A Catholic Group Distorts the Truth About Doctors Who Oppose Contraception

The harmful website 1Flesh, which argues against all use of contraception (like birth control pills and condoms), just posted a petition signed by several doctors who agree with this premise:

We, the undersigned, in our professional, medical opinion, hold that the promotion and widespread use of contraception has been an overall detriments [sic] to women’s health, and has failed to live up to its primary goal of reducing the rate of STDs and unintended pregnancies.

We therefore advocate the promotion and use of natural, effective methods of family planning with the capacity to reveal hormonal imbalances in a woman’s cycle as authentic medicine that finds the problem and fixes it, restoring the woman back to her natural cycle. We likewise advocate the practice of saving sexual activity for marriage as an effective method of avoiding STDs, and within this context, the practice of natural methods of family planning that empower couples with the ability to choose when they have children.

The idea here is: Look! Medical doctors agree with us! It’s not just the radical Catholics running this website who say so!

At first glance, their list actually looks impressive. Look how many doctors they found!

But this is completely misleading and it’s worth looking into why that is.

I figured it wouldn’t be hard to do a bit of research. Are these doctors really representative of the wider medical population or do they have some sort of bias? I started Googling and all I found were doctors whose primary objective is to promote the teachings of the Catholic Church, not doctors who follow the science where it leads.

Let’s start from the top of the list:

Dr. Clint Leonard:

Formed in the Catholic tradition, Dr. Leonard embraces a holistic view of the human person and takes a life-affirming approach to sexuality and fertility. He works closely with the Phoenix NFP Center and teachers and users of the symptothermal methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP). He teaches the Billings Ovulation Method of NFP in English and Spanish. He also completed training as a FertilityCare Medical Consultant with Dr. Thomas Hilgers and uses principles of NaProTechnology in his practice.

Dr. Robert C. Lawler (PDF):

It wasn’t until I started digging deeper into the faith and reading encyclicals, like “Humane Vitae” [“Of Human Life,” written by Pope Paul VI, who affirmed the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion, contraception, and other issues regarding human life], and trying to understand why the Church teaches what it teaches. This all started a change in me.

I just wanted to try to be a Roman Catholic doctor at work, not just a Roman Catholic at home. I wanted to be able to be authentically Catholic, and I’ve tried to incorporate my faith into my medicine. And that’s how I practice medicine today.

Dr. Lewis D. Lipscomb:

Obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Lewis Lipscomb has felt called to make some substantial changes in how he practices medicine since his conversion to Catholicism in 2004.

Armed with his newfound faith, Lipscomb sought to practice medicine according to the Church’s comprehensive understanding of human sexuality, including “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s encyclical affirming the Church’s teaching on marital love, contraception and sterilization.

Following medical training from the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, Neb., Lipscomb stopped prescribing artificial birth control last year, and now he’s taking it a step further this month by starting his own “pro-life” practice in Winston-Salem, specializing in Natural Family Planning for his patients.

Dr. Maciej Barczentewicz (PDF):

I certainly would not be a gynecologist if not for the graces I have received over the last 27 years from the Catholic Church, especially through the the Neocatechumenate Way guiding on the path of conversion, the path of faith.

I came across the concept of NaProTechnology — a modern gynaecological science which had adopted a different foundational value system than had been adopted by the mainstream — for the first time on the website of the Institute of Pope Paul VI in 2004.

Dr. Patrick Yeung Jr.:

Yeung is among a growing number of Catholic OB/GYNs in the St. Louis area who, while following the teachings of the Church, are using special techniques — both medicine and surgical — to get to the bottom of what’s causing a woman’s gynecologic issues, which commonly can include menstrual irregularities, pain issues and infertility.

He said it isn’t just that a treatment like the birth control pill goes against what the Church teaches about the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage — but it also just doesn’t make good medical sense, he said. It all falls in line with his belief that “good ethics is good medicine.”

Dr. Michael Robiolio (writing a guest column as a “Catholic physician”):

First, news, and even Catholic news, venues often refer to the Stupak amendment as something good in prohibiting funding of abortions except in limited circumstances. However, what is often not mentioned is that in those circumstances, which include rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life, there is an innocent living infant fetus who is murdered.

Let me just be clear as a physician — there is never a need for an abortion even in these cases. Other medical means exist to help the mother as well as the infant fetus. There are two lives and two patients whose health must be balanced and neither one sacrificed.

I bring all this up to point out a simple fact: The medical world, by and large, has no problem with people using contraception or birth control. As long as you use it correctly, it’s not harmful, and for many women, the benefits of birth control go far beyond the issue of pregnancy.

Based on this list, it’s clear that the only people opposed to contraception are those whose first allegiance lies with the Catholic Church and its misguided views on human sexuality, not with their patients or with the science that goes against what their faith preaches.

It’s very similar to the way Intelligent Design proponents would broadcast lists of scientists who were in favor of ID. The National Center for Science Education countered them by having a much longer list of scientists who supported the theory of evolution — and those were just the scientists named Steve or Stephanie.

1Flesh and the methods they promote — NaProTechnology, the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System, “Natural family planning” — don’t have support from the broader medical/scientific community. They only have support from people who, as shown above, are already inclined to support the Catholic Church.

Of course, the 1Flesh people don’t use the words “Catholic,” “Church,” “religion,” “God,” etc. in their petition (and rarely on their website at all). That’s because they’re trying to trick you into thinking there’s nothing religious about any of this. They’re dishonest and they have no shame. For them, the ends justify the means no matter how many people they mislead along the way.

Their goal is to push their faith onto other people, even if the vast majority of scientists think their ideas are full of shit.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Devin Sexson

    Wow! There must be 50 doctors listed there (give or take.) Yes, they have demonstrated that one can find a collection of wackos among any profession. No surprise there. 

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

      What do you call someone that graduated med school with barely passing marks?

      Doctor.

      Every field has a bottom of the barrel group that just sqeaked by.

      • poundcakery

        i use NFP. my doctor–a certified creighton practitioner– is on that 1flesh list. she also was first in her graduating class. watch out for those assumptions.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke, Blonde

          somebody was “1st in her/his class” at graduation ceremonies at Patrick Henry, Oral Roberts and various Caribbean schools of medicine, too. first among mediocre is not a bragging point. 

          the ironic thing for me is that i actually sort of understand and approve of NFP, but not for religious reasons. i don’t think women should have to drug themselves (or men, for that matter) in order to achieve the life and reproductive health they want. for me, NFP + condoms have always made a lot more sense than the hormonal stuff, which can really fuck you up, if you’re a sensitive woman. i was amazed at how my sexual response changed, when i went off it. for me at least, it was an important step in the coming out process. so i’m not unsympathetic to NFP supporters. 

          the problem is of course most NFP folks are motivated by the most hypocritical, anti-feminist group out there: the RCC. NFP is complicated and takes a lot of attention and the willingness to risk pregnancy at a much higher rate than with the use of drugs. it requires a certain degree of discipline, on the part of the male partner, to be willing to engage in sexual practices that do not expose the female to the risk of pregnancy. but of course the RCC doesn’t want to talk about any of that- blow jobs? orally satisfying the woman? anal? no, none of that is part of the RCC’s version of NFP, which is really a shame, cause if it were, more women and progressives might be on board with you. 

          if you honestly believe in the “sanctity” of all fertilized eggs, that’s your choice. but remember: there are more ways than one to avoid making unwanted ones, and thus having to kill them. most of those ways involve telling men they can’t splooge in a woman’s vagina and that they have to make do with a hand job or the like. when RCC men can accept that, women like me will be more supportive of the NFP movement. 

          • amycas

             ^^This.

        • Glasofruix

           I know a lot of people who had excellent grades in college but who are, by all standards, complete morons, mostly because they studied everything by heart without understanding much of the stuff…

        • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

          That’s nice. Maybe you should have stopped yourself from acting on the assumption that I give a shit what a NFP troll has to say. Watch out for those because I really don’t care for it. Buh-bye now.

        • Drew M.

          If NFP is really effective, then it goes against God’s will just as much as condoms or OC’s. Why is it okay while the latter aren’t?

          • Stev84

             Because the Pope says so

          • Dave

            Natural Family Planning looks at the time that a woman is naturally fertile and infertile. In the Catholic mind, God made the woman’s body and made it good, and so those times of natural fertility and infertility are good. When a couple has sex when they’re not fertile, God wanted it that way. They’re having sex in the same way that a couple who wants to have children would, they’re not doing intentionally to sterilize the act. They’re having sex as God intended. In the Catholic mind, they’re open to life, because if God wanted to create a life, He could and they’re bodies don’t have any barriers to prevent that from happening. Whereas condoms and birth control are doing an act intentionally to sterilize the sexual act to intentionally stop conception from occuring.

            Plus sex is about giving yourself totally to the other person in love. “I give you my whole self, I hold nothing back from you, not even my fertility. I give myself so completely to you in love that if God wants He can create another person like you.” Using contraception is not a total gift of self… “I give you everything BUT NOT my fertility.” Sex is about making love, not war. Does it sound like love to say… “I have to protect myself from you, let me use my barrier because what you are giving me could be something I do not want at all.” Love accepts the other totally, fertility and all.

            • Deven Kale

              So in other words NFP is saying, “I give you my whole self, I hold nothing back from you, not even my fertility. Unless I actually KNOW I’m fertile, in which case you can’t have me at all.”

              That doesn’t sound very loving or accepting to me either. Actually, sounds like it’s just another version of “what you’re giving me could be something I don’t want at all.” I guess there’s really no good way of “giving your whole self” unless you’re willing to be just a baby-making machine. Oh well…

              • Dave

                 Believe it or not, abstaining for a time can be an act of love too. When you abstain for a time you’re really saying… “Sex is just one of the ways I show you my love. I love you for who you are not just because of what you give me. During this time, I will find different ways to love you and be loved by you, because it’s not all about sex, it’s about you as a person.”

                • Deven Kale

                  But the abstention isn’t about love, it’s about fertility. It’s still just “what you’re giving me could be something I don’t want at all.” Taking something that somebody likes from them, when they’ve done nothing wrong, is not an act of love. It’s an act of control and/or selfishness. It’s still just a woman who “selfishly” wants to not have a child and control her fertility.

                  The thing about NFP is not that it’s “open to life,” it’s that it doesn’t involve inserting anything into the woman, taking chemicals, or anything of that type. Because of that some religious groups, such as Catholics, that follow “Natural Law” have latched on to it because it seems to fit. But just because it’s “natural” doesn’t mean the intent, or it’s “godliness” is any different than any other contraceptive method. It’s all just about controlling fertility, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

                • Dave

                   Deven, you do bring up a good point in that some Catholics may indeed use NFP for the wrong reasons and use it in a selfish way thus it would still be immoral. You are absolutely right about that. It cannot be for selfish reasons. There have to be just reasons to use NFP:

                  1.) physical health of the mother (she just had a child and needs to recover from a C-section, sickness, disease, etc…)
                  2.) mental health of the mother (she may be exhausted, not able to cope with the stress of having a child/another child, etc…)
                  3.) do not have financial means to support the family (can’t afford food, water, healthcare, education)
                  4.) period of transition (new location, new job,  lost a job, just married, new child, etc…)

                • Deven Kale

                  And now you prove that it’s not about either love or fertility, but about controlling the woman. You say that there are only a few “just reasons” for a woman to use birth control, but who are you to judge a womans reasons for wanting to control her fertility? Why should anyone but the woman have any say at all in whether or not to have a child? It’s ultimately her body that’s being used for gestation, and her health that’s being put at risk.

                  I see you’re just dead-set on rationalizing this away as a “moral” form of birth control, but with every reply you make, you’re making yourself sound worse than before. There is nothing morally or substantially different with NFP than regular birth control. Period, end of story. The only difference is the failure rate (NFP has a MUCH higher failure rate) and a lack of positive side-effects like reduced net cancer risk. It’s still just birth control, no matter how you look at it. It’s no more open to life than taking a pill or using an IUD, because it’s still just minimizing the chances of becoming pregnant, regardless of the reason.

                • GFPchicken

                  If it’s just birth control, why don’t more people use it? It’s free, and has the same failure rate if used correctly. But it requires *sacrifice* and people don’t like sacrifice. Knowing that your husband is willing to forgo sex because you couldn’t handle a new child right now? Well that’s a loving thing if I ever heard one.

            • Carmelita Spats

               We are talking about the same “God” that has never healed an amputee, right? Yet this pervert “God” finds time to mess with people’s loins like a greasy peeping Tom! LOL! I am NOT a walking vulva to be inseminated by my husband through the sick sex game of  some weirdo Sky Fairy who had a Kid way back in the Bronze Age so that He could sacrifice Himself to Himself. I have more dignity than that. I am not livestock open to insemination.

               My husband and I have been happily married for 17 years which is way, way, way, more than many “Catholic” marriages today. We have decided not to have biological children due to a very high propensity to pass on a genetic disease to any offspring. Thus, instead of allowing a perverted God to inseminate me like the crazed “virgin” Mary, we have ADOPTED two beautiful little girls and have given them a chance at life. THIS is the responsible, loving, ADULT, decision to take. It is OUR decision. It is the right decision for US. I value my marriage so much that I protect it from Sky Fairies and twisted cultists. Period.

              Besides, Natural Family Planning is grotesque. You have to be willing to engage in sex during the woman’s period which is just plain gross. Menstrual blood smells like rotting asparagus and who the hell cleans the sheets? The woman? EWWWWW! You might as well play with feces! When you calculate the “safe days” and “cushion days” to avoid pregnancy plus menstrual days, you are left with barely a week when you can engage in sexual activity. I’ll stick with chemical contraception and sterilization.

            • Drew M.

              I appreciate your sincere reply, Dave.  However, I have the same problems with it as Deven Kale.

      • http://twitter.com/ylaenna M. Elaine

         Reminds me of what Neil deGrasse Tyson says about doctors.
        (at 1:54 mark) “I can tell you this: I taught Physics to pre-med students who became doctors. Not all of them are smart, I assure you.”
        http://youtu.be/f5X64QCDVnI

  • http://graingert.co.uk/ Thomas Grainger

    They should have used the Rod of Asclepius not the Caduceus

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    So they found a bunch of Catholic Doctors who follow the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, shocking.

    As a side note for some reason when I first saw the title I read it as
    A Catholic Group Distorts the Truth About Doctor Who 

    • http://mamamara.wordpress.com/ Mara

       That’s what I saw also! And I did a double-take because I couldn’t imagine why the Catholics were after Doctor Who :D

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke, Blonde

        snort, i am so glad i was not the only one. :-)

      • Ellis

        he’s probably less of a quack than any of them ;)

      • Golfie98

        Well he is a bit bisexual so they probably have it in for him. (actually I am not sure if you can be a bit bisexual)

        • TheBlackCat

           I was under the impression there was a continuum of sexual orientations, in which case “a bit bisexual” would probably be the normal condition.

  • TheExpatriate700

    Just goes to show why you need to do the research

  • Earl G.

    Sweet!  Thanks for giving us a list of doctors who put their religious nuttery before their patients – i.e., a handy list of doctors to avoid!

  • Jill

    “… the methods they promote — NaProTechnology, the Creighton Model
    FertilityCare™ System, ‘Natural family planning’ — don’t have support
    from the broader medical/scientific community. They only have support
    from people who, as shown above, are already inclined to support the
    Catholic Church.”

    I wouldn’t say they “ONLY” have support from Catholics/Catholic-sympathizers.   The “Fertility Awareness Method” is basically the same methodology as “NFP”, but it’s called something different, is sans religion, and on fertile days, couples use an alternate/backup method of contraception (or abstain).  Even PP discusses it:  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/fertility-awareness-4217.htm 

    See also:  http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/fertility-awareness

    As a heathen I find it appealing because of the side effects of horomonal methods.  (Men wouldn’t call taking steroids “healthy”, so surely no one here would say the pill, etc. are without risk or without heath consequences.)

    • Artrock

      I agree, thank you so. much. for saying this. Why is that I have to pretend that contraceptives have been so fucking great? Just because the reaaaly friendly atheist pisses his pants because someone uses their dumbass faith to develop good medicine , it doesn’t change the medicine. I like how he cut out that part of the doctor’s statement. Ok sorry, just a little offended. ( : 

      • Jill

         I also have to share the link for this book:

        Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy
        Achievement, and Reproductive Health by Toni Weschler

         http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Charge-Fertility-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0060881909 

        I have it, I’ve read it, and it’s a secular book (other than a brief discussion of FAM vs NFP, and a mention of the fact that classes for FAM/NFP tend to be ran by Catholic dioceses, so be aware of that.)

        I’m not saying FAM is for everyone or every couple, but you are totally right, just because the motivation to develop a “natural” family planning method is religious, that doesn’t mean that the medicine will be bad. 

        Most progressives are concerned about environmental pollutants, GMOs, pesticides, BPA … I just expand that list in thinking that “maybe there are other options than endlessly pumping hormones with side effects into my body”.

        • Artrock

          cool. i kind of like the site (1flesh) for that reason, that they give me secular reasons to dislike contraception and secular, medical alternatives. who cares about religious motivation?   

          • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

             You like that they give you secular reasons to dislike contraception? Why are you looking for reasons to dislike contraception? Why do you need somebody else’s reasons? I assume you have some of your own — are those not good enough for you?

          • Coyotenose

             I’m reminded of a local neocon columnist who said, when confronted with evidence that the politicians and corporatists he was extolling were serial liars in the cause of their goals – not spinners, outright liars – said that he didn’t care because they were “right anyway”.

          • Drew M.

            Do you get paid for shilling?

        • Earl G.

          “maybe there are other options than endlessly pumping hormones with side effects into my body”
          You mean like NON-HORMONAL METHODS?

          • Jill

            I could have said “… endlessly pumping hormones into my body, or pumping copper ions into my body–which I’ve done, and stopped doing due to side effects–or having any other random chemicals chemicals getting into my body, or using only barrier methods which are limited in effectiveness on their own” but that would have been too nuanced, and too long a long sentence, and it wouldn’t have provoked my favorite thing ever which is CAPS LOCK COMMENT ANGER.   But whatever.

            • Envy Burger

              “or using only barrier methods which are limited in effectiveness on their own”

              Which isn’t even remotely true.  When used properly, they are extremely effective on their own.  I’ve used condoms exclusively for 13 years.  I’ve never had a single mishap, or even a moment when I thought I might be pregnant.  As long as people, you know, use them, they work.

              Gus Snarp talked about this thoroughly a couple of months ago, and I hope he does not mind that I pasted his comment here for you.  

              The notion that condoms are ineffective is a lie.  

              Gus SnarpCollapseCondoms, when used correctly and consistently, are highly effective at preventing transmission of STDs, including HIV, and at preventing unwanted pregnancy. Anyone saying otherwise is just flat out lying.One thing I’ve been curious about lately is the 98% effective figure you sometimes hear. I’ve been using condoms for birth control exclusively my entire life. My wife and I had no trouble conceiving when we chose to, which suggests we’re not some kind of anomaly (and previous partners now have children, so I assume they’re not unusual either), but I’ve used condoms enough that if there were actually a 2% failure rate, some unintended pregnancy would have been highly likely to occur. So I looked it up. In studies of couples exclusively using condoms correctly and consistently (though I’m not sure how they ensure that…) 2 out of 100 experienced a failure (I honestly don’t remember if that meant a pregnancy occurred or a condom broke or what) over the course of a year. The actual failure rate per use turns out to be more like 2 in 8,000. Which I think makes it much less statistically likely that I would experience a failure. It also means that the 98% figure is somewhat deceptive. It makes people think condoms are less effective than they actually are. Someone with a very basic knowledge of statistics might think that if they have sex every day using condoms they’re probably going to have in the neighborhood of 6 failures in one year. But that’s not the case at all. What the number really says is that if you have sex with condoms 8,000 times there’s a good chance 2 of them will fail. Or if you have sex the average number of times per year that the study participants did, you can expect two failures in 100 years of having sex.Of course, it still means any given condom can fail at any given moment, but it does mean the probability is very low. To translate this into one more different kind of statistic, it means that instead of a probability of failure in any give use of a condom of 0.02, the real figure is 0.00025. I honestly think that the dissemination of the 98% figure is a great disservice to the cause of getting people to use condoms.Also, condoms are awesome. Really, they are not a big deal to use at all and they work. Unless you want a baby, or are in a long term relationship with clear guidelines on who sleeps with whom (I think of this as a monogamous relationship with someone you live with, but I’m sure there are other ways of working it out so that the number and STD status of partners is controlled) and using another effective form of birth control, you should use a condom every. single. time.Sorry, I just looked up the statistics about a week ago, so I had all this in my head and wanted to get it out.

        • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

           Agreed that fertility awareness is a valid method that can be very effective for some couples. I just object to the idea, which I realize you’re not promoting at all, that it’s the only valid method.

      • JohnnieCanuck

        Good medicine?

        That isn’t what most people think of when something less effective is promoted over something better. Their alternatives are more likely to result in pregnancy when properly followed and require careful attention to get those results. Then there’s the part where the time and effort involved means that it’s too easy to let it all slip by the wayside.What do you call a couple who have been using these alternatives to condoms and hormone pills? Expecting. But then that’s the point. Maximise pregnancies, maximise the souls that will go to Heaven after putting in their time in Catholic pews.

        If someone used their faith to develop a poor substitute for blood transfusions, would that be good medicine?

        • notfussed

          “Their alternatives are more likely to result in pregnancy” .. You talk about pregnancy like it is a disease.

      • Glasofruix

         That good medecine requires an awful lot of bullshit, smear and spinning in order to be swallowed.

        • Coyotenose

           Best/Worst Mental Image of the Week.

        • TheBlackCat

          That was brilliant.  Intentionally so or not doesn’t matter.

    • Earl G.

      Not all contraceptive methods are hormonal.

      I’m really tired of people pimping the Pill vs. NFP false dichotomy.  There are obviously many other options.

      Also, it turns out pregnancy is not exactly “without risk or without health consequences.”  Not by a long shot.

      • Jill

         You are right, that there are other contraceptive methods and that pregnancy has risks too (which is why people try to avoid it).  I wasn’t trying to promote a dichotomy, and I think I specifically mentioned hormonal methods in my comments, but hormonal methods tend to be the most common.  At about the same effectiveness as hormonal methods would be a copper IUD, for example but that has risks too (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/paragard/MY00997/DSECTION=risks) . 

        Different people will weigh side effects, risks, and efficacies different, and will have different life circumstances, so of course different methods will be better for different people.  It’s not one-size-fits-all.

        My point is just that FAM is another valid option that may be right for certain people. 

        Having a variant of it promoted by religious folks doesn’t mean that it becomes guilty/invalid by association.

        • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.in/ Andrew G.

          They can promote it honestly as much as they like. What is harmful is when they promote it by lying about the alternatives.

      • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

         Exactly. Not all contraception is hormonal. Hormonal contraception has different risks for different women. For most women, not having effective means of family planning is more risky than hormonal contraception, even if that were the only method available to them.

        But that’s too nuanced for a lot of people.

        • Glasofruix

          That’s why you have the right to choose whatever suits you better, while the catholic idiots try to force their magic methods on everyone as the only morally acceptable ones.

          • GFPchicken

            Shock and horror, no Catholic I know has ever gone into another couple’s bedroom and prevented them from using contraception. We have free will for a reason. The RCC just believes it’s best for people to use NFP, says as much, but won’t hold anyone’s hand.

    • Sven

      “Fertility Awareness method” just looks like a re-branding of the “Rhythm method”.

      I like to call it “Vatican Roulette”.

      • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com/ Andrew G.

        That’s not entirely fair – modern fertility awareness approaches have significant improvements and are reasonably reliable when practiced well.

    • Sailor

       Jill, I have no problem with people using whatever form of contraception they want including the one mentioned here. It is certainly not the most effective method, but it is not bad and in normal use only has a 1.8 percent failure rate. The problem is when they say that is the ONLY method that should be available to you.
      Also abstinence is by far the best contraceptive and also one hundred percent effective against STDs, the only trouble is in any population you cannot get a high enough compliance to make it effective.

  • RobMcCune

    Wow what a non-sequiter that statement they signed is, contraception is less than some imaginary ideal, therefore do something worse. I should be surprised these people are even doctors, but Michael Egnor has pretty much destroyed my idea that there’s a limit to how stupid a medical doctor can be.

    • http://www.allourlives.org/ TooManyJens

      I doubt they’d be advocating that people not get married if their marriage wasn’t going to be 100% idea. Or anything else, for that matter. But contraception has to be perfect and risk-free or these people claim it’s worthless. And it’s not like they’d be in favor of it if it were perfect and risk-free.

  • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.in/ Andrew G.

    The emphasis on breast cancer is a tell; while oral contraception may carry an increased risk of breast cancer, specifically of one (rare) type, it also has an unambiguous protective effect against ovarian, uterine and endometrial cancers. Comparing the relative fatality rates of different cancer types (ovarian cancer in particular has a much higher fatality rate than breast cancer), I’d be surprised if oral contraception didn’t actually lower the risk of dying from cancer overall (though I’ve not seen this computation done anywhere).

    Many other factors increase risk of breast cancer, including regular drinking, shift work, passive smoking, etc. Working as an airline flight attendant carries a higher increased risk of breast cancer than contraception does, but I’ve never seen any Catholics complain about that.

    And of course oral contraception is just one method; there are many others, some of them much more effective (e.g. hormonal IUDs).

    • Foster

      As usual, the truth is interesting and unexpected.  

      http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7621/651

      According to this large scale study in Britain from 2007, when all cancers were considered, those who had taken contraceptives enjoyed a reduced cancer risk to those who did not.

      However, when all cancers were considered, those who took the pill for more than 8 years, had a statistically significant increased risk compared to those who did not.

      So (assuming these results hold, which is a HUGE assumption given what we know about how much genetics, environment and diet affect cancer risk) if you want to have a reduced risk of overall cancer, make sure you don’t take the pill for more than eight years of your life.

      Given that (correct me if I’m wrong) most contracepting women intend to be on the pill for more than eight years of their lives, it would appear to me that the science backs up the 1Fleshers insofar as that behavior increased the overall risk of cancer in the study group.  

      • SphericalBunny

        Given that (correct me if I’m wrong) most contracepting women intend to be on the pill for more than eight years of their lives,

        Not so in the study you cited;
        ” It is important to remember, however, that comparatively few women in our study used oral contraceptives for such durations, with less than a quarter of users being at this increased risk.”Also, many women who take contraception to avoid pregnancy only do so to avoid pregnancy *right now*, not to never have children, and from personal experience, I don’t think I’ve ever met a women who hasn’t varied her methods of BC over time as her needs and body changed. I’d be happy for this fact to be well publicized tho.

        Given all of the above, your second statement;

        it would appear to me that the science backs up the 1Fleshers insofar as that behavior increased the overall risk of cancer in the study group.  

        would appear to me to be wrong.

        • CarolynTheRed

           Also, the composition of oral contraceptives has changed since the cohorts of this study took the pills – in particular, the hormone levels are lower, in general.

      • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.in/ Andrew G.

        The very study you cite contradicts your “more than eight years” claim – less than a quarter of their participants had done so, not “most”. Of course that may be an artifact of their recruitment criteria (women in 1968/9 who were married or in stable relationships).

        Most of the increased risk of cancer in long-term OC users was due to increased rates of cervical cancer, which obviously causes a big “confounder!” warning light to come on when you consider the problem of controlling for HPV exposure. The review paper linked below (which includes the study you linked) suggests that after controlling for other factors, 10 years of oral contraception around age 20-30 translates to an absolute increase in risk of cervical cancer by age 50 of less than 1 per 1000 (from 3.8 to 4.5 per 1000). Given that we now have a vaccine for important HPV subtypes, we can expect this factor to decrease in significance in the future.

        Also you may have missed the point that in addressing overall cancer rates I was talking about death rates, not incidence rates – if overall cancer incidence goes up as a result of increased cervical cancer exceeding a decrease in ovarian cancer, then death rates might still be reduced due to the differential in mortalities (ovarian cancer has the lowest survival rate of any of the gynecological cancers, and is the fifth highest cause of cancer death in women, behind lung, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancers).

        The study you cited also doesn’t find any increased risk of breast cancer. The review below provides more detail on the complexity of this question; note that recent Catholic sources I’ve seen have focused on the one (unconfirmed) study of early triple-negative breast cancer (a rare type), while deceptively ignoring the rest of the literature.

        The review I mentioned:

        http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/631.full

        Incidentally, the extent of Catholic misinformation about contraception in the USA is limited by the fact that it has to sound plausible to a reasonably educated population. The dishonesty of the Catholic church is most fully revealed in other countries, where Catholic archbishops have no hesitation in, for example, telling outright lies about the effectiveness of condoms (even to the extent of claiming that condoms are being supplied already contaminated with HIV). Put simply, they have already decided on the conclusion (“contraception is bad”), and are happy to either select or invent the facts to suit.

  • poundcakery

     1flesh is a ‘harmful website’? Really? If someone goes on 1flesh and follows their advice exactly, they’ll find themselves saving sex for marriage and having no STDs because they’re not engaging in sexual activity. Then they’ll get married and use a natural form of family planning instead of hormonal or barrier methods. No pregnancies out of wedlock, no carcinogens, no STDs… 

     That’s not harmful. That’s the way some people live their lives, and just because it doesn’t match up to your view of what sex should be like doesn’t mean you can call it ‘harmful’. It’s not. It’s just different from what you would do. And it’s not very friendly to call people who do things differently ‘harmful’ ‘dishonest’ and ‘full of shit’. Maybe you should change your blog name to The Intolerant Atheist.

    • Glasofruix

       What’s harmful are all the lies nicely spread around that website, they don’t have a single fact in there, only bullshit.

      • Wisdom

        Thank for speaking the truth. The entire website, in every single piece of text and every peer-reviewed medical study does not in its collective entirety contain a single fact. Not one. Fuck Christians. 

        • Glasofruix

           Peer-reviewed? If something on that harmful website was peer-reviewed it wouldn’t last a second to the said peer-review…

          • Artrock

            click on the bold sweetheart: http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/1508/

            • Glasofruix

              I mainatain what i’ve said.

              • Artrock

                hahaha ( :

                • Glasofruix

                   So you’re out of arguments i presume?

                • Coyotenose

                  Yeah, that post proves it. He’s trolling now. Report as such.

              • RobMcCune

                In reply to Jill he admits he likes the site because it justifies his beliefs.

                i kind of like the site (1flesh) for that reason, that they give me secular reasons to dislike contraception

                • Glasofruix

                  Yeah, saw that, which makes me wonder if the guy (or gal) is an idiot or was dropped as a baby…

                • RobMcCune

                  I’m not sure if  their zeal is religious or alt-med. Either way people should look for the facts not rationalizations.

            • Glasofruix

               Going up for more space. I’m going to make my statements clearer. 1flesh&liquidhorsecrap is using legit studies about women’s bodies (all that “ovulation makes ladies feel prettier” stuff) then spins them around with lies, fake studies (from blogs) and a lot of bullcrap about how it is important to go natural, we’re not far away from “GAWD WANTS YOU TO MAKE BABIES!!!!!!” and “MY BIBLE SAYS SO!!!!!!” they’re just careful about being too obvious, knowing it’s run by catholics is enough to see through their agenda.

            • amycas

               Sweetheart?  x-/

    • Claire

      You do know there are ways to get a STD and in take carcinogens without having sex? And there are people who take a hormonal contraception not for the whole “not gonna get pregnant when I have sex”.

      You really didn’t take that into consideration with your argument. So next time you present at least try to cover those areas when you try to wile people up.

    • Andrew B.

       It’s harmful not because abstinence doesn’t work to protect against STDs and unplanned pregnancy (it does), but because ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION doesn’t work to dissuade most people from premarital sex.  These are two separate issues.

    • RobMcCune

      I’m all for calling 1flesh a ‘harmful website’ exclusively rather than just ‘website’. If they were honest about their catholicy reasons I might feel
      differently. As you put it, it’s the way some people choose to live their lives.

      The misinformation on that harmful website is harmful because they justify opposition to contraception with faulty or misleading science and statistics meant to scare people away from contraception. People (married or no) are going to base their decisions on whether or not to use contraception on lies, and can suffer preventable consequences. When that happens because people were told lies, it’s not a case of people freely choosing how to live their lives, it’s a tragedy created by propaganda.

      That you are unable distinguish between scientific facts and the moral teachings of your church. That you feel the former must bend to latter is precisely what is wrong with the harmful website 1flesh, and shows both the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the catholic church on the issue of contraception.

    • Isilzha

      It’s harmful when people like you try to promote it as the only “right” way to live life.  I’ve never felt that any of the premarital sex I’ve had was at all harmful to me.  Plus, all the premarital sex I had with the guy I ended up marrying hasn’t made the marital sex we’ve had any less meaningful (though it’s funny that some people want ALL sex to have some sort of meaning beyond “wow, this feels incredible!”).

      Also, there’s NOTHING harmful with barrier methods of BC.  Hormonal birth control actually has lots of BENEFITS!  To deny women access to those is a horrible idea to promote.  It denies women the right to BASIC HEALTHCARE, you intolerant, misogynist prig.

      • Maya Kulik

         *THIS*

      • poundcakery

        I’m an intolerant, misogynist prig? really? cause I’m a woman. not such a great ad hominem attack there. i’m always mystified by people who try to attack you as a person over the internet after reading one comment on a blog post. 

        anyway, 1flesh is NOT trying to deny women access to birth control. it’s promoting natural methods of birth control as being better. you will not find anything on the website about denying access to birth control. period. 

        • Glasofruix

          anyway, 1flesh is NOT trying to deny women access to birth control. it’s
          promoting natural methods of birth control as being better.

          What this website is promoting is misinformation inf the form of pure concentrated lie juice.

          • Foster

            Careful, poundcakery, I think you’ve hit a nerve.  Glasofruix just brought out the LIE JUICE!!!   lol  say it out loud and tell me it doesn’t sound funny.

            • Glasofruix

              It IS supposed to sound funny.

        • RobertoTheChi

          They aren’t telling the whole truth and in my book that is lying.

        • Alexandra

          They’re promoting NFP through demonizing artificial birth control.  It’s a lame approach.  You can promote NFP without having to twist the truth and pretend that there are no good reasons to chose to use artificial methods.  Moreover, they don’t talk about any of the downsides to NFP, and there certainly are some. 

          1Flehs doesn’t take an honest approach.  It glorifies NFP as a cure-all, which it certainly isn’t, and demonizes artificial birth control as nothing but terrible, which isn’t true either.

        • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

          You’re one of the worst kinds of woman, one who has bought into the patriarchy bullshit built by old, white, straight men who want to control women’s bodies and sexuality, because those men can’t handle the idea that women are NOT their chattel and women might enjoy sex with men other than them.

          So you’re better than those men, but you’re only a rung or so above them.

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          This might come as a surprise, but women CAN, in fact, be misogynist.

        • amycas

           Women can be misogynist too.

        • Thackerie

           You’re a woman??? Wow! That just makes your intolerant, misogynist priggishness all the more repellant. The Catholic “fathers” sure did a mind-phuck on you.

        • Deven Kale

           Being a woman doesn’t automatically disqualify a person from being a misogynist. I’ve known quite a few women who really do fit the bill, nearly all of them religious. Maybe you are, maybe you aren’t. I don’t know and can’t tell from what I’ve seen of your posts, but the jury’s still out on that.

        • Drew M.

          Ah yes, the Catholic concept of the righteous lie; I remember it well.

    • RobertoTheChi

      The lies they promote aren’t harmful? We aren’t angry because they are doing things differently than us…we’re angry because they’re blatantly LYING.

    • amycas

       “If someone goes on 1flesh and follows their advice exactly, they’ll find themselves saving sex for marriage…”

      Why should I save sex for marriage? I don’t want to. I quite enjoy having sex with my boyfriend, and I haven’t suffered any std’s or unplanned pregnancies. Why should we have to get a piece of paper before we have sex?

      • TheBlackCat

         Because the Pope says so!  What other reason do you need?

    • Deven Kale

       You’re forgetting something: non-consensual sex, the risk of pregnancy from which non-barrier contraception methods can greatly reduce. In other words, when abstinence fails (and this is just one way it can), non-barrier contraception means that the risks to a woman’s life and lifestyle are greatly reduced.

  • JudyV

    Does anyone know if any of these doctors offer tubal ligations to their patients?  Because I have to believe a lot of Catholic couples avail themselves of this method of birth control, as well as vasectomies.

    • Envy Burger

      Catholics are extremely opposed to these procedures.  They consider them just as evil as any other form of contraception.  Of course, they are still getting it done :D and lying about it to their peers.  I don’t blame them for that, though.  I just wouldn’t be shy about going against my church’s teachings if it was destroying my life, marriage and family.  Here is a single instance of a Catholic couple where the husband decided to get a vasectomy, regardless of the consequences he thought he’d face, because he couldn’t handle his wife’s suffering anymore:

      http://womenintheology.org/2012/02/25/women-speak-about-natural-family-planning-gss-story/

      I’ve read other forums where Catholic couples open up about how NFP was nothing but heartache and suffering in their family.  Most of them continue to use it, because they fear the threat of hell.  But their lives are miserable.  I will try to dig them up again.

      • Maggy

        I don’t think all Catholics are opposed to these procedures because many of them don’t abide by the official teachings of the RCC when it comes to birth control or IVF.  

  • Isilzha

    Hey look, “doctors” oppose birth control when it’s in direct competition with what they’re trying to sell!

  • Isilzha

    So, does the Catholic church deny nuns access to hormonal birth control if it’s medically necessary?  That would just be cruel and nasty and totally inline with the way I’d expect the Catholic church to behave.

    • Jill

       My understanding is that they think it’s OK for medical reasons.  http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=15756

      (Yes, I’m a bad and evil person for “defending”/fact-checking them on this… blah blah blah)

      • Glasofruix

        And in the same time they refuse to provide those meds to their employees through health insurance…

        • Jill

           Yeah, that’s true..

          Maybe they have to do some sort of special insurance claim if they want the drugs for other purposes.  I have no idea. 

          But I bet even anti-BC Catholics would be pissed if they needed some kind of pregnancy-preventing drug for non-contraceptive purposes and couldn’t get it under their insurance somehow.  (Though even the anti-BC Catholics are a pretty small part of the population.  Most Catholics don’t give a sh%t.)

  • JT

    More evidence that the catholic church is a force for harm in the world. 

    • Foster

      You mean in addition to inventing the University system, charity hospitals, and preserving the literature and knowledge of the Romans in their monasteries?  You know what Europe would look like without the Church?  Probably a lot like Saudi Arabia, Iraq or one of the other middle eastern states, since in 718 (Battle of Adrianople), 732 (Battle of Tours), the Battle of Lepanto in 1517, and of Vienna (1683) its Catholic armies kept Europe from becoming a collection of Islamic theocracies.  The Catholic Church provided the matrix that formed Western culture, with all the assumptions inherent in that culture that you take for granted and that sparked the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance.  If you want to know why you don’t bow towards the east three times a day to Allah, you have the Catholic Church in large part to thank.  The Church was the uniting force that turned the mostly savage Europe that Caesar wrote about into the most civilized and free continent on Earth.

      • JT

        Ha! That’s your rebuttal? “We saved you from being a Muslim.” OK, fine, then I’d be saying that Islam was a force for harm in the world (which it is). 

        You founded universities? So did Muslims. Uh oh. Besides, since then have been denying scientific progress and lying to make reality fit your mythology ever since. 

        I’d like to think that “Western culture” has moved beyond the first millennium of the common era. And wasn’t it your own church that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages in the first place?

        You’ll have to do better than that to convince me that your hateful men have anyone’s interest at heart beside keeping themselves in power. As it is, this web site, run by catholics, is misrepresenting actual science in very dangerous ways in an attempt to force your own religious beliefs on a population. I guess since you aren’t able to convince anyone that you are right by speaking the truth, you have to resort to the methods you attribute to the devil. But keep talking; you reveal your position and motivations more and more every time.

      • RobMcCune

        So christianity 1500 years to work? Use reason, it works quicker.

         Btw people generally don’t like to be conquered, even before christianity. So we have Catholic armies to thank for that.

      • amycas

         The only reason your church “invented” universities (which it really didn’t), is because it was the only structure around that could support such a venture. If there had been strong governments instead, then those governments would have “invented” universities (which did happen in other areas of the world). By the way, Europe wasn’t all savages. That’s an incredibly ungenerous thing to say about the peoples who lived there before the Romans. It would be like calling all the Native Americans savages.

      • Coyotenose

         The Church deliberately destroyed vast amounts of knowledge. It’s why we know so little about early European cultures, about the Mayans and Aztecs, and much more.

        The Church that killed people for discovering scientific facts that didn’t correspond with the Bible? Is that the Church you’re talking about?

        Religions don’t create good. Religions create organizations arranged in such a way that good people can sometimes make use of them, and that evil people then always make use of. And the RCC in particular is long past the point where the good outweighs the evil enough that its adherents can even be forgiven for wearing blinders.

        I’m sure that the many European children whose rapes were made possible by the Church, and the many more mothers and children torn from one another by Church kidnappings and faked adoptions, would be pleased with your defense of its stabilizing influence.

        Modern Western culture is the child primarily of the Enlightenment, whose origins predate Christianity, thanks.

        • Gwenny

          Umm, what? Fake adoptions? Substantiate your claims, please.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            The church has a history of taking the babies of young, unwed mothers. They tell the mothers that the baby died, then put it up for adoption. The “fake” part comes in because none of the mothers gave their consent to the adoptions.

          • Annie

             There is plenty of evidence… and news accounts of the hundreds of thousands of babies who were stolen from their mothers (usually unwed) and given to more “upstanding” parents.  Many of the mothers were told their babies died in childbirth.  Unlike the pedophile priests, who of course had protection from the church but basically worked alone, these thefts of babies were known to many people: doctors, nurses, nuns, priests.  It’s sickening.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/spains-stolen-babies-an-ugly-past-on-a-staggering-scale-2/

            These stories are about the babies stolen from Spain, but several other countries were involved as well.  One researcher estimated that over one million babies were stolen from their mothers.

      • Golfie98

        Islam would say the same thing – it created all those things and held back the christian hoards from turning them into a catholic theocracy. Doesn’t make islam good or harmless.

      • RobertoTheChi

        I’m so happy that the church of pedophelia saved me from being a Muslim! I much prefer the christian form of brainwashing to the muslim form…

      • NickDB

         Umm you do know that we all have access to the internet and can check things for ourselves right?

        The Catholic church DID NOT invent universities. That goes to the Muslims actually -Al-Azhar University

        Yes they created a lot of them, but it wasn’t their idea, just another one of 100s they hijacked and took credit for.

         Yes it did some good a few centuries ago. But I can’t think of anything relevant the Catholic church has done for humanity for the last 300 years.

  • Jenn

    Catholicism: A medical condition effecting the female reproductive organs that paradoxically can result in either unwanted pregnancy or infertility.

  • http://twitter.com/wrongwatch RonWatts

    What is “marriage” anyway? There are people, women, men, I’m one of them. But there is no marriage unless we make it up. Save sexual activity for marriage. Sheer stupidity! 

  • Alexandra

    From arguing in the comment section of Bad Catholic, the Patheos blog written by one of 1Flesh’s founders, Marc Barnes, through a comment by poundcakery (Marc’s girlfriend) that Marc smokes cigarettes.  The irony is just delicious.  The guy trying to paint hormonal contraceptives as so bad for you that none of the positives are worth it smokes.

    I mean, I have no problem with someone deciding to take risks because they enjoy the benefits, like smoking or using hormonal contraceptives, but the douchebaggery of founding a website about how bad hormonal contraceptives are as a male smoker is astounding to me.

    • http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.in/ Andrew G.

      I wonder if Barnes smokes anywhere near his girlfriend – and if he knows about the increased risk of breast cancer that he’s exposing her to if he does.

    • Maggy

      Hold up, they aren’t married?  I am an ex-Catholic and some things may have changed since I left, but premarital sex is one of the big no-no’s in the RCC.

      • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

        Interesting. So they aren’t married, and yet poundcakery says she uses NFP. That’s some brazen hypocrisy for you.

        • GFPchicken

          Using NFP =/= having sex. It’s actually recommended to start charting at least 6 months before the wedding so couples have time to get familiar with the method. Also, single women use NFP too, e.g. to identify what’s causing their health problems. It can point out problems like anovulatory cycles, short luteal phase, etc)

  • Miss_Beara

    “…and threats to the mother’s life…

    Let me just be clear as a physician — there is never a need for an abortion even in these cases.” 

    So this “doctor” rather would have a woman dying of a high risk pregnancy than give her an abortion that would save her life. This is similar to what that douchebag Joe Walsh saying that no women ever have died of a pregnancy in these modern times. Such dangerous ignorance. 

    And yeah, hey, lets have women who survived rape but became pregnant force them to carry their rapists spawn for 9 months because that is what really matters. :-P

    • allein

      From the same quote: “infant fetus”

      From Wikipedia:
      A fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.

      The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months.

      Note to self, if you ever have kids, make sure your doctor knows the difference between an infant and a fetus.

      • amycas

         I said the exact same thing to my boyfriend when I first read that.

      • Coyotenose

         Heh, yes, that word choice stood out like a bright beeping alarm saying, “That doctor is incompetent!”

    • Isilzha

      A high risk pregnancy also carries a huge risk to the woman’s fertility!  An abortion could save a woman’s uterus and enable her to have more children.  Of course, as we’ve learned, what a woman wants is of no consequence in the decision.  So, how silly of me to bring this up.

    • girl

      The doctor is saying that there is no need for abortion because pregnancy is never actually life-threatening.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Tell that to the women who die due to complications of pregnancy, labor, or childbirth…

  • Annie

    Since I was baptized as a baby, before I had any say in the matter… and since the Roman Catholic Church allows me no official way to disenfranchise myself from their hideous religion, I can say with all honesty:  As a Catholic, I believe that premarital sex (IF sex is something a person is interested in) is a crucial part of developing into a happy, healthy, well-adjusted person, and it also allows couples who wish to marry ensure that they are sexually compatible before doing so.   Further more, as a Catholic, I believe contraception is key to giving women the freedom to choose for themselves when or if they want to have children.  As a Catholic, I think that Catholic Church is full of shit.

    • Miss_Beara

      I was baptized as a baby too. I don’t need an official way to disenfranchise myself. Even when I went to Catholic schools as a kid/teenager, I never actually considered myself a Catholic. It is a disgusting religion.

      • Annie

         Me to Miss Beara, but it pisses me off that they still count me amongst them. 

        • Annie

           too

      • Tony

        Miss Beara et al,  interesting that I was born to atheists but they baptized me to placate my godmother and have me fit in, East LA was not kind to outsiders.  My mother also told me I went to Sunday school so I would understand what the people around me thought.  I was ejected when I asked if Adam and Eve were Cro Magnon or neanderthal.  I seems the nuns didn’t believe in empirical evidence.  It seems I am still counted as a catholic.  I now understand what and why the people around me think what they do.  They don’t believe in empirical evidence.

    • RobertoTheChi

      I was baptised as a baby too, but luckily my mother only did it because of Italian tradition and we never went to church or any of the other bullshit. It pisses me off that because I had water sprinkled on my head as a baby that my name is now counted as a catholic and used to inflate their membership numbers. I’ve never believed in a god and loathe the catholic church and wish I could be excommunicated, but of course they stopped doing that because people were leaving in droves.

    • Dave

       This is a logical fallacy called “ad hominem” which attempts to impugn someone’sobjectivity by claiming that they has a vested interest in the view they defend. This particular tactic is called “poisoning the well” which instead of presenting a reasoned argument against their conclusion based on medical evidence, he just takes a shortcut by attacking the person assuming that they must be religiously motivated to support such a position.

       

      I thought atheists were supposed to show empirical evidence rather than rely on logical fallacies?

       

      Here’s some empirical evidence for you…

       

      The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer did a 675 page Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Volume 72 on “Hormonal Contraception and Post-Menopausal Hormonal Therapy”

      They have four different groups for classifying carcinogens:

      Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents or mixtures for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals.

      Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for agents, mixtures and exposure circumstancesfor which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.

      Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstances entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.

      Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.

      Group 1:The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

       

       

      -The weight of the evidence suggests a small increase in the relative risk for breast cancer among current and recent users, which is, however, unrelated to duration of use or type or dose of preparation.

      -Five cohort and 16 case–control studies of use of combined oral contraceptives and invasive cervical cancer have been published; these consistently show a small increase in relative risk associated with long duration of use.

      -Long-term use of combined oral contraceptives was associated with an increase in risk for hepatocellular carcinoma.

      -The results of these studies consistently show that the risk for endometrial cancer of women who have taken these pills is approximately halved.

      -These studies show a consistent reduction in the risk for ovarian cancer with increasing duration of use.

      Overall evaluation:Combined oral contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a protective effect against cancers of the ovary and endometrium.

      http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/

  • allein

    Am I terribly immature for giggling at the fact that the comment count was at 69 when I just reloaded this page? (Speaking of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies…)

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      Alas, what you’re suggesting is in practice a mere prelude to the Main Event. :-)

      • allein

        Oh, well, I wouldn’t know anything about that.

        *blinks innocently*

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    For some of us, contraception is necessary.

  • Ellis

    never mind that the fetus is killing her, DAMN IT SAVE THAT FETUS LET THE WHORE DIE

  • Aimee

    I love Google!!  With that said, I cannot believe we are still discussing this.   Another case of  Squeaky Wheel Syndrome.  UGH!!  

  • Annie

    I’m confused.  I just went to the NFPI website, and it sounds like NFP is just a loophole that Christians can use to actually alter god’s plan, not follow it.  From the NFPI website, it states that “NFP is a way to follow God’s plan for achieving and/or avoiding pregnancy.”  Well, to me, that sounds like this method is actually used by people to achieve or avoid getting pregnant.  If God really had a plan, why would people have to do anything to alter it?  How is this any different from using clinically proven forms of birth control (and I mean from a moral standpoint, not a reliability standpoint)? 

  • Dave

    This
    is a logical fallacy called “ad hominem” which attempts to impugn someone’s
    objectivity by claiming that they has a vested interest in the view they defend.
    This particular tactic is called “poisoning the well” which instead
    of presenting a reasoned argument against their conclusion based on medical
    evidence, he just takes a shortcut by attacking the person assuming that they
    must be religiously motivated to support such a position.

     

    I thought atheists were supposed to show empirical evidence
    rather than rely on logical fallacies?

     

    Here’s some empirical evidence for you…

     

    The World Health Organization’s
    International Agency for Research on Cancer did a 675 page Evaluation of
    Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Volume 72 on “Hormonal Contraception and
    Post-Menopausal Hormonal Therapy”

    They have four different groups for classifying
    carcinogens:

    Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to
    humans. This category is used for agents or mixtures for which there is
    evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental
    animals.

    Group 3: The agent is not classifiable
    as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for
    agents, mixtures and exposure circumstances
    for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is
    inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.

    Group 2B: The agent is possibly
    carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstances entails exposures that are
    possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents, mixtures and
    exposure circumstances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity
    in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental
    animals.

    Group 2A: The agent is probably
    carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are
    probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited
    evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
    and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
    experimental animals.

    Group 1:The agent (mixture) is
    carcinogenic to humans.
    The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are
    carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence
    of carcinogenicity in humans.

     

     

    -The weight of the evidence
    suggests a small increase in the relative risk for breast cancer among current
    and recent users, which is, however, unrelated to duration of use or type or
    dose of preparation.

    -Five cohort and 16 case–control
    studies of use of combined oral contraceptives and invasive cervical cancer
    have been published; these consistently show a small increase in relative risk
    associated with long duration of use.
    -Long-term use of combined oral contraceptives was
    associated with an increase in risk for
    hepatocellular carcinoma.

    -The results of these studies
    consistently show that the risk for endometrial cancer of women who have taken
    these pills is approximately halved.

    -Overall, these studies show a
    consistent reduction in the risk for ovarian cancer with increasing duration of
    use.

    Overall evaluation:
    Combined oral contraceptives are carcinogenic to
    humans (Group 1). There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a
    protective effect against cancers of the ovary and endometrium.

    http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol72/mono72.pdf

    If you delete this comment, like you did the last time, then who’s actually perpetuating misinformation because of a bias? Be objective and let the facts state what they state.

  • Zach Anderson

    The logical inconsistency of this author’s post is too damn high! Ever heard of ad hominem?

  • girl

    Dear Mr Mehta,

    I don’t understand this post.

    You might not agree with the sex only within marriage idea or with the religious beliefs of some of the proponents of 1flesh’s message. But I don’t see any attempt here to engage with the scientific claims made on the website. They are talking in the main about science, and though some of the arguments have a more philosophical bent, it is emphatically not religious (ie arguments do not rely on belief in God or subscription to a certain religion).

    Saying that someone’s argument is rubbish because they’re of such and such a persuasion is I believe called an ad hominem attack …. I mean really, does the fact that some people who support the message are Catholic detract from the validity of those scientific claims?

    Your last sentence I don’t get either. Maybe we have a different understanding of the phrase “pushing one’s faith onto someone else”, but I would imagine that as me saying to you every time I saw you, “oi, believe my religion or else”, not “hello, here are some scientific studies showing that such and such might not be beneficial to you”.

    Thanks

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      “But I don’t see any attempt here to engage with the scientific claims made on the website.”

      Because “1flesh” (creeepy!) isn’t making scientific claims, they are making statements based on Catholic doctrine and presenting deliberately distorted “statistics” designed to sway the Papal ass-lickers to their way of “thinking”.

      The arguments presented are 100% rubbish precisely because they are not arguments, but statements of Catholic doctrine and faith, falsely presented as “arguments”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X