The Rhythms of Nonsense About Ethical Arguments Against the Rhythm Method
BMJ (pointed to us by Jay Hughes) writes that:People opposed to the destruction of human embryos should be as concerned about potential "embryonic deaths" from the practice of the so-called "rhythm method" as they are about the use of emergency contraception or human embryonic stem cell research, according to an article published in the June edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, the New York Times reports. Luc Bovens, a philosopher at the London School of Economics and Political Science, has said that couples who try to prevent pregnancy by having sexual intercourse only at the end of the woman's most fertile period might be increasing the chances of conceiving an embryo that does not implant or develop in the uterus, the Times reports. The "same logic that turned pro-lifers away from [EC, intrauterine devices] and [birth control] pill usage should make them nervous about the rhythm method," Bovens writes, adding, "Even a policy of condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method."Boom. Boom. Boom.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
I don't make assumptions. I formulate hypotheses I can test. Periodically you post a stinker here. I guess you were due. You know what they when you assume.
- by Tannhauser on Jun 13, 2006 at 11:16 PM | link
Boom. Boom. Boom. What? This article is a) old, b) poorly argued, c) clearly an attack on the Catholic Church rather than a well researched article, and d) already been responded to quite well in the "replies" posted at the site as well as on numerous blogs.
- by Sarcasticus Bioethicus on Jun 14, 2006 at 12:39 AM | link