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
I agree with you that this is a load of BS, but only because IMO it doesn't matter in the slightest. His technical point is that an egg which is fertilized earlier or later than the optimal time is much less likely to survive. Any IVF clinic knows this well -- there's a very narrow window in which an egg can be fertilized and become a viable embryo, but for a time before or after that the egg will still fertilize but won't get past one or two divisions before dying. Obviously the clinics choose to ensure that fertilization happens at the optimal time whenever possible; what the guy in this article is pointing out is that the rhythm method involves choosing NOT to fertilize at the right time, even though this doesn't consistently equate to not fertilizing at all. Eggs have to be perfectly ripe to fertilize AND continue developing, but they don't have to be perfectly ripe to just fertilize and form a zygote.
Did you actually read the article? This whole thing is conjecture on the part of Dr. Boven who has no scientific or medical expertise.
The best available estimates are that about 20% of naturally fertilized eggs, in the absence of any contraception method that can act post-fertiliztion, go on to become babies. Percentage is higher in younger women, and lower in older women and women of any age with certain medical problems.
An egg is fertilized and becomes an embryo several days before implantation (implantation being the medical definition of conception). If an egg is fertilized too late, it won't be viable, and either won't implant or will simply fail to keep dividing. Eggs can fertilize slightly before or after the point where they're at the right stage of "ripeness" to form a viable embryo; if that happens, they form a non-viable embryo instead. This guy is nuts enough to worry about this.
Boven's medical analysis is accurate. It's just that it doesn't matter.
I'm pretty sure the term "natural selection" applies here. I worked for a fertiltiy specialist for 3 years, and most women ovulate between cycle days 11-15. If an follicle (egg) is going to drop it is usually mature. There are some women that will ovulate when a follicle is still small, but I have seen totally normal pregnancies occur from this. Meanwhile I have seen embryos die with mature eggs. Like I said "natural selection".
Seems to me his conclusions are a little offbeat...
It is the equivalent of telling a vegetarian about all the grasshoppers that are killed when wheat is harvested.
What is natural family planning, and how is it different than the rhythm method?
Man talk about your desperation to create spin...
Get back to me when "may" becomes "does." In other words, the opinions of an abortion industry shill are NOT science.
And here I was told all of my life that an unfertilized egg is NOT an embryo.
What Embryo?
FYI:
The rhythm method is a way to prevent pregnancy by not having sex around the time of ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). Couples who want to have a baby can also use this method to have sex during the time that they are most likely to get pregnant. It is sometimes called natural family planning, periodic abstinence, or fertility awareness."
It's like saying every month that a woman has her menstrual cycle she is actually killing an embryo. If it's not fertilized, it's not a baby. Next they'll be saying that if we eat unfertilized chicken eggs, we're really eating a baby chicken.
So what's a guy supoosed to do on that week? Cold Showers or to emulate Bill Clinton?
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.