The rhythm method and embryonic death

[TheLearner]

Read this document: The rhythm method and embryonic death, or NFP and embryonic death.

REPRODUCTIVE ETHICS
The rhythm method and embryonic death - L. Bovens
**
Some proponents of the pro-life movement argue against
morning after pills, IUDs, and contraceptive pills on
grounds of a concern for causing embryonic death. What
has gone unnoticed, however, is that the pro-life line of
argumentation can be extended to the rhythm method of
contraception as well. Given certain plausible empirical
assumptions, the rhythm method may well be responsible
for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some
other contraceptive techniques.**

…]

A concern for consistency has pushed advocates
of the pro-life position into opposing all
contraceptive techniques that cause embryonic
deaths.** Catholics might welcome this, since the
official position of the church is that, aside from
the rhythm method, no contraceptive techniques
are permissible. This benefit is questionable**.**
What has gone unnoticed is that, if one is willing
to make a few relatively innocent assumptions,
then 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.**

…]

What is the expectation of embryonic death for rhythm
method users? Our first assumption was that only half of the
embryos are viable. I take it that this value holds for populations
using no contraception and not distinguishing between HF and
non-HF periods (or using contraceptive techniques that do not
distinguish between HF and non-HF periods). What is not
known is what proportion of embryos are conceived during the
HF period as opposed to outside the HF period. Since it is
reasonable to assume that only a minority of embryos are
conceived outside the HF period, let us make a broad estimate
that between 1/10 and 1/3 are so conceived. Then, by our third
assumption—that is, that the chance of the viability is twice as
high for an embryo conceived during the HF period as for an
embryo conceived outside of the HF period, we can calculate
that the chance of viability outside theHF period ranges roughly
from one in four to one in three.i So, on average, for every
pregnancy that results from a conception outside the HF period,
there are two to three embryonic deaths. And hence, by our
second assumption—that is, that rhythm users may expect one
pregnancy in ten woman years, it follows that we can expect
two to three embryonic deaths in ten woman years. If all of
Alcorn’s 780 million pill users were to switch to the rhythm
method, then these converts would be causing, in his own
words, the deaths not of tens of thousands, but of millions of
unborn children.

So what is the alternative? If one is concerned about
minimising embryonic death, then one should avoid types of
contraception whereby each unintended pregnancy (due to its
failure) comes at the expense of a high embryonic death rate.ii

Given our first assumption, a condom user (who makes no
distinction between HF and non-HF periods) can count on one
embryonic death for each unintended pregnancy. A rhythm
method user, however, should count on two to three embryonic
deaths for each unintended pregnancy. Assuming a success rate
of 95% for condom usage, we can count on an expectation of .5
pregnancies in 10 years. Hence, the expectation of embryonic
death is .5 per ten years for a condom user, which is
substantially lower than the expectation of two to three
embryonic deaths per ten years on the rhythm method. Even
a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in
case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the
rhythm method.
**
…]**

And finally, one person’s modus ponens is another person’s
modus tollens. One could simply conceive of this whole
argument as a reductio ad absurdum of the cornerstone of the
argument of the pro-life movement, namely that deaths of
early embryos are a matter of grave concern.

…]

John Harris makes a similar argument for procreation. If one is
genuinely concerned about embryonic death, then one should choose
reproductive techniques that minimise embryonic death. If IVF had
developed to the point that a pregnancy could be brought about at
minimal cost of embryonic death, then one would be required to refrain
from reproducing through sexual intercourse, because it would come at
a needlessly high cost of embryonic death. Harris (Harris,2 p 346) takes
this to be a reductio ad absurdum of the reverence with which the pro-life
movement treats embryos in the discussion about stem cell research.

Link: web.archive.org/web/20070623231409/http://press.psprings.co.uk/jme/june/355_me13920.pdf

What do you make of this?

Is the rhythm method sinful?

 

[BiologyBrain]

This line of thought equates natural unintended miscarriage w/ intentional abortion. That’s just WRONG on several levels. Unintended miscarriage is already a heavy burden for a woman to carry. Assigning her the role of aborter is cruel and unjustifiable. My pregnancy success rate is about 20%. However, I did everything possible to save my 4 pregnancies that ended in miscarriage. I cannot believe people can be so callous and ignorant.

I don’t understand how they think the rhythm method/NFP can acheive embryonic death. Contraception kills embryos after they are conceived as one of its modes of action. Theoretically, NFP (I’m discounting the rhythm method b/c its included) if used to avoid pregnancy stops conception from occuring. A woman’s body is specifically designed to have 5 or so days of fertility out of a month (28 days or so). Marital embrace during these naturally infertile times will not result in a pregnancy b/c the egg is not ready for fertilization. It may not be fully formed, released, or receptive. If that is the case, no embry can be formed, therefore there is no embryonic death. If conception occurs using NFP, it is up to the woman’s body & God to maintain the pregnancy. The woman does nothing to hinder the new embryo. With contraception, there are artificial chemicals (or artificial levels of naturally occurring chemicals) that attack the growing embryo. The woman’s body has been unnaturally made hostile to the embryo and her body cannot embrace the embryo as it should.

Not all embryos survive even in a non-contracepting woman - as many as 50% of pregnancies (reported) end in miscarriage through no fault of the woman. However, when contraception is added to the equation, the theoretical rate of pregnancy is less than 5%. How many of these ‘non-pregnancies’ were actually terminated at early stages? No one really knows. However, chance of embryonic death (purposely) drastically increases when contraception is used.

 

[Dolphincrc]

Well said, BiologyBrain. I wouldn’t pay much attention to that article, coming from someone in the “London School of Economics and Political Science, Dept of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method”. Obviously he’s pushing his own agenda/philosophy and probably not an expert in this field.

 

[fermat]

“Catholics might welcome this, since the
official position of the church is that, aside from
the rhythm method, no contraceptive techniques
are permissible.”

First, if you are saying that rhythm method is the same as NFP, you are already off base.

Second, the church teaches that no contraceptive techiques are ok. NFP is not contraception. Contraception is contra-conception. You are doing something to block or inhibit the fertilization of the egg. Not having intercourse at certain times does not block or inhibit the life from starting.

 

[Newbie2]

That article is the biggest non-sequitur i.e. load of horse pucky I’ve ever read. Whoever “L. Bovens” is, he or she has a clear misunderstanding of human physiology and of theology.

 

[PaulinVA]

Isn’t writing a current article about the rhythm method in 2005 like writing a current automobile article about the Edsel?

 

[timotheos]

Based on the posted information, I have to conclude that the author is a complete ignoramus on the subject of reproductive physiology and biology. Not to mention the basis of Catholic teaching on the subject.

What is really suprising to me is the sloppy editorial review system apparently in place at J Med Ethics. Statements such as …

“Rhythm method users try to avoid pregnancy by aiming at the period in which conception is less likely to occur and in which viability is lower. So their success rate is due not only to the fact that they manage to avoid conception, but also to the fact that conceived ova have reduced survival chances.”

… have no citations, and is based on speculation that is not supported by basic reproductive physiology. But the author’s use of “science-speak” gives the illusion of knowledge. Agenda-driven pseudo-science, I call it. I expect more of this type of garbage in the future.

-Tim

 

[Melissa]

Bad science. (I’m still confused how you can end up with more deaths than pregnancies, given their “1 pregnancy in 10 woman years” and 2-3 deaths in the same time period). In any case, even if you accept their arithmetic and assumptions about the number of deaths of newly conceived infants, they’ve got a really bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. (But I would also challenge the arithmetic and assumptions because I think they’re based on a misunderstanding of NFP as evidenced by their use of the term “rhythm method”.)

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is no medical evidence that I know of that the low fertility outside of the fertile window (about a week of high fertility HF per cycle) is due to the death of a conceived prenatal. The quote given by the OP does not cite any evidence, but merely assumes that the decreased fertility is due to deaths. The current medical evidence is that the low fertility period is caused primarily by the fact that ovulation only occurs during the latter part of the fertile window. In fact, that is what defines the fertile window. The quoted material above strangely ignores ovulation as the determinant of whether or not conception can occur. In addition, changes in the lining of the reproductive tract at times other than at or near ovulation, also make it harder for conception to occur.

So the quoted material is medically false, as are its conclusions.

 

[Watchman]

I kept waiting for the science to kick in. There seemed to be an inordinate amount of “certain plausible empirical assumptions…”, “if one is willing to make a few relatively innocent assumptions…”, “let us make a broad estimate…”, and “hence, by our second assumption…” going on.

With an agenda and leeway to fabricate your numbers I’m surprised he didn’t prove that “the rhythm method” is responsible for global warming as well.

 

[PaulinVA]

There is no medical evidence that I know of that the low fertility outside of the fertile window (about a week of high fertility HF per cycle) is due to the death of a conceived prenatal. The quote given by the OP does not cite any evidence, but merely assumes that the decreased fertility is due to deaths. The current medical evidence is that the low fertility period is caused primarily by the fact that ovulation only occurs during the latter part of the fertile window. In fact, that is what defines the fertile window. The quoted material above strangely ignores ovulation as the determinant of whether or not conception can occur. In addition, changes in the lining of the reproductive tract at times other than at or near ovulation, also make it harder for conception to occur.

So the quoted material is medically false, as are its conclusions.

There you go.

Ron, I agree with you.

 

[Florida_mom]

Oh good gosh–such garbage talk that article from what little I could understand of it.

The body spontaneously aborts (miscarries) for a gazillion and one reasons.

Let’s pretend that we decide to criminalize and make unholy all deaths of embryos…

Well–what about cutting the body–if you get injured, that is an automatic crime. Break your leg playing football–your fault, guilty of a crime. Get the flu and can’t keep food in your stomach–a crime.

We need to stop rationalizing immoral activities by comparing them to spontaneous and involuntary activities.

For goodness sakes–the rhythm method and NFP causing the death of an embryo???

Seriously? What next–teaching abstinence only sex education causes deaths?

Engaging in a holy life with your spouse and keeping one with each other is not a crime nor is it immoral. The pregnancies that do or do not a result are what God intended.

And if HE causes that miscarriage for whatever reason–it was HE who decided. Not us humans.

NFP and Rhythm tantamount to an abortion and killing embryos?

Do these nuts even understand the birds and the bees? If a couple is mutually abstaining–how in the world is that same as an abortion?

It isn’t.

I’m not an activist or a scientist, but I am beginning to think I shall rethink those positions while the ignorant roam the earth and use preposterious science to justify the killing of the unborn.

That’s like saying–well Suzy got into a car accident, I should be allowed to crash my car into another car just like Suzy.

An egg and an embryo are not one and the same.