Nfp And Medical Risks?

[Aloysius]

heard an argument against NFP I had never heard before, and I can't find any resources for it so I'm assuming it's bogus, but I was wondering if anyone here had ever encountered it... the claim is that during the times when NFP doesn't work, even if they're rare times, the conceived child is more likely to have a problem like Down Syndrome or Autism due to it being a late fertilization of an egg... from what I gathered, the claim was in some book from the 80's, assuming it's false information, but I'm just wondering if anyone's encountered it and if they have any details about it. while I figure the failures of NFP would just as likely happen with an early fertilization of the egg, I guess the fact that NFPers would fertilize during the periods they were trying not to, if ever, around the periphery, and that there's higher risk for a lately fertilized egg to have such problems.

argument comes from someone who's in favor of the Church's anti-contraception stance and pro NFP stance, but read this claim in some book (don't remember the name, I'll look that part up if I remember it, or maybe I'll ask them) and was confused by it. they're they type of person that'd definitely agree it's better to be born w/ autism or down syndrom than not at all, obviously, but would also not like to do anything that would increase the risk of such things (understandably)...

I'd appreciate any resources, even if you can at least just find the claim argued anywhere (cause I'd like to see the details from that side, though I never see this claim made so I assume it's not based on anything substantial or else I'd think it'd be harped on everywhere)...

[Cherie]

Interesting, this is what I found:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/5/693.full.pdf

Read the bolded part on the first page. It's from 1988, so I'm assuming this is probably what they were referring to.

I don't know the science behind this publication, but it sounds like hogwash to me. If you read further, it states these "abnormalities" in regard to "aged gametes" have been found in animals, but human studies have been "less conclusive." They themselves admit that birth defects are unlikely to result from the circumstances of conception.

I found this interesting, too:

"In summary, there is growing though inconclusive evidence
from epidemiological studies linking aged gametes with an increased
risk of spontaneous abortions and chromosomal defects
among abortuses or at birth."

Growing yet inconclusive? The fact that nothing new has appeared since 1988 (correct me if I'm wrong) just shows it's NOT growing. It's "inconclusive" ... i.e. hogwash!!!

[Cherie]

Sorry I didn't have much time to write this morning.

Honestly, what this publication states as true, it later states that others have found it either "inconclusive" or [i]not[/i] true. This is an example that you can make a statistic say whatever you want it to say.

They say that "NFP-pregnancies" (i.e. a pregnancy resulting from someone using NFP to [i]avoid[/i] pregnancy) result in an increased risk of miscarriage. Then they state that an earlier study showed no correlation between timing of conception and miscarriage.

They say that "NFP-pregnancies" result in chromosomal abnormalities. Then they state that no frequency of monosomic or trisomic (including Down Syndrome) were observed in relation to timing of conception.

They say that "NFP-pregnancies" result in birth defects. Then they state that the types of malformations were nonspecific and included an unspecified number of postural abnormalities which were unlikely to result from circumstances of conception.

I guess the only thing they have is that "NFP-pregnancies" [i]may[/i] result in more male babies. I've seen a book that actually instructs you how to become pregnant with a boy or girl depending on when you have intercourse in relation to the time you ovulate. That in itself is "shaky science" because it "works" for some people, but doesn't for others.

So tell whoever it is that is using this publication as fact that they'd better read the actual thing, and they'd find that the science behind it is VERY shaky -- and that the publication itself includes studies that disprove it.

Edited January 20, 2011 by CherieMadame

[Archaeology cat]

I'm with Cherie here. I'd never heard of this claim in my studies to be a Billings instructor. I honestly don't see how it makes much sense, to be honest. I mean, let's look at it. Hormone studies have shown that ovulation usually happens on Peak day, but can happen up to 2 days later. In all cases, the ovum can live for up to 24 hours. Now let's say a woman ovulates on her Peak day and has intercourse the following day - how is that any different from conception occurring on day 2 or 3 (with ovulation the day before in both of those cases)? Conception on the day after Peak isn't going to be a result of following NFP and the method failing, but a result of either following the method to conceive or ignoring the rules, and so wouldn't fit the situation you're mentioning. Maybe I'm missing something, but just doesn't make sense to me.

[CatherineM]

I have heard about this, especially about causing more miscarriages. I don't remember now where I read it, but I remember thinking that they might have a point.

[Brother Adam]

Why is this an argument against NFP? Getting married has risks. Giving birth to a baby, in any circumstance has risks.

[Papist]

I agree with Brother Adam. I don't see the NFP link. Doesn't any sense, "during the times when NFP doesn't work". NFP always works. A woman's signs tell when she is fertile or not so fertile. Never does NFP signs tell a woman she in infertile. A married couple practicing NFP knows this. i.e. ALWAYS OPEN TO LIFE.

[Archaeology cat]

I agree, Adam. I'm still trying to figure out the reasoning, really. I've heard people try to say that ovulating late in the cycle increases chances of miscarriage because the egg is older, but that doesn't work, either. A woman is born with all the ova she'll ever have, so yes, it's older, but ovulating later in a cycle shouldn't affect that, as it takes the same amount of time for the follicle to mature and ovulation to happen regardless of when in the cycle it happens, from what I understand. The only thing I can think of in regards to late ovulation = miscarriage is that the actual problem isn't that the woman is ovulating later in her cycle, but that the luteal phase is too short.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1295553091' post='2202288']
I agree with Brother Adam. I don't see the NFP link. Doesn't any sense, "during the times when NFP doesn't work". NFP always works. A woman's signs tell when she is fertile or not so fertile. Never does NFP signs tell a woman she in infertile. A married couple practicing NFP knows this. i.e. ALWAYS OPEN TO LIFE.
[/quote]
While I'm a big fan of NFP (wouldn't be an instructor otherwise), I have to disagree. There are times when NFP doesn't work, when a couple truly follows all the rules of a method and still conceive. Nothing short of absolute abstinence is 100% effective. While the failure rates for NFP are generally low, there are cases where it happens, where a woman's chart shows that she is in her infertile pattern. and evidently she wasn't.

[Papist]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1295554414' post='2202298']
While I'm a big fan of NFP (wouldn't be an instructor otherwise), I have to disagree. There are times when NFP doesn't work, when a couple truly follows all the rules of a method and still conceive. Nothing short of absolute abstinence is 100% effective. While the failure rates for NFP are generally low, there are cases where it happens, where a woman's chart shows that she is in her infertile pattern. and evidently she wasn't.
[/quote]

I was taught and read that even when body is at its lowest fertile stage, even to say nonfertile, there is still a possibilty of life. Hence, abstaining. I guess it is how one defines "doesn't work". That is why it is important to learn how to read your chart. I think a woman should start to practice NFP long before marriage to learn her signs/patterns. Also, there will always be a human factor(e.g. skipping a day, wife sick, extreme time change) when reading signs. Hence, abstaining. So to say NFP doesn't work, I would like to see the charts of those cases that NFP didn't work.

[Cherie]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1295553892' post='2202295']
The only thing I can think of in regards to late ovulation = miscarriage is that the actual problem isn't that the woman is ovulating later in her cycle, but that the luteal phase is too short.
[/quote]

I think this is a great point!

[MissScripture]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1295550112' post='2202264']
I have heard about this, especially about causing more miscarriages. I don't remember now where I read it, but I remember thinking that they might have a point.
[/quote]
But what was it being compared to? Because I would think even if there are more miscarriages in the times that NFP doesn't work to avoid pregnancy versus when someone intends to get pregnant, there would be MORE miscarriages when someone gets pregnant while on birth control, since if you're on birth control when you become pregnant, you're pretty much automatically labeled a high risk pregnancy.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1295555171' post='2202299']
I was taught and read that even when body is at its lowest fertile stage, even to say nonfertile, there is still a possibilty of life. Hence, abstaining. I guess it is how one defines "doesn't work". That is why it is important to learn how to read your chart. I think a woman should start to practice NFP long before marriage to learn her signs/patterns. Also, there will always be a human factor(e.g. skipping a day, wife sick, extreme time change) when reading signs. Hence, abstaining. So to say NFP doesn't work, I would like to see the charts of those cases that NFP didn't work.
[/quote]
You can label certain times as "infertile". This is especially true after ovulation. Each woman has an infertile pattern, which is an unchanging pattern (fertility is marked by a changing, developing pattern). Now, there's definitely the human factor. And there's the possibility of ovulating without a noticeable cervical response; usually this would indicate that she's still infertile, since the cervical mucus is necessary for conception, but I suppose there would be a remote chance. I do think surprises are more likely to occur if a couple didn't learn with an instructor and/or they're charting during a difficult time (high stress, post-contraception, during breastfeeding/weaning - all of those can produce confusing charts). Of course, you always need to be aware that even if you think your chart says "infertile", that could be wrong, so I see what you're saying with the possibility of life at any point.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Archaeology cat

[mcts]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1295538604' post='2202213']I guess the only thing they have is that "NFP-pregnancies" [i]may[/i] result in more male babies. I've seen a book that actually instructs you how to become pregnant with a boy or girl depending on when you have intercourse in relation to the time you ovulate. That in itself is "shaky science" because it "works" for some people, but doesn't for others.[/quote]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the gender of the baby decided by the sperm, and whether it carries the x or the y chromosome? How would the age of the egg have anything to do with that?

Edited January 21, 2011 by mcts

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='mcts' timestamp='1295636412' post='2202574']
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the gender of the baby decided by the sperm, and whether it carries the x or the y chromosome? How would the age of the egg have anything to do with that?
[/quote]
It's not the age of the egg, it's the theory that x-sperm swim slower but live longer whilst y-sperm swim faster but die quicker.