception rate.

That means that the effectiveness of ‘do nothing’ as a form of birth control is around 90%.

Consider that most couples who are completely ‘open’ to children have only 5 or 6 in a marriage which may last for 20 fertile years, and the effectiveness may be as high as 96-97%

When people say that NFP has a 98% success rate, they are effectively saying that you are only around HALF as likely to conceive with NFP as you are if you just have sex whenever you like.

Even with condoms that are 99% effective, you are only ONE FIFTH less likely to conceive as you would be if you just did nothing.

Doesn’t this say something about the futility of trying to protect ourselves against God’s plan for us. Clearly I can see how planning a family can be useful, and particularly essential for those who risk complications in childbearing, but generally it seems that God has programmed most people to restrict their child-bearing abilities naturally (well, except a few oddly over-fertile ones, anyway).

Really interesting!! I wonder if the lady is Skye also breastfed which would have increased her inability to conceive a bit more.

DL 82,

I think you have confused the statistics on NFP and condoms. Condoms aren’t nearly 99% effective and are one of the least effective forms of contraception.

The idea is to use NFP with God’s plan. There may be times when a couple needs to delay the next pregnancy and then they could have two children in two years. Who knows? But it is up to them to discern. Also, NFP can be used by couples struggling with infertility to give them the best chance to conceive.

DL you are using some fuzzy math there. Frankly, it’s totally wrong and makes almost no sense.

You have not accounted for a whole host of factors. To name a few: the gestation for humans is 40 weeks or 280 days, not 9 months, but we don’t know the gestation period of her individual children. A woman’s menstrual cycle can vary between 25-35 days, therefore some women have more than 12 cycles per year and we don’t know her specifics.

You have not accounted for her specific circumstances including any pregnancies resulting in miscarriages, breastfeeding infertility (which can last up to 18 months in many cases), post-partum abstinence, general abstinence, or a number of other considerations.

Your statistics on “do nothing” are **not **accurate. Nor is your comparison to NFP at all valid. Nor are the conclusions you draw from your premis accurate.

I’m sorry DL, but you need to study some statistics and research methodology before extrapolating wildly as you have here.

Sr Sally, are you saying breast-feeding decreases the chances of conception? I’d like to know more about this. Do you have any sites you could point me to?

Yes, ecologically breastfeeding–which means giving baby free access to the breast–has been shown to postpone return of fertility. The best information on this is from the Couple to Couple League. www.ccli.org

The book Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing by Sheila Kippley is pretty much the standard text on the subject.

Yes, ecological breastfeeding typically delays the return of fertility, although it varies from woman to woman.

I am going to jump right in on one thing here so its on record CONDOMS never have nor ever will have a 99% effectiveness rate for preventing conception.
they have a 99% effectivness rate of preventing STDs only.
and thats only to be considered in a “casual sex” type of situation, when used by a couple ( one whom has HIV and the other does not) its effectivness is considered about 75%
where they get the high rates from are from STDs usually on the skin,

I just wanted this out there so people dont get the wrong intentions about effectivness, rememmber it isnt just line walking practicing Catholics that come to this forum…

condoms are actually one of the least effective means of artificial BC…


Actually, of the research available to survey just a few years ago, condoms only had a statistically measurable effect on preventing the spread of just a few of the STDs (HIV was one, I think the others were gonorrhea and chlamydia). For the others, they had no measurable effect in any usage, which actually causes the entire “safe sex” campaign to look like it was a farce from the start hoping we’d be too interested as sex in a society to notice the lack of support for the “cure” to the problem of not being ably to “play” wherever we wanted to.

actually there are a few more such as viral warts, herpes ( not major spread out)

But you are correct they not even close to being able to do what they hint at being able to do, and I think that is the important thing anyways about condoms,

basically there is no 100 percent conception control
not even abstinence…

Explain? How is abstinence not 100% reliable?

With the exception of Our Blessed Lady, of course :wink:

thats the exception ( of course) if that can happen once it sure can happen again,if that is What God chooses…

Just because this lady has the record for most kids doesn’t mean they are the most fertile couple in the world; just means they were the most “open to life.”

Actually, I knew someone in college who was one of 20 kids, all from the same parents (as far as I know)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.