This Week in God

May 27, 2006

First up from the [tag]God[/tag] machine this week is evidence from my friends north of the border that Americans aren’t the only ones who struggle with religious opposition to modern [tag]science[/tag]. Just ask the folks in the small village of [tag]Salluit[/tag], located along the northern coast of Quebec.

The Quebec Ministry of Education is stepping in to find out whether Inuit students in northern Quebec can be taught the same science curriculum as students everywhere else — and that includes [tag]evolution[/tag].

The ministry is investigating a complaint made last week by high school science teacher Alexandre April, who said he was given a letter of reprimand for discussing [tag]Darwin[/tag]’s theory in his biology class at Ikusik High School in Salluit.

The Kativik School Board’s official position is that students can read about modern biology after school at a library or online, but classroom instruction should be limited to the biblical story of creation.

As the Chicago Sun-Times’ Zay N. Smith put it, “So Canada has its Kansases, too.”

Next up is a religious/philosophical conflict that’s been around for a very long time: birth control through the rhythm method. Because many religious institutions have rejected most [tag]contraceptives[/tag], this system has long been believed to be the only morally acceptable approach to [tag]birth control[/tag]. A new argument is emerging, however, that says even the [tag]rhythm method[/tag] is wrong. (warning: British spelling ahead)

The range of birth control choices may have become narrower for couples that believe the sanctity of life begins when sperm meets egg. The rhythm method, a philosopher claims, may compromise millions of [tag]embryos[/tag].

“Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” writes Luc Bovens, of the London School of Economics, in the Journal of Medical Ethics. […]

In using the rhythm method, couples avoid pregnancy by refraining from sex during a woman’s fertile period. Perfect adherents claim it is over 90% effective – i.e. one couple in 10 will conceive in an average year. But, typically speaking, effectiveness is estimated at closer to 75%.

Now Bovens suggests that for those concerned about embryo loss, the rhythm method may be a bad idea. He argues that, because couples are having sex on the fringes of the fertile period, they are more likely to conceive embryos that are incapable of surviving.

“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.”

And we get one step closer to “every sperm is sacred”….

See an interesting video that uses the words of the “christian” woman who went nuts on the television show Trading Spouses to level criticism at the Bush administration…here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • Very interesting.

    I grew up in booney land Canada and I’m not surprised as we had our share of over the top religious folks. However, this is more of an isolated incident at the local level not a widespread systemic one as say, well, Kansas.

    As I’ve said before, one of our rightwing pols got mocked endlessly for saying dinosaurs lived with man.

    Every sperm is sacred, but female ovum are not? Hmmm… I’m not a female, but it seems to be a very f-ed up male chauvenist thing to say. One egg vs 100Million sperm in one load. The numbers don’t seem to add up here.

  • Mr. Bovine certainly demonstrates where he falls on the evolutionary scale, doesn’t he??

    I am just getting around to watching the first six episodes of The Sopranos for the current season (don’t subscribe, so a friend tapes them), and that far right Christian nutjob Tony runs into in the hospital was both scary and funny in the same moment, because they had done him so perfectly accurately – watching someone so matter-of-factly spout insanity was what was scary and funny simultaneously, the first time I had ever seen it since my world doesn’t include those frontal lobe-lacking bipeds. There sure is a lot of interesting “culture war” politics going on in the season’s shows this time around.

  • I think what the British paper is arguing is that the rhythm method ends up killing more fertilized embryos than using a condom does. If you believe that life begins when sperm meets egg, then you will end up killing many more lives using the rhythm method than condom use would. He’s not arguing that every sperm is sacred. Instead, he’s arguing that people who think that the rhythm method is the only holy form of birth control are hypocrites because they will end up killing many more 8-cell babies than if they just used plain, ole condoms.

  • when do we start giving sperms the right to vote, too? – Sterling

    When Diebold does the sperm count.

  • Just north of us, in British Columbia, a Russian religious group called the Dukobors, used to demonstrate by running around with their clothes off. Couldn’t the good people of Salluit be encouraged to follow suit (as it were)? Also, shouldn’t that quote have been spelled “So Canada has its Kans-asses, too”?

    Before I retired I used to teach demography. When I got to fertility and methods of birth control, one of the most confusing things to describe for students was so-called “rhythm method”, partly because they – state university students! – were so hopelessly ignorant about sexuality in the first place. Here‘s a listing (among many) of the disadvantages of this method:

    * If you use this method of birth control, you can have sex only during certain days of your menstrual cycle. Because you cannot have sex whenever you want to this method requires a lot of self-control by you and your partner.
    * You must keep detailed records of many (8) menstrual cycles before you use this method for birth control. You must continue to keep track of your cycles while using this method.
    * If your periods (cycles) are irregular, you cannot use this form of birth control because you cannot safely calculate when you are fertile.
    * This method is only 70 percent reliable for preventing pregnancy, even in women with predictable cycles. This means 30 out of 100 couples (or 3 out of 10) will have pregnancies if they rely on this method for a year.
    * You are not protected against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). To protect yourself against STDs, you must use a condom every time you have sexual intercourse.

    As you can see, the method — which practically requires a degree in accountancy — is particularly useless in the so-called “third world” and among the impoverished of the developed nations, i.e., precisely among women should know more about how to control their fertility.

    There’s much more can be said (at least an hour lecture’s worth for starters), but you can see why countries which advocate this method have such high birthrates. I guess those of us in the “reality-based community” will never understand those who prefer (literally) blind faith.

    • Comments are closed.