Contraception: A Stumbling Block to Ending Abortion

[PassingThru]

Passingthru, your statistical logic makes sense to me. What we would need to determine a stronger case (or any case, as you have shown we don’t have one right now) for causation is data about rates of intercourse in societies before and after contraceptives are introduced or become prevalent. Also usefull would be stats on the rates of current sexual activity among fertile women. Are they abstaining? Sexually active? Use the pill? How often do they engage in intercourse?

Well, I do not think we will get any data that can correlate all your factors. The study that was linked earlier in the discussion took family size (ie number of births per woman) as well as contraception rates and abortion rates all into account. I think it would be fair to say, as a whole, people are still having sex at a similar rate over time. How we would know, I have no idea.

I think the Catholic assumption is that intercourse happens *so much more *with contraception, that despite the decreased *rate of pregnancies per instance of intercourse *due to successful contraception, there are more unwanted, and psychologically “unfair” pregnancies, that there are more abortions overall.

There is NO data to support this claim. Lets run with it regardless. From the data we do know, 90% of the population using contraception, these would be the people you are postulating would be having unwanted babies, yet they are not producing abortions at the rate we would expect if there was parity, which is 90% of the abortions. So, even if they are having a truckload of “unfair” sex, they are not producing the abortions, which is the entire point.

The second study that Barb brought up further supports the idea that with better access to reliable contraception, the lower the abortion rate drops. These are statistics, not reasons or morals.

Your number of 80-90 percent of women/couples contracepting was for sexually active women, right? If so, this discounts an unknown number of women who are not having sex for any reason. One reason could be that they desire not to become pregnant (I know this is conjuecture, not data, but I’m pretty sure it still happens). Is it possible that if we included all biologically fertile women (sexually active or not) in the denominator, that we’d find only 54 percent contracepting? If it were any less than that, then we would, indeed, have a direct correlation between using contraceptives and procuring abortions.

Well, its even worse than that. Here is the line from the earlier study:

31% of women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.

Even using this *very *generous number, you do not get below 54%. This is why I can not see a connection between contraception and abortion, using these statistics.

 

[PassingThru]

People are more open to abortion when they are less open to life. Condoms and the pill are products of being closed to life, and reinforce that closedness throughout society. (Society = a whole bunch of someones)

You snuck this in while I was responding.

This is completely unsupported. It makes sense, but that does not, in any way, make it true. Our objective data, at this point, shows the opposite.

If people are inundated with images and messages encouraging sex with limitted, and negative, mention of pregnancy, they will desire sex so much more than they desire children that they become willing to kill the child.

? Opinion?

Desire is the strongest motivator of human actions, much more than philosophy or morals. So people take in the message “you don’t have to make babies (thanks to contraception).” It ends up speaking to them louder than anything that might be saying “killing people is wrong (even when it’s dependent entirely on you and didn’t ask your permission)” when they are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. That is how it happens. Slowly. We have this first condition in current U.S culture, do we not?

Do you have ANY information to support this claim? Your first post was reasonable. If what you say is true, why do Catholics, like almost all sexual areas, behave almost exactly the same as the US population as a whole when in come to the rate of abortions? Surely if what you say is true, it would have *some * measurable impact, yes? Even if you figure half, or even two thirds of Catholics are of the cafeteria variety, you would still have a measurable impact, yet, it appears there is not.

And, when we finally got to full acceptance of modern contraceptives, abortion rates have been falling for 10 or more years. This is pointing in the wrong direction. How can this be reconciled?

Again, all of this is numbers based, I am NOT treading into a moral slap-fight.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, could simply be correlations. No disagreement there. But, if you want to even start to assert that people who use contraceptives are more likely to seek abortions, or any other relationship between the two, you need to explain how statistically it looks to be the other way. Or, make a convincing argument that somehow overrides this fact. Just what are you saying above?

Exactly when and how did I supposedly assert the bolded portion? Never, of course My point was clearly that there is no causation between the rate of contraception and the rate of abortion, internationally. This is obvious from the contradictory dynamics between these two, varying among countries and regions.

The one thing that can be said affirmatively (as I’ve said at least twice elsewhere on CAF) is that there is no correlation – by itself – between illegality of abortion and scarcity of abortion. Outlawing abortion is not predictive for a low rate; nor is legality of abortion a predictor of a high rate. (I threw that in because of the frequency of that errant assumption on CAF, because of all the thrashing about toward an effort to “outlaw” abortion as supposedly ensuring its demise. Not really.)

 

[mark_a]

I appreciate the attempt to communicate through a non-Catholic source. I am just not as interested in that perspective in this debate.

Ok. Catch ya later.

 

[tammy57]

**"I watched on TV as a woman yelled: “Keep your beliefs off my body!” Who is in control of her body if not herself?"

.God bless,
Ed**

When individuals render moral judgments about women’s behaviors, when candidates cannibalize the right-to-life issue for political gain, when governments entertain notions of stripping women of reproductive rights that we have gained over the last forty years, then these are circumstances under which a woman’s control over her body is jeopardized. We stand tall in the face of interference, whether of good or ill intent; but it is ever an uphill battle to enjoy the freedom of choice, knowing full well that there may be consequences to address down the line.

It is an unwise oversimplification to assume that all women have full control over our bodies. Overbearing boyfriends and husbands, thinly-veiled religious threats, melodramatic family members all chime in to make daily living for the contemporary woman nearly unbearable. The consequences are not yours to suffer. Back off, please.

tammy57

 

[edwest2]

"I watched on TV as a woman yelled: “Keep your beliefs off my body!” Who is in control of her body if not herself?"

.God bless,
Ed

When individuals render moral judgments about women’s behaviors, when candidates cannibalize the right-to-life issue for political gain, when governments entertain notions of stripping women of reproductive rights that we have gained over the last forty years, then these are circumstances under which a woman’s control over her body is jeopardized. We stand tall in the face of interference, whether of good or ill intent; but it is ever an uphill battle to enjoy the freedom of choice, knowing full well that there may be consequences to address down the line.

It is an unwise oversimplification to assume that all women have full control over our bodies. Overbearing boyfriends and husbands, thinly-veiled religious threats, melodramatic family members all chime in to make daily living for the contemporary woman nearly unbearable. The consequences are not yours to suffer. Back off, please.

tammy57

“reproductive rights” That is a meaningless word combination. To everyone reading this: Where is the man in women’s rights? She didn’t get pregnant herself.

Like I wrote some weeks ago. If it’s that bad, then women should just start their own town of only women. It would be surrounded by barbed wire and filled with surveillance cameras. Men would need a pass to enter, be fingerprinted, and sign a liability statement. They would have to prove why they are there and who they will see. They can be arrested for any reason and escorted out. See? Simple.

Otherwise, this is just a repetition of the ‘victim mentality’ created by groups like NOW.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmafofo]

What would you advise to a husband whose wife refuses to stop using contraception and even goes to the extent of saying the pope should not mess with the private bedroom issues of married people when he himself is celibate? Does that mean the husband cannot receive Holy Communion until the wife decides to stop or the husband should stay away from relations with the wife until she sees the light? Help

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Subject for a different thread.

 

[jmafofo]

can’t you help though…?

 

[portarica]

I like that quote!

Too many people think we would have fewer abortions with more contraception. The reality is that abortion became legal and increased after widespread acceptance of contraception. Out of wedlock sexual activity went up drastically. Previously people realized that pregnancy resulted from sexual activity. Now some people think pregnancy results only from “planning”, contraception “failure” or failure to use contraception. Contraception helped create a mental disconnect between sexual activitiy and pregnancy.

Actually the way many catholic girls get in the position of having abortions is that they are shamed by the catholic community when they become pregnant and have a abortion to be spared the shame. It is a continuation of the catholic guilt phenomenon that leads to many deeds being hidden under a cloak of denial.

The anti contraception crowd bases its authority on the fact patterns that existed when the major form of birth control was death during labor (both mothers and infant fatalities)and the life span of a human was around 20 years.

Now the span of childbearing years extends to thirty or more years and would result in women being pregnant and nursing for all those years if they obeyed their husbands wishes for sex as required by the same thinking that resulted in the ABC doctrines.

Just for info, NFP results in more spontaneous abortions per failure than the pill.

Peace

 

[choose_to_love]

@ passing thru:

If I am understanding you - - 90% of sexually active couples are using contraception, but they account for roughly half of the abortions; put another way, the 10% not using contraception accounted for the remaining abortions, so the 10% not using contraception account for many more abortions proportionally. Correct?

I think, as has been pointed out, that the Catholic assumption is that of the 90%, a large majority of them would not be having sex, or at least not intercourse, at all without reliable contraception. You have pointed out that there is not a reliable way of determining this. I disagree when you state that the rate of people having sex has remained stable. However, again difficult to prove. Also possible that the rate of sex has remained the same, but those unplanned pregnancies became weddings in the old days.

 

[PassingThru]

Exactly when and how did I supposedly assert the bolded portion? Never, of course My point was clearly that there is no causation between the rate of contraception and the rate of abortion, internationally. This is obvious from the contradictory dynamics between these two, varying among countries and regions.

You said there is “no causation”, which fits my bolded section where I say “any other relationship between the two”. Meaning, both sources brought in to support a positive relationship between the two have in fact shown a negative relationship. If you want to dispute these simple statistics, you need to show specifically how they are wrong. “No causation” implys these statistics are wrong.

I have to disagree with you on the “no causation” part. Just because two populations are at different points currently does not mean there is no relationship. What if a population, over the course of 10, 20, or 30 years, exhibits a pattern of relationship between contraception and abortion? If you read through the link, it talks in detail on this point.

I am not saying this proves the point, but you can not just ignore it either.

 

[PassingThru]

@ passing thru:

If I am understanding you - - 90% of sexually active couples are using contraception, but they account for roughly half of the abortions; put another way, the 10% not using contraception accounted for the remaining abortions, so the 10% not using contraception account for many more abortions proportionally. Correct?

I think, as has been pointed out, that the Catholic assumption is that of the 90%, a large majority of them would not be having sex, or at least not intercourse, at all without reliable contraception. You have pointed out that there is not a reliable way of determining this. I disagree when you state that the rate of people having sex has remained stable. However, again difficult to prove. Also possible that the rate of sex has remained the same, but those unplanned pregnancies became weddings in the old days.

Sooo, what are you saying? Are you then upset that all these people are having sex when before they would not be having sex?

When I said “rate”, I was referring to how often a couple has sex, not the % of people who are sexually active.

Regardless, what point are you trying to make? Do you agree or disagree, or something else? And how would your observations change the results?

 

[JohnCS]

Contraception= Belief in a consequence free sex.
Belief in a consequence free sex = More sex
More sex = More pregnancies
More pregnancies = More unwanted pregnancies
More unwanted pregnancies = More abortions.

Am I missing something? It seems pretty simple to me.
If there is no contraception and no abortion, people would be a lot more responsible with their bodies.

 

[JohnCS]

"I watched on TV as a woman yelled: “Keep your beliefs off my body!” Who is in control of her body if not herself?"

.God bless,
Ed

When individuals render moral judgments about women’s behaviors, when candidates cannibalize the right-to-life issue for political gain, when governments entertain notions of stripping women of reproductive rights that we have gained over the last forty years, then these are circumstances under which a woman’s control over her body is jeopardized. We stand tall in the face of interference, whether of good or ill intent; but it is ever an uphill battle to enjoy the freedom of choice, knowing full well that there may be consequences to address down the line.

It is an unwise oversimplification to assume that all women have full control over our bodies. Overbearing boyfriends and husbands, thinly-veiled religious threats, melodramatic family members all chime in to make daily living for the contemporary woman nearly unbearable. The consequences are not yours to suffer. Back off, please.

tammy57

Tammy57,
That is all well and good, and I applaud your wanting to stand up for yourself. But you mention consequences and how they are not ours to suffer… what about the consequences that the baby suffers? There is a another person involved in your choice. Science and Faith show this, if you can’t see it then you are lying to yourself. I would guess that if the baby understood what was going to happen and could speak they would say the same thing…Back Off…you are not the one who is going to be dead (maybe, it happens sometimes). The only moral judgement that I render is when I let someone know that they are killing an innocent person, and killing innocent people is wrong. Just like I’d let the serial killer know that what he/she was doing is morally wrong. I’m sure you would not hesitate to tell a murderer that you thought what they were doing was wrong. God bless,

John

 

[Elizabeth502]

You said there is “no causation”, which fits my bolded section where I say “any other relationship between the two”. Meaning, both sources brought in to support a positive relationship between the two have in fact shown a negative relationship. If you want to dispute these simple statistics, you need to show specifically how they are wrong. “No causation” implys these statistics are wrong.

No it does not. You apparently do not understand the rules of scientific (and logical) argument. Statistics which are juxtaposed to each other, even when consistently parallel, do not indicate causation without eliminating other causes. You have not eliminated other causes. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated both on this thread and on other threads that the causes of abortion are wildly different, depending on the country and the culture involved. And even limiting it to the USA, there are various subcultures in this country with extremely different motivations when it comes to sex, marriage, contraception (or lack of it), and abortion. To say that there is a straight line between contraception and abortion cannot be supported. Lots of very young women – late teens to early 20’s – both married and unmarried, are not contracepting but yes, having abortions. That’s just one of the many examples which make your assumptions way off.

Contraception use is extremely high in The Netherlands, and abortion is quite low, compared to many other countries. Contraception is hardly “causing” abortion in The Netherlands.

Etc.

 

[PassingThru]

No it does not. You apparently do not understand the rules of scientific (and logical) argument. Statistics which are juxtaposed to each other, even when consistently parallel, do not indicate causation without eliminating other causes. You have not eliminated other causes. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated both on this thread and on other threads that the causes of abortion are wildly different, depending on the country and the culture involved. And even limiting it to the USA, there are various subcultures in this country with extremely different motivations when it comes to sex, marriage, contraception (or lack of it), and abortion. To say that there is a straight line between contraception and abortion cannot be supported. Lots of very young women – late teens to early 20’s – both married and unmarried, are not contracepting but yes, having abortions. That’s just one of the many examples which make your assumptions way off.

Contraception use is extremely high in The Netherlands, and abortion is quite low, compared to many other countries. Contraception is hardly “causing” abortion in The Netherlands.

Etc.

OK, without getting into all your completely non-scientific opinions you just posted, can I ask if you read the article that was posted? What we are dealing with was two points that were brought up. One, it appears that those who are using contraceptives in the US are not getting near enough of the abortions to even be equal to their share of the population. Two, the study that showed, over time, increased exposure and use of modern contraceptives directly tied to a lower abortion rate. Are you saying these are just wrong, or…?

Also, you said the Netherlands has a high use of contraceptives, and a low abortion rate. Now I feel you are missing something…?

EDIT:

Also, this line- “Lots of very young women – late teens to early 20’s – both married and unmarried, are not contracepting but yes, having abortions. That’s just one of the many examples which make your assumptions way off.”

Again, you are pointing to people who do not use contraception and instead get abortions to show how the use of contraception increases abortions? Lost…

2nd EDIT:

Oh, are you saying that the existence of contraception has made people have more sex, and therefore responsible for the rise in abortions? Just a shot in the dark to make sense of your examples…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Contraception= Belief in a consequence free sex.
Belief in a consequence free sex = More sex
More sex = More pregnancies
More pregnancies = More unwanted pregnancies
More unwanted pregnancies = More abortions.

Am I missing something? It seems pretty simple to me.
If there is no contraception and no abortion, people would be a lot more responsible with their bodies.

John, it is true when you look at it historically, the existence of less effective contraceptives of earlier eras was also one (not the only) reason for more care (i.e., less unmarried sex ).
But an additional motivator was society’s overall widespread disapproval of unmarried sex (particularly a prolonged situation like that), and the social consciousness of the individual. (Social acceptance, both locally and more widely, was important to one’s self-esteem and even economic success. This is quite apparent for those of us who are fans of movies from the '30’s through the early '60’s. A man or woman who crossed that line too often would find himself and/or herself without social standing, without career advancement, etc., even without a respectable mate.)

In 2010, we have major changes which affect the straight line equivalency you would like to draw:
(1) far more effective contraception than earlier eras (and wider education about that)
(2) the tearing down of traditional structures, including the radical minimalizing & trivializing of the institution of heterosexual marriage
(3) social acceptance of cohabitation and related manifestations of irresponsibility, such as “Choice Moms” (including celebrities supported in the press for their self-centered lifestyles of single/unmarried parenthood).

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, without getting into all your completely non-scientific opinions you just posted, can I ask if you read the article that was posted? What we are dealing with was two points that were brought up. One, it appears that those who are using contraceptives in the US are not getting near enough of the abortions to even be equal to their share of the population. Two, the study that showed, over time, increased exposure and use of modern contraceptives directly tied to a lower abortion rate. Are you saying these are just wrong, or…?

Yes, I am saying these are “just wrong.” There was nothing “directly tied” that was proven. When relationships between statistics are accidental, that is called correlation, not causation.

Also, you said the Netherlands has a high use of contraceptives, and a low abortion rate. Now I feel you are missing something…?

No, I am not missing anything, but you are missing a lot. You claimed that there was a link between heavy contraception use and heavy abortion. There is not, in the Netherlands. Why is this difficult to understand? They have contraceptives. They use them abundantly. They are expected to use them abundantly, as it is assumed they will have frequent premarital sex (Not something I agree with) But because they use contraception so responsibly, abortions are few. I think you need to go back to school if you cannot follow an argument, and read statistics for what they are. I’m not trying to be insulting. It’s just that I shouldn’t have to bring you from Point A to Point B.

Also, this line- “Lots of very young women – late teens to early 20’s – both married and unmarried, are not contracepting but yes, having abortions. That’s just one of the many examples which make your assumptions way off.”

Again, you are pointing to people who do not use contraception and instead get abortions to show how the use of contraception increases abortions? Lost…

No, I am showing that not using contraceptives does not necessarily result in fewer abortions.

The whole premise is the Catholic philosophical argument which I am well acquainted with but which unfortunately does not pan out in real life.

 

[Elizabeth502]

JohnCS,
Just expanding a little… The one thing behind your reasoning that I do definitely agree with, is that consequences are a powerful motivator. But as I just said, and as anyone who reads the news understands, the whole concept of having any control over contraception is about gone. For Catholics to hang their hat on some fantasy that as a nation we are going to go back to severely limiting or reducing contraceptive availability, will not be a successful strategy. And because abortion has become morally acceptable to a wide range of the population, any (doubtful) success in restricting contraception will merely result in higher abortion rate, not lower. In the unlikely scenario that both contraception and abortion were made illegal or difficult to obtain, the result would be black-martket alternatives for both.

However, I do think that money talks I think if/when pregnancy without responsibility were to become very expensive, including for the man involved (and long-range), couples would exercise way more care & restraint. If pregnancy itself had to be registered somehow (in a database), and a fine attached to that for any couple not married, plus safe abortions were very expensive, plus both the mother and father had long-term fines to pay – permanent child support or permament funding of orphanages, etc., then people would sing a different tune.

But then a lot of other disincentives would help in that effort as well: such as requiring marriage and parental preparation classes before one could obtain a marriage license, such as increasing the legal marriage age. (There was once a pilot program in some local school district which required teens to see on film the reality of a hard-luck couple trying to sweat it out with a tiny baby and few funds.)

Those are all well and good, but ultimately the best dissuader would be personal moral conviction against fornication. Changed hearts are the best weapon against unrestrained sex and the consequences of that.