Contraception: A Stumbling Block to Ending Abortion

[PassingThru]

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.

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.

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.

OK. I went back and read your first post or two. I think we are saying the same thing. But I can not really tell, your posts were not very specific.

I have been very clear with mine. How you thought otherwise is beyond me. I will just close with saying i guess we think the same thing, and leave it at that.

(But thanks for the snide comments, regardless)

 

[mark_a]

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

You need to talk to a priest or maybe call the apologist’s line.

From what I’ve heard, you can receive communion and continue normal relations with her. Her sin is not your sin.

 

[mark_a]

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

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? “Yes, I was open to God’s will for the other ten, but not for you two.”

I dread the moment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK. I went back and read your first post or two. I think we are saying the same thing. But I can not really tell, your posts were not very specific.

I have been very clear with mine. How you thought otherwise is beyond me.

Look at post 39 of yours That’s what threw me. Until then (although post 23 also I thought was hardly “clear,” but somewhat confusing, at least to me), I was in essential agreement. I couldn’t figure out why you suddenly started misinterpreting everything I had written, halfway through this thread. You starting aligning my statements with the arguments of others on this thread, which made no sense to me.

My posts are actually quite specific. They give examples and illustrations of the fallacies which many use on CAF, including some repliers on this thread. I gave specific examples of how those assumptions do not pan out in real-life statistics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You need to talk to a priest or maybe call the apologist’s line.

I agree. Different topic.

 

[PassingThru]

Look at post 39 of yours That’s what threw me. Until then (although post 23 also I thought was hardly “clear,” but somewhat confusing, at least to me), I was in essential agreement. I couldn’t figure out why you suddenly started misinterpreting everything I had written, halfway through this thread. You starting aligning my statements with the arguments of others on this thread, which made no sense to me.

My posts are actually quite specific. They give examples and illustrations of the fallacies which many use on CAF, including some repliers on this thread. I gave specific examples of how those assumptions do not pan out in real-life statistics.

Please accept my deepest apologies. Ill be more specific the next time.

 

[SwingCorey]

Contraception: A Stumbling Block to Ending Abortion

Graces given to us at Baptism should encourage us to lead others in Catholic teaching. And they should encourage us to learn more about our faith so that we can school others when they don’t know or don’t understand. This is especially true when such widely-debated issues such as contraception arise. For, when people do not understand the ramifications of contraception, they cannot fully understand abortion.
.
.
.
Few Catholic pro-life stalwarts ever admit that there is a connection between contraception and abortion — let alone say it publicly!

more…

The other thing that most people miss is the judicial connection between abortion and contraception.

The judicial precedent used to justify Roe v. Wade was not the Constitution, but rather an interpretation of the Constitution that supposed an implied right to privacy as part of the Constitution - this was from Griswold v. Connecticut just 8 years earlier. The fact that the majority opinion of the Griswold case states that there are “penumbras” (shadows) and “emanations” that hint to a right to privacy reminds me of John 3:19-21:

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.

The shadows of Griswold made possible the “evil works” and “wicked things” that have killed a quarter of my generation.

The news that The Federal Government doesn’t believe privacy exists in public places may have repercussions for Griswold, and therefore Roe v. Wade.

It’s really too bad that they looked for penumbras of privacy rights in the Constitution, instead of just reading the Preamble and the 5th Amendment - then they would see that we ordained and established our Constitution in order to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves **and our posterity **(meaning those not yet born) and that no one may be deprived of their life without due process of law. Without the foundational right to life, all other rights guaranteed by our constitution (in penumbras or not) are moot, for then there is no life in which to have those other rights.

 

[utunumsint]

A post like this makes me want to change the title of the tread to:

Math and Statistics: Misused and abuse

OK, I think we can agree that contraceptive use is very high. I can not think of any research that indicates anything less than 90%, but lets use 80% just to be extremely conservative. I don’t think that assumption will be refuted by anyone, its pretty safe.

Now, if we can accept that 80% of the population uses contraception, you have asserted that 54% of the women who get an abortion are on some form of contraception. You make this point to argue that contraception is tied to abortion. However, do you realize what you have in fact said (with math) is that you over *twice *as likely to seek an abortion if you are *not *using a contraceptive?

Slow down and do the math. 20% of the population is not using contraception, as we mentioned above. That portion of the population is seeking out 46% of the abortions. How is this making your point? In order for your assertion to be correct, we would need *over *46% of the population *not *using contraception, which of course is not remotely realistic.

I am not saying the two are, or are not, connected. But sometimes the misuse of math and statistics makes my head spin. These numbers above do nothing to defend the connection between contraception and abortion, and could be used to support the opposite without any further clarifying data.

Just to ask a side question here, does he include NFP as a form of contraceptive? For example, are they part of the group that are contracepting, or part of the group that are not contracepting?

I think we can all agree that those who have abortions do so because the pregnancy is unwanted. If that is clear, then limiting the number of unwanted pregancies is a good goal. What the church disagrees with is the means of attaining that goal, which can cause an cultural hostility to family, children, especially large families with many children.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PassingThru]

Just to ask a side question here, does he include NFP as a form of contraceptive? For example, are they part of the group that are contracepting, or part of the group that are not contracepting?

I think we can all agree that those who have abortions do so because the pregnancy is unwanted. If that is clear, then limiting the number of unwanted pregancies is a good goal. What the church disagrees with is the means of attaining that goal, which can cause an cultural hostility to family, children, especially large families with many children.

God bless,
Ut

Good question. They would have put the use of NFP into the non-contracepting bucket. However, I think NFP use within the Church is 1-4%, with the lower range being the more likely number. With 1/3rd of the population Catholic, that would put NFP at well under 1%, which would not effect the results. We would need many times as many NFP users to effect the results.

Total agree with the 2nd point.

 

[utunumsint]

You sure? In the study, it listed NFP as a contraceptive method…

God bless,
Ut

 

[Sherry_G]

The introduction of contraception led to the idea that sex is not a part of a loving union between a married man and woman, sex can be had with anyone at any time or place IF a contraceptive is in play. Therefore a man may copulate freely with any woman willing to lie down with him opening up the devils playing field quite expansively. With the dawn of “enlightenment” came the new equation where love is removed from the ingredient list involved and procreation merely becomes recreational copulation. Contraception is definitely at the root of the evil which grew and grew, allowing all sorts of perversions to develop. The barriers have been broken down that once protected the family. God help us all.

 

[PassingThru]

You sure? In the study, it listed NFP as a contraceptive method…

God bless,
Ut

Hmmm, could be.

Regardless, it would not have a material effect on the numbers. Unless NFP couple were having an absurd number of abortions, which I would find highly unlikely.

 

[utunumsint]

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]

This is from the link to the study posted earlier on.

Here is a link breaking down contraceptive usage based on contraceptive methods. Calendar, and NFP are lsited. guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html but the make up only 1.1 % of the total.

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]

Those in the 46% group were not using any method at all.

Not sure what that means, but there is is.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PassingThru]

This is from the link to the study posted earlier on.

Here is a link breaking down contraceptive usage based on contraceptive methods. Calendar, and NFP are lsited. guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html but the make up only 1.1 % of the total.

Those in the 46% group were not using any method at all.

Not sure what that means, but there is is.

God bless,
Ut

Interesting, good to know! Although, I think there are a lot of people on this board who would bristle at the idea of NFP being thrown into the “contraceptive” bucket!!!

Statistically, it means very little. They are far to small to have a measurable impact on the numbers. (again, barring a ridiculous rate of abortions from this small population)

 

[utunumsint]

Lets see what I can make out of these stats:

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]

Translation:

Of the 54% (Group 1)
Most were pill or condom users. (I can only assume that only a very small fraction, maybe even 0, of those seeking abortions were NFP users)

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]

Translation
Of the 46% (Group 2)
A-33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy,
B-32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods
C-26% had had unexpected sex and
1% had been forced to have sex.

Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

Hmmm…this seems to indicate that only 8% of the woman from the 46% non contraceptive use category (Group 2) never used Birth Control.

About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,9]

Again, this is from the 46% category (Group 2), and it indicates that most have used contraception in the past. They they either took risks (A and C) or felt uneasy about contraceptive methods (B). (B) could mean anything…

Summary:

It seems that in most in Group 1 and Group 2 are contraceptive users. If you include the stats from A and C to Group 1, this group becomes a much large statistic. I guess you could call A and C, the risk takers, who have no problem with contraception, but just were not using it at the time. B would be the only ones in that group that would really have a problem with contraception.

God bless,
Ut

 

[lijjo]

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]

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Who’s having abortions (religion)?

Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.;

Catholic women account for 31.3%,

Jewish women account for 1.3%,

and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions.

18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

This is very upsetting, women of faith who do not have enough faith to keep their baby or place them up for adoption.

 

[PassingThru]

Lets see what I can make out of these stats:

Translation:

Of the 54% (Group 1)
Most were pill or condom users. (I can only assume that only a very small fraction, maybe even 0, of those seeking abortions were NFP users)

Translation
Of the 46% (Group 2)
A-33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy,
B-32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods
C-26% had had unexpected sex and
1% had been forced to have sex.

Hmmm…this seems to indicate that only 8% of the woman from the 46% non contraceptive use category (Group 2) never used Birth Control.

Again, this is from the 46% category (Group 2), and it indicates that most have used contraception in the past. They they either took risks (A and C) or felt uneasy about contraceptive methods (B). (B) could mean anything…

Summary:

It seems that in most in Group 1 and Group 2 are contraceptive users. If you include the stats from A and C to Group 1, this group becomes a much large statistic. I guess you could call A and C, the risk takers, who have no problem with contraception, but just were not using it at the time. B would be the only ones in that group that would really have a problem with contraception.

God bless,
Ut

Hmmmm. I like your thinking. Interesting. Only one factual point:

This seems to indicate that only 8% of the woman from the 46% non contraceptive use category (Group 2) never used Birth Control.

That 8% would be 8% of the total population, not the reduced 46%. Your quote said “8% who had abortions” which is the total population, not “8% of those who were not using contraception and seeking an abortion”.

 

[lijjo]

In order to mark “Catholic” I think you should have to be going to Mass and Confession regularly. Otherwise, it should be “Christian - other.” If a woman went to Confession, she would be advised against an abortion and given the resources she needed to either take care of the baby or find an adoptive family for the baby.

Yes I agree, that regular attendance to Mass and Reconciliation would help to keep the mind clearer. Maybe this is the problem… people are not going to confession enough and they go up to receive the communion unworthily, so they are kept in the dark, without inspirations from the Holy Spirit not to slaughter their unborn child. I know this is my speculation, but if they regularly attended confession I believe that they would be moved in a better direction.

 

[SwingCorey]

This is very upsetting, women of faith who do not have enough faith to keep their baby or place them up for adoption.

Who said they were women of faith? There are many people who check the “Catholic” box on their census forms who haven’t set foot in a Church since their Confirmation or First Communion (except for the occasional Christmas/Easter when visiting “the folks” or to attend a wedding or funeral). They are “culturally” Catholic or “Catholic by birthright”.

There are many Protestants and Evangelicals who behave in a similar manner.

Sad, but true. This is why the Vatican has labeled the United States as a “missionary country” - one still in need of a lot of conversion.

 

[lijjo]

Of these Catholic women getting abortions, how many were married?

All, most, some, none? So the sin of abortion is another sin on top of fornication. Fornication is rampant in this culture. The “right” to express your sexuality however you choose or however you feel like doing. No matter the consequences, no matter how it breaks your relationship with the Lord, no matter if it means you pile your sins:

1. Ignoring your relationship with the True God, Jesus Christ (“Is all this religion stuff true anyways?”)
2. Possible not attending confession regularly (or mass for that matter)
3. Possibly receiving Holy Communion unworthily:shrug:
4. Lust grows in your heart (your preference of lust over the Lord)
5. Fornication becomes justified in your mind (“after all is it that serious a sin?” " Isn’t the Church just too old fashioned?" " Or we love each other."):hypno:
6. Most likely the pregnancy wasn’t on the first occasion, most likely repetitive fornications. Perhaps the chosen life style.:juggle:
7. Contraception becomes the protection from the obvious sins that you are committing. (“Everyone is doing it, contraception is just being responsible”):dts:
8. Oops got pregnant and you don’t want your life (or body to be ruined) So get the abortion and figure, Jesus will forgive me anyways.:snowing:

Maybe this is something like what is happening out in the culture to Catholics?:crutches: