How NFP kills embryos

[Marty]

This is a good argumentative point that I feel is appropriate in this section because its one view of how the un-Catholic world see's NFP. It's an interesting read, and further instills my notion that the hurricane of NFP that has swept Catholics away from Children, is not very Catholic at all.

From - http://blogs.smh.com.au/dissection/archives/2006/05/how_vatican_rou.html

How Vatican roulette kills embryos

The rhythm method - the only form of contraception approved by the Catholic Church - may actually be the source of mass-scale embryo carnage.
Or so at least says Luc Bovens, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics.

Part of Catholics' opposition to the contraceptive pill, he points out, is that it in the event that a woman ovulates despite it and the egg is fertilised, then the pill's effect on the lining of the uterus may prevent the resulting embrryo from implanting. Since, according to Church doctrine, life begins at fertilisation then that can technically be interpreted as an abortion. Ditto for the intrauterine device (IUD).
In natural menstrual cycles, free from hormonal or pharmaceutical or mechanical manipulation, there is an optimal time of conception - within a day or two of the egg being released from the ovary. Leave them too long and they start to pass their prime, less able to carry the genetic recipe for a healthy baby.
So, Bovens says in the Journal of Medical Ethics, it's reasonable to assume that some of the rhythm method's effectiveness comes not from preventing the egg and sperm getting together in the first place, but from the creation of runt embryos that don't stand a chance of passing muster in the great Darwinian survival race. Add a decaying uterus lining later in the cycle and the poor clump of cells doesn't stand a snowball's.
The same argument could apply to a newly released egg that is fertilised by geriatric sperm, still hanging around from before the period of abstinence.
"If it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by making the uterine wall inhospitable to implantation," Bovens writes, "then clearly it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by organising one's sex life so that [fertilised] ova lack resilience and will face a uterine wall inhospitable to implantation."
It might be possible to draw a divide, he says, between deliberate, active abortion and accepting that the loss of an embryo is one of a range of possible actions of a form of contraception.
"There may indeed be a psychological distinction, similar to the comfort a person in a firing squad receives from not knowing that it was his bullet that killed the victim," Bovens sniffs. "But I do not think that this argument has any normative force."
On the other hand, he concludes, fretting about the question at all could be seen as, "a reductio ad absurdam of the cornerstone of the argument of the pro-life movement, namely that the deaths of early embryos are a matter of grave concern."

Julie Robotham
May 25, 2006 12:29 PM

[miss_fluffy]

I agree with you that the overuse of NFP is a problem.  But this  person's assertion about geriatric sperm is totally false.  Any  sperm that is able to live for an extended period of time in an  inhospitable (non-fertile) womb environment would be a strong sperm,  with very good genetics.  The scenario that he speaks of usually  occurs in couples where the man has poor nutrition, and the sperm  mostly die off quickly.  If they are lucky enough to be introduced  to the womb during her time of prime fertility, it sometimes causes  conception, but the woman's body expels it because it recognizes the  abnormalities.
 
  I think the better argument about NFP deals with non-catholic (or  God-forbid Catholic) people that use it haphazardly, and when it fails  opt for an abortion.  And the fact that no instruction as to it's  appropriate use is ever given (ie times of severe ill-health, or severe  poverty) And that it is widely encouraged that couples engage in  perverse sex acts that involve the spilling of seed during fertile  times.  These are serious enough problems in and of themselves,  and this guy is making up nonsense to speak against it.  I know of  an acquaintance who is not catholic but uses NFP and engages in sodomy  with her husband during fertile times.  And she took classes  through the Catholic church!
 
 

[Vincentius]

What hogwash!  So now NFP is somehow an abortifacient? Apparently these two, Bovens and Robotham, haven't met Dr. Janet Smith.  She'll demolish their arguments in two seconds or tear it apart in one second.

[Marty]

What hogwash!  So now NFP is somehow an abortifacient?

well, if you use it to avoid to avoid a pregnancy, (without the appropriate reasons...we all know what they are blah blah blah) I can see why you come up with this notion. As to your mates who could dispel this argument, that is good, every argument needs 2 sides.

 

[Marty]

I know of an acquaintance who is not catholic but uses NFP and engages in sodomy with her husband during fertile times.  And she took classes through the Catholic church!

Its not surprising that she practices sodomy and was instructed through the Church, Christopher West (of TOB fame) wrote a book about sex or whatever and in it it states that Sodomy between a couple during the 'Natural' act is fine....

[miss_fluffy]

Christopher West (of TOB fame) wrote a book about sex or  whatever and in it it states that Sodomy between a couple during the  'Natural' act is fine....

 
  What's TOB?
 

[Sophia]

What hogwash!  So now NFP is somehow an abortifacient?

well, if you use it to avoid to avoid a pregnancy, (without the appropriate reasons...we all know what they are blah blah blah) I can see why you come up with this notion. As to your mates who could dispel this argument, that is good, every argument needs 2 sides.

 

But Marty, this is bad science.  It is just plain false, and another sophistic attack on the Church's moral teaching.

[Carthusian]

What's TOB?

 

Theology of the Body

[Marty]

 

What hogwash!  So now NFP is somehow an abortifacient?

well, if you use it to avoid to avoid a pregnancy, (without the appropriate reasons...we all know what they are blah blah blah) I can see why you come up with this notion. As to your mates who could dispel this argument, that is good, every argument needs 2 sides.

 

But Marty, this is bad science.  It is just plain false, and another sophistic attack on the Church's moral teaching.

 

I'm not saying its good science, just a seculare point of view that I found interesting and thought I'd share with all...we need a 'nfp vs non nfp section'...

 

[orangemetal]

NFP is not Catholic on any way. How could anyone think so? The Church has always said that if you can't have a child for some real problem like money problems you can stop the marital act and even that was discouraged and trusting in God was even more encouraged. Gladius or someone help me out on this one cause i know i'm not wrong on this.

 

Jonathan