AmericanPapist Comments
What a crazy article!
If the argument is that the early fertilised embryo could die and that this is in some way unethical, then it would mean that Catholics would actually have to abstain from sex in the early fertile period even if they didn't want to use any form of natural family planning. It would effectively mean that sexual intercourse during those few days of the month would actually be sinful, even if the couple was actively trying to conceive.
Is that journal peer reviewed? Who on earth were the peer reviewers??!!
Goodness, there are some vile people in the comment section of the Sydney Morning Herald link. Adrian and a few others did a good job trying to defend the faith, and explain NFP. Sadly, most of the people there refused to listen.
I'm curious about one thing, though. Where did Prof. Bovens get the numbers "two or three embryos will have died..."? That just sounds extremely questionable to me, if not downright fabricated.
I have posted a lengthy comment at Dialogue to address the biology Professor Bovens is using in his specious argument. This article is sure to generate controversy. I wonder if the journal published it to garner publicity for itself. Remember the old marketing adage,"No publicity is bad publicity."
Thanks a lot for the rebuttal, I wouldn't have known how to reply without it.
Always post things like this, defending the faith of Holy Mother Church.
Even granting that the Church did support the rhythm method, and granting that these "fringe embryos" are less viable than other embryos, it's STILL more acceptable than contraception. The death of an embryo due to natural causes is up to God. Contraception, along with abortion, takes that decision away from Him.
You are absolutely right, Peter. In reflecting on this article and on NFP I had a personal epiphany as to why it is so hard to explain Catholic teaching and NFP. The Catholic default position is a "yes" to children. Extenuating circumstances allow for the use of NFP to temporarily decrease the probability of pregnancy. However, when those circumstances no longer exist, the status reverts back to the "yes" position. The secular default position is "no" to children. When couples feel the timing is perfect they temporarily increase the probability of pregnancy. Once they judge the timing is no longer right for children or they have "enough" children they revert back to the "no" position. If your default position is "no" to children, NFP looks very undesirable.
I seriously hope that someone more qualified than me submits a rebuttal to the journal. That article creates a perfect teaching moment.
peace
I want to know why he thinks there are fringe embryos in the first place. He says that sex at certain times increase the likelihood of a dead embryo, but he doesn't say HOW, and neither does the source article. (Anyone have access to the original journal article?).
We start to get to a point, when messing with lives, when we have to determine when it's licit to have sex and when it isn't. Dr. Smith in *the very link posted here at the top left of the page* says around 47 minutes into her retort that she thinks it's illicit to have marital relations while taking the Pill for therapeutic reasons, because such activity is likely to result in conceived, killed babies.
Is it wrong to have sex while on the Pill for medically therapeutic reasons, when you know that most accidental conceptions will almost surely end in abortion?
Is it okay to have sex regardless of the situation knowing that God wouldn't have let you conceive if he didn't want that soul in the first place, even if the embryo would almost surely NEVER have survived?
If NFP *does* have a likelihood of resulting in more dead embryos, then is our responsibility to be, to weigh the chances of dead embryos when using NFP against the chances when using no method at all?
These questions need to be answered in detail, to form a general principle to go by, which also answers the other questions. Certainly you cannot be too extreme and advise married couples to *never* have sex because a child might die.
At the same time, can you advise a married couple to have sex if one partner is in a medical condition which is almost sure to abort a child? If you can, then how is sex justified? Is a conception better than no conception, even if conception results in almost certain death? (I'm seriously asking).
What's the general principle, here? So far the Church hasn't said much. There's not even definitive teaching about what to do in the case of a tubal pregnancy. Does that mean we're in danger of mortal sin for not listening to the opinions of theologians on what to do in the case of a tubal pregnancy?
Last questions: What do you do when it seems things are just too complicated? What do you do when you think philosophy just isn't going to give you answers?
Last thought: Vademecum for Confessors (available on the Vatican website) admonishes us about the seriousness of abortifacient birth control. I'll leave you all with that.
AP:
I think that JME article (I've now read the whole thing) is junk.
That said, though, it's clear that no NFP method is 100% perfect. It therefore isn't true that NFP always succeeds in indicating the entire fertile period.
So that part of your response needs some tweaking.
The basic problems with the article are that (1) the idea that embryos conceived in the earliest and latest parts of the fertile period are less likely to be viable is little more than gratuitous speculation, and (2) even if that's true, that doesn't mean that NFP use is causing embryo deaths - it doesn't mean that NFP users are doing anything to women or embryos to cause early spontaeous abortions (as is the case when abortifacient devices/drugs are used).
That said, though, it's clear that no NFP method is 100% perfect. It therefore isn't true that NFP always succeeds in indicating the entire fertile period.
They can't claim 100% accuracy. Usually the real cause of pregnancy in those cases is that the couple missed or ignored the signs, or stress or some other outside influence (new medication, for example) changed the normal pattern the couple was used to.
My wife and I have successfully used Billings for nearly 8 years...my wife can still tell you (if you're really interested) what day was the day for our three kids (3-1/2, 2, and 8 months...almost time for #4). In each case, we were fully ready to accept the gift of life if God chose to bless us with another child.
If you follow the rules, chart daily, and really pay close attention to what the woman's body is telling you, it's not that difficult...just show a little self control.
From Karen's post:
"If NFP *does* have a likelihood of resulting in more dead embryos, then is our responsibility to be, to weigh the chances of dead embryos when using NFP against the chances when using no method at all?"
But surely the point is that there is no substantial difference between the likelihood of the death of the embryo between a couple using NFP and a couple not using it unless we are saying that couples must never have sex in the early stage of the cycle.
Only 1 egg is released per month, which means that there is only 1 chance of conception per month. To follow the argument of this article, if a couple has sex every single day of the month, they are running a higher risk of having a dead embryo than a couple who abstains in the early days of fertility. Yet, how is it sinful to have intercourse in the early days of the cycle? It's likle saying that it's sinful for couples living in the third world to have sex as there is a higher chance of the baby dying in that country than in the industrial west.
Faith and reason go hand in hand, and it is clear that there is nothing wrong with intercourse in the early part of the cycle even if it inadvertently results in the death of the embryo. Such matters are in God's hands, we merely have to have the right intention and trust in Him.
Also, there is a clear position on tubal pregnancies. An indirect action to save the mothers life - eveb if it results in the forseen but unwilled death of the unborn - is morally acceptable. In fact, refusal of such treatment would almost certain not be morally acceptable as it would result in the death of both mother and baby. It's simply the principle of double effect.
Kheldar,
I'm not saying that NFP use is "that difficult" - either with respect to observing the signs of fertility, or with respect to having the self-control to abstain during the fertile times when there are serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy.
And I agree also that often the "real cause" of NFP "failure" pregnancies is the sort of thing you cite.
That doesn't change the fact that - even with perfect use - the methods aren't 100% accurate.
psjk:
Regarding tubal pregnancies - the difficulty is that there are several ways of resolving them - and there is some disagreement regarding which ones cause the unborn's death as a foreseen but unintended effect - vs. causing it as an intended means to the end of saving the mother.
In other words - the principle you articulate is correct - but it isn't necessarily perfectly clear how to apply it to every concrete case.
Kevin - NFP literature regularly claims a 99.5% percent rate at preventing pregnancy (when the couple does it correctly).
That's not 100%, but pretty close, and I've never seen those statistics claims challenged... am I wrong?
Kevin:
No method is 100% effective. But it's not just the results that are important, it's the mindset. CatholicMom said it well
The Catholic default position is a "yes" to children. ... The secular default position is "no" to children.
NFP also isn't just used to avoid pregnancy, it's used to achieve pregnancy.
Okay, here's my glaring ignorance showing. My wife and I practice NFP, but I haven't a clue what the rhythm method is.
To music perhaps? I don't know either.
One thing I think is good to clear up is the difference between NFP and artificial contraception, no-to-kids-wise. NFP recognizes that God made a specific fertile and infertile period - He has made a promise to humanity that there's only a certain period when we need to be concerned about conception. If you want to conceive, have sex during that time; if you don't, then don't! In this way, NFP is a true "yes" to God - we decide when to offer the materials, and God decides when to assemble them.
I believe I attended a few lectures from this professor when he was at Boulder, Colorado. I had no idea he cared about Catholic ethics.
What of the moral dictum "The impossible cannot oblige"?
Thanks for the link.
I'm going to link back to you once I'm back from my conference. You address these issues well.
Thank you.
It might be a good idea to go to the effort of reading the JME article itself and responding to it, rather than respond to the article about the article, which was not written by Bovens.
So when you say "You're so right, professor. Sadly, you never took the time to research whether they actually have discarded the rhythm method." You too are attacking a straw-person. His quote in the article was about pro-lifers, not catholics in specific.
Commenting by HaloScan
