Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Rhythm Method" May Kill Off More Embryos Than Other Methods of Contraception
Or so declares a press release for a new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. According to the press release, London School of Economics philospher Luc Bovens argues:
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.
The whole article is here.
|5.25.06 @ 11:21AM|#
I bet the College of Cardinals heard about this... might explain
the recent swing on condoms...
JMJ
|5.25.06 @ 11:27AM|#
It is the only method of birth control condoned by the
Catholic Church.
That is a falsehood. The Catholic Church endorses Natural Family
Planning, which is different from the Rhythm Method. More
importantly, a spontaneous miscarriage due to timing of
fertilization can hardly be equated with ""kill[ing] off more
embryos". Whether one is or is not practicing "The Rhythm Method"
has nothing to do with that reality.
dhex|5.25.06 @ 11:38AM|#
natural family planning = 3 words
rhythm method = 2 words
to be fair, nfp involves a lot more thermometers.
Jeremy Lott|5.25.06 @ 11:39AM|#
What is with every single non-Catholic on the face of the earth referring to the "rhythm method," which went out of fashion a few decades ago?
|5.25.06 @ 11:42AM|#
Swill, well, now that we know that more die from Rhythym than
condoms, how can they not equate it?
Jeremy, you're lost. Catholics preach the rhythym method all the
time - so do conservative born agains now.
JMJ
|5.25.06 @ 11:42AM|#
I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for the Catholic Church's
position on prenatal death by any cause (and especially their
position on abortion), if they had a history of recognizing the
passing of an unborn child/fetus with the same seriousness that
marks the passing of a child, or an adult.
Instead, a mother who's had a miscarriage is accorded no particular
recognition for her loss, nor is the father comforted by a
tradition of funerary ceremony.
As a result, their opposition to abortion and birth control smells
more like an act of desperate control over the lives of their
(female) followers.
Note that my own feelings about the topic of abortion are somewhat
mixed; I'm simply reflecting on the Church's alleged motivations
appearing to be in contrast to its actions.
dhex|5.25.06 @ 11:44AM|#
"What is with every single non-Catholic on the face of the earth
referring to the "rhythm method," which went out of fashion a few
decades ago?"
because the term is absolutely hilarious.
and because we hate god.
|5.25.06 @ 11:53AM|#
Time for Mencken!!
"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by
a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to
physics or chemistry."
|5.25.06 @ 11:58AM|#
In general I like the article, but what's with this:
My research was supported by the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and
Research, and the Program for the Investment in the Future (ZIP) of
the German Government through a Sofja Kovalevskaja
Award.
This paper is two pages long, cites one source and is basically
composed of three assumptions. This required support from three(!)
organizations?
|5.25.06 @ 12:16PM|#
I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for the Catholic
Church's position on prenatal death by any cause (and especially
their position on abortion), if they had a history of recognizing
the passing of an unborn child/fetus with the same seriousness that
marks the passing of a child, or an adult.
Instead, a mother who's had a miscarriage is accorded no
particular recognition for her loss, nor is the father comforted by
a tradition of funerary ceremony.
Excellent point, though I have a feeling a lot of people would mock
the hell out of such a practice.
|5.25.06 @ 12:20PM|#
To say that the Catholic Church's policy on life is incoherent
would be charitable. It is a patronizing and ham-handed attempt at
consistency on an extremely complex subject. Their basic desire is
to preserve the sanctity of all life and all potential life,
haploid, diploid or otherwise, even if it means suffering in your
old age or scooping up every sperm cell from an errant money
shot.
Natural Family Planning, however, is more than a Catholic practice.
It is a perfectly reasonable way to attempt to avoid (or inversely
to increase the probability of) conception without dealing with
hormones that fuck with your body, implements that fuck with your
body, or delightful devices that take all the fun out of sex.
|5.25.06 @ 12:30PM|#
Swillfredo, I have a friend who's for years used NFP. She's had
four children, and more abortions than I can easily recall.
There's no denying that the hormones fuck with a woman's body --
life wants increase, and overcomes all sorts of barriers to that
end.
If you've never done so, study sometime all of the things that have
to go just right for a successful human pregnancy
and childbirth -- then marvel at the global birth rate.
I'm not a religious man, but a baby in my arms is a Really Truly
Miracle.
|5.25.06 @ 12:54PM|#
Excellent point, though I have a feeling a lot of people
would mock the hell out of such a practice.
You speak sooth. For an example of said mockage, see
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002489.html
|5.25.06 @ 12:56PM|#
Swillfredo, I have a friend who's for years used NFP. She's
had four children, and more abortions than I can easily
recall.
Maybe NFP is not right for her. From my Catholic high school days I
remember discussions that the efficacy of NFP, when done properly,
can be upwards of 98%. That assumes that a woman has predictable
cycles, that a couple is very diligent about tracking everything,
and that they have the self-control to abstain or use a raincoat
when in the fertile zone.
Q: What do you call people who use the Rhythm Method?
A: Parents.
It is truly amazing what it takes to successfully pull off a
pregnancy, doubly cruel that so many children are conceived so
easily by those who have the least amount of business having
children. God sure is a sadistic bitch sometimes.
|5.25.06 @ 12:58PM|#
"The Catholic Church endorses Natural Family Planning, which is
different from the Rhythm Method."
What, is "Natural Family Planning" a euphemism for pederasty?
|5.25.06 @ 1:02PM|#
From my Catholic high school days I remember discussions
that the efficacy of NFP, when done properly, can be upwards of
98%. That assumes that a woman has predictable cycles, that a
couple is very diligent about tracking everything, and that they
have the self-control to abstain or use a raincoat when in the
fertile zone.
Hey, and "pulling out" has a 98% success rate too! Oh, that assumes
that the male always successfully pulls out in time, that there is
no pre-e involved, and that the male has good aim.
Amazing what you can accomplish when you assume away the negative
outcomes.
|5.25.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Seamus,
When my grandmother died, we had a funeral. Everyone did not take
turns holding grandma before we buried her.
|5.25.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Amazing what you can accomplish when you assume away the
negative outcomes.
It is also amazing what you can accomplish if you can follow simple
instructions.
taktix|5.25.06 @ 1:37PM|#
Jim Anderson,
That link is meesed up. It makes me want to go jerk off in the
bathroom just to piss them off.
Plus, the Catholic Church has killed off so many people over the
course of history, it has no moral ground upon which to
stand.
Fucking tyrants.
|5.25.06 @ 1:38PM|#
Mo, many funerary traditions, even in Western cultures, involve some form of physical visitation or contact with the deceased. I didn't find that aspect of the linked story difficult to understand, personally.
|5.25.06 @ 1:43PM|#
It is also amazing what you can accomplish if you can follow
simple instructions.
Which is remarkably easy for a man on the verge of orgasm to do,
no?
VM|5.25.06 @ 2:05PM|#
Did you guys know that God sounds exactly like Spongebob
Squarepants?
JMJ
Comment by: Jersey McJones at May 25, 2006 11:47 AM
now what the hell is that supposed to mean?
what the hell form of religion do you practice? oh - since you and
Dave W are such tight pals, you share his imaginary friend. i can
dig that. and i support your practice. just don't expect me to hang
out for the orthodox easter service.
otherwise, that's got to be about the level of some of my "funny"
comments on this board.
that's pretty fucking weak.
OR
you're trying to get the goat of some of the religious people
here.
my, how original. would you like to borrow my blow-up Noam Chomsky
doll?
|5.25.06 @ 2:09PM|#
Which is remarkably easy for a man on the verge of orgasm to
do, no?
There's the rub. The instructions are to have it all figured out
before taking out little Swillfredo.
|5.25.06 @ 2:13PM|#
That Santorum story is sick, is it for real? An open casket
funeral is creepy, but a post mortem petting zoo for kids is the
work of a deranged mind.
How can the same guy think it is natural and healthy for young
children to pass around a dead baby like a Barbie doll but that
playing a video game or viewing a naked breast is evil and will
result in permanent damage.
|5.25.06 @ 2:15PM|#
There's the rub. The instructions are to have it all figured
out before taking out little Swillfredo.
You can't do that if you're hoping for coitus interruptus. Also,
the rhythm method--the idea of avoiding sex when the woman is most
fertile--overlooks (or just doesn't care about) the fact that for
most women, sexual desire is cyclical; the average woman finds her
sex drive the strongest during the time when the chance of
conception is the greatest.
Wow! What a brilliant, woman-friendly method of birth control:
don't have sex when you're horny; have it when you're not as likely
to be in the mood!
From my Catholic high school days I remember discussions that
the efficacy of NFP, when done properly, can be upwards of 98%.
That assumes that a woman has predictable cycles, that a couple is
very diligent about tracking everything, and that they have the
self-control to abstain or use a raincoat when in the fertile
zone.
If the guy's wearing a raincoat it's not "Natural Family Planning",
is it?
|5.25.06 @ 2:16PM|#
The rhythm method works well for intelligent and disciplined
women with regular cycles.
It fails for all others.
One main reason for failure is the fact that women are horniest
during ovulation; thus, they are more likely to be "less
careful".
|5.25.06 @ 2:24PM|#
A little mathematics, folks.
A 98% success rate, assuming sex once a week, works out to one
pregnancy every year, on average. So you assume no nookie for the
last six months of the pregnancy, and for six months afterwards,
and a method with a 98% success rate would lead to a child being
conceived every two years.
Ever do the math on the birth dates of the kids in large,
traditional Irish families that don't use any form of birth
control?
|5.25.06 @ 2:24PM|#
If the guy's wearing a raincoat it's not "Natural Family
Planning", is it?
God made latex so it sounds natural to me.
the average woman finds her sex drive the strongest during the time
when the chance of conception is the greatest.
That makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but
since God created the earth 4,000 years ago we have to assume he
knew what he was doing. It is a test of your commitment to God and
your faith. That you must abstain during your greatest moments of
temptation is a minor nuisance compared to the bliss you will enjoy
eternally at the right hand of the father, provided that you spill
not your seed. And it ain't any easier for the guy to abstain, take
the female libido at its peak and that is pretty much the male sex
drive 365/24/7.
|5.25.06 @ 2:48PM|#
SP's last post makes me suspect he's just
kidding.
I refuse to surrender to the silliness of emoticons but I am
kidding. I am a collapsed Catholic with a passing familiarity of
the cult. I enjoy the hell out of their rigidity and suicidal
adherance to tradition. The Church's stance on birth control is
absolutely foolish. It just so happens that my wife and I used NFP
for a while because BCPs were hell on her and I cannot stand
rubbers. That and we were in that transitional stage between being
DINKs and parents so if she got pregnant cool, if not, cool
too.
It annoys the crap out of me that the Morning After pill is not
sold next to the Skittles in the checkout line, but I think there
are more to blame that on than just Catholics.
|5.25.06 @ 3:03PM|#
whats the vaticans stance on BCP if its to regulate a womans cycle? do they have one? please forgive my ingorance
Jadagul|5.25.06 @ 3:23PM|#
Joe, I could be wrong, but I thought the "98%" figure was the
chance of conception after a year of regular intercourse. As in,
the pill has a 99% success rate, the condom has a 98% success rate,
etc. Not that that means I oppose use of the pill and condoms, or
that NFP actually has that sort of success rate, but I believe
that's the claim.
DHC: The church says it's perfectly okay to do something that
prevents conception as long as that's not the aim. So you can have
a hysterectomy if it's needed for some non-contraceptive medical
reason. For that matter, you can have a medical procedure that
kills the fetus if the procedure is necessary for something else
and the fetus-killing is an unfortunate side effect. Similarly, if
you have a medical reason to use the pill unrelated to
contraception, that's okay. But they say you shouldn't use the
pill, or anything else, with the goal of contraception.
|5.25.06 @ 3:30PM|#
Rand wrote an interesting little essay on the Catholic Church's
seemingly self contradictory policies on birth control, wherein she
showed that the basic goal of the policy was not to either oppose
or endorse contraception per se, but to endorse
ineffective contraception. This ensures that it is
impossible for a loyal follower of the Church to have worry-free,
guilt-free sex. You can practice contraception (the 'rhythm
method') so it is OK for humans to interfere with the process of
creating babies. But it's not OK if such interference would allow
the good Catholic to fuck away without having to worry that a baby
might result. This denies the followers of the Pope the unalloyed
joy of carnal pleasure, which would compete with the Church for the
attention of the soul.
In this sense, it doesn't matter whether a Catholic restricts
him/her self to the 'rhythm method.' If they actually use effective
contraception, they must accept the guilt for doing so, which again
destroys the pure joy of guilt free, worry free sex.
|5.25.06 @ 3:46PM|#
Without commenting on the usual raft of tiresome and unavoidable
issues regarding Catholicism, I have to say that the article itself
was an enormous waste of time. None of it works unless one assumes
that fetal viability decreases as one moves away from peak
fertility in the menstrual cycle, which the author (almost
cheerfully) concedes is completely unproven; indeed, not merely
unproven, but lacking in any evidentiary support whatsoever. Oh,
but it's so totally plausible! Good enough!
Sheesh. Talk about taking things on faith...
|5.25.06 @ 3:51PM|#
So you assume no nookie for the last six months of the
pregnancy, and for six months afterwards
Why the hell would you assume that?
whats the vaticans stance on BCP if its to regulate a womans
cycle? do they have one? please forgive my ingorance
I don't know that "the Vatican" per se has ever opined on the
subject, but Catholic moral theologians would presumably analyze
the question by applying the principle of double effect (which is
also, BTW, how they evaluate the morality of civilian casualties
resulting from the bombing of military targets in war, or, for that
matter, the morality of coitus at a point in the cycle when, if
conception results, there is an increased likelihood of the death
of any resulting embryo than there is if coitus occurs during other
times).
|5.25.06 @ 4:49PM|#
The Church's position on NFP is that it's okay as a tool to help
space pregnancies, but doing it with the intent of avoiding
pregnancy altogether is a sin. Seems pretty consistent with
pro-life/pro-procreation on that front.
Everthing I've read about NFP leads me to believe that the efficacy
numbers aren't much better than 90%. The whole thing based on the
idea of a
predictable fertility window. So good luck with that.
|5.25.06 @ 4:51PM|#
Wow! What a brilliant, woman-friendly method of birth
control: don't have sex when you're horny; have it when you're not
as likely to be in the mood!
But Jennifer, something tells me that a religion which has as one
of its fundamental beliefs the notion that the son of God could
only be born of a pure, innocent untouched virgin is not the place
to look for the most enlightened concern for female sexuality and
desire. I wonder how much damage has been done to the psyche of
women over the years by this ancient mythology of equating purity
and innocence with virginity, and the corresponding connection of
any kind of sexual desire or behavior with the taint of impurity
and sin.
|5.25.06 @ 5:27PM|#
Brian - quite a lot, no doubt. Between this bullshit conception
and the propensity for men in positions of power to not be able to
keep their hands off young girls (uncles, dads, older brothers,
teachers, etc), it makes it hard for a normal guy to befriend and
be truely intimate with a nice, well-adjusted girl.
I know I'm stereotypeing a bit, but there have been very few women
whom I've met, let alone dated, who didn't have one or both of
these factors messing with their heads.
|5.25.06 @ 5:28PM|#
And to be fair, us guys have plenty of issues of our own that I'm sure many of my ex gf's would love to tell you about, but as a guy, I have to expound upon what I know.
|5.25.06 @ 5:32PM|#
Sean hit the nail on the head: garbage in, garbage out. The
study's assumptions are not backed up by empirical evidence, or at
least not by any citation of such. The third assumption, that an
"old" ovum or an "old" sperm will result in a less viable embryo,
would be well suited to a medieval medical manual alongside
leeching treatments and trial by ordeal.
The ovum is as old as the woman herself, and the sperm existed in
the would-be father's epididemis long before it entered the woman's
body. Furthermore, the only major contribution of the sperm to the
new entity is its DNA; the rest of its mass is absorbed into the
much larger ovum. Any decrepitude on its part should have nothing
to do with the state of the resulting cell.
In short, a fine example of sloppy science, of the variety Mr
Bailey often posts here when it supports his pre-conceived position
on an issue.
|5.25.06 @ 5:37PM|#
To make NFP 100% effective, all you need is one of those Wonka egg-testers, and sperm with friggin laser beams coming out of their heads.
|5.25.06 @ 6:15PM|#
For those who might want to know what the Catholic Church
actually has
to say on contraception, versus your ignorant straw men:
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation
based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in
conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods
respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between
them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast,
"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act,
or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal
self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception,
by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not
giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a
positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of
the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give
itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both
anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to
the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two
irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human
sexuality.
|5.25.06 @ 6:21PM|#
"[T]he same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning
after pills, IUDs, and pill usage..."
There is no logic behind christian opposition to birth control.
Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant -- their opinions are
at best just their own emotional reactions and at worst someone
else's.
|5.25.06 @ 6:23PM|#
whats the vaticans stance on BCP if its to regulate a womans
cycle? do they have one?
NFP = Man recognizing and working with the natural cycle created by
God = Good
BCP = Man regulating (interfering with) the natural cycle created
by God = Bad
|5.25.06 @ 6:29PM|#
Oh, and I love how they try to couch it in terms of you're
"...not giving oneself totally to the other."
I see that right after that they talk about the refusal of life (as
if refusing to bring life into this world is necessarily evil), but
then again talk about giving "...in personal totality."
By that logic, her swallowing could be considered "...giving
oneself totally to the other." But that doesn't make babies.
Seriously, the people that have to make this shit up must have
migraines the size of Texas afterwards.
|5.25.06 @ 6:38PM|#
In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of
the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development
of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a
means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically
evil:
Wow. I've always known that I could be bitchy from time to time,
but I never imagined that I regularly did things that are
"intrinsically evil."
I read of a case where a rape victim asked her attacker to at least
put a condom on before he raped her. I wonder how many Hail Marys
the church would have made her recite for her intrinsically evil
request?
|5.25.06 @ 6:53PM|#
Jennifer,
You bring up an interesting point, one which drove a wedge between
myself and many "orthodox" Catholics I know when I wrote an article
during one of the intermittent furies over condoms being handed out
in public schools.
The teaching about birth control is directed primarily at married
couples, and is based on the idea that an otherwise moral act of
sexual intercourse is made immoral by the introduction of
contraceptives. My question was, in the case of an already immoral
sex act (eg fornication, adultery, or in your example, rape), how
can using contraceptives be considered immoral, since it's not
"getting in the way of" a good action?
Needless to say, I was quickly denounced as a lubricator of
slopes.
|5.25.06 @ 6:58PM|#
I have never understood why anyone would take advice on contraception or sex practices from celibate priests. It is like asking your dog to teach you to drive.
|5.25.06 @ 6:58PM|#
every action which, whether in anticipation of the
conjugal act
"Conjugal act" implies that we're talking about intercourse within
marriage. Non-marital rape certainly does not qualify.
|5.25.06 @ 7:05PM|#
Jennifer: Of course you regularly do things which are
intrinsically evil. You can't help it, because you were born
intrinsically evil, a fallen creature, sinful from the moment of
conception because those two innocents back in paradise ate from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And of course, the only way
to save yourself is to hand over your mind to the church, turn off
your thinking, reasoning brain, and confess to the proper
authorities just how inherently depraved you are on a regular
basis. Then, they'll let you drink the wine and chew the wafer, and
you'll temporarily be right with the big guy in the sky.
Oh, and don't forget to put lots of money in the collection plate
on the way out.
|5.25.06 @ 7:49PM|#
Scott,
Well, that begs the question: are they celibate? :)
______________________________
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal
self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception,
by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not
giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a
positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of
the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give
itself in personal totality...
Prove it. :)
_______________________________
Lowdog,
Happily we can all simply ignore this stupidity without any
consequences whatsoever.
crimethink,
The third assumption, that an "old" ovum or an "old" sperm will
result in a less viable embryo, would be well suited to a medieval
medical manual alongside leeching treatments and trial by
ordeal.
I am afraid that age (and thus the age of the gametes) does effect
fertility (at least the age of the woman); this is well known and
in part why IVF is so popular.
Also, have you ever asked yourself why older women have a higher
chance of birthing children with birth defects? In part it is due
to the problems associated with aging of the eggs that human
females carry around in them.
|5.25.06 @ 8:06PM|#
whats the vaticans stance on BCP if its to regulate a womans
cycle? do they have one?
NFP = Man recognizing and working with the natural cycle created by
God = Good
BCP = Man regulating (interfering with) the natural cycle created
by God = Bad
|5.25.06 @ 8:12PM|#
For those of you who are not just lockstep, closed-minded fearful atheists, Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" is the doorway into the infinitely rich and rewarding teachings of the Church on sexual love.
|5.25.06 @ 8:16PM|#
papist,
For those of you who are not just lockstep, closed-minded
fearful atheists, Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" is the
doorway into the infinitely rich and rewarding teachings of the
Church on sexual love.
Yes, it is so "open-minded" to imply that the only way to human
happiness is through the teachings of the RCC. You fisk your
ownself.
|5.25.06 @ 8:22PM|#
And remember, you are a "close-minded atheist" if you happen to disagree with the RCC. For truly it is the case that anyone with an "open mind" would automatically agree with anything that the RCC teaches. For me, being "open minded" is assuming that people can honestly come to different conclusions on the question of God's existance, etc. For people like "papist" apparently that is an impossibility.
|5.25.06 @ 9:01PM|#
PL,
You may be right about the age of the ovum affecting the health of
the zygote it produces. However, when the article refers to "old"
ova, it isn't talking about ova of older women -- which actually
are old ova -- but ova that have been floating in the fallopian
tubes for an above-average duration. The article doesn't explain
how floating in the fallopian tubes degrades the ovum beyond
claiming that such a notion is "plausible".
|5.25.06 @ 9:16PM|#
even diploid (non-ova, non-sperm) cells usually have a limited life span. certainly this is true of gametes as well. crimethink, your assertion that eggs are as old as the woman is is not correct, since eggs are developed from the maturation and division of follicles in the ovaries. I suppose one could debate when a cell's life begins, since cells are derived from previously existing cells, but strictly speaking, the ova are as old as the time that has elapsed since the 2nd meiotic division that produces them is completed.
|5.25.06 @ 9:18PM|#
crimethink,
The article doesn't explain how floating in the fallopian tubes
degrades the ovum beyond claiming that such a notion is
"plausible".
Upon reading the article I see what you are getting at.
Nevertheless, it is plausible, and I think your earlier
characterization of such a concept is unfair and unmerited
(especially as the author admits that it is not backed by empirical
evidence). Indeed, what the article really is this, a thought
experiment, and useful one I think.
|5.26.06 @ 11:20AM|#
biologist,
OK, I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression that at birth,
a woman has all the ova she ever will have. My question, I guess,
is are the ova still being produced after puberty? If not, my point
still stands; the "age" of an ovum has little to do with the length
of its stay in the fallopian tubes.
|5.26.06 @ 11:37AM|#
PL,
The author's acknowledgement that his central assumption hasn't a
shred of empirical evidence to back it up, in a single sentence
buried in the two-page article, does not give his argument any more
legitimacy. Especially when the title and headline make the claim
that the rhythm method (and thus NFP) causes embryonic deaths.
M. Simon|5.26.06 @ 11:41AM|#
I generally prefer rythmic sex.
And arithmic sex can be pretty good with the right partner. Its a
skill.
|5.26.06 @ 12:33PM|#
crimethink,
I'd say that it was one of the assumptions of the article. I also
don't think that the title is as provocative as you say that it
is.
|5.26.06 @ 4:31PM|#
Articles like this always get me mad. Dammit, FDA, give us chemical male birth control now! It's been shown to work since 1996, shown reversible for at least the last 5 years, no side effects save rare acne and weight gain (much less than the effects of the female Pill), so what's the frigging hold up? Do those people like abstinence/child support/shotgun weddings? Boggles the damn mind, it does.
|5.27.06 @ 6:52PM|#
Did you guys know that God sounds exactly like Spongebob
Squarepants?
God is Spongebob, Spongebob is God.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245