Per my request, with intercessory help from Gregory Popcak, Kevin Miller at Heart Mind and Strength has posted clear and consise rebuttals that address the scientific and bioethical claims made by Bovens. Kevin has degrees in biology, chemistry, and moral theology, so he knows his stuff. He also got to the point much more quickly than did (Part I, Part II). 😉 Tolle, lege.
Read Part I of "The Great Embryo Killer?"
Having used what he believes to be sound reasoning to implicate NFP in avoidable embryo deaths, he then entertains some possible pro-life responses. Since there’s little actual reasoning in Bovens arguements, I’d just as soon skip his charicatures of pro-life rebuttals. However, since they involve subtle changes to his arguments and could easily stand on their own, I’ll briefly address them, if only to highlight his slight of hand.
"So what is the alternative? If one is concerned about minimising embryonic death, then one should avoid types of contraception whereby each unintended pregnancy (due to its failure) comes at the expense of a high embryonic death rate. Given our first assumption, a condom user (who makes no distinction between HF and non-HF periods) can count on one embryonic death for each unintended pregnancy. A rhythm method user, however, should count on two to three embryonic deaths for each unintended pregnancy. Assuming a success rate of 95% for condom usage, we can count on an expectation of .5 pregnancies in 10 years. Hence, the expectation of embryonic death is .5 per ten years for a condom user, which is substantially lower than the expectation of two to three embryonic deaths per ten years on the rhythm method. Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method."
"So how can this argument be blocked? First, one could say that the empirical data are questionable. However, the result really depends on the simple assumption that embryos conceived outside the HF period are less viable than embryos conceived during the HF period. If this is the case, then the success of the rhythm method is contingent on a higher embryonic death rate and so every pregnancy due to a failure of the technique will come at the expense of a higher embryonic death rate—and this is all that is needed to get the argument off the ground."
If that’s the case, then the argument is grounded. Continue reading
[Errors in my arguments were fixed and additional material was added after initial publication. – Funky]
St. Blog’s Parish will soon be all aflutter with news that Luc Bovens, a professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics, has written an article ("The rhythm method and embryonic death", J Med Ethics 32: 355-356) that links the use of the "rhythm method" with embryonic death, i.e. early miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. (Fedora Tip: UnSpace)
"Some proponents of the pro-life movement argue against morning after pills, IUDs, and contraceptive pills on grounds of a concern for causing embryonic death. What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the pro-life line of argumentation can be extended to the rhythm method of contraception as well. Given certain plausible empirical assumptions, the rhythm method may well be responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other contraceptive techniques."
Though some responses to the sloppy arguments made in this paper have been made by American Papist, Epiphany, and other bloggers, I do not believe the responses I’ve so far seen address the scientific/statistical aspects of Bovens’ claims. For instance, they rightly point out that the rhythm method was long ago replaced by much more reliable empirical methods collectively known as natural family planning (NFP). However, I suspect that Bovens chose to deliberately seem ignorant of pro-life/anti-contraceptive terminology in order to subtly mock what he sees as ignorance of reproductive medicine on the part of those who call the birth control pill abortifacient. I fear that Catholic bloggers have allowed themselves to be distracted by a red herring.
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost wants in on some of the traffic that blog brawls bring, so he posted a wicked funny jab at some of the major players in the Christian ghetto of the blogosphere. I think this barb needs some clarification, though.
"Jason, Scott, Bret, and Gene (Fide-O) — On their blog is a picture of a Rottweiler over a quote that begins “Be meek for the meek shall inherit the earth.” If your confused by such a dissonant juxtaposition keep in mind that these guys are to the Five Solas what the Jesuits are to the Pope. (And now that I’ve used them in a comparison with Catholics I’ll probably need to enter the Godbloggers Relocation Program.)
Does he mean the Jesuits of old or modern Jesuits? If the Fide-O folks are faithful 5-point Calvinists, they should probably take umbrage at the comparison to the Jesuits. Anyhow, I wonder if we could convince them to trade in their rottweiller for a German shepherd. 😉
Joe also took a shot at St. Blog’s Parish.
"St. Blog’s Parish — With such numbers on their side you’d think the Catholic wing of the Godblogosphere would be primed to invade on evangelical turf like the Bloods moving in on the Crips (or at least the Sharks invading the space of the Jets). But we hear nary a peep out of them. We could even throw out vicious insults—’The Pope wears a funny hat.’–but they wouldn’t even notice since they don’t read our blogs. It’s almost like we don’t exist or something. This apathy toward us may explain why we end up squabbling with each other, rather than with those Christians we might have substantial disagreements with. (By the way, he really does. The Pope. His hat. It’s kinda big and goofy.)"
Perhaps if evangelicals stopped rabbiting on about conferences we’re neither invited to nor particularly interested in, and occasionally linked to one of our posts, we might take notice. Also, I think the squabbling is more a cause of apathy than a result. I mean, who wants to interrupt a dysfunctional family while its bickering? 😉
As we celebrate today the Solemnity of the Ascension, we likewise commemorate the first novena. After the Ascension the Apostles gathered together with the Blessed Virgin, praying nine days until the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Church recalls this event with a novena, especially that novena promoted by Pope Leo XIII for the reunification of Christianity. Because Pentecost is the birth of the Church, we take this occasion to implore that the full number of the faithful be brought into the "one fold". There are links below for a popular novena to the Holy Spirit (although any novena will do) and the ancient Hymn "Veni Creator" (with translation by Oratorian Fr. Caswall). Join us in prayer for the unity of the faithful, and that this Pentecost may be an occasion of great grace.
novena
Veni Creator Spiritus music
Veni Creator Spiritus mp3
Come Holy Ghost (translation by Edward Caswall, CO)
N.B. There is a partial indulgence attached to any public novena before Pentecost. If this blog community is saying it, is this novena "public"? Oh, who knows. Do it anyway.
