A new strategy to reduce contraception use and abortion

[fnr]

I think much of the cultural predominance of contraception in society comes from young women wanting to have a life independent of marriage and family. Some may argue this to be immature and selfish, but it has a long history.

Augustus Caesar passed the Leges Juliae (Julian laws) in the first century, imposing tax penalties on people who didn’t marry and have children, and rewarding men who fathered more than 3 children. Part of this was a requirement to keep the Roman Empire viable – due to high mortality, the average woman needed to have at least 5 children or the empire would shrink. So girls were married very young, frequently before puberty, throughout the Roman world. And those women who did start having children faced extremely high risks of dying, which is one of the reasons that it was common for men to marry women (sometimes second or third wives) decades younger than them. So being a mother in Rome was a bit like Russian roulette. Yet the Empire punished those who would marry, men and women both. Widows in particular faced pressure to remarry and continue having children.

Contrast this with early Christianity. In Acts 6:1-7, we see the apostles organizing collections for the care of widows as the first organized charity of the Christian world. And we see from modern studies of Roman demography that half of Christian women in the empire made it to age 18 before getting married. These statistics are the result of Christians honoring chastity, particularly female virgins. The 2nd century Acts of Paul and Thecla are a story featuring the “ancient feminist superhero” Thecla, a noble woman who scorned marriage and sexuality to offer her virginity to God, and the book was a wildly popular piece of literature in the ancient world. (Thecla was canonized a saint, despite the likelihood that she was a fictional character.)

In the ancient world, virginity for young women and chastity for widows was a way to escape – even if for a few years – from the cycle of sex and death that led women to have life expectancies that were made short through dying in childbirth. The early church supported (and even consecrated) virgins and widows, allowing women to actually extend their own lives.

In contrast to this ancient time, today’s contraception is the means by which men and women escape marriage and family. Contraception is used as a way to continue having sex without the need to commit, and to time the pace of childbirth. In schools, many young girls feel pressured to have sex in order to feel like they deserve love, and this is where contraception can make its inroads. But I think the ancient church has much to offer, especially in the figure of Thecla. She’s a pro-chastity, somewhat anti-family alternative to the typical message from those opposed to contraception, who bemoan that women have given up the vocation of motherhood in favor of modern careers. In fact, Thecla provides a model of dignity for women who want to be independent, and feel fully embraced by the love of God.

What do you think about evangelizing about Thecla? We could use her story to reduce abortion and the uses of contraception. Whaddyathink?

 

[bsroufek]

You talk as though a majority of women died from childbirth “cycle of sex and death”, which I don’t think is true. And you also talk about marriage as if it’s a trap for women who would rather not marry.

Granted, pre-pubescent marriage of women is bad, but you cite no evidence or source to substantiate most little girls being forced into marriage in ancient Rome. Also, virginity is a good thing “for those to whom it is granted”, but not as a means to “reduce abortion and the uses of contraception” as though they were necessary if you were not a virgin.

Also, you suggest that contraception “can make its inroads”, as though it can be positive.

 

[fnr]

You talk as though a majority of women died from childbirth “cycle of sex and death”, which I don’t think is true.

I haven’t said that the majority died in childbirth. Even from a strictly biological perspective, that makes no sense. Sorry if that was unclear. But statistically speaking, a difference in life expectancy arises from death rates being elevated among one group than another. Mortality from childbirth was much, much higher than it is today.

I think of the age disparity between Joseph and Mary as an example of what must have been fairly common in the ancient Mediterranean. I’ve heard it explained by Jimmy Akin that Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Mark 6:3, for example, are best described as step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph’s. If true, that’s an example of a phenomenon where a husband outlived the wife. According to everything I’ve read, that was very common in the Mediterranean world.

Here’s one source of information by Stark on which I relied for those statements. A second is the Jewish Annotated New Testament, which describes how age disparities were frequently large between men and women. Another is the Yale open course, Introduction to the New Testament which I heard on YouTube. The Professor, Dale Martin, describes Acts of Paul and Theclathere. I invite you to read/watch both.

And you also talk about marriage as if it’s a trap for women who would rather not marry.

I’m not describing it that way. I’m suggesting that one of the reasons that contraception is in widespread use today is to postpone childbearing in order pursue other interests. There are many people today who don’t want to have children.

Granted, pre-pubescent marriage of women is bad, but you cite no evidence or source to substantiate most little girls being forced into marriage in ancient Rome.

From the article by Stark, to which I linked above:
*"In a now-classic article, the historical demographer Keith Hopkins (1965a) surveyed a century of research on the age of marriage of Roman women – girls actually, most of them. The evidence is both literary and quantitative. In addition to the standard classical histories, the literary evidence consists of writings by lawyers and physicians. The quantitative data are based on inscriptions most of them funerary, from which the age of marriage can be calculated (cf. Harkness 1986).

As to the histories, silence offers strong testimony that Roman girls married young, very often before puberty. It is possible to calculate that many famous Roman women married at a tender age: Octavia and Agrippina married at 11 and 12, Quintilian’s wife bore him a son when she was 13, Tacitus wed a girl of 13, and so on. But in reviewing the writing about all of these aristocratic Romans, Hopkins (1965) found only one case where the ancient writer mentioned the age of the bride – and this biographer was himself a Christian ascetic! Clearly, having been a child bride was not thought worth mentioning by ancient biographers. Beyond silence, however, the Greek historian Plutarch reported that Romans "gave their girls in marriage when they were twelve years old, or even younger (in Hopkins, 1965a). Cassius Dio, also a Greek writing Roman history, agreed: “girls are considered… to have reached marriageable age on completion of the twelfth year” (Dio 1987:170).

Roman law set 12 as the minimum age at which girls could marry. But the law carried no penalties and legal commentaries from the time include such advice as: “A girl who has married before 12 will be a legitimate wife, when she becomes 12.” Another held that when girls under age 12 married, for legal purposes they should be considered engaged until they reached 12."*

Also, virginity is a good thing “for those to whom it is granted”, but not as a means to “reduce abortion and the uses of contraception” as though they were necessary if you were not a virgin.

Uh… if people are remaining chaste, doesn’t that reduce the number of abortions and the uses of contraceptives? There are countless Catholic organizations that promote chastity, including Catholic Answers. Surely, it’s more than just a spiritual exercise. *Humanae Vitae *said as much.

Also, you suggest that contraception “can make its inroads”, as though it can be positive.

Again, let me be clear. I am saying that I’d like to reduce the use of contraceptives. The reason that people use contraceptives are that they perceive some benefit in using them, right? I’m not saying that makes contraceptives a moral good thing, simply saying that people make choices to use contraceptives for what they perceive its benefits to be.

Contracteption – IMHO – has increased the pressure on young girls to have sex as a means of meriting affection from a boy. I don’t have firm statistics here, but I don’t think anyone would contest my claim that sex out of wedlock is on the rise. Contraception is a big enabler of that trend.

 

[fnr]

Here is some other relevant data on how Christians and pagans differed (from Stark):
*"The quantitative data are based on several studies of Roman inscriptions… from which age at marriage could be calculated. Hopkins was also able to separate these Roman women on the basis of religion. He found that pagans were three times more likely as Christians to have married before age 13 (10 percent were wed by age 11). Nearly half (44 percent) of pagans had married by age 14, compared with 20 percent of Christians. In contrast, nearly half (48 percent) of Christian females had not wed before age 18, compared with a third (37 percent) of pagans.

Those differences are highly statistically significant. But, they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that a substantial portion of Roman girls not only married before the onset of puberty, to men far older than themselves, but that these marriages were typically consummated at once."*

Here is the abstract from the paper, Hopkins, K. (1965) The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage. Population Studies 18: 309-327.
*For Roman girls the legal minimum age at marriage was 12; but the law provided no sanctions and was contravened. The usual age at puberty (at least for the upper classes) was probably 13+. In fact menarche was not always a pre-condition of marriage; nevertheless marriages were usually consummated immediately. Even if pre-pubertal marriages were regarded by some as deviant, they were not exceptional and were condoned.

The usual age of girls at marriage can only be guessed at from the fragmentary literary evidence, but 287 tombstones enable us to tabulate the ages of pagan and Christian girls at marriage. The modal age of the former was 12-15 (43 per cent), for the latter 15-18 (42 per cent). These inscriptions are probably most representative of the urban well-to-do. There is no serious bias towards recording low ages.

Men married considerably later than girls and their deaths were recorded by their parents more frequently and until a much later age. This favouritism to boys, the early age at marriage of girls, the age differential between spouses and the high chances of early widowhood/widowerhood, have considerable significance for the study of the Roman family.*

 

[ellzeena]

I don’t know what compelled you to start this thread, perhaps you should turn to journalism.

Women don’t use contraception because they don’t want children; they use contraception because our society has (finally) taught them that sex is required in relationships with men (or the men go away) and that few of these men will take responsibility for a child, thereby leaving a young woman without funds or support. In fact, having lived a lifetime, I have learned that it is WOMEN who want children, NOT men (although of course there are exceptions). I have learned that many men are unable to make the adjustment to the marriage once a baby is part of the household because a woman CHANGES once face to face with her newborn (normal). Hubby is no longer first in line, nor should he be, but apparently no one taught him that (no good role models, society is a mess).

Abortion IS NOT A FORM OF CONTRACEPTION:
youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

I think the “new strategy” should be: we return to values that have ceased to exist, which means that young men learn to be “gentlemen” and young women learn to be “ladies”: do not cast your pearls before swine. We are not slaves to our sex drives (if we are normal females) as some men seem to be (forgive the observation, but, duh). Why allow the single most intimate thing you can share to a total stranger whose intentions you know nothing of and who might (and most likely will) disappear quite soon (perhaps the very night you have sex with him)? Are you THAT WORTHLESS? Are you THAT DESPERATE? Why? You won’t find a husband (faithful, loving, protective, supportive with a lifetime commitment) by doing this, SO WHY ARE YOU DOING IT YOUNG LADY?

As for men: keep it zipped. Simple. Women aren’t your personal playground. If you must find some outlet for your (inexplicably) impossible to control urge, do it YOURSELF and then talk to a priest.

That’s my strategy.

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t know what compelled you to start this thread, perhaps you should turn to journalism.

Women don’t use contraception because they don’t want children; they use contraception because our society has (finally) taught them that sex is required in relationships with men (or the men go away) and that few of these men will take responsibility for a child, thereby leaving a young woman without funds or support. In fact, having lived a lifetime, I have learned that it is WOMEN who want children, NOT men (although of course there are exceptions). I have learned that many men are unable to make the adjustment to the marriage once a baby is part of the household because a woman CHANGES once face to face with her newborn (normal). Hubby is no longer first in line, nor should he be, but apparently no one taught him that (no good role models, society is a mess).

Abortion IS NOT A FORM OF CONTRACEPTION:
youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

I think the “new strategy” should be: we return to values that have ceased to exist, which means that young men learn to be “gentlemen” and young women learn to be “ladies”: do not cast your pearls before swine. We are not slaves to our sex drives (if we are normal females) as some men seem to be (forgive the observation, but, duh). Why allow the single most intimate thing you can share to a total stranger whose intentions you know nothing of and who might (and most likely will) disappear quite soon (perhaps the very night you have sex with him)? Are you THAT WORTHLESS? Are you THAT DESPERATE? Why? You won’t find a husband (faithful, loving, protective, supportive with a lifetime commitment) by doing this, SO WHY ARE YOU DOING IT YOUNG LADY?

As for men: keep it zipped. Simple. Women aren’t your personal playground. If you must find some outlet for your (inexplicably) impossible to control urge, do it YOURSELF and then talk to a priest.

That’s my strategy.

I like your strategy

 

[fnr]

I don’t know what compelled you to start this thread, perhaps you should turn to journalism.

I’m not a journalist, I’m a scientist by training and sentiment. I started this thread because I want to end abortion and think the pro-life movement has been ineffective in reducing abortions to any significant degree. I believe that the black market will provide abortion on demand if abortions is outlawed (as it does in countries where it’s currently outlawed and did in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade). My arguments have been here and here and here.

Because the current strategy of the pro-life movement has been so ineffective, I think a new strategy, call it part of the New Evangelization, is needed. Here’s how the USCCB describes the New Evangelization:
"The focus of the New Evangelization calls all Catholics to be evangelized and then go forth to evangelize. In a special way, the New Evangelization is focused on ‘re-proposing’ the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith. Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel “to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization.”

So, I’ve been looking at the early church, and how they dealt with sex.

Women don’t use contraception because they don’t want children; they use contraception because our society has (finally) taught them that sex is required in relationships with men (or the men go away) and that few of these men will take responsibility for a child, thereby leaving a young woman without funds or support.

That’s one reason, which affects single women in particular. I think St. Thecla provides a wonderful example of how a woman can go without sex and still be satisfied in life by following God.

Another reason, probably the vast majority of cases, is that women (and men, if married) want to postpone having children for a while – for example because the husband lost his job or because the woman has a career for which getting pregnant would be inconvenient. Even among Catholics, over 80% consider it morally acceptable to use birth control. To me, this is where evangelizing Catholics with natural family planning (NFP) methods comes in. I think there’s been very little marketing of NFP, but it’s as effective as artificial contraception, and puts the relationship front and center.

In fact, having lived a lifetime, I have learned that it is WOMEN who want children, NOT men (although of course there are exceptions). I have learned that many men are unable to make the adjustment to the marriage once a baby is part of the household because a woman CHANGES once face to face with her newborn (normal). Hubby is no longer first in line, nor should he be, but apparently no one taught him that (no good role models, society is a mess).

I think that’s often the case. But also, people just have fewer kids during economic downturns.

I think the “new strategy” should be: we return to values that have ceased to exist, which means that young men learn to be “gentlemen” and young women learn to be “ladies”: do not cast your pearls before swine. We are not slaves to our sex drives (if we are normal females) as some men seem to be (forgive the observation, but, duh). Why allow the single most intimate thing you can share to a total stranger whose intentions you know nothing of and who might (and most likely will) disappear quite soon (perhaps the very night you have sex with him)? Are you THAT WORTHLESS? Are you THAT DESPERATE? Why? You won’t find a husband (faithful, loving, protective, supportive with a lifetime commitment) by doing this, SO WHY ARE YOU DOING IT YOUNG LADY?

As for men: keep it zipped. Simple. Women aren’t your personal playground. If you must find some outlet for your (inexplicably) impossible to control urge, do it YOURSELF and then talk to a priest.

That’s my strategy.

Sounds like you’re ready to start evangelizing! Go to it!