Birth Control vs. Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would the lack of contraception lead to more unplanned-for pregnancies in the irresponsible? I’m not quite sure what the present and historical data can reveal, honestly. I think that people who make this argument imagine some sort of bizarre phenomenon in which every man who is used to ejaculating into a condom, now finding himself without one, continues to have sex as rampantly and irresponsibly, and chooses to ejaculate in the woman. And she allows him to (gasp)!

The matter of contraception cannot be solved on its own. Society must adjust its perspective away from the cave walls to the outside reality that humans are human at the very moment of conception. From there, the issues of both abortion and contraception will wash away. But this is too Christian-utopian for our fallen humanity. To hope for it as Christians/Catholics is granted, but to expect it is foolish.

We must continue the fight against abortion because it is akin to murder, but contraception, as far as I’m concerned, is in Caesar’s realm at this point. Caesar must take it upon himself to protect his burgeoning citizens, but changing laws on it won’t change hearts.
 
on_the_hill said:
  1. The use of ABC and abortions are both mortal sins. Despite what effect ABC has on the abortion rate, we cannot accept one mortal sin to avoid another.
Click to expand...
I don’t think non-abortifacient birth control should be banned or restricted. We live in a country with freedom of religion, so “the church calls it a mortal sin” isn’t enough of a reason to want to make something illegal. You’ll also need a secular argument against it as well, such as evidence that it destroys or otherwise ruins human lives.
 
OK, back to my original question please.

Are there any studies or any other empirical evidence out there to show or suggest that less access to free birth control results in more abortions?

Thank you.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
OK, back to my original question please.

Are there any studies or any other empirical evidence out there to show or suggest that less access to free birth control results in more abortions?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Have you looked up studies showing that where contraception is introduced into countries or populations, that wide-spread access and increase in abortions follow? That might yield a larger picture, albeit not the narrow circumstance you’re looking at. I would just start with googling it.
 
NM505StKate said:
medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
Click to expand...
I’m not by any means a scientist, or even very bright, but without even looking for a counterargument online over this study I can see on a casual read-through that there’s some flawed methodology with this study to arrive at the conclusion that free birth control reduces abortions.
  1. The reduction in abortion was supposedly 62 to 78%. 75% of these women in the study chose an IUD or implant. So essentially it’s a study showing that free IUDs reduce obvious abortions. I say obvious abortion because it’s well known that an IUD will prevent the implantation of an already fertilized egg if an egg is fertilized. I.E., new life. I.E. it causes the body to spontaneously abort. There’s no telling how many of these women had spontaneous abortions when the child was only a few days old. If we were to remove these 75% from the study and assume that none of those women needed a surgical or medical abortion later on (which is the argument the study’s making), we’d possibly see a small increase in abortions versus the general population (the “control” group.)
  2. When looking at pregnancy rates, the control group was the general population. This is again an issue because it doesn’t take into consideration women in the general population who were trying to become pregnant or simply not trying to avoid pregnancy. In contrast, the test group was self-selected women and girls who are actively trying to avoid pregnancy.
 
Depends on the type of IUD. It can prevent implantation, but supposedly rare. The hormonal IUD main action is to make the womb fatal to sperm and prevent fertilization.

But I get your point.
  1. approximately half of all pregnancies are unintended. So about half women who become pregnant were not trying. Given patterns in fertility rates it wouldn’t be too big a leap to say most women are not trying to get pregnant at an given time.
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
Remind me why I entered the field of journalism, then? 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, I hope it wasn’t only to tell people what they want to hear. Plenty of holy people have been treated very poorly for speaking the truth. While I agree that we shouldn’t be unnecessarily acerbic, “prophet” isn’t usually a job with a happy ending, even if the message is delivered nicely.
 
TCEL said:
Well, I hope it wasn’t only to tell people what they want to hear. Plenty of holy people have been treated very poorly for speaking the truth. While I agree that we shouldn’t be unnecessarily acerbic, “prophet” isn’t usually a job with a happy ending, even if the message is delivered nicely.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, I think the field of journalism is need of some serious work nowadays.
 
James214 said:
I’m not by any means a scientist, or even very bright, but without even looking for a counterargument online over this study I can see on a casual read-through that there’s some flawed methodology with this study to arrive at the conclusion that free birth control reduces abortions.
  1. The reduction in abortion was supposedly 62 to 78%. 75% of these women in the study chose an IUD or implant. So essentially it’s a study showing that free IUDs reduce obvious abortions. I say obvious abortion because it’s well known that an IUD will prevent the implantation of an already fertilized egg if an egg is fertilized. I.E., new life. I.E. it causes the body to spontaneously abort. There’s no telling how many of these women had spontaneous abortions when the child was only a few days old. If we were to remove these 75% from the study and assume that none of those women needed a surgical or medical abortion later on (which is the argument the study’s making), we’d possibly see a small increase in abortions versus the general population (the “control” group.)
  2. When looking at pregnancy rates, the control group was the general population. This is again an issue because it doesn’t take into consideration women in the general population who were trying to become pregnant or simply not trying to avoid pregnancy. In contrast, the test group was self-selected women and girls who are actively trying to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...
My contention is the “new life” part. It is a handful of cells at the point.
 
NM505StKate said:
My contention is the “new life” part. It is a handful of cells at the point.
Click to expand...
When did Kate become a new life? At the point the surgeon’s knife hurts?

The amazing thing is that those few cells do indeed comprise new life. You (and I) are walking proof.
 
Rau said:
When did Kate become a new life? At the point the surgeon’s knife hurts?

The amazing thing is that those few cells do indeed comprise new life. You (and I) are walking proof.
Click to expand...
Sure but it isn’t personhood. It is more a law definition than a science one.
 
NM505StKate said:
Sure but it isn’t personhood. It is more a law definition than a science one.
Click to expand...
What’s the definition of a person? isn’t it just a reference to stage of development where the law bestows a status?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top