Re: pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

[Guest guest]

I am curious about this as well, so I hope any information you discover is shared. I have only found limited evidence that there is no sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid if previous ejaculation was more than 24 hours or so. The sample sizes of the couple studies I've seen are so small as to really make the evidence indiscernible. I haven't weighed in on this before because I only have access to what is available online, which you've probably already seen.

One study:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jarg/2003/00000020/00000004/00461193Article that footnotes two more studies (9 & 10):

http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/network/v17_1/nt1717.htmOn the question of whether or not this would change how the subject should be taught...I am not a teacher yet. I am a midwifery student, planning to become a NFP teacher sometime in the future, so take whatever I say with that in mind. If I were in the position of teaching minors, I would be careful not to teach sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid as fact. With young people, if they discover that what has been taught to them as fact is in actuality, not fact, often they throw out the baby with the bath water. I would caution that it may be possible, even probable. I would inform them that the evidence does not yet support either side. And then I would stress the emotional and moral implications as far greater than science/possibility of pregnancy in avoiding genital contact outside of marriage.

For married couples, I would also teach where the evidence (lack of) stands. I would teach what the Catholic Church requires of the married couple regarding coitus, and I would stress that as a Catholic I cannot violate my conscience by teaching otherwise, and leave it up to them and their conscience to decide...also noting that the various NFP methodologies do not incorporate " withdrawal " , or whatever else may be implicated by non-ejaculatory genital contact, as a legitimate use of the method, i.e. potentially increasing one's chance of achieving pregnancy (yes, there's a bit of circulatory reasoning there, but if a method has been set and studied as effective with a set of standards, one cannot presume that violating those standards, even if believed evidentiary, will achieve the same results).

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, . I am also satisfied with the anecdotal evidence.

Pam in El Paso

Re: pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

Dear Sheila,

I am satisfied with the anecdotal evidence about possible pregnancy with pre-ejaculatory fluid. If there was none, the withdrawal method would probably be somewhat effective to prevent pregnancy. However, we know it is not effective. I agree that it would be best to have studies on this. It is surprising that there are so few.

Knutson, RN, FCP5512 County Road 3Hokah, MN 55941Phone: E-mail: mbknutsonacegroup (DOT) cc

pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

It is my impression that NFP service programs (and maybe youth abstinence programs) are by and large teaching that pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation, on the premise sperm are present in pre-ejaculatory fluid. Our organization has information to that effect on our website, and were challenged on its validity by a visitor to our site. In my attempt to provide documentation for the claim, I have been unable to. So.I too have questioned its validity, and my question to all on this list is what you are teaching clients and patients in this regard, and if there is not scientific evidence to back up this claim, would this change the way you teach on this?

I am giving this one more shot on the list, as it is an issue I am grappling with (from a teaching perspective), and would appreciate input form the wise on this list. I have not had much response, and I am wondering if:

1) it is a non-issue for those on the list, because you do not even address the issue of pregnancy resulting from genital contact with patients/clients, or

2) you are confident teaching pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation, anecdotally, so the lack of evidence to back up this claim is a non-issue, or

3) you have scientific support for the teaching (in which case I would lOVE to have the reference!)

I will drop the inquiry if no response, but just wanted to give it one more shot before coming to my own conclusions.as from my perspective this has become a credibility issue..

Thanks!!!

Sheila St.

Executive Director

California Association of Natural Family Planning

1217 Tyler St.

Salinas, Ca. 93906

1-877-33-CANFP

www.canfp.org

[Guest guest]

I am satisfied with the anecdotal evidence about possible pregnancy with pre-ejaculatory fluid. If there was none, the withdrawal method would probably be somewhat effective to prevent pregnancy. However, we know it is not effective. The articles posted here argued that withdrawal was in fact somewhat effective. Toni Weschler in Taking Charge of Your Fertility

cites Contraceptive Technology, Sixteenth Revised Edition as listing a user failure rate for withdrawal as 19%, and a perfect use failure rate as 4%. These are better than the failure rates of the " female condom, " and spermicides, and equivalent to the failure rates of the contraceptive sponge, the diaphragm and the cervical cap. This is certainly not ineffective.I am certainly not advocating withdrawal, but I just don't think you can say " it doesn't work at all. "

Becky

[Guest guest]

I REALLY am not trying to argue for the position

that pregnancy is not possible from pre-ejaculatory fluid. I am just seeking

the truth. I do not find the low effectiveness of withdrawal a case for the

statement pregnancy can occur from pre-ejaculatory fluid, as pregnancies may be

occurring during withdrawal because of timing----oops factor, if you will. And

if there was NO scientific evidence, we would be left with anecdotal as the only

basis for advising, but in this case what little studies there are, and the

physiology, seem to indicate pregnancy would not occur. So I am a little

uncomfortable contradicting that without any evidence to back up my claim.

I actually just thought by posing the

question, initially, I would be pointed in the direction of documentation for

the statement, so am just surprised there really does not seem to be any. I

think this means for me, that I will share my experience as a teacher of

evaluating pregnancies that were reported to result from genital contact

without penetration or ejaculation, but will be less confident in presenting

our understanding of the presence of sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid, or the likelihood

of this occurring.

Sheila St.

Executive Director

California Association of Natural Family Planning

1217 Tyler St.

Salinas, Ca. 93906

1-877-33-CANFP

www.canfp.org

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Knutson

Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006

11:50 AM

To: nfpprofessionals

Subject: Re:

pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

Dear Sheila,

I am satisfied with the anecdotal

evidence about possible pregnancy with pre-ejaculatory fluid. If there was

none, the withdrawal method would probably be somewhat effective to prevent

pregnancy. However, we know it is not effective. I agree that it would be

best to have studies on this. It is surprising that there are so few.

Knutson, RN, FCP

5512 County Road 3

Hokah, MN 55941

Phone:

E-mail: mbknutson@...

pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

It is my impression that NFP service

programs (and maybe youth abstinence programs) are by and large teaching that

pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation, on the

premise sperm are present in pre-ejaculatory fluid. Our organization has

information to that effect on our website, and were challenged on its validity

by a visitor to our site. In my attempt to provide documentation for the claim,

I have been unable to. So….I too have questioned its validity, and my

question to all on this list is what you are teaching clients and patients in

this regard, and if there is not scientific evidence to back up this claim,

would this change the way you teach on this?

I am giving this one more shot on

the list, as it is an issue I am grappling with (from a teaching perspective),

and would appreciate input form the wise on this list. I have not had much

response, and I am wondering if:

1) it is a non-issue for those on

the list, because you do not even address the issue of pregnancy resulting from

genital contact with patients/clients, or

2) you are confident teaching

pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation,

anecdotally, so the lack of evidence to back up this claim is a non-issue, or

3) you have scientific support for

the teaching (in which case I would lOVE to have the reference!)

I will drop the inquiry if no

response, but just wanted to give it one more shot before coming to my own

conclusions….as from my perspective this has become a credibility

issue…..

Thanks!!!

Sheila St.

Executive Director

California Association

of Natural Family Planning

1217 Tyler St.

Salinas, Ca. 93906

1-877-33-CANFP

www.canfp.org

[Guest guest]

The effectiveness of withdrawal seems to

be an issue of timing---(duh?). So is not really a basis anyway for claiming

sperm are present in the pre-ejaculatory fluid, since ejaculation is occurring.

Pregnancies from withdrawal may be from it occurring too late, or sperm from

ejaculation being introduced to mucus, even after withdrawal, perhaps by hand

to genital contact. So it does not seem to me that pregnancies resulting from

withdrawal support the statement that pregnancy can result from only

pre-ejaculatory fluid, when no ejaculation occurs. Am I making sense?

Sheila St.

From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of Mandala

Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006

1:26 PM

To: nfpprofessionals

Subject: Re:

pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

I am satisfied with the anecdotal evidence about possible pregnancy with

pre-ejaculatory fluid. If there was none, the withdrawal method would probably

be somewhat effective to prevent pregnancy. However, we know it is not

effective.

The articles posted here argued that withdrawal was in fact somewhat

effective. Toni Weschler in Taking Charge of

Your Fertility cites Contraceptive

Technology, Sixteenth Revised Edition as listing a user failure rate

for withdrawal as 19%, and a perfect use failure rate as 4%. These are better

than the failure rates of the " female condom, " and spermicides, and

equivalent to the failure rates of the contraceptive sponge, the diaphragm and

the cervical cap. This is certainly not ineffective.

I am certainly not advocating

withdrawal, but I just don't think you can say " it doesn't work at

all. "

Becky

[Guest guest]

Well, if we are to be satisfied with annecdotal evidence, I will share

my own experience. Prior to my becoming Catholic, we used withdrawal

successfully for two years. I have not been able to come anywhere

close to that with NFP use (STM). We used NFP to identify the fertile

period, but during the fertile period, we would use withdrawal. If

withdrawal was completely ineffective, we should have been pregnant

very quickly with this pattern. In fact, we did not become pregnant

until we stopped using withdrawal and went back to total use of NFP. I

have never been able to manage more than 4-5 cycles between children

with the STM.

Now I would never encourage withdrawal, for reasons of conscience, and

am now rather embarrassed to admit to it, but it's been repented and

never repeated.In my research, I have found what Becky quotes. In fact, Varney's Midwifery shows that withdrawal is similar in effectiveness to NFP and more effective than many barrier methods--cap, sponge, female condom--and spermicides.

The articles posted here argued that withdrawal was in fact somewhat effective. Toni Weschler in

Taking Charge of Your Fertility

cites Contraceptive Technology, Sixteenth Revised Edition as listing a user failure rate for withdrawal as 19%, and a perfect use failure rate as 4%. These are better than the failure rates of the " female condom, " and spermicides, and equivalent to the failure rates of the contraceptive sponge, the diaphragm and the cervical cap. This is certainly not ineffective.I am certainly not advocating withdrawal, but I just don't think you can say " it doesn't work at all. "

Becky

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

[Guest guest]

Sheila, let me reverse the question, do they have proof it cannot

result in pregnancy?

for whatever reason that has been the commonly accepted view(cav),

sometimes cav's are true but unproven and because there could be

serious consequences for abandoning them without solid evidence to

the contrary, even though they perhaps are not proven, one can be

justified in maintaining them perhaps with the caveat that this is

commonly accepted but not proven or something to that effect. Maybe

that's too unscientific but it seems logically tenable. what do you

think?

PX

a

>

> It is my impression that NFP service programs (and maybe youth

abstinence

> programs) are by and large teaching that pregnancy can result from

genital

> contact, even without ejaculation, on the premise sperm are

present in

> pre-ejaculatory fluid. Our organization has information to that

effect on

> our website, and were challenged on its validity by a visitor to

our site.

> In my attempt to provide documentation for the claim, I have been

unable to.

> So..I too have questioned its validity, and my question to all on

this list

> is what you are teaching clients and patients in this regard, and

if there

> is not scientific evidence to back up this claim, would this

change the way

> you teach on this?

>

>

>

> I am giving this one more shot on the list, as it is an issue I am

grappling

> with (from a teaching perspective), and would appreciate input

form the wise

> on this list. I have not had much response, and I am wondering if:

>

> 1) it is a non-issue for those on the list, because you do not

even address

> the issue of pregnancy resulting from genital contact with

patients/clients,

> or

>

> 2) you are confident teaching pregnancy can result from genital

contact,

> even without ejaculation, anecdotally, so the lack of evidence to

back up

> this claim is a non-issue, or

>

> 3) you have scientific support for the teaching (in which case I

would lOVE

> to have the reference!)

>

>

>

> I will drop the inquiry if no response, but just wanted to give it

one more

> shot before coming to my own conclusions..as from my perspective

this has

> become a credibility issue...

>

>

>

> Thanks!!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Sheila St.

>

> Executive Director

>

> California Association of Natural Family Planning

>

> 1217 Tyler St.

>

> Salinas, Ca. 93906

>

> 1-877-33-CANFP

>

> www.canfp.org

>

[Guest guest]

Bekah,

Are you saying that you are experiencing " method failures " each of

these times? or do you mean that you have continued your prior

practice of not abstaining during times of known fertility, albeit

now, with the salutory practice of completing the marital act?

PX

a

>

> Well, if we are to be satisfied with annecdotal evidence, I will

share my

> own experience. Prior to my becoming Catholic, we used withdrawal

> successfully for two years. I have not been able to come anywhere

close to

> that with NFP use (STM). We used NFP to identify the fertile

period, but

> during the fertile period, we would use withdrawal. If withdrawal

was

> completely ineffective, we should have been pregnant very quickly

with this

> pattern. In fact, we did not become pregnant until we stopped

using

> withdrawal and went back to total use of NFP. I have never been

able to

> manage more than 4-5 cycles between children with the STM.

>

> Now I would never encourage withdrawal, for reasons of conscience,

and am

> now rather embarrassed to admit to it, but it's been repented and

never

> repeated.

>

> In my research, I have found what Becky quotes. In fact, Varney's

Midwifery

> shows that withdrawal is similar in effectiveness to NFP and more

effective

> than many barrier methods--cap, sponge, female condom--and

spermicides.

>

>

> > The articles posted here argued that withdrawal was in fact

somewhat

> > effective. Toni Weschler in Taking Charge of Your Fertility

cites Contraceptive

> > Technology, Sixteenth Revised Edition as listing a user failure

rate for

> > withdrawal as 19%, and a perfect use failure rate as 4%. These

are better

> > than the failure rates of the " female condom, " and spermicides,

and

> > equivalent to the failure rates of the contraceptive sponge, the

diaphragm

> > and the cervical cap. This is certainly not ineffective.

> >

> > I am certainly not advocating withdrawal, but I just don't think

you can

> > say " it doesn't work at all. "

> >

> > Becky

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Bekah <><

> Doula, Midwifery student in WI

> AAMI #1885

> http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

> http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

>

[Guest guest]

What I am saying is that the evidence I am finding, a small study, indicated

pregnancy would not result from pre-ejaculatory fluid. And the urologists I

have spoken to have explained that they think pregnancy would be extremely

unlikely, and do not believe it credible, as they explained the role of the

cowpers gland, sperm production, path of sperm, etc. So yes, what I am

saying is that not only is our teaching not proven, but seems to contradict

what little evidence there is, and medical understanding of the process of

sperm production.....

Sheila St.

Executive Director

California Association of Natural Family Planning

1217 Tyler St.

Salinas, Ca. 93906

1-877-33-CANFP

www.canfp.org

Re: pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

Sheila, let me reverse the question, do they have proof it cannot

result in pregnancy?

for whatever reason that has been the commonly accepted view(cav),

sometimes cav's are true but unproven and because there could be

serious consequences for abandoning them without solid evidence to

the contrary, even though they perhaps are not proven, one can be

justified in maintaining them perhaps with the caveat that this is

commonly accepted but not proven or something to that effect. Maybe

that's too unscientific but it seems logically tenable. what do you

think?

PX

a

>

> It is my impression that NFP service programs (and maybe youth

abstinence

> programs) are by and large teaching that pregnancy can result from

genital

> contact, even without ejaculation, on the premise sperm are

present in

> pre-ejaculatory fluid. Our organization has information to that

effect on

> our website, and were challenged on its validity by a visitor to

our site.

> In my attempt to provide documentation for the claim, I have been

unable to.

> So..I too have questioned its validity, and my question to all on

this list

> is what you are teaching clients and patients in this regard, and

if there

> is not scientific evidence to back up this claim, would this

change the way

> you teach on this?

>

>

>

> I am giving this one more shot on the list, as it is an issue I am

grappling

> with (from a teaching perspective), and would appreciate input

form the wise

> on this list. I have not had much response, and I am wondering if:

>

> 1) it is a non-issue for those on the list, because you do not

even address

> the issue of pregnancy resulting from genital contact with

patients/clients,

> or

>

> 2) you are confident teaching pregnancy can result from genital

contact,

> even without ejaculation, anecdotally, so the lack of evidence to

back up

> this claim is a non-issue, or

>

> 3) you have scientific support for the teaching (in which case I

would lOVE

> to have the reference!)

>

>

>

> I will drop the inquiry if no response, but just wanted to give it

one more

> shot before coming to my own conclusions..as from my perspective

this has

> become a credibility issue...

>

>

>

> Thanks!!!

>

>

>

>

>

> Sheila St.

>

> Executive Director

>

> California Association of Natural Family Planning

>

> 1217 Tyler St.

>

> Salinas, Ca. 93906

>

> 1-877-33-CANFP

>

> www.canfp.org

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sheila,

I am satisfied with the anecdotal evidence about possible pregnancy with pre-ejaculatory fluid. If there was none, the withdrawal method would probably be somewhat effective to prevent pregnancy. However, we know it is not effective. I agree that it would be best to have studies on this. It is surprising that there are so few.

Knutson, RN, FCP5512 County Road 3Hokah, MN 55941Phone: E-mail: mbknutson@...

pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

It is my impression that NFP service programs (and maybe youth abstinence programs) are by and large teaching that pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation, on the premise sperm are present in pre-ejaculatory fluid. Our organization has information to that effect on our website, and were challenged on its validity by a visitor to our site. In my attempt to provide documentation for the claim, I have been unable to. So….I too have questioned its validity, and my question to all on this list is what you are teaching clients and patients in this regard, and if there is not scientific evidence to back up this claim, would this change the way you teach on this?

I am giving this one more shot on the list, as it is an issue I am grappling with (from a teaching perspective), and would appreciate input form the wise on this list. I have not had much response, and I am wondering if:

1) it is a non-issue for those on the list, because you do not even address the issue of pregnancy resulting from genital contact with patients/clients, or

2) you are confident teaching pregnancy can result from genital contact, even without ejaculation, anecdotally, so the lack of evidence to back up this claim is a non-issue, or

3) you have scientific support for the teaching (in which case I would lOVE to have the reference!)

I will drop the inquiry if no response, but just wanted to give it one more shot before coming to my own conclusions….as from my perspective this has become a credibility issue…..

Thanks!!!

Sheila St.

Executive Director

California Association of Natural Family Planning

1217 Tyler St.

Salinas, Ca. 93906

1-877-33-CANFP

www.canfp.org

[Guest guest]

Yes, I have learned that my temperature rises do not correspond with my fertility, and have experienced three " method failures " . The latter two both occurred during tricky 'return to fertility' scenarios. I'm now using Creighton instead, and think this will be a much better match, though I'm still waiting for my fertility to resume after #5 (who is 8 mo). We shall see.

Bekah,

Are you saying that you are experiencing " method failures " each of

these times? or do you mean that you have continued your prior

practice of not abstaining during times of known fertility, albeit

now, with the salutory practice of completing the marital act?

PX

a

__

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

[Guest guest]

From the teaching standpoint. the absence of genital contact is more for the

clarity of mucus pattern observance than pregnancy avoidance. The fact we have

had couples tell us of " contact pregnancy " .. could be due to a number of

factors: sperm in pre- ejaculate. misidentifying mucus pattern beginning or

ending due to arousal fluid or unwillingness to admit to intercourse in fertile

phase.. after all we are all human. I hear it more from the teens at the Crisis

Pregnancy Center than from my clients " but we didn't go all the way " is not an

uncommon statement.. they may not know what all the way is or they may be lying

to themselves.. but they say it.

Therese Egizio, RN

NFPLI, Joliet, IL

--

Pope II stated, " Anyone can see that the alternative here is only

apparent. It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral

evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment, " Donot kill! "

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> Yes, I have learned that my temperature rises do not correspond with my

> fertility, and have experienced three " method failures " . The latter two

> both occurred during tricky 'return to fertility' scenarios. I'm now using

> Creighton instead, and think this will be a much better match, though I'm

> still waiting for my fertility to resume after #5 (who is 8 mo). We shall

> see.

>

>

> >

> > Bekah,

> > Are you saying that you are experiencing " method failures " each of

> > these times? or do you mean that you have continued your prior

> > practice of not abstaining during times of known fertility, albeit

> > now, with the salutory practice of completing the marital act?

> > PX

> > a

> > __

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Bekah <><

> Doula, Midwifery student in WI

> AAMI #1885

> http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

> http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

Yes, I have learned that my temperature rises do not correspond with my fertility, and have experienced three " method failures " . The latter two both occurred during tricky 'return to fertility' scenarios. I'm now using Creighton instead, and think this will be a much better match, though I'm still waiting for my fertility to resume after #5 (who is 8 mo). We shall see.

Bekah,

Are you saying that you are experiencing " method failures " each of

these times? or do you mean that you have continued your prior

practice of not abstaining during times of known fertility, albeit

now, with the salutory practice of completing the marital act?

PX

a

__

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/

http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

[Guest guest]

"From the teaching standpoint. the absence of genital contact is more for the clarity of mucus pattern observance than pregnancy avoidance."

This depends on the method you are teaching. With Creighton, in the initial learning phase, you do instruct couples to avoid genital contact for one month or one cycle, whichever is shorter, in order to help them clarify their mucus pattern without the interference of seminal fluid. However, you also instruct couples, for purposes of avoiding pregnancy, to avoid all genital contact on days of fertility if they have a need to avoid pregnancy, due to the possibility of a contact pregnancy.

Pam in El Paso

[sPAM] Re: Re: pre-ejaculatory fluid/pregnancy

From the teaching standpoint. the absence of genital contact is more for the clarity of mucus pattern observance than pregnancy avoidance. The fact we have had couples tell us of " contact pregnancy ".. could be due to a number of factors: sperm in pre- ejaculate. misidentifying mucus pattern beginning or ending due to arousal fluid or unwillingness to admit to intercourse in fertile phase.. after all we are all human. I hear it more from the teens at the Crisis Pregnancy Center than from my clients " but we didn't go all the way" is not an uncommon statement.. they may not know what all the way is or they may be lying to themselves.. but they say it. Therese Egizio, RNNFPLI, Joliet, IL--Pope II stated, " Anyone can see that the alternative here is only apparent. It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment, "Donot kill! "-------------- Original message ----------------------From: "Bekah Sealey" <BekahS77gmail>> Yes, I have learned that my temperature rises do not correspond with my> fertility, and have experienced three "method failures". The latter two> both occurred during tricky 'return to fertility' scenarios. I'm now using> Creighton instead, and think this will be a much better match, though I'm> still waiting for my fertility to resume after #5 (who is 8 mo). We shall> see.> > > >> > Bekah,> > Are you saying that you are experiencing "method failures" each of> > these times? or do you mean that you have continued your prior> > practice of not abstaining during times of known fertility, albeit> > now, with the salutory practice of completing the marital act?> > PX> > a> > __> >> > > > -- > Bekah <><> Doula, Midwifery student in WI> AAMI #1885> http://www.newbirthcs.com/nbcs/> http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/> http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/> http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/