Contraception hypothetical

[newbetx]

I found one-
“http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36”

This is the sort of study that is completely invalid. The sample size was too low, their is MASSIVE non response bias, voluntary response bias, and not even basic knowledge of statistical inference has been applied. Mail survey’s in general are not representative. Plus, the survey is taken from those who have taken a course on NFP- it’s not even based on the correct population!
When I asked my question I honestly did not intend to deny the statistic I found, although I did have other means in mind to use it for my case. However… that survey is a whole new level if unscientific. A student two weeks into an entry level statistics class could see how devoid of value this study is.

Unless there are other studies out there, then any claim related to the divorce rate of NFP users is completely lacking in statistical basis.

Thanks for finding this. I always hate stating the stats without the source. So far, I only saw someone else cite them. But the ones I saw were very different.

Well the report says:
“Last year a scientific survey was conducted under the direction of a reputable independent statistician, Dr. Robert Lerner. He is a Sociologist from the University of Chicago with a degree in Economics. The protocol stipulated that he would not only evaluate the findings, but also compare them to two of the largest U.S. government funded surveys that asked similar questions of the respondents.”

So where is the results of the government studies?

 

[tjm190]

Thanks for finding this. I always hate stating the stats without the source. So far, I only saw someone else cite them. But the ones I saw were very different.

Well the report says:
“Last year a scientific survey was conducted under the direction of a reputable independent statistician, Dr. Robert Lerner. He is a Sociologist from the University of Chicago with a degree in Economics. The protocol stipulated that he would not only evaluate the findings, but also compare them to two of the largest U.S. government funded surveys that asked similar questions of the respondents.”

So where is the results of the government studies?

I dunno, they aren’t even mentioned later on. I’m not going to call this “survey” intentionally misleading, but it does give me that vibe.
Btw, google led me these very forums for that data

 

[newbetx]

I dunno, they aren’t even mentioned later on. I’m not going to call this “survey” intentionally misleading, but it does give me that vibe.

It specifically said the guy would compare thier survey to two other government surveys with “similar questions.” The report doesn’t do that. Forgeting about this small survey. Finding those others will be good. I spent about an hour. I’m horrible at searching. But there are so many references to this stuff I can’t go digging right now.

I will tell you my personal experience would support the idea that divorce rate is lower. Now I will admit that contraception is not soley responsible. But looking back, it surely was a contributor.

The one thing I did find in searching that is a bit or a red herring is that one source claimed that having a child is to blame for the high divorce rate since so many divorces happen within a year of having a child. So you see my point that it’s a complex issue and difficult to prove.

 

[newbetx]

I dunno, they aren’t even mentioned later on. I’m not going to call this “survey” intentionally misleading, but it does give me that vibe.
Btw, google led me these very forums for that data

you edited. Yes, I find myself quoted sometimes during a google search. Like ANYONE can considered an expert or something. As bad as a Wiki.

Well, I’m calling it a night.

 

[tjm190]

It specifically said the guy would compare thier survey to two other government surveys with “similar questions.” The report doesn’t do that. Forgeting about this small survey. Finding those others will be good. I spent about an hour. I’m horrible at searching. But there are so many references to this stuff I can’t go digging right now.

I will tell you my personal experience would support the idea that divorce rate is lower. Now I will admit that contraception is not soley responsible. But looking back, it surely was a contributor.

The one thing I did find in searching that is a bit or a red herring is that one source claimed that having a child is to blame for the high divorce rate since so many divorces happen within a year of having a child. So you see my point that it’s a complex issue and difficult to prove.

I admit, I didn’t expect there to much information- but there just seems to be that one study that says .02%, a claim that it arrived at through pathetic means, and then every other source follows in it’s foot steps. This stuff has to be out there somewhere!

 

[gardenswithkids]

Edit: I was going to go after the near certainty of lurking variables in their study, but at this point no information can be taken from said study

First, regarding your edit comment: Most studies involving human behavior, have “lurking variables.” It’s extremely difficult to isolate down to only one variable when the “guinea pigs” are humans studied over decades.

Here’s a study I found by doing a quick search on contraception and divorce rate. It sites several reasons for the increase in divorce in the 1960’s, but one of the factors they site that shifted the divorce numbers to a higher level was the increase availability of oral contraception. mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16317/ Here’s the abstract: “This study investigates the determinants of the U.S. divorce rate from 1929 to 2006, with particular emphasis on explaining its surge in the mid-1960s. The main finding is that the divorce rate and female labor-force participation, or equivalently female participation in higher education, are endogenous variables that are linked by a negative, long-run relationship. The availability of oral contraception shifted this negative relationship to a new, higher level of divorce rates during the late-1960s and early-1970s. The Vietnam War also contributed to the rise in the divorce rate at that time. The results are very robust to different estimation methodologies.”

No proof is ever needed for a negative. For example, I just had a piece of toast- I had no evidence that that piece of toast would not cause me to grow a second head. However, there was no evidence in favor of toast having this effect on me so I felt safe in eating it…

Since you say “no proof is ever needed for a negative” I’ll re-phrase my questions to a positive. What “scientific proof” do you have the use of contraception is safe for marriages and families?

You use the example of a food that we humans have been eating for years, which uses ingredients that falls into the “generally recognized as safe” category by the US government food regulators. But we were talking about contraception, not food. Contraception falls more into the “drug” category. Are you saying that companies wishing to introduce new contraceptives don’t need to “prove” that they are safe?

Large scale acceptance of contraception is something relatively new to the family and society. It hardly compares to “eating toast”. Following the introduction of the large-scale acceptance of contraception, the divorce rate dramatically increased. Out of wedlock sexual activity and pregnancy increased. A short time later, abortion became legal. Certainly there were a variety of factors working in our society, but contraception played a role in what happened to marriage and the family. Scientists with no apparent bias towards Catholic teachings recognize that fact. You should too.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Since contraception’s status as a sin is what is being discussed, any statement that presumes contraception to be a sin is rather unhelpful.

So your real question is, “why is contraception a sin”?

The hypothetical in your original post could give the impression that you think those who consider contraception sinful do so because they see it as interfering with God’s will. I just wanted to point out that’s not at the heart of Catholic teaching on contraception.

 

[newbetx]

I admit, I didn’t expect there to much information- but there just seems to be that one study that says .02%, a claim that it arrived at through pathetic means, and then every other source follows in it’s foot steps. This stuff has to be out there somewhere!

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what people are trying to prove. I doubt there is an non-Catholic survey out there on the subject. Who would run it? Like most survey’s, the questions are slanted toward the thing you want to prove. Surveys are interesting, but hardly something you can hang your hat on.

But when something comes along that meets with your experience, it becomes believable. The numbers may be off a bit, but if in-line with your experience, it gets some credit.

Like the difference between you and I. You don’t have the experience I have. Some of which I wish I didn’t have. But we are all a product of our experience. Conversion to the Church’s teaching on this subject was almost easy. I had held the cultural view for decades. But my experience, good and bad, melded so well with TOB because there were things I knew were right and where it said I was wrong, I could see the wrongness. The pits where I fell were all spelled out. And, you know, it became obvious to me with hindsight what I was doing wrong.

Now, also, I wasn’t much like you. Not sure of your age but I was far from a virgin by the time I married. Contraception was widely used by most of my Catholic girlfriends. The “contraceptive mentality” as I call it basically follows that sex is “mutually enjoyable” and everything is fine as long as the woman becomes pregnant. Of course if she does, there’s always one more level of contraception that can take place.

This is a far cry from “dying” for your spouse. This is a far cry from mutual respect out of love for another. This is a far cry from respecting the sexual act. The act itself is something you get. not give. After a while, getting it, becomes a right. And once that happens, the person that is to provide you that right becomes not a loved one, but a slave or property. And that’s when the contraceptive mindset takes us away from the real gift of sex God gives us.

The problem isn’t so much that contraceptive sex blocks God’s process as much as we begin to take for granted the gift he gave us. It isn’t a one time event. This happens over years. One little piece at a time. This has to do with the separation of the two purposes of the act as pointe out in my reference to the CCC.

 

[newbetx]

And to show that I’m not alone in my perspective, I found this.

transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Family/AboLaird.html

May you never experience the down side of contraception. But if you do, I hope you remember that there is a way out.

Peace.

 

[tjm190]

And to show that I’m not alone in my perspective, I found this.

transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Family/AboLaird.html

May you never experience the down side of contraception. But if you do, I hope you remember that there is a way out.

Peace.

I’m sure there’s plenty of personal stories on both sides- oh, and generally most surveys can manage to give the appearance of fairness. I would be wary of a catholic survey on the subject regardless- there’s very specific methodology to keep personal bias out of the results, and I doubt anyone interested in such data would be well versed in actuarial science .

 

[newbetx]

First, regarding your edit comment: Most studies involving human behavior, have “lurking variables.” It’s extremely difficult to isolate down to only one variable when the “guinea pigs” are humans studied over decades.

Here’s a study I found by doing a quick search on contraception and divorce rate. It sites several reasons for the increase in divorce in the 1960’s, but one of the factors they site that shifted the divorce numbers to a higher level was the increase availability of oral contraception. mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16317/ Here’s the abstract: “This study investigates the determinants of the U.S. divorce rate from 1929 to 2006, with particular emphasis on explaining its surge in the mid-1960s. The main finding is that the divorce rate and female labor-force participation, or equivalently female participation in higher education, are endogenous variables that are linked by a negative, long-run relationship. The availability of oral contraception shifted this negative relationship to a new, higher level of divorce rates during the late-1960s and early-1970s. The Vietnam War also contributed to the rise in the divorce rate at that time. The results are very robust to different estimation methodologies.”

EXCELLENT! Good job GwK!

I always thought that the “no fault” divorce laws were significant. Interesting that they are thought not to be.

 

[tjm190]

First, regarding your edit comment: Most studies involving human behavior, have “lurking variables.” It’s extremely difficult to isolate down to only one variable when the “guinea pigs” are humans studied over decades.

Indeed, and in this case a serious lurking variable would be that NFP practitioners are generally devout.

Here’s a study I found by doing a quick search on contraception and divorce rate. It sites several reasons for the increase in divorce in the 1960’s, but one of the factors they site that shifted the divorce numbers to a higher level was the increase availability of oral contraception. mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16317/ Here’s the abstract: “This study investigates the determinants of the U.S. divorce rate from 1929 to 2006, with particular emphasis on explaining its surge in the mid-1960s. The main finding is that the divorce rate and female labor-force participation, or equivalently female participation in higher education, are endogenous variables that are linked by a negative, long-run relationship. The availability of oral contraception shifted this negative relationship to a new, higher level of divorce rates during the late-1960s and early-1970s. The Vietnam War also contributed to the rise in the divorce rate at that time. The results are very robust to different estimation methodologies.”

What we were looking for earlier was a study onf NFP divorce rates, but this should be a fun read too.

Since you say “no proof is ever needed for a negative” I’ll re-phrase my questions to a positive. What “scientific proof” do you have the use of contraception is safe for marriages and families?

You use the example of a food that we humans have been eating for years, which uses ingredients that falls into the “generally recognized as safe” category by the US government food regulators. But we were talking about contraception, not food. Contraception falls more into the “drug” category. Are you saying that companies wishing to introduce new contraceptives don’t need to “prove” that they are safe?

Large scale acceptance of contraception is something relatively new to the family and society. It hardly compares to “eating toast”. Following the introduction of the large-scale acceptance of contraception, the divorce rate dramatically increased. Out of wedlock sexual activity and pregnancy increased. A short time later, abortion became legal. Certainly there were a variety of factors working in our society, but contraception played a role in what happened to marriage and the family. Scientists with no apparent bias towards Catholic teachings recognize that fact. You should too.

The duty of a drug is to protect the health of the consumer. No major adverse health effects have been documented for contraceptives, with some minor, isolated, and treatable exceptions with respect to oral contraceptives. Therefore, contraceptives are safe unless you are suggesting that the divorce rate increases which can not statistically be linked to contraception are the result of some yet to be discovered neurological disorder caused by contraception. And again, there is a heavy burden of proof that is required to prove a supposed causation relation. That burden includes experimentation, not just a retrospective study.

 

[newbetx]

Indeed, and in this case a serious lurking variable would be that NFP practitioners are generally devout.

What we were looking for earlier was a study onf NFP divorce rates, but this should be a fun read too.

The duty of a drug is to protect the health of the consumer. No major adverse health effects have been documented for contraceptives, with some minor, isolated, and treatable exceptions with respect to oral contraceptives. Therefore, contraceptives are safe unless you are suggesting that the divorce rate increases which can not statistically be linked to contraception are the result of some yet to be discovered neurological disorder caused by contraception. And again, there is a heavy burden of proof that is required to prove a supposed causation relation. That burden includes experimentation, not just a retrospective study.

You know, we anti-contraception people often laugh at paragraphs like the last one… You are correct. The duty of a drug is to fix something that is broken. Make life better in general. Pregnancy is not a disease. And neither is fertility. Any contraceptive that is chemical in nature is bad for you. It’s breaking something that is working just fine. And a quick look at a sheet that comes with an IUD or pill will tell you that they aren’t the most safe things in the world. Why would you want your wife to submit to those? ( I know you are not married. Just wanting you to think about the future. And yes, I know that your question was about condoms. Form is independent, really.)

We know you don’t want to believe contraception is bad for you. You’ve been told it is good for many years by many other means. It seems “right” because it allows you to do as you please without the “nasty side effects of pregnancy.” I know. I once believed it myself. “It” cost me the love of a woman I should have married. “It” cost me my first marriage. “It” almost cost me my second. “It” is the contraceptive mentality. I pray you never, ever experience it’s evil in your relationships.

 

[tjm190]

You know, we anti-contraception people often laugh at paragraphs like the last one… You are correct. The duty of a drug is to fix something that is broken. Make life better in general. Pregnancy is not a disease. And neither is fertility. Any contraceptive that is chemical in nature is bad for you. It’s breaking something that is working just fine. And a quick look at a sheet that comes with an IUD or pill will tell you that they aren’t the most safe things in the world. Why would you want your wife to submit to those? ( I know you are not married. Just wanting you to think about the future. And yes, I know that your question was about condoms. Form is independent, really.)

We know you don’t want to believe contraception is bad for you. You’ve been told it is good for many years by many other means. It seems “right” because it allows you to do as you please without the “nasty side effects of pregnancy.” I know. I once believed it myself. “It” cost me the love of a woman I should have married. “It” cost me my first marriage. “It” almost cost me my second. “It” is the contraceptive mentality. I pray you never, ever experience it’s evil in your relationships.

The point of a drug is to avoid an unwanted effect. If I have a fever, that’s good- my body is making it difficult for germs to reproduce. But I don’t want a fever, so I take medicine to control it. Is pregnancy a disease? No. Is it, at times, an unwanted effect? Yes. And the most major side effect of oral contraceptives is what you would expect from a minor hormone imbalance- bumps, irritation, or something like that. Earlier versions of the pill could have more negative side effects, although still nothing permanent or gruesome, but lower dosages of the active ingredient have far reduced them.
What I want to believe is irrelevant- I have, to this point, been able to separate the people from the arguments on both sides. If your personal experience has led you to believe one thing, you must accept that individual experience only appears relevant to the individual.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The duty of a drug is to protect the health of the consumer. No major adverse health effects have been documented for contraceptives, with some minor, isolated, and treatable exceptions with respect to oral contraceptives. Therefore, contraceptives are safe unless you are suggesting that the divorce rate increases which can not statistically be linked to contraception are the result of some yet to be discovered neurological disorder caused by contraception. And again, there is a heavy burden of proof that is required to prove a supposed causation relation. That burden includes experimentation, not just a retrospective study.

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the “Dalkon Shield” IUD.

Your began requesting scientific evidence that the contraception also affected the unitive aspect of sexuality when I wrote that you were only looking at the reproductive aspects of sex. The link between the procreative and the unitive aspect of sex is something the Church teaches.

You’re obviosly trying to be “scientific” but you clearly have a bias against the Church teachings. Again, why do you place the “burden of proof” on those of us who embrace Church teachings? You dismiss a retrospective study that examined the divorce from a non-religous perspective. You are not looking at this topic objectively.

You started this thread by asking why a couple using a condom is denying God’s will. It sounded like you wanted to talk about faith and God’s will. Now this has turned into a discussion about the validity of scientific studies. Bait and switch. You don’t seem to want to talk about faith anymore.

Paraphrasing a quote by an author I can’t remember, “For those who have faith, no evidence is requirred. For those without faith, no evidence is enough.”

 

[Corki]

And the most major side effect of oral contraceptives is what you would expect from a minor hormone imbalance- bumps, irritation, or something like that. Earlier versions of the pill could have more negative side effects, although still nothing permanent or gruesome, but lower dosages of the active ingredient have far reduced them.

All versions of the pill can have negative and permanent side effects. If you ever get a chance, read the patient insert for any brand of BCP. One of the side effects listed is blood clots leading to death or disability. Pretty permanent. That’s not a common side effect but neither is it restricted to older versions of the pill.

If you watch TV much, you may have noticed one of the newest brands of BCPs is running “correction” ads. They say something like “the FDA told us to correct some misinformation from previous ads”. The “misinformation” was not clearly informing about the side effects. If you watch TV late at night , you may also see the lawyer ads seeking class action members to sue the same company as makes the aforementioned pills over some very nasty side effects.

BTW, one of the most common side effects of BCP is loss of libido. Now, shouldn’t that be avoided?

That being said, whether or not BCPs have side effects or are safe doesn’t change the morality of their use. The only thing that matters is if they are being used to treat a condition itself (moral) or used to prevent pregnancy (not).

 

[newbetx]

The point of a drug is to avoid an unwanted effect. If I have a fever, that’s good- my body is making it difficult for germs to reproduce. But I don’t want a fever, so I take medicine to control it. Is pregnancy a disease? No. Is it, at times, an unwanted effect? Yes. And the most major side effect of oral contraceptives is what you would expect from a minor hormone imbalance- bumps, irritation, or something like that. Earlier versions of the pill could have more negative side effects, although still nothing permanent or gruesome, but lower dosages of the active ingredient have far reduced them.
What I want to believe is irrelevant- I have, to this point, been able to separate the people from the arguments on both sides. If your personal experience has led you to believe one thing, you must accept that individual experience only appears relevant to the individual.

No, what you want to believe IS relevant. Because what you believe affects what you do. What you do affects others as well. It’s not like the boiling pot thing where only you get burned.

It affects your ability to enjoy life. It affects your future spouse or others that you may influence. It’s already showed up in your CAF correspondence.

The Catholic guidelines aren’t here for the benefit of the Church. As many believe. They are there for the benefit of the people. Like you and me. We may not understand them completely. But if we don’t and turn away from them without that understanding, we do ourselves a disservice.

 

[newbetx]

Indeed, and in this case a serious lurking variable would be that NFP practitioners are generally devout.

Sorry. Forgot to address this.
First. So what? Maybe being devout is a good thing?

But from what I hear, many of the non-religeous attend the NFP classes. Also, those that are environmentalists. Why? Because they don’t want chemicals in their bodies. They don’t want the expense.

So I hear (still looking for the orginal study) that while NFP users are at about 4% divorce rate rather than 50%, the ones that use NFP, go to Mass once a week and pray together that creates the rediculous much less than 1% divorce rate. Oh, and divorce isn’t the problem. It’s just an indication of the problem. Many don’t divorce but make each other misserable for the rest of their lives. That’s not what marriage is about, is it?

So it’s not JUST NFP. No. It’s many things, together.

I often talk about TOB being a forest. A particular rule being a tree. If you don’t accept that tree, it’s gone. Eventually, if you don’t accept a bunch of the trees, you don’t have a forest anymore. A forest cannot be reduced to a few clumps of trees. If that happens, the support the trees give each other goes away and they fall in the wind. The whole support structure of the forrest’s inhabitants also suffers.

As CW says. “Take all of it or none of it.” I understand that now.

I offer my experience not as proof but as correlation to the Truth we have been told. Certainly “your mileage will vary.”

 

[tjm190]

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the “Dalkon Shield” IUD.

Your began requesting scientific evidence that the contraception also affected the unitive aspect of sexuality when I wrote that you were only looking at the reproductive aspects of sex. The link between the procreative and the unitive aspect of sex is something the Church teaches.

You’re obviosly trying to be “scientific” but you clearly have a bias against the Church teachings. Again, why do you place the “burden of proof” on those of us who embrace Church teachings? You dismiss a retrospective study that examined the divorce from a non-religous perspective. You are not looking at this topic objectively.

You started this thread by asking why a couple using a condom is denying God’s will. It sounded like you wanted to talk about faith and God’s will. Now this has turned into a discussion about the validity of scientific studies. Bait and switch. You don’t seem to want to talk about faith anymore.

Paraphrasing a quote by an author I can’t remember, “For those who have faith, no evidence is requirred. For those without faith, no evidence is enough.”

I’m on the run here, so I’ll amend this post later to respond to your whole post, but for now-
The first rule (well, one of the first rules) of statistical inference is that retrospective studies can establish correlation, not cause and effect. That, and only that, is why i dismissed the study- it can not possibly speak to cause and effect as it seemed to want to.

 

[newbetx]

I’m sure there’s plenty of personal stories on both sides- oh, and generally most surveys can manage to give the appearance of fairness. I would be wary of a catholic survey on the subject regardless- there’s very specific methodology to keep personal bias out of the results, and I doubt anyone interested in such data would be well versed in actuarial science .

Please don’t underestimate the resources of the Catholic Church nor it’s contribution to science.