Skip to comments.
“Rhythm Method” May Kill Off More Embryos than Other Methods of Contraception
NewsWise ^
| 24 May, 2006
| British Medical Journal
Posted on 05/25/2006 9:24:35 AM PDT by gcruse
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-149 next last
To: weegee
Loved that scene.
Sorry I'm on my wine break!!
81
posted on
05/25/2006 10:59:32 AM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(The social contract is breaking down.)
To: gcruse
"I've got rhythm, you've got children............."
82
posted on
05/25/2006 11:01:02 AM PDT
by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
To: gcruse
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? Well, no. It is not. For one thing, the intent is not to make it harder for the embryo to survive.
83
posted on
05/25/2006 11:04:21 AM PDT
by
chesley
(Republicans don't deserve to win, but America does not deserve the Dhimmicrats.)
To: gcruse
Amazing how the people most willing to make
this "leap of faith" are the ones condemning others
for their faith!
Mark
84
posted on
05/25/2006 11:04:30 AM PDT
by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
To: jstassis
My rhythm method didn't work too well - kid #3.
My high school biology teacher had a joke:
Q: What do you call people who use the rhythm method?
A: Parents!
To: gcruse
It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesnt interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course. Wrong.
The most commonly recommended method is NFP (natural family planning)
To determine the window of fertility, these methods use such things as temperature, mucus, and cervical changes.Natural Family Planning
The important point is that the use of
artificial means of birth control is immoral.
86
posted on
05/25/2006 11:10:37 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
To: Cubs85
The pill works by not releasing and egg from the ovaries.And by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting.
Do you really expect every married couple in America to only have sex when they want a child?
Please post where I ever said I expected that.
:::crickets:::
87
posted on
05/25/2006 11:10:53 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: gcruse
88
posted on
05/25/2006 11:11:54 AM PDT
by
OB1kNOb
(This is no time for bleeding hearts, pacifists, and appeasers to prevail in free world opinion.)
To: GovernmentShrinker
An egg is fertilized and becomes an embryo several days before implantation (implantation being the medical definition of conception). For those who are unaware, the AMA changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation in the early '70s so that the pill would not be categorized as an abortifacient. The pill tends to thin the uterine lining, thus making it difficult for fertilized eggs to implant. Simply stated, the pill can act as abortifacient in addition to acting as a contraceptive.
89
posted on
05/25/2006 11:20:26 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
To: GovernmentShrinker
What? Nonsense. The ovary 'pops out an ovum' when the ovary pops out an ovum, the ovum doesn't 'ripen' thereafter based upon whether the woman has sex or not, the ovum migrates down the fallopian tube waiting to be fertilized. Fertilization occurs in the fallopian tube, usually. The 'readiness' of the uterine lining to receive a zygote (the embryo) is not dependent upon whether a couple does or doesn't have sex at a particular time. Explain how having sex or not having sex effects the uterine lining.
90
posted on
05/25/2006 11:43:51 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: GovernmentShrinker
What? More nonsense from your posting! "An egg is fertilized and becomes an embryo several days before implantation (implantation being the medical definition of conception)." You may find a reference somewhere to support that foolishness (I'm reminded of the specious term 'pre-embryo' used so cavalierly by those trying to defend exploiting embryo aged humans), but your previous reference to IVF refutes your own absurd assertion! You note IVF in a previous post (IVF being the process of conceiving embryos prior to being implanted) then try to toss this contradiction into the discussion? Typical liberal double-speak, trying to change definitions in the middle of the stream to fit your assertions. Implantation IS NOT THE MEDICAL DEFINITION OF CONCEPTION in the IVF process since embryos are conceived 'in vitro'.
91
posted on
05/25/2006 11:54:13 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: gcruse
What a stupid article. Does anyone really believe that there is any KILLING going on here. Didn't God design the system which allows non-viable embryos to be defective and non-viable?
Remarkable what fanaticism can do to the human mind.
Obviously the only moral action is to NEVER have sex at all since many, if not most, embryos never make it to birth. God is SUCH a horrible killer. geez
92
posted on
05/25/2006 11:59:27 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
To: Question_Assumptions
You asserted, "... bear in mind that "conception" is not "fertilization"." Uh, you and GS still trying to toss out this BS? Trying to dehumanize the embryos of IVF (yes, IVF conceives embryos in a petri dish, Orrin Hatchling's absurd assertion aside) to make them fair game for exploitation?
93
posted on
05/25/2006 12:00:29 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: ConservativeMind
You must be kidding? There is NO "killing" going on unless it is by God.
94
posted on
05/25/2006 12:02:03 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
To: MeanWestTexan
How does anyone "kill" a fertilized egg without some deliberate step to do so? Why would anyone criticize God's reproductive methodology? If an embryo in not viable God makes sure it passes out of existence.
This article is crackpotism at its highest yet not so high that some apparently think it says something worth hearing.
95
posted on
05/25/2006 12:06:26 PM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
To: gcruse
To: MHGinTN
Things are a lot more complicated that you imagine. But to address your key misconception here, the issue discussed in this article is mainly about the egg, not the uterine lining. An egg which has been out of the ovary for longer than the optimal time before fertilization, can often still be fertilized, but is past the point where it can form a viable embryo. Theoretically, the optimal condition of the uterine lining should be timed to match the optimal time for the egg to be fertilized, and thus overshooting one would also mean overshooting the other, but in reality that's not always the case (since there is quite a lot of individual variation in the timing of the various elements of the female reproductive cycle -- google "halachic infertility" for some detail on the effects of one common variation). But an embryo resulting from fertilization of a past-ripe egg will either not implant at all, or will stop dividing and die very early, no matter how perfect the uterine lining is.
To: GovernmentShrinker
Nonsense ... unless you can cite the proof of this assertion, as in a way to prove what is 'passed optimal time': "An egg which has been out of the ovary for longer than the optimal time before fertilization ..." I dare you to try. And while you're at it, try proving that the sex act has anything to do with this specious term you toss out, "past-ripe egg". God created a woman's biology such that her uterine lining becomes 'ready to receive' an embryo even before her ovary pops out an ovum, and that uterus remains 'ready' until the lining is shed in the menses (and in some cases even after the shedding has begun).
98
posted on
05/25/2006 12:20:37 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: MHGinTN
You can babble all you like, but there is not a single IVF clinic in the English-speaking world (and precious few ob/gyn offices) where the staff would refer to "conception" in vitro. Fertilization occurs in vitro, and the hope is that after the embyro is transferred into the woman's uterus a conception will take place. Fertilization is very easy to accomplish, but conception is much more of a challenge. They are two distinct steps. Conception = becoming pregnant, and no woman becomes pregnant by something happening in a petri dish.
If these silly semantic games keep up, anti-abortion activists will next be insisting that "birth" occurs at the moment sperm meets egg. Whatever. Use whatever words you like, but you really ought to get clear on the actual biological processes, regardless of what you choose to call them.
To: gcruse
As a good Texas Catholic, the hardest thing about the rhythmn method was, "Where the Hell do I put the band?".
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-149 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson