Contraception: A Stumbling Block to Ending Abortion

[edwest2]

Well, you just changed your entire point. You specifically called up your references to support your claim, and I would assume your lack of response in this area is your acknowledgment that it does not, if fact, support your claim.

Ill repeat it here again: I do not have any information to either support or deny a direct connection between contraception and abortion. I personally have trouble seeing it, as I do not have any issue with someones choice to use contraception, but would never in my wildest dreams consider abortion. Many of my 30 something friends are the same. Its not hard to imagine. Again, statistically, we know the vast majority use contraception, but we are pretty evenly split on abortion. Right there, we know there is a huge chunk of the population that supports contraception but not abortion. Everyone here loves to lump the two together, but that is mere opinion at this point. I would propose the of those that use contraception, roughly half support, and half reject abortion. Again, the rough statistics bear this out. How some of your then draw a line is beyond me.

Also, I must point out there are plenty of forces as play through the end of the 50s, into the 60s and beyond. How people are so sure that contraception was to blame is beyond me. Sure, it was there, but so were about 1000 other forces. If you think we could magically erase the pill from history, and therefore the entire sexual revolution would stop, you are probably deluding yourself.

I get the broad point being made. If you are in a sexual relationship and do NOT want a child at all costs, you would likely contracept, and if that failed, you would abort. That a simple logic. If you are someone who would abort, you are likely already using a contraceptive, of course. What I fail to see, is how someone who would not consider abortion is now open to it because of condoms or the pill.

In a practical sense, contraceptives are not going away. If you want to use them in a case against abortion, you need to draw a strong and distinct connection.

Please tell me where you got this number.

I am venturing a guess that you got this from the link you posted earlier. For your sake, I hope you have a separate source. Its not that this may or may not be roughly accurate. Rather, my guess is you are taking a number in your given link and completely mis-interpreting what the data is saying; basically making another mistake with statistical data, as you did the first time.

Sexual revolution. This was not about love but sex. First, contraception and then abortion. Having lots of sex without worrying about a baby showing up was the issue. Did women ‘gain’ from this sort of thinking? Sex is designed for having babies. It should not be regarded as another plaything. First, a little background on the contraception issue from a qualified person:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

A few salient words:

"Speaking of the link between contraception and abortion, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: “The anti-baby pill has made it possible to separate, fundamentally and radically, the production of pleasure from the act of procreation. It thus automatically started the ‘sexual revolution.’ … Having become ‘safe,’ sexual acts have multiplied as a result of contemporary propaganda touting ‘the right to a happy sexual life.’ ‘Accidents’ have increased proportionately despite – or has been in consequence of? – the anti-baby pill. And those ‘unwanted children’ must logically, be removed by abortion.”

"Professor Janet Smith also drew attention to the link between contraception and abortion when she said: “Contraception takes the baby-making element out of sexual intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual intercourse rather than the natural consequence that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then, becomes thinkable as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion. It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion.”

60% of the poverty in the United States is linked to unwed mothers.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PassingThru]

When I die and go to heaven and God introduces me to say, ten of my naturally failed implantations, I have a clear concience and am united with family.

When I meet the two of my abortificient induced failed implantations, what will I tell them?

Which is why I did not make any judgment on that issue. You are free to post yours.

 

[PassingThru]

I’m not the op but I disagree that it’s a sidepoint. Buffalo quoted from the article she/he linked on the original post. The article goes onto make the point about the abortificant nature of contraception a few times. Here’s a quote within the article. “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which … really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.”
The article doesn’t stop discuss the mentality that connects contraception with abortion–it specifically mentions things that many people regard as contraceptives that are abortifacients. The article’s author, Judith Brown, has been very active in the pro-life movement for many years. She is not quiet about the link between contraception and abortion. Here’s a link from her group, American Life League (ALL) that links for further information on the abortion-contraception connection. all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

Well, its true I did not re-read the OP very well. My bad.

But, I will still assert that the main point is that contraception is connected to the behavior of seeking abortions, not the abortifacient effects of the pill or other less well known contraceptives.

I read through what you wrote but your statistical analysis seems to ignore some* vast moral differences*. I’ll use the death of older humans for comparisson. There is a huge moral and legal difference between a death from natural causes, a death from medical neglect, death from manslaughter and a death from murder.

Well, that is because I specifically did not make any moral case, either way. I am simply pointing out gross errors in logic. Two people have tried to use some objective measurement to connect contraception to abortion, and they were completely erroneous.

 

[PassingThru]

Sexual revolution. This was not about love but sex. First, contraception and then abortion. Having lots of sex without worrying about a baby showing up was the issue. Did women ‘gain’ from this sort of thinking? Sex is designed for having babies. It should not be regarded as another plaything. First, a little background on the contraception issue from a qualified person:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

A few salient words:

"Speaking of the link between contraception and abortion, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: “The anti-baby pill has made it possible to separate, fundamentally and radically, the production of pleasure from the act of procreation. It thus automatically started the ‘sexual revolution.’ … Having become ‘safe,’ sexual acts have multiplied as a result of contemporary propaganda touting ‘the right to a happy sexual life.’ ‘Accidents’ have increased proportionately despite – or has been in consequence of? – the anti-baby pill. And those ‘unwanted children’ must logically, be removed by abortion.”

"Professor Janet Smith also drew attention to the link between contraception and abortion when she said: “Contraception takes the baby-making element out of sexual intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual intercourse rather than the natural consequence that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then, becomes thinkable as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion. It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion.”

60% of the poverty in the United States is linked to unwed mothers.

God bless,
Ed

Again, this is all interesting, but an opinion. No different than mine. I still feel the “sexual revolution” would have happened with or without “the pill”. If, somehow, we failed to gain any control over reproduction would we have *less *desire for abortions? Somehow, I doubt it. I see how they go hand to glove, so to speak. But I am not convinced we would be very different without them. You are free to disagree.

And Ill pass on your link to catholiceducation.com. I think you would be about as interested in a post on Catholic theology from someathiest.com!

 

[edwest2]

Again, this is all interesting, but an opinion. No different than mine. I still feel the “sexual revolution” would have happened with or without “the pill”. If, somehow, we failed to gain any control over reproduction would we have *less *desire for abortions? Somehow, I doubt it. I see how they go hand to glove, so to speak. But I am not convinced we would be very different without them. You are free to disagree.

And Ill pass on your link to catholiceducation.com. I think you would be about as interested in a post on Catholic theology from someathiest.com!

It’s not an opinion. We all need to rely on experts to give us facts. The Catholic Church is not interested in opinions, only the outside world is. The Church does not say, “In our opinion.” It teaches truth and is the greatest truth telling institution in the world.

People should not guide their decisions with opinions. They should gather facts, learn the truth and act on that truth. People dedicate their lives to following the truth. I do not live my life by opinions but the constant teaching of the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PassingThru]

It’s not an opinion. We all need to rely on experts to give us facts. The Catholic Church is not interested in opinions, only the outside world is. The Church does not say, “In our opinion.” It teaches truth and is the greatest truth telling institution in the world.

People should not guide their decisions with opinions. They should gather facts, learn the truth and act on that truth. People dedicate their lives to following the truth. I do not live my life by opinions but the constant teaching of the Church.

God bless,
Ed

Wow, hard to argue with that iron clad logic. You must be a engineer, or a statistician.

Would you prefer I hold my faith as a “fact” in front of you, then stomp my feet and say you must be wrong?

Sorry this sounds so snarky, but the topic is whether or not contraception is tied to abortion, and you only see that as a matter of faith? I think we can step a bit past that with something as real as these topics.

I am giving you as much latitude as you want to have your opinion. I am quite amused by how my lack of a strong position seems to bother you. (Keep in mind I have not told you a peep about how to think, I have only commented on stats and logic)

 

[mangy_dog]

Jesus Christ is still the [stumbling block] not contraception.

The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth and the events that unfolded there - are the proof of life beginning at conception.

We look at other countries with an accusing finger for the barbarisms that occur and the death toll of children of all ages…

But we have the same or higher death toll of the unborn and don’t see ourselves as barbaric butchers because we are a nation of laws and rules and regulations and order]…In God We Trust.

 

[edwest2]

Wow, hard to argue with that iron clad logic. You must be a engineer, or a statistician.

Would you prefer I hold my faith as a “fact” in front of you, then stomp my feet and say you must be wrong?

Sorry this sounds so snarky, but the topic is whether or not contraception is tied to abortion, and you only see that as a matter of faith? I think we can step a bit past that with something as real as these topics.

I am giving you as much latitude as you want to have your opinion. I am quite amused by how my lack of a strong position seems to bother you. (Keep in mind I have not told you a peep about how to think, I have only commented on stats and logic)

No, I don’t see that as only a matter of faith. In fact, The Church is not just about faith and morals. Let’s look at Jesus Christ and faith. Paul tells the people: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Ye are still in your sins. You see. He said that if the resurrection did not actually happen then you’ve got nothing.

A definite connection between contraception and abortion exists. A couple decides a condom and/or a pill will keep them safe from having a baby. Both are not 100% guaranteed to not fail so when they do fail and an unplanned baby is on the way, then what? Does someone say, “We can’t afford a baby right now?”

The quickest way to poverty in this country is to be an unwed mother.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PassingThru]

No, I don’t see that as only a matter of faith. In fact, The Church is not just about faith and morals. Let’s look at Jesus Christ and faith. Paul tells the people: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Ye are still in your sins. You see. He said that if the resurrection did not actually happen then you’ve got nothing.

Eh, you are saying it is not a matter of faith to you, and support that by quoting Paul. Don’t even know where to begin with that one…

A definite connection between contraception and abortion exists. A couple decides a condom and/or a pill will keep them safe from having a baby. Both are not 100% guaranteed to not fail so when they do fail and an unplanned baby is on the way, then what? Does someone say, “We can’t afford a baby right now?”

This is your supporting information? OK, Ill counter with something just as valid, and just as useless from the other side:

“People on the pill dont get pregnant. A couple not using contraception will obviously get pregnant, and turn to abortion if they were hoping not to have a child.”

There you go, just as good as your logic, and just as much an opinion.

The quickest way to poverty in this country is to be an unwed mother.

Totally agree. And? You are somehow proposing the unwed mothers are a result of condoms?

I don’t think we can go anywhere with our conversation. I am glad you have such a strong position in your faith. I think I will stick to any discussion on potential links between contraception and abortion.

 

[Barbkw]

International Family Planning Perspectives Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003
Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence
By Cicely Marston and John Cleland

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html

CONTEXT: The relationship between levels of contraceptive use and the incidence of induced abortion continues to provoke heated discussion, with some observers arguing that use of abortion decreases as contraceptive prevalence rises and others claiming that increased use of family planning methods causes abortion incidence to rise.

The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect.

The explanation for these counterintuitive trends is clear.2

In societies that have not yet entered the fertility transition, both actual fertility and desired family sizes are high (or, to put it another way, childbearing is not yet considered to be "within the calculus of conscious choice"3). In such societies, couples are at little (or no) risk of unwanted pregnancies.

The advent of modern contraception is associated with a destabilization of high (or “fatalistic”) fertility preferences.

Thus, as contraceptive prevalence rises and fertility starts to fall, an increasing proportion of couples want no more children (or want an appreciable delay before the next child), and exposure to the risk of unintended pregnancy also increases as a result.

In the early and middle phases of fertility transition, adoption and sustained use of effective methods of contraception by couples who wish to postpone or limit childbearing is still far from universal.

Hence, the growing need for contraception may outstrip use itself;4 thus, the incidence of unintended and unwanted pregnancies rises, fueling increases in unwanted live births and induced abortion. In this scenario, contraceptive use and induced abortion may rise simultaneously.

**As fertility decreases toward replacement level (two births per woman), or even lower, the length of potential exposure to unwanted pregnancies increases further. **

**For instance, in a society in which the average woman is sexually active from ages 20 to 45 and wants two children, approximately 20 of those 25 years will be spent trying to avoid pregnancy. **

Once use of highly effective contraceptive methods rises to 80%, the potential demand for abortion, and its incidence, will fall.

Demand for abortion falls to zero only in the **“perfect contraceptive” **population, in which women are protected by absolutely effective contraceptive use at all times, except for the relatively short periods when they want to conceive, are pregnant or are protected by lactational amenorrhea.5

Because such a state of perfect protection is never actually achieved, a residual demand for abortion always exists, although its magnitude varies considerably among low-fertility societies, according to levels of contraceptive use and choice of methods.

The purpose of this article is to summarize what is known about the relationship between abortion and contraception.

We start with a description of a recently proposed model of the relationship,6 and provide empirical illustrations to assess the validity of this model.

We then review trends over time in the incidence of abortion and contraceptive use for specific countries based on published articles.

Finally, we present a comprehensive examination of such trends in all countries thought to possess reliable trend data on abortion and contraceptive use and in which major changes in contraceptive prevalence or effectiveness have been recorded.

 

[Barbkw]

CONTRACEPTIVE USE

“Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]”

“Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]”

See Guttmacher website:

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

 

[PassingThru]

International Family Planning Perspectives Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003
Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence
By Cicely Marston and John Cleland

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html

CONTEXT: The relationship between levels of contraceptive use and the incidence of induced abortion continues to provoke heated discussion, with some observers arguing that use of abortion decreases as contraceptive prevalence rises and others claiming that increased use of family planning methods causes abortion incidence to rise.

The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect.

The explanation for these counterintuitive trends is clear.2

In societies that have not yet entered the fertility transition, both actual fertility and desired family sizes are high (or, to put it another way, childbearing is not yet considered to be "within the calculus of conscious choice"3). In such societies, couples are at little (or no) risk of unwanted pregnancies.

The advent of modern contraception is associated with a destabilization of high (or “fatalistic”) fertility preferences.

Thus, as contraceptive prevalence rises and fertility starts to fall, an increasing proportion of couples want no more children (or want an appreciable delay before the next child), and exposure to the risk of unintended pregnancy also increases as a result.

In the early and middle phases of fertility transition, adoption and sustained use of effective methods of contraception by couples who wish to postpone or limit childbearing is still far from universal.

Hence, the growing need for contraception may outstrip use itself;4 thus, the incidence of unintended and unwanted pregnancies rises, fueling increases in unwanted live births and induced abortion. In this scenario, contraceptive use and induced abortion may rise simultaneously.

**As fertility decreases toward replacement level (two births per woman), or even lower, the length of potential exposure to unwanted pregnancies increases further. **

**For instance, in a society in which the average woman is sexually active from ages 20 to 45 and wants two children, approximately 20 of those 25 years will be spent trying to avoid pregnancy. **

Once use of highly effective contraceptive methods rises to 80%, the potential demand for abortion, and its incidence, will fall.

Demand for abortion falls to zero only in the **“perfect contraceptive” **population, in which women are protected by absolutely effective contraceptive use at all times, except for the relatively short periods when they want to conceive, are pregnant or are protected by lactational amenorrhea.5

Because such a state of perfect protection is never actually achieved, a residual demand for abortion always exists, although its magnitude varies considerably among low-fertility societies, according to levels of contraceptive use and choice of methods.

The purpose of this article is to summarize what is known about the relationship between abortion and contraception.

We start with a description of a recently proposed model of the relationship,6 and provide empirical illustrations to assess the validity of this model.

We then review trends over time in the incidence of abortion and contraceptive use for specific countries based on published articles.

Finally, we present a comprehensive examination of such trends in all countries thought to possess reliable trend data on abortion and contraceptive use and in which major changes in contraceptive prevalence or effectiveness have been recorded.

The very next line after your highlighted line states:

“Once use of highly effective contraceptive methods rises to 80%, the potential demand for abortion, and its incidence, will fall.”

Most of what you quoted is about the change that occurs when a country first gets exposure to contraceptives. This is not the case here, or in most all developed countries.

The conclusion of your linked article is this:

CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly.

EDIT:

OK, you obviously have not read the article. It specifically points to a direct relationship to contraception and abortion, but it is an INVERSE relationship. Why are you posting this to support your claim??? I am so confused by all of this. All of this point the opposite direction.

 

[PassingThru]

CONTRACEPTIVE USE

“Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]”

“Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]”

See Guttmacher website:

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Why are you repeating this? We just went over how this does NOT support a relationship. Again, ?

 

[Barbkw]

*"As fertility decreases toward replacement level (two births per woman), or even lower, the length of potential exposure to unwanted pregnancies increases further.

For instance, in a society in which **the average woman **is sexually active from ages 20 to 45 and wants two children, approximately **20 of those 25 years **will be spent trying to avoid pregnancy." *

I did read it, and they are quoting a hypothetical -** “perfect contraception” **- which does not exist.

It clearly doesn’t exist in the US today;

“Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]”

 

[PassingThru]

*"As fertility decreases toward replacement level (two births per woman), or even lower, the length of potential exposure to unwanted pregnancies increases further.

For instance, in a society in which **the average woman ***is sexually active from ages 20 to 45 and wants two children, approximately **20 of those 25 years **will be spent trying to avoid pregnancy."

I did read it, and they are quoting a hypothetical -** “perfect contraception” **- which does not exist.

It clearly doesn’t exist in the US today;

“Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]”

I agree, a perfect contraceptive does not exist.

However, they explicitly lay out a relationship across decades, in multiple countries, that shows a decrease in abortion as availability and use of modern contraception is adopted. This includes the US. Are you going to ignore the conclusions of the study?

Or, are you suggesting we put the genie back in the bottle, and go back to a period in time where modern society did not include a desire to regulate the size of our families?

Edit: Maybe people are thinking along these lines: 100 years ago, we had no modern contraceptives, no real access or use of abortion, large families, and mostly unregulated family size. Now, of course we have very regulated family size, small families, and this is due, in some combination to the growth of contraception and abortion. Therefore, if we didn’t have these developments, we would not have an increase in abortion. If this is the argument, well, we have drifted into a purely academic discussion, wishfully thinking of times long past, and outside any reasonable discussion we can apply today.

And please, you have now repeated the “54%” quote for a third time. Tell me, in your words, that that means to you, and how it supports your claim. I gave a very detailed response, and you have not addressed it.

 

[mark_a]

Or, are you suggesting we put the genie back in the bottle, and go back to a period in time where modern society did not include a desire to regulate the size of our families?

Here’s some interesting reading on the subject from a cradle Lutheran.

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[Elizabeth502]

All these numbers show are correlations, not causations. And I will promise you that the vast majority of those in those abortion statistics (in this country) are unmarried. Hence, they are using contraception, since most (not all) couples do not want to commit to children when not committed to each other in marriage/engagement.

In some countries, there is a high positive correlation between contraception and abortion. (high for both)
In other countries, there is a high negative correlation between contraception and abortion (low for both.)
In certain countries, there is a high negative correlation be contraception and abortion. (high contraception, low abortion). for example, the Netherlands
In certain countries, there is a high negative correlation between abortion and contraception (low contraception, high abortion). For example, countries in Latin America.

 

[PassingThru]

Here’s some interesting reading on the subject from a cradle Lutheran.

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

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

 

[PassingThru]

All these numbers show are correlations, not causations. And I will promise you that the vast majority of those in those abortion statistics (in this country) are unmarried. Hence, they are using contraception, since most (not all) couples do not want to commit to children when not committed to each other in marriage/engagement.

In some countries, there is a high positive correlation between contraception and abortion. (high for both)
In other countries, there is a high negative correlation between contraception and abortion (low for both.)
In certain countries, there is a high negative correlation be contraception and abortion. (high contraception, low abortion). for example, the Netherlands
In certain countries, there is a high negative correlation between abortion and contraception (low contraception, high abortion). For example, countries in Latin America.

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?

 

[seanflynn]

What I fail to see, is how someone who would not consider abortion is now open to it because of condoms or the pill.

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)

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. 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?

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?

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.

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.