NFP and embryonic death


#1

Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause fewer embryonic deaths than the rhythm method, according to an article by Luc Bovens, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, (vol 32, p 355).

“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.”
newscientist.com/article/dn9219.html
According to the article, the rhythm method of contraception increases the risk of early embryonic death.
nytimes.com/2006/06/13/health/13rhyt.html?pagewanted=print
jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Can the use of NFP be morally justifiable, if it is responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other non-approved contraceptive techniques.


#2

Of course. Nobody is killing the embryo, are they? It is unfortunate when it happens, but it is an unfortunate fact of life. And the difference between embryos dying naturally and abortion is equivalent to an adult dying naturally and being murdered.


#3

Can marital relations be morally justifiable, since they are responsible for 100% of embryonic deaths? :wink:

Good comparison. :thumbsup:


#4

Death isn’t the problem. Everything alive dies eventually, The only way to prevent death is to be anti-life from the get-go. It is the killing that’s the problem. That, and whole parental damnation thing.

Sounds like a philosopher arriving a conclusion after he had already decided he was going to get there.


#5

This is about the stupidest article, EVER. Where’d this guy get his “medical” credentials, from a box of cracker jacks?

His entire theory is completely ridiculous.

Not to mention, he doesn’t even know the difference between “rhythm” and NFP, which are two totally different things.

His ideas have no foundation in science or fact, at all.


#6

:mad:

Lol, I have to agree. Good grief! :rolleyes:

I love how he says in the article that it’s “plausable” that aged egg/sperm could lead to embryo death, but where are the scientific studies on the subject? Huh, oh yea, there aren’t any.

“Plausable” doesn’t work buddy. All that is is your supposed educated guess, which doesn’t sound too educated to me considering you haven’t enough education to do the proper research into Catholic teaching before doing an article on the subject. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


#7

Oh, and this one…

He recalls that at least one study found that Roman Catholics had higher rates of miscarriage, presumably, he says, due to aged gametes. “Actually confirming this is not easy, though,” he admits.

Ok, um so what is he implying? Did he forget, or just not notice, that most Catholics use contraception regardless of Church teaching? So, what’s his point? Darn, shoots that theory to pieces, now doesn’t it? Ooops.


#8

I don’t have time right now to quote him officially, but check out the responses from others linked at the bottom of the JME article. espcecially the author’s rebuttal totheir arguements. He clearly has an anti pro-life agenda and is trying to poke holes in the pro-life veiw point by saying if we were REALLY concerned about life, we’d believe in contraception. How crazy is that?

I love the part where he says we should all give up sex entirely and only use IVF because statistically it would cause fewer deaths. Even his own peers think is full of it!


#9

There are so many things wrong with this article. . .many have already been mentioned. But what makes me wonder the most is who in the world is advocating the “rhythm method”?!?


#10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.