Sex What’s Left? Dry Humping?
Fundamentalists have long argued that many methods of contraception, including IUDs, the Pill, and emergency contraception (Plan B), cause abortion (embryonic death) by blocking the implantation of a conceived embryo in the uterus. By that standard, the Journal of Medical Ethics reports, the “rhythm method” is a veritable embryonic genocide.
Now suppose that we were to learn that the success of the rhythm method is actually due, not to the fact that conception does not happen—sperm and ova are much more long lived than we previously thought—but rather because the viability of conceived ova outside the [heightened fertility] period is minimal due to the limited resilience of the embryo and the limited receptivity of the uterine wall. If this were the case, then one should oppose the rhythm method for the same reasons as one opposes IUDs. If it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by making the uterine wall inhospitable to implantation, then clearly it is callous to use a technique that makes embryonic death likely by organising one’s sex life so that conceived ova lack resilience and will face a uterine wall that is inhospitable to implantation. … And if embryos are unborn children, is it not callous indeed to organise one’s sex life on the basis of a technique whose success is partly dependent on the fact that unborn children will starve because they are brought to life in a hostile environment?
Moreover,
Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method.
Of course, the article concludes,
one person’s modus ponens is another person’s modus tollens. One could simply conceive of this whole argument as a reductio ad absurdum of the cornerstone of the argument of the pro-life movement, namely that deaths of early embryos are a matter of grave concern.
it's called the crazy, and they've got it.