29.5.06

Link: Study suggests Rhythm method worse than the Pill for Embryo Death

Reddit suggested a link similar to this one last week.

From the article:

In using the rhythm method, couples avoid pregnancy by refraining from sex during a woman’s fertile period. Perfect adherents claim it is over 90% effective – i.e. one couple in 10 will conceive in an average year. But, typically speaking, effectiveness is estimated at closer to 75%.

Now Bovens suggests that for those concerned about embryo loss, the rhythm method may be a bad idea. He argues that, because couples are having sex on the fringes of the fertile period, they are more likely to conceive embryos that are incapable of surviving.


In essence, rather than preventing fertilization, the rhythm method may be preventing implantation, thus causing more embryos than might otherwise to be rejected in preparation for menstruation. For those who believe live begins at fertilization, this could be bad news. However, since the Catholic Church does not support prophylactics, which prevent fertilzation in the first place, this news is less likely to intitiate a re-consideration of birth control than it is to simply eliminate it altogether.

5 Comments:

At 30/5/06 11:26 AM, Blogger Todd Waldorf said...

This is an interesting proposal, but I have two main objections..."The rhythm method, a philosopher claims, may compromise millions of embryos." (my emphasis) and later... "Actually confirming this is not easy, though". At this point it is only an hypothesis, although probably one worth considering for those that profess the sanctity of the human embryo.

 
At 31/5/06 12:00 PM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

I don't think I'd object to the fact that a philosopher brought the concept up, since it is mostly the moral/ethical results of the question that most people are interested in. I agree though that it's a hypothesis at this point, and not something tested by biologists, which would be a sensible next step, if anyone wanted to pay for the tests.

I noticed several responses [LINK] [LINK] from a purportedly Catholic perspective (It seems like so many Catholic bloggers are vitriolic in their arguments!), but they seem to have engaged themselves in a mostly semantic battle instead of addressing the real concern of equal culpability for embryos lost due to intentionally choosing unreceptive periods for sex and chemical embryo-icides. I would like the question to equal culpability for late-term abortion and infant exposure.

I suppose that means the real medical question is: Can embryos be conceived during the traditionally infertile periods? Or have they been deemed infertile only because embryos that were conceived were not viable since the womb was not receptive?

 
At 31/5/06 1:12 PM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

Here's the actual discussion by the philosopher

 
At 7/6/06 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I noticed several responses...from a purportedly Catholic perspective..., but they seem to have engaged themselves in a mostly semantic battle instead of addressing the real concern of equal culpability for embryos lost due to intentionally choosing unreceptive periods for sex and chemical embryo-icides."

I have (I hope) addressed these issues in my fisk of Bovens' article.

 
At 7/6/06 11:17 PM, Blogger Wray Davis said...

Thanks for the link, Funky Dung! That's the best rebuttal I've read to date.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home