However, even if we manage to avoid calling outright fantasies by a label they don't deserve, calling something scientific isn't always a useful label.
Take, for example, this editorial from the Wall Street Journal. It's written by a Catholic person defending "Humane Vitae", the papal encyclical which is most well known for the ban on contraception which it mandates for Catholics. Among other points, it notes that natural family planning (also known as the rhythm method) is based in good science. Frankly, I can agree with that! It takes a fair bit of understanding how fertility works to make certain no mistakes are made, and the knowledge we've gained makes it a lot more reliable than it was in the past.
Unfortunately, "scientific" in this case doesn't necessarily mean "effective"... certainly not in comparison with condoms, hormonal birth control, or an IUD. If the woman writing this editorial is willing to accept a method that's less effective, whatever her reason, I have no problem with that. When she and her fellow believers are part of an organization that has zero problem with making it hard for anyone, whether they agree with the religious beliefs or not, from obtaining contraception, then I have a very serious problem with them.
Worse yet, the editorial is also an excellent lesson in how one scientific point doesn't mean all the rest of your points are scientific as well. Labeling everything other than the rhythm method "potentially harmful" ignores just about every bit of nuance possible regarding the risks or benefits of other types of birth control, and trying to connect the increase in contraceptive use with the sexual assault rate is basically unsupported by any evidence at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment