> Copper IUDs [...] are ethically troublesome (eggs can be fertilized after ovulation, but the copper IUD prevents nidation)
That's only if you have some outdated religious beliefs (to put it kindly).
If you look at nature ~50% (various research points to 40% to 60%) of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's menstruation cycle. So half are lost without attaching to the uterine wall and anybody noticing it.
There is also IVF that fertilizes many more eggs then end up being used / viable.
So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.
> If you look at nature ~50% (various research points to 40% to 60%) of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's menstruation cycle. So half are lost without attaching to the uterine wall and anybody noticing it.
That strikes me as a bit of an unfair argument. I can't speak for all religious people, but for many there's a huge difference between losing fertilized eggs 'naturally' and inducing this outcome. Within their world-view, this distinction makes sense.
> So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.
While I agree on the arbitrariness, and while I'm not religious anymore, I once again don't think it's fair to argue that 'realistically' these beliefs exist to exert control. I'm sure many people have used religion to exert control, but most of the deeply religious people I know can do a decent job arguing why they believe what they do, I just disagree with their axioms.
> That strikes me as a bit of an unfair argument. I can't speak for all religious people, but for many there's a huge difference between losing fertilized eggs 'naturally' and inducing this outcome. Within their world-view, this distinction makes sense.
Why should that be that the case? Their intent is already to lower fertility, and with IUDs, sometimes that (unintentionally) happens with identical symptoms to naturally "failed" implantations. ;-)
That's only if you have some outdated religious beliefs (to put it kindly).
If you look at nature ~50% (various research points to 40% to 60%) of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's menstruation cycle. So half are lost without attaching to the uterine wall and anybody noticing it.
There is also IVF that fertilizes many more eggs then end up being used / viable.
So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.