Reproductive Oppression

[Good_Daughter]

All forms of birth control are means of people who believe themselves to be fertile seeking to engage in sexual relations while doing their best to prevent or avoid conception as a result of those relations…

…So, how do you think that women are being “reproductively oppressed”? Specific examples would be most helpful.

You used two different words to describe the ways couples do not conceive. These words reflect the difference between contraceptive and non-contraceptive birth control. Contraceptive birth control seeks to prevent conception by working against or altering either the natural, healthy human body or the natural act of sexual intercourse. NFP seeks to avoid conception by placing the natural act of sexual intercourse at certain times in a healthy woman’s natural cycle. We may create our own fake infertility (against conception) or wait for the natural one (no conception to be against).

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are not educated about their bodies or their bodies’ natural reproductive function. (I grew up middle class in a rich country that strongly promotes “sex education”, but I was in my 20’s before I knew what my own cervical mucus was-that frustrates me.)

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are told by friends, family and the media that thier sexuality is primarily a tool for attracting and manipulating others, especially men. (You may use it briefly to have a baby, or even two, but then it’s back to business.)

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are told that contraceptives are harmless and beneficial when in fact, they(and the sex they enable) leave people open to physical, emotional and spiritual harm.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they have little or no access to healthy methods of birth control. I’ve had Catholic friends tell me, “You don’t want your NFP method working too well”-that frustrates me.)

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they, in distress, are encouraged to abort their babies without having all possible facts on human development and/or abortion.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when others (including mothers and grandmothers) lay selfish reasons on them for not having more children, ignoring the resources and wishes of a woman and her husband.

Some of these problems are as old as time and their solutions are not easily acheived. I’m glad the Church is willing to speak out counter-culturally, promoting the closest thing to true freedom for women that I’ve ever experienced, particularly on reproductive issues.

 

[fix]

Sorry, I see it simply as a matter of semantics.

The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is *capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God. *This capability is grasped by reason in the very being of man, considered in his integral truth, and therefore in his natural inclinations, his motivations and his finalities, which always have a spiritual dimension as well. It is precisely these which are the contents of the natural law and hence that ordered complex of “personal goods” which serve the “good of the person”: the good which is the person himself and his perfection. These are the goods safeguarded by the commandments, which, according to Saint Thomas, contain the whole natural law.130

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131

Veritatis splendor

 

[KarenNC]

Does that give you a better idea of what I mean by “reproductive oppression”?

Yes, that gives me a better idea. The only instance that I can see that could potentially qualify as oppression (cruel, excessive or unjust use of authority or power) is the episode of asking you to sign consent papers when you were not necessarily able to make a clear decision, though I see that more as contravening good medical ethics than “reproductive oppression”.

Peer pressure has only as much power as you choose to allow it to have. There is a great deal of difference between disagreement with or lack of endorsement of your choices and oppression. We choose not to have cable or commercial television. It is certainly not in the mainstream of public opinion, people are constantly making references to the shows they watch and look at me oddly when I say we don’t watch tv, telling me how wonderful the shows are, how funny the commercials are, how cheaply I can get cable, the merits of cable vs. satellite, TV-related products are marketed everywhere, etc. I have to seek out other forms of information to keep up with current events because of my choice. Does this mean that I as a “non-TV watcher” am being systematically “oppressed” by “TV watchers” or “denied my right to not watch television”? Of course not. It is annoying perhaps, tiresome, certainly at times, oppressing, no.

The comments may be rude, insensitive, annoying, nosy, etc, but I don’t see them as a form of “oppression”. I have one child. I was not “oppressed” by the constant comments before I had a child about that lack of a child (you should have one, you don’t know what you’re missing, you’d better get busy at your age, etc, etc, etc). Nor am I “oppressed” by the constant comments on how much my child needs a sibling, how they could never have stopped with just one, don’t you miss having a baby, etc. (we are parents of an only child and we homeschool, a community that is disproportinately made up of folks with large families). Again, annoying, tiresome, etc but not “oppression”.

I certainly don’t see it as oppression when a couple does not have a baby because one spouse does not want one. It’s called common sense. It is not a case of “wins”. My marriage is not a competition to see who can get more of what they alone want, it is a partnership. We have to both agree to taking on major commitments precisely because they affect both of us and the rest of our family. I wouldn’t make a unilateral decision to buy a car or get a pet if my spouse was not in agreement in taking on the commitment, much less try to have a baby. In fact, if you were to choose unilaterally to try to conceive a child without your partner’s willingness, I would describe it as both dishonest, deceitful and possibly an act of “reproductive oppression” against him—you would be unjustly exercising your power to conceive.

Unless those women married men who were already sterilized (at which point they knew what they were getting into), if the husband made a unilateral decision to be sterilized, that is symptomatic of a problem in their marriage that goes well beyond reproduction. If they agreed together that sterilization was a good decision (as we did), then changed their minds later, it is hardly fair to be accusing their husbands of “oppressing” them. At that point they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and investigate adoption if they want more children.

It is not a case of “denying the other partner the chance to try for another child”. A baby is a lifelong commitment. If you are going to try for one, you had better be willing and ready and able to accept the responsibility for that commitment beforehand—they don’t come with gift receipts if it “doesn’t work out”. If you are married, then both spouses better be willing, ready and able to take on the commitment, not just one of them.

 

[KarenNC]

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are not educated about their bodies or their bodies’ natural reproductive function. (I grew up middle class in a rich country that strongly promotes “sex education”, but I was in my 20’s before I knew what my own cervical mucus was-that frustrates me.)

I can go along with this. Lack of accurate sex education that looks at all the available information about family planning, including the benefits and drawbacks of the various options available, is certainly an unjust use of authority or power. That goes for programs that would deny information on NFP just as much at it goes for programs that would deny information on condoms and birth control pills.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are told by friends, family and the media that thier sexuality is primarily a tool for attracting and manipulating others, especially men. (You may use it briefly to have a baby, or even two, but then it’s back to business.)

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they are told that contraceptives are harmless and beneficial when in fact, they(and the sex they enable) leave people open to physical, emotional and spiritual harm.

I wouldn’t call this just a women’s issue or just a reproductive issue. I do agree that the media representations twist both sexes’ understanding of the meaning and role of sex, intimacy, love, commitment, etc. We certainly as a society allow the media to have an undue influence, but if one allows it and willingly participates in it when there are other options readily available, I don’t know that I could truthfully call it “oppression”.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they have little or no access to healthy methods of birth control. I’ve had Catholic friends tell me, “You don’t want your NFP method working too well”-that frustrates me.)

Ok, I can go along with denying access to reliable, preferred methods of birth control being a form of oppression. If a person wants to use a condom as a means of birth control and your policy only allows them to have access to NFP, however, that is just as oppressive.

I am not sure what what your Catholic friend says has to do with having no access to healthy methods of birth control.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when they, in distress, are encouraged to abort their babies without having all possible facts on human development and/or abortion.

Certainly all possible facts on development and abortion should be made available. That is what “informed consent” should mean.

Women are being “reproductively oppressed” when others (including mothers and grandmothers) lay selfish reasons on them for not having more children, ignoring the resources and wishes of a woman and her husband.

No, can’t go along with that one. Peer pressure, guilt trip, yes. Oppression, no. Disapproval or disagreement with one’s choices is not the same as oppression.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, that gives me a better idea. The only instance that I can see that could potentially qualify as oppression (cruel, excessive or unjust use of authority or power) is the episode of asking you to sign consent papers when you were not necessarily able to make a clear decision, though I see that more as contravening good medical ethics than “reproductive oppression”…

The prevailing “medical ethics” in this country presumes that women desire contraception and/or sterilization. Doctors especially and other medical professionals are certainly authority figures, and their mere suggestions carry significant weight. It is common for medical professionals to push contraception or sterilization upon women when they are in vulnerable states, and most doing this think they are simply practicing “good medicine.”

The women in poor, underdeveloped countries may be vulnerable due to poverty and disease. Americans have significant “economic power” over the poor in those countries. Much of the economic assistance links along with family planning programs that push contraception. I just read in a link on another thread that 5% of the USAid budget involves family planning–totalling $432 million dollars a year. I think it rather cruel for those who have economic power to link their economic assistance to the poor to contraception. I think it is cruel to put medical authorities in poor communities and try to push contraception on women, suggesting that contraception is the answer to the problem of poverty.

…Peer pressure has only as much power as you choose to allow it to have. There is a great deal of difference between disagreement with or lack of endorsement of your choices and oppression. We choose not to have cable or commercial television. It is certainly not in the mainstream of public opinion…

Great for you that you don’t have cable, and we homeschool too. It takes a strong person to go against the mainstream of public opinion. Many people aren’t as strong, and therefore they are more susceptible to influences from peers and mainstream culture. Notice how much money is spent on comercials on tv–that’s because advertisers find it influences people to buy their products. Contraception is big business, and it makes money by trying to convince people they need it.

While I called it “peer pressure” earlier, the pressure is not “peer pressure” when comes from authority figures such as doctors, teachers, ministers and pastors, and often even parents. Doctors, teachers, pastors and parents are not peers and when such authority figures sometimes collectively expect women to use contraception, it is not surprising that so many women use it. Include with that pressure “advertising pressure” found in magazines and tv, etc. I believe many women have never even considered the option of *not *using contraception because the pressure to use contraception is all around us.

…The comments may be rude, insensitive, annoying, nosy, etc, but I don’t see them as a form of “oppression”. I have one child. I was not “oppressed” by the constant comments before I had a child about that lack of a child (you should have one, you don’t know what you’re missing, you’d better get busy at your age, etc, etc, etc). Nor am I “oppressed” by the constant comments on how much my child needs a sibling, how they could never have stopped with just one, don’t you miss having a baby, etc. (we are parents of an only child and we homeschool, a community that is disproportinately made up of folks with large families). Again, annoying, tiresome, etc but not “oppression”…

Again Karen, I sense that you are a strong woman with a strong opinion and that you are somewhat immune to being influenced or manipulated by those types of comments. Many people are more sensitive to them. A couple struggling with infertility might consider such comments as what others gave (and give) you as beyond just rude or annoying. (Infertility treatments such as IVF are a growing and profitable industry in this country, when charting a woman’s cycle through NFP is a much less expensive and less invasive option. I know that seems a little off topic, but people struggling with infertility help give perspective to the value of fertility.)

 

[rayne89]

There was a report (I wish I could find it now) a few years back where these organizations were doing things like giving the depo-provera shot to women who had no idea it was bc (and using the lanaguage barrier as an excuse). They interviewed women who had been sterilized without their consent or knowledge during c-sections I believe. Or poor women were bribed or bullied into getting sterlized. It’s been a few years so my memory is sketchy but I do remember being horrified that this kind of thing would go on in this day and age.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I certainly don’t see it as oppression when a couple does not have a baby becauseone spouse does not want one. It’s called common sense. …It is not a case of “denying the other partner the chance to try for another child”. A baby is a lifelong commitment. If you are going to try for one, you had better be willing and ready and able to accept the responsibility for that commitment beforehand—they don’t come with gift receipts if it “doesn’t work out”. If you are married, then both spouses better be willing, ready and able to take on the commitment, not just one of them.

I understand how you think and you express yourself very well. I agree it’s not a contest to see which spouse “wins", and both share responsibility for any child conceived as a result of their sexual union. But what you say is “common sense” is *not *common sense. You approach this from a contraceptive mindset and think that babies only happen when couples when they “try for one”. Babies are naturally results from sex. When two people engage in sex–even when using contraception–there is a chance of pregnancy. Therefore, they take on that potential responsibility when they engage in sex.

Trying to bring this back to the original topic, suffice it to say that couples sometimes disagree on the number of children and the use of contraception in marriage. I can foresee that one possible result of “family planning” programs in foreign countries is that they may create conflict between husbands and wives as one spouse may think contraception the answer to their poor economic plight and try to force contraception upon the marriage. When couples disagree regarding family size and spacing, while I know that sometimes it is the woman who doesn’t want a child, in my experience it is more commonly the man.

 

[Petergee]

You used two different words to describe the ways couples do not conceive. These words reflect the difference between contraceptive and non-contraceptive birth control. Contraceptive birth control seeks to prevent conception by working against or altering either the natural, healthy human body or the natural act of sexual intercourse. NFP seeks to avoid conception by placing the natural act of sexual intercourse at certain times in a healthy woman’s natural cycle. We may create our own fake infertility (against conception) or wait for the natural one (no conception to be against).

Exactly. It’s like the difference between tax avoidance (arranging your financial affairs so as to minimise the amount of tax you are legally required to pay) and tax **evasion **(lying to the government about your income and what taxes are due from you). I assure you the government sees a very big and very clear difference between the two.
Similarly, NFP is “conception avoidance” and contraception is “conception evasion”. In addition, “contraceptives” (except for condoms and non-drug-containing diaphragms) also cause abortions.

 

[KarenNC]

But what you say is “common sense” is *not *common sense. You approach this from a contraceptive mindset and think that babies only happen when couples when they “try for one”. Babies are naturally results from sex. When two people engage in sex–even when using contraception–there is a chance of pregnancy. Therefore, they take on that potential responsibility when they engage in sex.

And I take the risk that I will be killed every time I take my car out of my driveway. That does not mean that I don’t buy a car with airbags, seatbelts, etc and use them properly every time in order to greatly decrease the likelihood that that will happen.

No, I do not agree that I approach this particular issue from a “contraceptive mindset”. Absolutely, they take on that potential responsibility. Virtually all forms of birth control are known to occasionally fail even when used perfectly. That is precisely why I advocate (and practice) that sexual intimacy belongs only within the bounds of a committed monogamous relationship where both agree they are ready, able and willing to take on that possible responsibility (as well as all the others that go along with sexual intimacy). This does not mean that they bear no responsibility to each other to make joint decisions as to whether or not to increase or decrease very substantially the likelihood that conception will occur.

It is common sense to realize that one’s actions matter, that one’s odds of conceiving are much greater if one takes no intentional measures to reduce those odds. That reduction may come through a choice of timing of intercourse or use of some other means of birth control.

You framed this in unilateral terms, that your being denied your desire to have another child would automatically be considered “oppression” without seeming to acknowledge that him being denied his desire to not have a child would be equally “oppressive”. I see no inherent reason that one partner’s desire to not have a child (a decision that can be changed at pretty much any time) should not have equal or greater weight than the other partner’s desire to have a child (a choice that, once made, is essentially irrevocable).

I am saying that if anyone is looking at it from that unilateral combative mindset of one vs. the other, that your desire to have a child is obviously inherently much superior to his not to have one, who will “win” and that if you don’t “win” you are being “oppressed”, the marriage is already in pretty substantial trouble.

The decision that one does not want a baby and that one does are not equal options with equal consequences. Neither choice is automatically objectively better or worse, but they are radically different and will have a radically different effect on the marriage and family. It is a decision that has to come jointly.

Trying to bring this back to the original topic, suffice it to say that couples sometimes disagree on the number of children and the use of contraception in marriage. I can foresee that one possible result of “family planning” programs in foreign countries is that they may create conflict between husbands and wives as one spouse may think contraception the answer to their poor economic plight and try to force contraception upon the marriage. When couples disagree regarding family size and spacing, while I know that sometimes it is the woman who doesn’t want a child, in my experience it is more commonly the man.

Based on what I have read, it is pretty much already the case that in many of these third world societies, there are many women already dealing with a lack of ability to have any say in when and whether they have children because of lack of either availability/knowledge of reliable birth control methods or lack of willingness on the part of the man to practice or participate in their use. It is not a situation of even the somewhat equal sharing of power in a relationship that we usually see as the ideal in Western societies. To lack the ability to control whether one even has intercourse in the first place is truly oppression, as is having someone else determine your access to the method of birth control that you have decided is appropriate for your family based on their beliefs rather than yours.

In other words, you believe that sterilization is not a viable option for family planning, but I and my spouse do believe that it is and is the best option for our family. If you force policies that make it extremely difficult or impossible for me or my spouse to be sterilized by our own choice rather than make the various options equally available, then take a guess at who is oppressing whom.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…And I take the risk that I will be killed every time I take my car out of my driveway. That does not mean that I don’t buy a car with airbags, seatbelts, etc and use them properly every time in order to greatly decrease the likelihood that that will happen.

No, I do not agree that I approach this particular issue from a “contraceptive mindset”. …

Karen, you just equated an unplanned pregnancy to a car crash. That is not the mindset of someone who welcomes children as gifts, but sees some as “accidents” --the same word often used to describe a pregnancy when contraception fails. A person’s philosophies affects how she views situations and events. If you don’t think that is a “contraceptive mindset” what mindset would you call it?

…You framed this in unilateral terms, that your being denied your desire to have another child would automatically be considered “oppression” without seeming to acknowledge that him being denied his desire to not have a child would be equally “oppressive”. …In other words, you believe that sterilization is not a viable option for family planning, but I and my spouse do believe that it is and is the best option for our family. If you force policies that make it extremely difficult or impossible for me or my spouse to be sterilized by our own choice rather than make the various options equally available, then take a guess at who is oppressing whom.

Now you bring up why I love the title of this article so much! The issue of “reproductive freedom” verses “reproductive oppression” depends on viewpoint! People who believe in contraception, sterilization and abortion often throw out the accusation that the Church “oppresses reproductive choice” when the* same thing* can be said for secular policies as well. Instead of oppression I find the Church teachings instead to give me greater freedom! That’s why I liked this title and this article so much–it’s all a matter of perspective, and the women of developing nations–aaccording to this article-- seem to share my perspective and see their many children as desirable. They largely don’t want Americans forcing contraceptive policies on them.

Karen, you and I obviously have different viewpoints on this subject, but I appreciate you willingness to discuss our different viewpoints and read a different perspective.

 

[Petergee]

You framed this in unilateral terms, that your being denied your desire to have another child would automatically be considered “oppression” without seeming to acknowledge that him being denied his desire to not have a child would be equally “oppressive”. I see no inherent reason that one partner’s desire to not have a child (a decision that can be changed at pretty much any time) should not have equal or greater weight than the other partner’s desire to have a child (a choice that, once made, is essentially irrevocable).

I am saying that if anyone is looking at it from that unilateral combative mindset of one vs. the other, that your desire to have a child is obviously inherently much superior to his not to have one, who will “win” and that if you don’t “win” you are being “oppressed”, the marriage is already in pretty substantial trouble.

The decision that one does not want a baby and that one does are not equal options with equal consequences. Neither choice is automatically objectively better or worse, but they are radically different and will have a radically different effect on the marriage and family. It is a decision that has to come jointly.

You are arguing from the preconceived assumption that the default option is for a married couple NOT to have children unless they make a joint decision and “plan” TO HAVE a child on each individual occasion. Like the decision to buy a new car. Your whole concept of marriage is awry. Marriage is inherently and fundamentally ordered towards the conception and upbringing of the spouses’ children. The decision to attempt to delay this, or even defer it indefinitely, is a grave one to be undertaken only for grave reasons, and naturally only with the full and free consent of both spouses.

Based on what I have read, it is pretty much already the case that in many of these third world societies, there are many women already dealing with a lack of ability to have any say in when and whether they have children because of lack of either availability/knowledge of reliable birth control methods or lack of willingness on the part of the man to practice or participate in their use. It is not a situation of even the somewhat equal sharing of power in a relationship that we usually see as the ideal in Western societies. To lack the ability to control whether one even has intercourse in the first place is truly oppression, as is having someone else determine your access to the method of birth control that you have decided is appropriate for your family based on their beliefs rather than yours.

In other words, you believe that sterilization is not a viable option for family planning, but I and my spouse do believe that it is and is the best option for our family. If you force policies that make it extremely difficult or impossible for me or my spouse to be sterilized by our own choice rather than make the various options equally available, then take a guess at who is oppressing whom.

Yes, yes, we’ve all heard the constant propaganda of the contraceptive/abortion marketers. But none have produced evidence to support the claims on which they base their relentless pushing of their products onto unwilling women. WHERE is the evidence that there is a shortage of contraceptives anywhere in the world? It is the one “health” product which is freely available by the millions everywhere. “Catholic” countries included. WHERE is the evidence that people are clamouring for access to them and being denied? It’s a fantasy invented by rich white racist oppressors trying to sell their products to those who can least afford them and plainly don’t want them.

“To lack the ability to control whether one even has intercourse in the first place” is not just “oppression”, it’s RAPE and should be treated as such. To treat it as merely a problem of not enough contraception, is breathtakingly insulting, patronising and offensive to the victims of this atrocity.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, you just equated an unplanned pregnancy to a car crash. That is not the mindset of someone who welcomes children as gifts, but sees some as “accidents” --the same word often used to describe a pregnancy when contraception fails. A person’s philosophies affects how she views situations and events. If you don’t think that is a “contraceptive mindset” what mindset would you call it?

A realistic one. An unplanned pregnancy is indeed an accident. It can have much more life-altering effects than a car accident. Even a gift does not always come without complicated strings attached or without a great deal of stress. I love children, but that does not mean that I believe that they are an unmixed blessing to the parent who does not have the resources to feed, clothe, shelter or provide a safe environment for the children she already has, much less another one.

Now you bring up why I love the title of this article so much! The issue of “reproductive freedom” verses “reproductive oppression” depends on viewpoint! People who believe in contraception, sterilization and abortion often throw out the accusation that the Church “oppresses reproductive choice” when the* same thing* can be said for secular policies as well.

I would say rather that any oppression results from limiting choices for others based on one’s own beliefs instead of actually presenting accurate information on all available options and allowing them to make their own choices based on their beliefs and value systems.

Instead of oppression I find the Church teachings instead to give me greater freedom! That’s why I liked this title and this article so much–it’s all a matter of perspective, and the women of developing nations–aaccording to this article-- seem to share my perspective and see their many children as desirable. They largely don’t want Americans forcing contraceptive policies on them.

I have yet to see something that backs up that contraceptive policies that actually forcibly “deny a woman the right to have more children” are being put into place by the US in foreign countries. Instead, I see that options are being made available to those women who do desire them. I am not saying that those options could not stand to be expanded, especially if the recipients are asking for instruction in things such as NFP and such is not being provided.

As for the article, I would not necessarily say that the attitudes toward pregnancy of women who have lost their entire families to war are a representative sample of the attitudes toward pregnancy of all women in third world countries.

 

[KarenNC]

You are arguing from the preconceived assumption that the default option is for a married couple NOT to have children unless they make a joint decision and “plan” TO HAVE a child on each individual occasion.

No, I am arguing from the assumption that a couple’s decision on the having and spacing of children is a personal one that should be able to be made in accordance with their own beliefs and values, not imposed by someone else. If they choose to not practice birth control at a given point or at all, that is entirely up to them.

Yes, yes, we’ve all heard the constant propaganda of the contraceptive/abortion marketers. But none have produced evidence to support the claims on which they base their relentless pushing of their products onto unwilling women. WHERE is the evidence that there is a shortage of contraceptives anywhere in the world? It is the one “health” product which is freely available by the millions everywhere. “Catholic” countries included. WHERE is the evidence that people are clamouring for access to them and being denied? It’s a fantasy invented by rich white racist oppressors trying to sell their products to those who can least afford them and plainly don’t want them.

unfpa.org/mothers/contraceptive.htm

If these women do not want some means of family planning that allows them to avoid or space pregnancy, then what is your explanation for the abortion rate in third world countries?

“To lack the ability to control whether one even has intercourse in the first place” is not just “oppression”, it’s RAPE and should be treated as such. To treat it as merely a problem of not enough contraception, is breathtakingly insulting, patronising and offensive to the victims of this atrocity.

Rape has been used as a means of true oppression of women for millenia.

I have never said that rape is a “problem of not enough contraception”. I said that a woman’s lack of control over the sexual use of her own body is truly oppression, much greater than any peer pressure faced by those who simply face the fact that not everyone wholeheartedly endorses their reproductive choices.

Unplanned pregnancy is not just a case of a “happy extra blessing” for a married couple. NFP is not going to work in a couple where the man feels he owns the woman’s body to do with as and when he pleases, just as it is not likely that he is going to use a condom. Neither are these going to work in war situations where women are routinely raped by soldiers. The Catholic Church acknowledges this. See findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_37/ai_71250738

"A Spanish bishop raised eyebrows in late January [2001] by stating that religious women living in war zones or other places where there is danger of rape can legitimately use oral contraceptives to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Despite skeptical reactions from some quarters, one of Rome’s foremost Catholic moral theologians says the bishop did nothing more than re-state official church policy that dates back at least 40 years…"

 

[Petergee]

No, I am arguing from the assumption that a couple’s decision on the having and spacing of children is a personal one that should be able to be made in accordance with their own beliefs and values, not imposed by someone else. If they choose to not practice birth control at a given point or at all, that is entirely up to them.

You’re still saying it. You assume a priori that every married couple is obliged to do everything possible, regardless of any moral or any other objections, to prevent children being born, unless and until (which may be never) they choose not to practice birth control. You’re imposing your contrary and upside-down view of marriage upon them.

unfpa.org/mothers/contraceptive.htm

If these women do not want some means of family planning that allows them to avoid or space pregnancy, then what is your explanation for the abortion rate in third world countries?

Incredible. This page is exactly the sort of totally unfounded propaganda about “unmet need” for contraception and abortion that the OP was talking about, and yet you link it in the belief that it actually supports your argument.
But it gets worse. The page actually goes so far as to declare that women who “distrust or dislike the methods that are available” are single, “are ambivalent about whether they want a child or are unsure about their ability to become pregnant” or “live with a partner who does not approve of contraception or who wants them to become pregnant”, must have an “unmet need” for contraceptives. So these people sitting on armchairs in New York not only dismiss the fact that 3rd world women are saying that they don’t want contraceptives. But even the fact that they are saying they don’t want them or are ambivalent about them is itself evidence that they have an "unmet need " for them, according to the rich white racists in the FPA who self-righteously profess they only want to “save women’s lives”. Pretty sickening. Self-contradictory too. On another page they admit that “Four out of five maternal deaths are the direct result of obstetric complications, most of whihc could be averted through delivery with a skilled birth attendant and access to emergency obstetric care.” That is, it’s not the supposed “unmet need” for contraception and abortion that’s killing women, it’s lack of obstetric care. Largely because the “women’s health” budget has been overwhelmingly diverted to contraception, abortion and sterilisation.

Rape has been used as a means of true oppression of women for millenia.

I have never said that rape is a “problem of not enough contraception”. I said that a woman’s lack of control over the sexual use of her own body is truly oppression, much greater than any peer pressure faced by those who simply face the fact that not everyone wholeheartedly endorses their reproductive choices.

No-one claimed it wasn’t. You brought rape into the argument purely as an emotional red herring.

Unplanned pregnancy is not just a case of a “happy extra blessing” for a married couple. NFP is not going to work in a couple where the man feels he owns the woman’s body to do with as and when he pleases, just as it is not likely that he is going to use a condom.

Wait, you just claimed that you weren’t saying that contraception is the issue in cases of rape. Now you’re saying it is again.

Neither are these going to work in war situations where women are routinely raped by soldiers. The Catholic Church acknowledges this. See findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_37/ai_71250738

"A Spanish bishop raised eyebrows in late January [2001] by stating that religious women living in war zones or other places where there is danger of rape can legitimately use oral contraceptives to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Despite skeptical reactions from some quarters, one of Rome’s foremost Catholic moral theologians says the bishop did nothing more than re-state official church policy that dates back at least 40 years…"

Irrelevant and moving the goalposts. We are not talking about protecting women who are in danger of rape, which as you point out the Catholic Church endorses. We are talking about the BS constantly being pumped out by the contraceptive/abortion industry and its supporters, that millions of women (who are not in danger of rape) are clamouring for contraceptives and unable to obtain them.

 

[KarenNC]

You assume a priori that every married couple is obliged to do everything possible, regardless of any moral or any other objections, to prevent children being born, unless and until (which may be never) they choose not to practice birth control. You’re imposing your contrary and upside-down view of marriage upon them.

Nope, I am saying that it is up to the couple to decide for themselves based on their own beliefs and values and family situation when and whether they want to have a child and what measures they choose to take to either decrease or increase the likelihood that they will do so. Not for you to decide, not for me to decide, not for the Catholic Church to decide, not for the government to decide. That is diametrically the opposite of claiming that “every married couple is obliged to do everyting possible to prevent children being born”. Couple A should be just as free to plan to have as many children as they can support as Couple B should be to have none. The means by which they choose to go about either of those goals should be up to them, a decision made jointly between the spouses based on their values, beliefs and individual family circumstances.

In what possible way can I “impose” my view of marriage on anyone?

Incredible. This page is exactly the sort of totally unfounded propaganda about “unmet need” for contraception and abortion that the OP was talking about, and yet you link it in the belief that it actually supports your argument.

It is a report from the United Nations about the availabliity of options for birth control for those women who have stated that they want to either delay pregnancy or stop having children.

But it gets worse. The page actually goes so far as to declare that women who “distrust or dislike the methods that are available” are single, “are ambivalent about whether they want a child or are unsure about their ability to become pregnant” or “live with a partner who does not approve of contraception or who wants them to become pregnant”, must have an “unmet need” for contraceptives.

No, it does not. It says:
"In fact, high quality family planning services are often not available: One evaluation of family planning programmes in 88 developing countries concludes that family planning services are routinely made available to women at reasonable cost in only 14 countries.
In many developing countries, at least a third of women need contraceptive services. However,

• Some women do not know about modern methods, are unable to obtain or afford them, or distrust or dislike the methods that are available
• Single women and teenagers may be barred from obtaining contraceptive services
• Other women are ambivalent about whether they want a child or are unsure about their ability to become pregnant
• Still others live with a partner who does not approve of contraception or who wants them to become pregnant

UNFPA is committed to closing the gap between the number of individuals who use contraceptives and those who would like to delay, space or limit their families. UNFPA supports family planning services in countries around the world, usually within a broader context of reproductive health services. "

Did you happen to read my posts on the issue of couples who are ambivalent about pregnancy or where one spouse wants a child and the other does not? I believe that was fully addressed there.

cont.

 

[KarenNC]

cont from above

So these people sitting on armchairs in New York not only dismiss the fact that 3rd world women are saying that they don’t want contraceptives. But even the fact that they are saying they don’t want them or are ambivalent about them is itself evidence that they have an "unmet need " for them, according to the rich white racists in the FPA who self-righteously profess they only want to “save women’s lives”. Pretty sickening. Self-contradictory too.

“Rich white racists sitting on armchairs in NY”? Here are the photos of the last three directors of the United Nations
unfpa.org/ed/previous.htm and unfpa.org/ed/photos.htm. The first director was a man from the Phillipines, followed by a Pakistani female doctor, the current director is a Saudi Arabian woman. There are links to their biographies so that others can actually judged based on facts whether or not they meet your lovely description.

Being ambivalent about or not wanting a particular form of birth control is not equivalent to saying that one does not desire birth control. It means that one is not currently available that meets the needs of that particular couple who desires to delay or prevent pregnancy at a particular time.

Again, personally, I was not okay with the idea of an IUD, Depo-Provera or several other forms of birth control. That does not mean I did not need or desire a form of birth control that actually met my needs. It means that if IUDs and Depo-Provera were the only options available to me, then it would be accurate to say that I would indeed have an unmet need.

On another page they admit that “Four out of five maternal deaths are the direct result of obstetric complications, most of whihc could be averted through delivery with a skilled birth attendant and access to emergency obstetric care.” That is, it’s not the supposed “unmet need” for contraception and abortion that’s killing women, it’s lack of obstetric care. Largely because the “women’s health” budget has been overwhelmingly diverted to contraception, abortion and sterilisation.

The page you reference is unfpa.org/mothers/facts.htm for those who want to see what it actually says. The page is a list of factors related to safe motherhood. I would encourage folks to read the entire page for the context of this statement.

Under the “lack of contraceptives and consequences of unsafe abortions” section we have (my emphasis added):
About 90 per cent of global abortion-related deaths and disabilities could be avoided if **women who wanted effective contraception **had access to it.

Abortion is overwhelmingly a response to an unwanted pregnancy. Access to a method of birth control that is affordable, accessible and that both the woman and her partner are willing to use in accordance with their own beliefs and values reduces the chances of unwanted pregnancy. In what way is preventing unwanted pregnancy and thereby reducing the demand for abortion a bad thing? I can see that we differ on the preferred mechanism for that based on our personal beliefs, but in the end, it is not the beliefs of you or me that matter, it is the beliefs of the couple in question.

The statement you reference is under “Lack of access to skilled assistance and emergency obstetric care”. Access to skilled birth assistance and emergency obstetric care is another goal and program supported by this agency.

Women die or are disabled from abortions sought to end unwanted pregnancy. Women also die or are disabled from complications of pregnancy. Different issues, different ways to try to alleviate the problem.

Personally, I am one of those women who, even with the readily available healthcare here in the US, faces a high likelihood of death of both me and my child if I were to become pregnant again. I and my husband are extremely grateful that we had access to the birth control method of our choice, one that worked with our family situation, medical situation and values.

No-one claimed it wasn’t.

No, you claimed that I said it wasn’t. I corrected you.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There was a report (I wish I could find it now) a few years back where these organizations were doing things like giving the depo-provera shot to women who had no idea it was bc (and using the lanaguage barrier as an excuse). They interviewed women who had been sterilized without their consent or knowledge during c-sections I believe. Or poor women were bribed or bullied into getting sterlized. It’s been a few years so my memory is sketchy but I do remember being horrified that this kind of thing would go on in this day and age.

I searched for these type of stories and found several. Here’s a sample:

Forced sterilization in Mexico with ties to the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) pop.org/main.cfm?EID=426

In Vietnam**,** this report say there have been mandatory birth control policies with forced abortion, also with ties to the UNFPA. pop.org/main.cfm?EID=607

In India, financial incentives for sterilization and/or having two or fewer children; voting rights denied to couples with more than two children.
lifesite.net/ldn/2002/aug/02081602.html Also from India a “sterilization quota” with sanctions or job loss for not meeting the quota lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022406.html

Forced sterilization and abortion in **Peru **which apparently had some ties to funding by US AID lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00031602.html pop.org/main.cfm?EID=588 and pop.org/main.cfm?EID=474

In the Phillipines the World Health Organization administered some vaccines tainted an anti-pregnancy agent that caused many miscarriages
lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03013003.html

 

[gardenswithkids]

“… UNFPA supports family planning services in countries around the world, …”

Some may be interested to learn that UNFPA support for “family planning” services includes the country of China. The Chinese “one-child policy” with it’s forced sterilization, forced abortion and other atrocities is a prime example of reproductive oppression.

lifesite.net/ldn/2001/oct/011005c.html

“PRI believes that, despite UNFPA claims to the contrary, there is no real distinction between the one-child policy as carried out in the 32 counties where the UNFPA is active and the one-child policy found throughout China as a whole.
We believe that the evidence is conclusive: The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China…”
“In every village in one UNFPA county, billboard propaganda urges women to help the economy by complying with family planning policies. PRI interviewed dozens of other women and men, all of whom confirmed-without exception-that **voluntarism is non-existent **in this county where UNFPA operates.”

pop.org/main.cfm?EID=590

Powell issued a letter on July 21, 2002, which concludes that UNFPA supports forced abortion in China,…The UNFPA itself remains unapologetic about its support of China’s coercive one-child policy. In fact, it has just announced it will expand its operations in China. …

state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/48592.htm

The U.S. opposition to this program is a matter of principle. It is not directed at UNFPA as an institution. Rather, it is based on the strong opposition of the United States to human rights abuses associated with coercive birth limitation regimes. …UNFPA’s continuing support for the Chinese coercive birth-limitation program unfortunately provides a *de facto *UN “seal of approval” on these activities. UNFPA should insist that all coercion end in the counties where it operates.

 

[Petergee]

“Rich white racists sitting on armchairs in NY”? Here are the photos of the last three directors of the United Nations
unfpa.org/ed/previous.htm and unfpa.org/ed/photos.htm.

As I said, three white faces, though admittedly the man looks a bit tanned.

The first director was a man from the Phillipines, followed by a Pakistani female doctor, the current director is a Saudi Arabian woman.

As if pakistan and saudi arabia are in the forefront of the struggle for women’s equality.

No, you claimed that I said it wasn’t. I corrected you.

OK congratulations you’ve twisted the thing around on itself so many times I now can’t follow what you’re talking about. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[KarenNC]

I searched for these type of stories and found several.

I agree that any cases of forced sterilization, forced abortion or covert administration of contraceptives qualifies as oppressive and should be denounced.

However, I don’t see evidence for your claims of Americans as “forcing contraceptive policies on them”, “wealthy, greedy bigots (of any color) who seek to reduce the population in developing nations because they wish to exploit the people and resources of those nations”, or that US economic assistance is given only if countries put into place policies that require such acts.