Posted on 05/25/2006 9:24:35 AM PDT by gcruse
[The rhythm method and embryonic death J Med Ethics 2006; 32: 355-6]
The “rhythm method” may kill off more embryos than other contraceptive methods, such as coils, morning after pills, and oral contraceptives, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The method relies on abstinence during the most fertile period of a woman’s menstrual cycle. For a woman who has regular 28 day cycles, this is around days 10 to 17 of the cycle.
It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesn’t interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course.
It is believed that the method works because it prevents conception from occurring. But says Professor Bovens, it may owe much of its success to the fact that embryos conceived on the fringes of the fertile period are less viable than those conceived towards the middle.
We don’t know how much lower embryo viability is outside this fertile period, contends Professor Bovens, but we can calculate that two to three embryos will have died every time the rhythm method results in a pregnancy.
Is it not just as callous to organise your sex life to make it harder for a fertilised egg to survive, using this method, as it is to use the coil or the morning after pill, he asks?
Professor Bovens cites Randy Alcorn, a US pro-life campaigner, who has equated global oral contraceptive use to chemical abortion that is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of embryos, or unborn children, every year.
But says Professor Bovens: if all oral contraceptive users converted to the rhythm method, then they would be effectively causing the deaths of millions of embryos.
Similarly, regular condom users, whose choice of contraception is deemed to be 95% effective in preventing pregnancy, would “cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” he says.
“…the rhythm method may well be responsible for massive embryonic death, and the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, IUDs, and pill usage, should also make them nervous about the rhythm method,” he contends.
Click here to view the paper in full: http://press.psprings.co.uk/jme/june/355_me13920.pdf
You really ought to read some actual scientific books on the subject. If you care so much about this subject, one would think you'd want to learn the basics.
More like "Oh, please."
"How does anyone "kill" a fertilized egg without some deliberate step to do so?"
Same way one kills a houseplant -- neglect.
"Why would anyone criticize God's reproductive methodology?"
By that rationale, one should not use anti-biotics.
All that said, I agree this sounds like anti-RCC propaganda.
BUT -- if one could avoid fertilizing an egg (creating a life) that would be doomed to death, I would think that would be a good decision to make.
I'm all about avoiding sin --- even accidental sin --- whenever possible.
Nice try, agitprop. It is no secret the extent of study and publishing I've done on this subject. But you just keep making a fool of yourself by trying to create a false impression of the one pointing out your foolishness. You might even want to read the free book I wrote and have posted on line for anyone to download, dealing with embryonic stem cells, abortion, etc. [ Access it at http://weneedtalk.blogspot.com ]
Even harder than spelling "rhythm"? :-D
Anything you've written on this topic is clearly about philosophy, not science. You seem to think that any egg which is fertilized has the potential to implant and become a baby, and that the uterine lining is always capable of implanting an embryo at the time an embryo arrives there by natural means. A lot of infertile women wish these things were true, but unfortunately, they're not.
That's another nice try at mischaracterizing what I have actually posted. ... And you might want to read the book before sticking both your feet in your wide mouth.
Actually it is less an attack on Catholics than a defense of abortion.
There is no neglect discussed here. How can there be "neglect" when one is not even aware there is something which could be "neglected"? One can see a houseplant in need of water. One can only see a zygote with a microscope which most wombs are not equipped with.
Anti-biotics are the result of the minds God gave us in order to improve our lives. We are not given a means of detecting a zygote.
Sin is always conscious.
BTW even those who wish to have a child do not always succeed. Even if there is only a 1 in 100 chance the zygote will survive to term there is no "sin" in trying knowing full well that most of the attempts will fail.
I also noticed that they couldn't even get that small fact in print.
Is it not just as callous to organise your sex life to make it harder for a fertilised egg to survive, using this method, as it is to use the coil or the morning after pill, he asks?
People organize their sex lives? Sheesh where's the fun in that?
Sure, but intentionally or neglectfully allowing one that had a chance -- even a poor chance --- to live very well may be a sin.
I don't know if it is a sin --- heck, or even if a zygote is a "life." No one does.
Ergo, the reasonable solution to me is possible sin-avoidence. It's not that difficult.
You are certainly free to take the risk. I choose not to. Your choice is between you and God.
Mea culpa.
What the heck does that mean? That if your wife wants to have sex with you on Tuesday but was really more fertile Monday and you missed it, you'd say no? HA!
"Sin is always conscious."
No, there are neglectful sins, as well. (Although, I suppose that is a form of "conscious.")
Here, we have been (potentially, again, the science seems pretty weak) informed that we can avoid creating life that inevitably gets destroyed.
Would a reasonable man avoid accidently creating life that would almost inevitably be destroyed?
I would think so. You may not.
Again, your decision is between you and God.
"What the heck does that mean?"
I don't know. I didn't post it.
"We are not given a means of detecting a zygote."
You mean, besides a calendar and the minds God gave us in order to improve our lives.
Sure, but intentionally or neglectfully allowing one that had a chance -- even a poor chance --- to live very well may be a sin. I don't know if it is a sin --- heck, or even if a zygote is a "life." No one does. Ergo, the reasonable solution to me is possible sin-avoidence. It's not that difficult. You are certainly free to take the risk. I choose not to. Your choice is between you and God.
What the heck does that mean? That if your wife wants to have sex with you on Tuesday but was really more fertile Monday and you missed it, you'd say no? HA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.