Planned Parenthood is going to present to my Youth Workshop...right now

[RobbyS]

No. Condoms can be used for many reasons. Married couples who don’t want to have children can use them, for example, or married couples that have children but don’t want any more. It’s got nothing to do with being alone, though it does have a lot to do with pleasure. But pleasure’s good. It’s nice. It’s pleasurable. You seem to be asserting a false reason as to why people use condoms to portray it as bad. That’s just silly. It hasn’t got anything to do with being alone.

Besides, kids are horrible. Who wants 'em, aye?

And if you don’t have enough of them, then your civilization slowly disappears or is displaced by that of more fecund invaders. Think: Italians, Goths.

Pleasure is good. But food tastes good so we will eat, We eat to live. The condom is a symbol of putting secondary things not only first but instead of.

 

[Bradski]

But if you give people contraceptives but don’t educate them about what sex is, then the rate of abortion will certainly go up.

I think you’re right. It has to go hand in hand. I think that’s what the research proves and the situation in the Netherlands certainly bears that out.

I appreciate that as a Catholic you cannot support contraception, but imagine if there was a change in the Vatican’s position. Abortion would drop considerably. Surely that would be a good thing.

To decry abortion as the ‘massacre of millions’ and then to forbid the one method of reducing it that we know works…I find it difficult to come to terms with it.

This is the real world in which we live. People are always going to have sex outside marriage just because it feels good. There’s no changing that. It always has happened and always will. If you copied what the Dutch are doing, abortion clinics would close all over the country.

That would be a step in the right direction. Then you could concentrate on reducing teenage sex if you like. And sex outside marriage. But if you want to reduce abortions whilst telling everyone that contraception is wrong will get you nowhere on both counts.

 

[Faithdancer]

The debate here seems to devolve primarily on the physical consequences of unwanted pregnancy, i.e. abortion. But what does Planned Parenthood have to say about the tremendous psychological and emotional damage that accrues from promiscuity even when pregnancy does not occur- much less the long term psychological and emotional damage that results from having an abortion?

Pope John Paul II in his Wednesday audiences extensively discussed the spiritual and emotional wounding that results in both men and women as a result of a utilitarianist attitude toward human relationships with others. Young people need to be taught that promiscuity itself is fundamentally wrong because it is fundamentally selfish. The notion that promiscuity is some kind of unavoidable part of the human condition- as if people cannot help themselves from rutting like animals- is an idea that denies and debases the powers of the human soul.

 

[RobbyS]

Then do you think contraception should be banned?

I think that some might be more tightly regulated. But that would required a huge change in public opinion.

 

[RobbyS]

The debate here seems to devolve primarily on the physical consequences of unwanted pregnancy, i.e. abortion. But what does Planned Parenthood have to say about the tremendous psychological and emotional damage that accrues from promiscuity even when pregnancy does not occur- much less the long term psychological and emotional damage that results from having an abortion?

Pope John Paul II in his Wednesday audiences extensively discussed the spiritual and emotional wounding that results in both men and women as a result of a utilitarianist attitude toward human relationships with others. Young people need to be taught that promiscuity itself is fundamentally wrong because it is fundamentally selfish. The notion that promiscuity is some kind of unavoidable part of the human condition- as if people cannot help themselves from rutting like animals- is an idea that denies and debases the powers of the human soul.

Not to mention that physiologically a woman over thirty is rather old to be having a first baby, and that she might have made herself psychologically adverse to having a baby even if she should decide to “try.” Habits of mind are hard to break.

 

[Bradski]

But what does Planned Parenthood have to say about the tremendous psychological and emotional damage that accrues from promiscuity even when pregnancy does not occur- much less the long term psychological and emotional damage that results from having an abortion?

Maybe you could ask them. I don’t think that they’d support promiscuity. I certainlyn don’t think they would suggest it’s a good thing.

 

[Dawnia]

I think that you just made that up, Jim. It seems that making contraception more easily available, coupled with better education as to its use actually reduces abortion rates considerably.

I’m not Jim, but I’m going to butt in anyway…because I can.

The Guttenmacher Institute doesn’t seem to think so. They claim that over half of all abortions are due to failed birth control. The abortion rate did go up with the increased use of birth control. Incidentally, divorce also increased similarly. I expect that changes in society were mostly to blame for the increases.

“Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by a range of 62-78 percent compared to the national rate, a new study shows”. news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24334.aspx{/QUOTE]

Wow not impressed. That “study” was designed to conform to a preset outcome for the purposes of convincing the government to include the shocker of all shockers, the types of birth control that they are pushing.

And news from our good friends in Europe…

“Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs”.

…and how does that affect abortions? According to you they would increase. But the Netherlands, with the most comprehensive sex education system on the planet also has the lowest abortion rate on the planet.

“The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

The sexual sterilization rate is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%).

I think neutering a 1/4 of the population probably has a much greater effect on the abortion rate than sex ed or passing out condoms or pills. For such a Utopian society it’s a wonder that more people are leaving the country than moving there.

It appears you are spectacularly wrong, Jim. Would you now agree that easier access to contraception and better sex education would reduce abortions? To deny it would seem perverse.

Explain Vietnam, China, and Tawain then…some of the highest rates of birth control use…yet also some of the highest abortion rates. And explain Somolia which has a very low birth control (almost nonexistant) rate and a very low abortion rate.

It all comes down to who values life and who doesn’t.

 

[Faithdancer]

Maybe you could ask them. I don’t think that they’d support promiscuity. I certainly don’t think they would suggest it’s a good thing.

They may not actively promote promiscuity- that is open to debate. But there is no statement on their website that it is wrong, from what I’ve looked at thus far; to the contrary their website states that easy access to contraception is preferable to teaching abstinence.

Of course, as long as Planned Parenthood promotes homicide, including homicide-as-birth-control, their stance on promiscuity is by comparison a secondary issue.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that you just made that up, Jim. It seems that making contraception more easily available, coupled with better education as to its use actually reduces abortion rates considerably.

“Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by a range of 62-78 percent compared to the national rate, a new study shows”. news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24334.aspx

Misleading Study Claims Obamacare, Birth Control Cuts Abortions

New Study Exaggerates Benefits of No-Cost Contraception

The Shocking Ethics Behind the Contraceptive Choice Project

newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/10/05/ap-nbc-tout-positive-effects-free-birth-control-under-obamacare

Peipert’s study proclaims in its abstract that it’s intended to be promotional:

OBJECTIVE: To promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.

---

A Nexis search finds the May 2009 edition of the journal Contemporary Sexuality reported “Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, is attempting to do just that [promote LARC]. The medical school has received $12 million from an anonymous donor for a multi-year, cohort study involving 10,000 women.” So who’s the donor? Perhaps…a manufacturer of LARC devices? AP doesn’t seem to find this question worth asking.

And news from our good friends in Europe…

“Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs”.

…and how does that affect abortions? According to you they would increase. But the Netherlands, with the most comprehensive sex education system on the planet also has the lowest abortion rate on the planet.

“The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

It appears you are spectacularly wrong, Jim. Would you now agree that easier access to contraception and better sex education would reduce abortions? To deny it would seem perverse.

Over 60% of pregnancies to women under 20 end in abortion in the Netherlands. Guttmacher Institute found simultaneous increase in teen abortion rate and contraception use in America, Denmark, Cuba, Singapore, the Netherlands, and South Korea

Research arm of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute said 55% - 60% of women getting an abortion are on contraception

Virtually every country where contraception use has increased there was similtuanous increase in abortion - rise in abortion in England as contraception use increased. Portugal’s abortion rate rose after oral contraception was made widely available in 1999. France’s abortion rate increased as contraception use increased. Canada’s abortion only started to increased after oral contraception was made legal in 1969. Australia’s abortion rate increased as contraception use increased.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think that you just made that up, Jim. It seems that making contraception more easily available, coupled with better education as to its use actually reduces abortion rates considerably.

“Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by a range of 62-78 percent compared to the national rate, a new study shows”. news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24334.aspx

Misleading Study Claims Obamacare, Birth Control Cuts Abortions

New Study Exaggerates Benefits of No-Cost Contraception

The Shocking Ethics Behind the Contraceptive Choice Project

newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/10/05/ap-nbc-tout-positive-effects-free-birth-control-under-obamacare

Peipert’s study proclaims in its abstract that it’s intended to be promotional:

OBJECTIVE: To promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.

---

A Nexis search finds the May 2009 edition of the journal Contemporary Sexuality reported “Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, is attempting to do just that [promote LARC]. The medical school has received $12 million from an anonymous donor for a multi-year, cohort study involving 10,000 women.” So who’s the donor? Perhaps…a manufacturer of LARC devices? AP doesn’t seem to find this question worth asking.

And news from our good friends in Europe…

“Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs”.

…and how does that affect abortions? According to you they would increase. But the Netherlands, with the most comprehensive sex education system on the planet also has the lowest abortion rate on the planet.

“The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world”. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

It appears you are spectacularly wrong, Jim. Would you now agree that easier access to contraception and better sex education would reduce abortions? To deny it would seem perverse.

Over 60% of pregnancies to women under 20 end in abortion in the Netherlands. Guttmacher Institute found simultaneous increase in teen abortion rate and contraception use in America, Denmark, Cuba, Singapore, the Netherlands, and South Korea

Research arm of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute said 55% - 60% of women getting an abortion are on contraception

Virtually every country where contraception use has increased there was similtuanous increase in abortion - rise in abortion in England as contraception use increased. Portugal’s abortion rate rose after oral contraception was made widely available in 1999. France’s abortion rate increased as contraception use increased. Canada’s abortion only started to increased after oral contraception was made legal in 1969. Australia’s abortion rate increased as contraception use increased

 

[fix]

So you wouldn’t support better education on contraception.

By education you mean indoctrination. No I oppose that ideology of evil.

Do you think people should be free to use contraception?

I cannot stop them. I will add that up until recent times many forms of contraception were illegal.

 

[Faithdancer]

Having seen their Facebook page, I’m now convinced that Planned Parenthood Promotes Promiscuity. It seems that they celebrate homosexual activity as well. Then of course there are the 300,000+ abortions per year. Other then that, I’m sure they are a very fine organization.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Its all about the money. Planned infanticide must promote promiscuity, otherwise they cannot kill babies = make more money. Simple plan, preying on the uninformed and those still in darkness. Evil begets more evil. people are not supposed to act like dumb animals in heat. The evil machine must conitinue to promote all sexual sin in order to continue their work and make more money.

 

[CaptFun]

Before America went socialist, :banghead::doh2: we had work, not “work readiness workshops.” :sad_yes: We had parenthood, not “Planned Parenthood.” *

And forced indoctrinations called workshops to ready one for the work that is no longer here.

Intended redundancy for emphasis and penetrating stubborn filters.

**** (Added graphics in the quote box were part of my response - not part of Paul’s post). ***

 

[Bradski]

Wow not impressed. That “study” was designed to conform to a preset outcome for the purposes of convincing the government to include the shocker of all shockers, the types of birth control that they are pushing.

I don’t think that you’re being fair. There’s certainly no need for scare quotes on the word ‘study’. The figures are there to be seen and the conclusion is unavoidable and unambiguous.

I think neutering a 1/4 of the population probably has a much greater effect on the abortion rate than sex ed or passing out condoms or pills.

I think that your phraseology is indicative of your bias. There is, in any case, no need to separate a vasectomy from condoms or pills excepting that the former is meant to be permanent. And sex ed would help more people reach the conclusion that that may be the way to go in ensuring no more children. It certainly is not to be viewed in a negative light as you have intimated.

Explain Vietnam, China, and Tawain then…some of the highest rates of birth control use…yet also some of the highest abortion rates.

All three countries are extremely patriachal and the birth of a son is held to be much more beneficial for the family than a daughter. Selective abortion is very common indeed. Couple that with the fact that China is a one-child state and you have your answer. The question naturally arises – do you honestly think that abortions would go down if there was no contraception?

And explain Somolia which has a very low birth control (almost nonexistant) rate and a very low abortion rate.

Somali culture celebrates large families and abortion is illegal in any case. Or was at least at the middle of last year. And the country is a complete mess in any case. It certainly isn’t a good example to use to push either side of any argument.

 

[Bradski]

Research arm of Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute said…

Maybe you should read all of what they say rather than quote selectively. In the link you provided for your details (guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html), the conclusion (at the end of the research which perhaps you didn’t get to) said this:

Empirical study of the aggregate relationships between contraceptive use and induced abortion has to be limited to the few countries where reasonably reliable information exists on both. Despite this severe limitation, our review of the evidence provides ample illustration of the interaction between these factors. When fertility levels in a population are changing, the relationship between contraceptive use and abortion may take a variety of forms, frequently involving a simultaneous increase in both. When other factors—such as fertility—are held constant, however, a rise in contraceptive use or effectiveness invariably leads to a decline in induced abortion—and vice versa.

As a conclusion, it seems pretty conclusive…

 

[Dawnia]

I don’t think that you’re being fair. There’s certainly no need for scare quotes on the word ‘study’. The figures are there to be seen and the conclusion is unavoidable and unambiguous.

A study doesn’t have a predetermined outcome. The guy who wrote it said as much. The conclusion is not reliable.

I think that your phraseology is indicative of your bias. There is, in any case, no need to separate a vasectomy from condoms or pills excepting that the former is meant to be permanent. And sex ed would help more people reach the conclusion that that may be the way to go in ensuring no more children. It certainly is not to be viewed in a negative light as you have intimated.

LOL! My phraseology is due to spending way too much time with animals. There is a difference. Condoms & pills are reversable methods with high failure rates and produce far more oopses than does sterilization. When you remove 25% of the population from potentially getting pregnant to begin with, you are tipping the scales.

All three countries are extremely patriachal and the birth of a son is held to be much more beneficial for the family than a daughter. Selective abortion is very common indeed. Couple that with the fact that China is a one-child state and you have your answer. The question naturally arises – do you honestly think that abortions would go down if there was no contraception?

Somali culture celebrates large families and abortion is illegal in any case. Or was at least at the middle of last year. And the country is a complete mess in any case. It certainly isn’t a good example to use to push either side of any argument.

My point was that birth control alone does not determine abortion rates. There are many many factors involved. The idea that increasing the use of birth control will limit abortion is a myth.

Abortion will end when people stop thinking of pregnancy as a bad thing.

 

[Bradski]

That “study” was designed to conform to a preset outcome.

A study doesn’t have a predetermined outcome.

Thanks for the clarification…

When you remove 25% of the population from potentially getting pregnant to begin with, you are tipping the scales.

Are you suggesting that having the snip is not a great way of contraception? Let’s face it, it has to be the best way of ensuring that the woman is not going to have an abortion. Personally, I don’t care what method they use to get the rate down.

My point was that birth control alone does not determine abortion rates.

I’m afraid that you did. You said that they went up:

The abortion rate did go up with the increased use of birth control.

But you are wrong. Although there are, as you said, other factors involved, the research institute to which you yourself linked said that, allowing for other factors, the abortion rate goes down:

‘…a rise in contraceptive use or effectiveness invariably leads to a decline in induced abortion…’

 

[PRmerger]

The question naturally arises – do you honestly think that abortions would go down if there was no contraception?

Well, statistically they would have to go down if oral contraceptives weren’t around.

But whether abortion rates would decrease if condoms weren’t around, I’m an agnostic on that.

Are there any other forms of contraception that aren’t abortifacient as well, besides condom use??? (And, I suppose we can include coitus interruptus in that category.)

 

[Bradski]

Well, statistically they would have to go down if oral contraceptives weren’t around.

But whether abortion rates would decrease if condoms weren’t around, I’m an agnostic on that.

Are there any other forms of contraception that aren’t abortifacient as well, besides condom use??? (And, I suppose we can include coitus interruptus in that category.)

I thought you’d mistakenly said ‘go down’ instead of ‘go up’ in your first sentence, but I guess you’re suggesting that the pill causes an abortion. And yes, it can cause the body to reject an implanted egg but I think you’re stretching the definition of abortion to include it. Nevertheless, it’s a fair question for those who do read it that way.

But as far as Catholics go, is using a condom ‘better’ than taking the pill? I believe that contraception, apart from NFP, is a mortal sin whichever way you do it. Including Genesis 38:9. So is there any justification for checking if the rates went up or down just in regards to condoms?

In any case, we can’t uninvent contraception. It’s generally available and unless it’s made illegal, then people are going to use it to prevent unwanted pregnancies. So arguing that contraception is wrong may be OK for a Catholic (and full marks to each one that refuses to use it) but most Catholics plus everyone else is going to use it.

So the question becomes, not is contraception morally wrong – it is as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, but does easy access to it, plus education in its use, cause or prevent more abortions. And almost everything I’ve been able to find on the subject says: Yes, it does decrease the amount of abortions.