I say that I agree that prevention is better than abortion. Therefore preach chasity.What do I say to someone who says that contraception is good because no matter how much I preach about the Christian message, some young teen is still gonna have sex? what if this person said that prevention is better than abortion?
Ask them to show you evidence that contraception has reduced the number of abortions in this country?What do I say to someone who says that contraception is good because no matter how much I preach about the Christian message, some young teen is still gonna have sex? what if this person said that prevention is better than abortion?
Possibile scenariosWhat do I say to someone who says that contraception is good because no matter how much I preach about the Christian message, some young teen is still gonna have sex? what if this person said that prevention is better than abortion?
Which is the sort of logic that has resulted in about 50 million abortions in this country in the last 40 years.Possibile scenarios
Sex (contraceptive)- low probability of abortion
Sex (no contraceptive)- relatively high probability of abortion
No sex- roughly zero probability of abortion
Your claim is going to be that the third scenario is ideal, theirs is going to be that the third is unreasonable to expect and an attempt at reaching the third is likely to result in the second.
Which is why the issue of contraception is the false issue.Possibile scenarios
Sex (contraceptive)- low probability of abortion
Sex (no contraceptive)- relatively high probability of abortion
No sex- roughly zero probability of abortion
Your claim is going to be that the third scenario is ideal, theirs is going to be that the third is unreasonable to expect and an attempt at reaching the third is likely to result in the second.
Because when you give people protection, they use it- I posit that a society with no helmets would see fewer broken arms. Does these mean wearing a helmet makes you more likely to break a bone? Of course not- but people are more likely to do things that break their bones when they feel secure in the fact that their head won’t get cracked open. If people have made up their minds to go mountain biking, you could try ti withhold helmets from them in hopes that they reconsider- but they might just try it anyway or find an alternate supply of helmets.Which is the sort of logic that has resulted in about 50 million abortions in this country in the last 40 years.
I have yet to see any compelling data that suggests that contraception has resulted in fewer abortions.
–
Bill
Umm, you realize you just contradicted yourself there. If people are more likely to do things that break their bones because they feel more secure when wearing a helmet, then wearing a helmet does make you more likely to break a bone.Because when you give people protection, they use it- I posit that a society with no helmets would see fewer broken arms. Does these mean wearing a helmet makes you more likely to break a bone? Of course not- but people are more likely to do things that break their bones when they feel secure in the fact that their head won’t get cracked open.
Of course, if they didn’t have helmets in the first place, they might have decided that Mountain Bilking was crazy and not even tried it in the first place. Sure some are going to do it anyway… but probably fewer, and more carefully than if they have the helmets.If people have made up their minds to go mountain biking, you could try ti withhold helmets from them in hopes that they reconsider- but they might just try it anyway or find an alternate supply of helmets.
No… if you go mountain biking wearing a helmet, you’re safer then mountain biking not wearing a helmet. The helmet makes the riskier activity safer- but not entirely safe. At every risk level, the helmet makes you safer- but you may choose to put yourself at higher risk with a helmet.Umm, you realize you just contradicted yourself there. If people are more likely to do things that break their bones because they feel more secure when wearing a helmet, then wearing a helmet does make you more likely to break a bone.
Yes, that’s my point.In any case, I already addressed this in my first post in this thread, the concept is called risk compensation. And its worse than you think… not only may they be more likely to break a bone, but they may also gain no net benefit from the helmet because they might increase risk until they have offset the benefit of the helmets.
But anti-lock brakes are still a good thing.Its reasons like this that anti-lock breaks, despite their definite benefits in car control have been accompanied by no reduction in accidents.
Of course, if they didn’t have helmets in the first place, they might have decided that Mountain Bilking was crazy and not even tried it in the first place. Sure some are going to do it anyway… but probably fewer, and more carefully than if they have the helmets.
Yes, but helmets are still good- no matter how risky or conservative you are, the helmet itself is at worst neutral and at best useful. If you choose to be more risky to the point where you were better off before, that does not mean the helmet is hurting you.–
Bill
As an individual you might not put yourself at higher risk, but once we take a statistical sample, you will find that in fact that the average biker may gain no net benefit from the helmets and indeed might be at an increased risk for injury or death.No… if you go mountain biking wearing a helmet, you’re safer then mountain biking not wearing a helmet. The helmet makes the riskier activity safer- but not entirely safe. At every risk level, the helmet makes you safer- but you may choose to put yourself at higher risk with a helmet.
Yes, that’s my point.
They make cars cost more, make them heavier (Hence lower fuel economy) but they don’t reduce the number of accidents, injuries or deaths that occur in cars. So why are they better?But anti-lock brakes are still a good thing.
The problem is that you are not the only person involved in the equation. To return to the bicycling example. Studies have actually shown that drivers give cyclists who wear helmets less room when they pass them, making an accident more likely. And helmets cost money, can make you hot, etc. So if they can’t be shown to provide any benefit, then they are not neutral, they are a negative.Yes, but helmets are still good- no matter how risky or conservative you are, the helmet itself is at worst neutral and at best useful. If you choose to be more risky to the point where you were better off before, that does not mean the helmet is hurting you.
Because the average biker does things he wouldn’t have done other wise without a helmet- but at every risk level, you are better off with a helmet. If people choose to be less safe when they wear a helmet (or use birth control) that is a reflection on the person, not the helmet (or birth control).As an individual you might not put yourself at higher risk, but once we take a statistical sample, you will find that in fact that the average biker may gain no net benefit from the helmets and indeed might be at an increased risk for injury or death.
Take a car with no antilock breaks and a car with antilock breaks and two drivers who drive the exact same way- who is safer?They make cars cost more, make them heavier (Hence lower fuel economy) but they don’t reduce the number of accidents, injuries or deaths that occur in cars. So why are they better?
The problem is that you are not the only person involved in the equation. To return to the bicycling example. Studies have actually shown that drivers give cyclists who wear helmets less room when they pass them, making an accident more likely. And helmets cost money, can make you hot, etc. So if they can’t be shown to provide any benefit, then they are not neutral, they are a negative.
To turn this back to birth control, I wonder how many teenage girls are talked into (badgered into) having sex by their boyfriends based on the fact that contraception is available.
Again though, a reflection on people- not birth control.–
Bill
I would guess a whole lot. I found some statistics at the CDC website. About half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Half of those end in abortion. Between 25-50% of unplanned pregnancies are a result of women who had been taking birth control but stopped because they didn’t like it or it was too costly or something like that.To turn this back to birth control, I wonder how many teenage girls are talked into (badgered into) having sex by their boyfriends based on the fact that contraception is available.
–
Bill
Of course we are comparing apples and oranges here.Because when you give people protection, they use it- I posit that a society with no helmets would see fewer broken arms. Does these mean wearing a helmet makes you more likely to break a bone? Of course not- but people are more likely to do things that break their bones when they feel secure in the fact that their head won’t get cracked open. If people have made up their minds to go mountain biking, you could try ti withhold helmets from them in hopes that they reconsider- but they might just try it anyway or find an alternate supply of helmets.
We were talking about the effect on society- e.g. unintended pregnancies and such. On the societal level, there is an enormous different between an unwed couple having sex and an out of wedlock pregnancy.Of course we are comparing apples and oranges here.
If mountain biking resulted in the eventual death of everyone who does it, then supplying helmets or other safety equipment would have no perceivable effect.
And that is what we are dealing with here.
The OP specified “some young teen is going to choose to have sex”. Sex outside marriage is a sin of grave matter. Properly catechized catholic teens must avoid pre-marital sex or endanger their salvation. It is that simple. Using or not using a condom at this point is secondary and only serves to encourage behavior that could very well send these children to hell.
So - Are we to NOT preach abstinance? Or do we to preach Abstinance MORE!!!
The heck with contraceptives. Those who ignore the commandment on fornication will ignore a command on the use of contraception.
This is Simple “Root cause analysis”
Peace
James
What?! Are you being serious? Of course it has. It’s just common sense.Which is the sort of logic that has resulted in about 50 million abortions in this country in the last 40 years.
I have yet to see any compelling data that suggests that contraception has resulted in fewer abortions.
–
Bill
The problem with common sense is that it is often wrong!What?! Are you being serious? Of course it has. It’s just common sense.
Fact: Contraceptives have CUT DOWN ON unwanted pregnancies. Which leads to obvious fact #2: Because there’s fewer unwanted pregnancies, there’s fewer abortions. I don’t understand how someone could refute this.
Its not even remotely a matter of common sense. It is not obviously true that contraceptives have cut down on unwanted pregnancies. Let say people get pregnant without contraception 50% of the time, and people get pregnant with contraception 5% of the time (probably reasonable estimates). Its possible–even likely?–that having obtained contraception, people have sex 10 times as often, leading to the exact same number of unwanted pregnancies.What?! Are you being serious? Of course it has. It’s just common sense.
Fact: Contraceptives have CUT DOWN ON unwanted pregnancies. Which leads to obvious fact #2: Because there’s fewer unwanted pregnancies, there’s fewer abortions. I don’t understand how someone could refute this.