Is the rhythme method responsible for millions of dead babies?

The rhythme method is the only method of contraception the catholic church allows. But apart from having a high failure rate, it may even cause the death of a lot of early embryos. According to this article:

Journal of Medical Ethics

What do you think, should the church advise the use of condoms instead?

I think the church is going to go with tradition whatever anyone thinks. I didn't read that whole thing(too big), but I doubt I can change what the church thinks about pregnancy anyhow. I think that [intelligent] individuals who disagree with this rhythme method, should just scrap the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I think that [intelligent] individuals who disagree with this rhythme method, should just scrap the church.

---

for many people thats just not possible due to social pressure etc. (especially in areas like South America etc.)

the caholic church simply doesnt allow condoms, its silly, and causes more death and siffering than allowing contraception, but sadly when the church gets something in its head it doesnt change for a long long long long time :skull:

OSE

Oral Solves Eveything....

I prefer the other philosophy:

ASE

~D

I thought the rhythm method meant that you got a shag whilst listening to Luther Vandross....:inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I thought the rhythm method meant that you got a shag whilst listening to Luther Vandross....:inquisitive: :laugh4:

---

That's the Soul method baby :afro: .

Just pull out prior to the pop. A real man has at least that much control.

It is an interesting article for sure, although the assumptions made could be challenged quite easily.

However, the argument the Church uses against contraception is tortuous even by their own standards of logic, and science is hardly going to make any difference to those views. It's the same with abortion/embryo research - millions of embryos are lost through natural processes - I guess God wasn't really paying attention to the proper design of conception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Just pull out prior to the pop. A real man has at least that much control.

---

Ya, and only a roulette player goes for those odds.
:baby:

I'll go with Dave

OSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

I'll go with Dave

OSE

---

Really? :inquisitive:

The rhythme method is the online method of contraception the catholic church allows.
Firstly , since when did the catholic church get into cyber sex ?
Secondly how do you get pregnant online ?
~;)

I normally don't like to speak in terms of black and white, but in this case I'll have to say that people are responsible for their own contraception or lack thereof. Frankly people who'll let their life dictate by some geratric old men in far away Rome, are sheep.

Now, if Rome's version of 'contraception' actually results in more expired fetuses, that's incredibly ironic. I long for the day when the vast majority of catholics have learned to take what the church tells them with a grain of salt, and make their own decisions that affect their own lives. Such as contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I long for the day when the vast majority of catholics have learned to take what the church tells them with a grain of salt, and make their own decisions that affect their own lives. Such as contraception.

---

I think you will find that day came and went some years ago. Apart from the very traditional African Church (likely source of the the next pope) the vast majority of Catholics take almost no notice of the Church in matters contraceptive.

Because the hierarchy is made of geriatric old men, it hasn't really cottoned onto this, but most parish priests have.

To be a modern Roman Catholic requires a personal salt mine. :sweatdrop:

I was mainly thinking of Latin America and other second or third world countries. But you're right, lots of catholics have already moved on. Fortunately, I might add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I was mainly thinking of Latin America and other second or third world countries. But you're right, lots of catholics have already moved on. Fortunately, I might add.

---

It's amazing how much of Latin America has moved into tune with the European/US catholic viewpoint. There's still hotspots of traditionalism, but they have often been really progressive - remember liberation theology?

Africa however, the one continent where condom use desperately needs every support it can get, is still in the dark ages along with Benedict and his red flunkies.

hmm, what about the _actual_ (and unofficial) state of things ? I know that the church _officially_ forbids the use of condoms...but what about the individual priests ? Do they condone it, or accept it, at least in some situations ?
I'm asking, because I am aware of similar cases (but the issue was not conception), and it was not the catholic church, either. Keep in mind that there are some issues that the church doesn't actually insist on, like a lot of stuff from the Bible that cannot be interpreted literally in this age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

hmm, what about the _actual_ (and unofficial) state of things ? I know that the church _officially_ forbids the use of condoms...but what about the individual priests ? Do they condone it, or accept it, at least in some situations ?

---

Last I heard, Benny the Pope said something about the Church allowing the use of condoms (or at least, considering allowing) in cases where one of the pair was terminally ill, such as AIDS ... but it is still very, very forbidden for regular use.

Never heard what happened with the proposal later ... darn, well, I have more than enough material to make fun of my Catholic friends and their faith. :2thumbsup:

Oh, and if they rescinded the abstinence rule for priests, I'm telling you, they would accept contraception real fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

The rhythme method is the online method of contraception the catholic church allows. But apart from having a high failure rate, it may even cause the death of a lot of early embryos. According to this article:

Journal of Medical Ethics

What do you think, should the church advise the use of condoms instead?

---

I don't see that this article addresses the Catholic position on contraception. It appears to be a more general argument against a possible anti-abortion stance. The position doesn't engage the central point of the Catholic stance. If the piece was looking to effectively challenge Catholic teaching on the issue, it has not done so.

Quote:

---

The first assumption is that there are a great number of conceptions that never result in missed menses. There are estimates that only 50% of conceptions actually lead to pregnancies. The second assumption is that, even in clinical trials, the rhythm method can fail due to the fact that a pregnancy results from sexual intercourse on the last days before and the first days after the prescribed abstinence period. Estimates of the effectiveness of the rhythm method vary in the literature, but let us set its effectiveness for clinical trials at 90%—that is, conscientious rhythm method users can expect one pregnancy in ten woman years. The third assumption is that there is a greater chance that a conception will lead to a viable embryo if it occurs in the centre interval of the fertile period than if it occurs on the tail ends of the fertile period. This assumption is not backed up by empirical evidence, but does have a certain plausibility.

---

What a joke! The article claims to be about ethics, but is really a pop at opponents of abortion. It builds its whole argument on an unfounded assumption and then uses emotive words like "callous". At least it's honest about its itention:

Quote:

---

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.

---

It is not even an new idea. Germaine Greer has used an identical argument in a much more colourful way at least two decades ago.

We have already covered the bit about most Catholics not following the church's teaching on contraception, but can I also add that the "rhythm method" has not been the method of choice for at least 50 years. Natural family planning is now based on the sympto-thermal method, which involves recording body temperature and the properties of vaginal mucus (if such words are allowed in the backroom) as well as refering to menstral history. I state this in the intrests of accuracy, not as a recommendation of a particular form of contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Last I heard, Benny the Pope said something about the Church allowing the use of condoms (or at least, considering allowing) in cases where one of the pair was terminally ill, such as AIDS ... but it is still very, very forbidden for regular use.

---

Bleh, almost no one cares about that rule. Pretty much no western Catholic follows it either.

About Africa: while the church is partially responsible for the AIDS problem, let's not overrate its importance, there are a lot of things wrong with African societies which lead to the higher risk of AIDS. Polygamy and/or cheating on your wife is considered pretty normal in a lot of places. The Church certainly doesn't approve of that. There is a lot of war and related or unrelated rape. There is a lack of hospitals, so certainly a lack of screened blood. And there's that little preference for 'dry humping' (if you don't know what I'm referring to, I'm not going to explain it) which makes the transference of HIV much easier (especially towards the woman I guess).

Even if Benedicte will allow condoms, which seems likely these days, it won't solve the problem in Africa, not by a long shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Just pull out prior to the pop. A real man has at least that much control.

---

That would mean only those who aren't real men get babies :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

That would mean only those who aren't real men get babies :laugh4:

---

So much for survival of the fittest then

Africa is like One of the Most Leading Places that HIV/AIDS Spread At.. I use a Prime Example of Polygamy in this example

Reading a Book Called Black Hawk Down, you guys should know the Movie,about the U.S being in Somliaia and Such..

Well,when that one U.S. Pilot got captured,the Man who was taking care of him was talking to him,and the Piloit asked him "how many kids you got" and the Guy said he had like 9 Wives and 27 Kids, but later in the book,it said it was found out he had 5 wives and 15 Kids,can't remember Word per Word..

I know this is going to do me no credit whatsoever and I will possibly be shunned by all who are not Monty Python fans but.....


There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
...God get quite irate.


Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed...
...In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.

God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

:laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm sorry :shame:

that was....disturbing...I sang alot with in because I not Cathloic,but my dad forced me to go to one,and I'm out of there,and one of the Songs we Sang at Mass,the music could go well with this.....

...And that's why I have to sell you all for medical research.

the rhythm method ahs been responsible for me being able to have condom-less sex with models from catholic countries in the former soviet-bloc.

just trying to find the silver lining in all this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't see that this article addresses the Catholic position on contraception. It appears to be a more general argument against a possible anti-abortion stance. The position doesn't engage the central point of the Catholic stance. If the piece was looking to effectively challenge Catholic teaching on the issue, it has not done so.

---

It's not targeted at the catholic church, it's merely a contemplation on the rhythme method as contraceptive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

What a joke! The article claims to be about ethics, but is really a pop at opponents of abortion. It builds its whole argument on an unfounded assumption and then uses emotive words like "callous". At least it's honest about its itention:

---

I don't see the joke. Are you suggesting that these assumptions - which are clearly stated as assumptions, hence the question mark in the title - are unlikely?

Quote:

---

We have already covered the bit about most Catholics not following the church's teaching on contraception, but can I also add that the "rhythm method" has not been the method of choice for at least 50 years. Natural family planning is now based on the sympto-thermal method, which involves recording body temperature and the properties of vaginal mucus (if such words are allowed in the backroom) as well as refering to menstral history. I state this in the intrests of accuracy, not as a recommendation of a particular form of contraception.

---

Wouldn't the same concerns apply to that method?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

I don't see that this article addresses the Catholic position on contraception. It appears to be a more general argument against a possible anti-abortion stance. The position doesn't engage the central point of the Catholic stance. If the piece was looking to effectively challenge Catholic teaching on the issue, it has not done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

It's not targeted at the catholic church, it's merely a contemplation on the rhythme method as contraceptive.

---

---

If the article doesn't address the Catholic Church's stance then why the question: "What do you think, should the (C)hurch advise the use of condoms instead?"

Because the Catholic church is the most relevant one. It's a monolith religious organisation that recommends the rythm method as the only acceptable contraception. Some protestant churches might be doing the same, but they're smaller and their word has much less leverage.

Quote:

---

I don't see the joke. Are you suggesting that these assumptions - which are clearly stated as assumptions, hence the question mark in the title - are unlikely?

---

For the first assumption, there is very littles scientific evidence to back up the figure of "more than half". It is, however, safe to say that sometimes fertilisation does not lead to implantation. The second assumption is udoubtably true, even for the sympto-thermal method, a method of which the author seems unaware. The third assumption is crucial to the argument but is not based on any scientific evidence at all. Conceptions that occur following intercourse before the identified safe period will be due to the survival of sperm and earlier than predicted ovulation. Since the sperm only contributes genetic material, it is difficult to see how the sperm being "old" as the article describes it could affect implantation unless you are arguing that the genetic material itself is degraded. However cells maintain undegraded genetic material for periods much longer than a few days. Conceptions resulting from intercourse later than expected will be due to unusually late ovulation. There is an argument that the lining of the womb is less than optimum at this stage, but there is little to back this up since the shedding of the lining of the womb does not start until well after any chance of implantation. This does not stop the author from pulling a figure of twice as many embryonic deaths for late and early conceptions from absolutely nowhere. The argument is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based, and the third assumption is shaky to say the least.

Quote:

---

Wouldn't the same concerns apply to that method?

---

To the extent that it applies at all, yes. I only mentioned it to make sure that everyone knows that the rhythm method is not the one advocated by the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Because the Catholic church is the most relevant one. It's a monolith religious organisation that recommends the rythm method as the only acceptable contraception. Some protestant churches might be doing the same, but they're smaller and their word has much less leverage.

---

It didn't work!:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If the article doesn't address the Catholic Church's stance then why the question: "What do you think, should the (C)hurch advise the use of condoms instead?"

---

Well, had I said "What do you think, should the Buddhists advise the use of condoms instead?" instead, it would have been a crude way to start a discussion, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

For the first assumption, there is very littles scientific evidence to back up the figure of "more than half". It is, however, safe to say that sometimes fertilisation does not lead to implantation. The second assumption is udoubtably true, even for the sympto-thermal method, a method of which the author seems unaware. The third assumption is crucial to the argument but is not based on any scientific evidence at all. Conceptions that occur following intercourse before the identified safe period will be due to the survival of sperm and earlier than predicted ovulation. Since the sperm only contributes genetic material, it is difficult to see how the sperm being "old" as the article describes it could affect implantation unless you are arguing that the genetic material itself is degraded. However cells maintain undegraded genetic material for periods much longer than a few days. Conceptions resulting from intercourse later than expected will be due to unusually late ovulation. There is an argument that the lining of the womb is less than optimum at this stage, but there is little to back this up since the shedding of the lining of the womb does not start until well after any chance of implantation. This does not stop the author from pulling a figure of twice as many embryonic deaths for late and early conceptions from absolutely nowhere. The argument is only as good as the assumptions on which it is based, and the third assumption is shaky to say the least.

---

Well, DNA is very susceptible to damage from environmental influences and since sperms lack any sort repair system other cells have, they aren't made for long-term use. That's why the male organism creates and discards millions of them every day. Since the sperms in question would be out in the open, I don't find concerns about their quality so out of the question and the estimation of twice a chance of misconception to be plausible. But I have to ask a few biologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Well, had I said "What do you think, should the Buddhists advise the use of condoms instead?" instead, it would have been a crude way to start a discussion, don't you think?

---

I don't follow. The paper isn't focused on the stance of the Catholic Church, but the post notes the paper and then asks about the stance of the Catholic Church: is there a connection? If not, then why the use of the one to inform the other? It doens't seem any more relevant than if you had choosen a Buddhist sect's sexual protocals.

I don't know what would be crude in asking a simple question on condom use or anti-abortion positions. Crudity is usually found in the form not the substance of expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't follow.

---

You don't need to. Just stay where you are. ~;)

Isn't the rythm method Onanism, and hence strictly speaking against the will of God?

~:smoking: