Re: Nfp/rhythm Method Cause More Abortions Than BC

Some pro-life groups insist that hormonal birth control and the IUD are actually abortifacients, claiming that they cause the uterus to be hostile to the embryo trying to implant. Here is an interesting article that turns that argument around:

NFP/Rhythm Method Cause more Abortions than BC


Some bad news for devoted Pro-Lifers has just been released by the London School of Economics. The rhythm method, which employs the practice of only participating in intercourse when a woman is not in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, has proven to actually kill more embryos than other birth control methods. Conception can still occur after the fertile time but the embryo is unable to implant in the uterine wall, this causes embryonic death. Luc Bovens, of the London School of economics states, "millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death."


source

Admin wrote:

Some pro-life groups insist that hormonal birth control and the IUD are actually abortifacients, claiming that they cause the uterus to be hostile to the embryo trying to implant. Here is an interesting article that turns that argument around:

NFP/Rhythm Method Cause more Abortions than BC


Some bad news for devoted Pro-Lifers has just been released by the London School of Economics. The rhythm method, which employs the practice of only participating in intercourse when a woman is not in the fertile phase of her menstrual cycle, has proven to actually kill more embryos than other birth control methods. Conception can still occur after the fertile time but the embryo is unable to implant in the uterine wall, this causes embryonic death. Luc Bovens, of the London School of economics states, "millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death."


source

How does it turn the argument around?

It turns the specific issue of being anti-birth control around. The pro-lifers who try to say that hormonal birth control causes abortions should stop pushing NFP because it causes more abortions than hormonal birth control.

On a larger front, it goes to show that pro-lifers do not view the zygote as equivalent to born people.

futureshock wrote:

It turns the specific issue of being anti-birth control around. The pro-lifers who try to say that hormonal birth control causes abortions should stop pushing NFP because it causes more abortions than hormonal birth control.

OK then.

Quote :

On a larger front, it goes to show that pro-lifers do not view the zygote as equivalent to born people.

How do you know that they realize that NFP causes early micro-abortions? Was that not just discovered?

NorthStar wrote:

How do you know that they realize that NFP causes early micro-abortions? Was that not just discovered?

That's a fair point, but I bet this knowledge won't change their behavior one iota.

Based on the source, this assertion about NFP appears to be nothing more than conjecture by a political scientist. It was not based on medical or biological scientific studies.

NorthStar wrote:

Based on the source, this assertion about NFP appears to be nothing more than conjecture by a political scientist. It was not based on medical or biological scientific studies.

What's not conjecture is the fact that many more embryos are lost than are ever born. The following exchange is from the President's Council on Bioethics, where some of the most esteemed and capable scientists were gathered. The point is, that even without NFP, just normal procreative sex kills a lot more embryos than anything else.

Quote :

PROF. SANDEL: "Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?"


DR. OPITZ: "The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."



http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.htmla

futureshock wrote:

NorthStar wrote:

Based on the source, this assertion about NFP appears to be nothing more than conjecture by a political scientist. It was not based on medical or biological scientific studies.

What's not conjecture is the fact that many more embryos are lost than are ever born. The following exchange is from the President's Council on Bioethics, where some of the most esteemed and capable scientists were gathered. The point is, that even without NFP, just normal procreative sex kills a lot more embryos than anything else.

Quote :

PROF. SANDEL: "Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?"


DR. OPITZ: "The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."

http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.htmla

Your point is irrelevant. The critical assertion that was being made was that NFP utilizes post-fertilization action for its (meager) effectiveness. That assertion is groundless.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

NorthStar wrote:

Based on the source, this assertion about NFP appears to be nothing more than conjecture by a political scientist. It was not based on medical or biological scientific studies.

What's not conjecture is the fact that many more embryos are lost than are ever born. The following exchange is from the President's Council on Bioethics, where some of the most esteemed and capable scientists were gathered. The point is, that even without NFP, just normal procreative sex kills a lot more embryos than anything else.

Quote :

PROF. SANDEL: "Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?"


DR. OPITZ: "The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."

http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.htmla

Your point is irrelevant. The critical assertion that was being made was that NFP utilizes post-fertilization action for its (meager) effectiveness. That assertion is groundless.

The assertion is not groundless, given the fact that,

Quote :

"millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death."

This massive embryonic death occurs, whether a couple has sex only on "safe" days or everyday.