Jonathan's blog

From an article of the same title by Alison Motluk on NewScientist.com:

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 embryos. "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. With other methods of contraception banned by the Catholic church, the rhythm method has been one of the few options available to millions. 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... Bovens calculates that, if the rhythm method is 90% effective, and if conceptions outside the fertile period are about twice as likely to fail as to survive, then "millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death"... "If you're concerned about embryonic death," Bovens says, "you've got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method."

On the Saturday before last, Elliot (and Lisa) marched in the Memorial Day parade with Lim's Tae Kwon Do. It was hot and sunny, but Elliot stayed hydrated.

Every wondered how to get a police escort? Me neither, but Daniel Engber's explainer on the subject is an interesting read or listen.

Via my friend Chris (kyivmission.blogspot.com), an article by Bob Waldron of the Mission Resource Network describes their recommendations for missionary compensation based on their survey of five evangelical missions entities known for excellence in missions.

From an article of the same title by Caryle Murphy and Alan Cooperman in the Washington Post:

Long overshadowed by the Christian right, religious liberals across a wide swath of denominations are engaged today in their most intensive bout of political organizing and alliance-building since the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s, according to scholars, politicians and clergy members. In large part, the revival of the religious left is a reaction against conservatives' success in the 2004 elections in equating moral values with opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Religious liberals say their faith compels them to emphasize such issues as poverty, affordable health care and global warming. Disillusionment with the war in Iraq and opposition to Bush administration policies on secret prisons and torture have also fueled the movement... Conservative Christian activist Gary L. Bauer said the religious left "is getting more media attention" but "it's not clear" that it is getting more organized. "My reaction is 'Come on in, the water's fine' . . . but I think that when you look at frequent church attenders in America, they tend to be pro-life and support marriage as one man and one woman, and so I think the religious left is going to have a hard time making any significant progress" with those voters, he said.

I think Bauer missed the point. Most may be pro-life and not support gay marriage, but a big chunk of them also base their votes on a bunch of other issues on which the Democrats can make "signifcant progress."