I encountered another Catholic who was put out by my use of NFP. I am not sure what it is about me, or maybe, NFP that offends. I am used to the "It doesn't work" comments, so I am always ready to explain that not only is my chart extremely weird and hard for many people to interpret, but that it does work, and it works well. And further, that it was the charting of fertility that led to more physical healing for me, which in turn made my chart easier to interpret. This was a woman who absolutely could not have any more children for a lot reasons, (most of them very good reasons, actually.)
She said they, "tried" NFP but had no idea what it was they "tried." I was gently querying and even clearly stated that I always ask to find out what information is out there and to find ways to better help others in the future. But she truly believed that she fell in the very special category that made her decision the right one. I wasn't about to argue with her. She was hurt and not open to the Truth. She is past child-bearing years and the deed was done. It was too late to tell her that her horrible PPD could have been helped by charting. It was of no use to tell her that her husband is still open to a whole host of health problems because of his vasectomy. And it was certainly not going to change her heart to push the issue when I barely knew her. I had to wait for a better time.
I can only hope to plant seeds for the future. I know that God will continue to give me the opportunities. Those conversations must always be rooted in love and compassion, and most importantly, with a firm grasp of Truth.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Boy or Girl? Mommy Knows.
What have we forgotten? A friend posted a link about a pregnancy test that also determines sex. (Of course, the ad itself used the misnomer, "gender," to explain the product. To be grammatically correct: "People are sexed, nouns are gendered.") There are always worries that products like that will be used for evil. My friend posted deep concern and prayers for the babies who would be aborted for being the wrong sex. I fear for that too, but I have hopes that it was just about wanting to know which colors to knit the booties.
But it also got me to thinking about how much we have forgotten and overlooked in our secular quest for true scientific knowledge. We have forgotten that the science is built right into our bodies. It is not wrong to want to know the sex of our babies. Our own bodies give us the clues. If your body tells you, there is nothing immoral in it. Science and reason have never been at odds. Science and reason are a built in tool which we already possess. While I am glad that science has mapped the human DNA code necessary to discover the baby's sex at such early gestation, it is a bit redundant. Our body will give us signs, very accurate signs, for free.
When I was first learning to chart fertility, I only noticed the big signs. But once I was tuned in, the subtle ones proved far more fascinating. Having carried both a boy and a girl, I had the privilege of experiencing those signs independently, and very intensely. I have interviewed many women about them and have discovered what appear to be inconsistencies, but they are not. They are nuanced markers that could be measured if we gave ourselves the chance.
Simply put, carrying a boy affects the breasts, carrying a girl affects the mucous. Many of the ladies I interviewed thought this was incorrect. They noted that they got larger breasts when pregnant with girls, or they had cervical mucous when pregnant with boys. These signs, or markers, would be the opposite of the built in "sex determiner" if that was all there was. But (and there is always a but,) they were not aware of how they were affected. "Larger breasts" is not descriptive enough, neither is "just" cervical mucous. These are the signs we are finally noticing again, but we have spent so many years with an artificial idea of fertility that we don't know what is right in front of us.
So what have we forgotten about pregnancy through the generations? What is the science written on our bodies that secular science will one day prove for us? That science, is that the body will tell us who we are carrying. When carrying a boy the breast tissue of the mother grows more dense. Our production of testosterone goes up as we carry boys. Higher testosterone creates denser breast tissue. (Just look at any athletes who have taken steroids. Then look at them after they are off of them.) In some women the breasts grow larger as they grow more dense. In women carrying girls they might get larger breasts, but that has to do with fluid, not density. Mothers carrying girls are producing higher amounts of estrogen. Estrogen makes fluid. Swollen breasts might happen, but more importantly she will produce mucous, and more mucous... and more mucous. Some women when carrying boys noted that they had cervical mucous too, but when asked one question, it cleared things up. Tacky mucous or fluid mucous? Ah-ha! (The amount of time I spent blowing my nose while pregnant with my daughter was almost laughable. Since mucous is mucous, I was stuck with it. We knew she was a girl!) Estrogen makes very fluid mucous. It is the strongest indicator.
Our bodies know what we are carrying. It is part of the process of development that the mother's body produce the right hormones to help with development. Someday, secular science will prove that the mother does matter. Science will someday find out that having the artificial hormones from the Pill in our bodies are not good for the development of our later children. Science will also find out that conception that takes place outside of the body misses a key time in development. From that moment of conception the mother knows she's pregnant. Her body begins to change immediately. We have just forgotten through the generations how to notice.
I am so thankful that I knew about charting when my kids were conceived. It was exciting knowing that those tiny people were there from the very first moment. It was an honor to know so much about them before I met them face to face. They gave me hints to their personalities very early in. I knew my son was a giving person and my daughter had an iron will, long before I saw it in their eyes. It was an amazing gift. I am glad I watched their signs.
But it also got me to thinking about how much we have forgotten and overlooked in our secular quest for true scientific knowledge. We have forgotten that the science is built right into our bodies. It is not wrong to want to know the sex of our babies. Our own bodies give us the clues. If your body tells you, there is nothing immoral in it. Science and reason have never been at odds. Science and reason are a built in tool which we already possess. While I am glad that science has mapped the human DNA code necessary to discover the baby's sex at such early gestation, it is a bit redundant. Our body will give us signs, very accurate signs, for free.
When I was first learning to chart fertility, I only noticed the big signs. But once I was tuned in, the subtle ones proved far more fascinating. Having carried both a boy and a girl, I had the privilege of experiencing those signs independently, and very intensely. I have interviewed many women about them and have discovered what appear to be inconsistencies, but they are not. They are nuanced markers that could be measured if we gave ourselves the chance.
Simply put, carrying a boy affects the breasts, carrying a girl affects the mucous. Many of the ladies I interviewed thought this was incorrect. They noted that they got larger breasts when pregnant with girls, or they had cervical mucous when pregnant with boys. These signs, or markers, would be the opposite of the built in "sex determiner" if that was all there was. But (and there is always a but,) they were not aware of how they were affected. "Larger breasts" is not descriptive enough, neither is "just" cervical mucous. These are the signs we are finally noticing again, but we have spent so many years with an artificial idea of fertility that we don't know what is right in front of us.
So what have we forgotten about pregnancy through the generations? What is the science written on our bodies that secular science will one day prove for us? That science, is that the body will tell us who we are carrying. When carrying a boy the breast tissue of the mother grows more dense. Our production of testosterone goes up as we carry boys. Higher testosterone creates denser breast tissue. (Just look at any athletes who have taken steroids. Then look at them after they are off of them.) In some women the breasts grow larger as they grow more dense. In women carrying girls they might get larger breasts, but that has to do with fluid, not density. Mothers carrying girls are producing higher amounts of estrogen. Estrogen makes fluid. Swollen breasts might happen, but more importantly she will produce mucous, and more mucous... and more mucous. Some women when carrying boys noted that they had cervical mucous too, but when asked one question, it cleared things up. Tacky mucous or fluid mucous? Ah-ha! (The amount of time I spent blowing my nose while pregnant with my daughter was almost laughable. Since mucous is mucous, I was stuck with it. We knew she was a girl!) Estrogen makes very fluid mucous. It is the strongest indicator.
Our bodies know what we are carrying. It is part of the process of development that the mother's body produce the right hormones to help with development. Someday, secular science will prove that the mother does matter. Science will someday find out that having the artificial hormones from the Pill in our bodies are not good for the development of our later children. Science will also find out that conception that takes place outside of the body misses a key time in development. From that moment of conception the mother knows she's pregnant. Her body begins to change immediately. We have just forgotten through the generations how to notice.
I am so thankful that I knew about charting when my kids were conceived. It was exciting knowing that those tiny people were there from the very first moment. It was an honor to know so much about them before I met them face to face. They gave me hints to their personalities very early in. I knew my son was a giving person and my daughter had an iron will, long before I saw it in their eyes. It was an amazing gift. I am glad I watched their signs.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Food and Sex
I am reading an excellent paper on marriage. It gave me another word I have been lacking in my writings about contraception. (And we know how much I love words!!) That word is "organic." Currently, the word has become a buzzword for healthy living. I tend to agree with the concept even though I often disagree with the application, or more accurately, the politics of the people who apply it. but politics aside, I agree that organic is superior to inorganic.
So that brings me to the reason for this post. The paper was addressing the marriage act as an organic act. It was saying, in part, that the act of coitus is the core of reproduction. Whether or not it results in conception is not relevant to the organic act. The act stays an organic act either way. When organic is defined in this context it is more accurate. It is defined by the core and not by the results, in much the same way as an organic food could be contaminated after the fact.
Natural coitus is an organic act. Contraception and IVF are inorganic acts. The word "spermicide" alone is just one example. Inorganic interruption of the female reproductive cycle makes the act itself inorganic because it changes the core. Menopause is an organic interruption of the female cycle so the act is still an organic act. Organic, by definition, is referring to the natural environment and natural design.
Organic is superior. It also requires a deeper commitment. The contraceptive argument would be, "Just because inorganic food is less ideal you wouldn't stop eating." I agree. But my counter to that argument is that some inorganic items actually cease to be food. At that point, I would stop eating. Worse yet, if those things were actually poison to the body and to the marriage, I would probably devote a fair amount of my time to education and information. (of course!) The sexual, contraceptive act has ceased to be a marital act because it is so far removed from the organic. A cohabitation filled with sexual acts that are not marital acts, does not define marriage. It seeks to redefine marriage away from the organic.
So that brings me to the reason for this post. The paper was addressing the marriage act as an organic act. It was saying, in part, that the act of coitus is the core of reproduction. Whether or not it results in conception is not relevant to the organic act. The act stays an organic act either way. When organic is defined in this context it is more accurate. It is defined by the core and not by the results, in much the same way as an organic food could be contaminated after the fact.
Natural coitus is an organic act. Contraception and IVF are inorganic acts. The word "spermicide" alone is just one example. Inorganic interruption of the female reproductive cycle makes the act itself inorganic because it changes the core. Menopause is an organic interruption of the female cycle so the act is still an organic act. Organic, by definition, is referring to the natural environment and natural design.
Organic is superior. It also requires a deeper commitment. The contraceptive argument would be, "Just because inorganic food is less ideal you wouldn't stop eating." I agree. But my counter to that argument is that some inorganic items actually cease to be food. At that point, I would stop eating. Worse yet, if those things were actually poison to the body and to the marriage, I would probably devote a fair amount of my time to education and information. (of course!) The sexual, contraceptive act has ceased to be a marital act because it is so far removed from the organic. A cohabitation filled with sexual acts that are not marital acts, does not define marriage. It seeks to redefine marriage away from the organic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)