Reproductive Oppression

[gardenswithkids]

… I see better as more ability to control things that affect my health and that of my family.

A big problem that I have with the population control movement (that is largely behind the international effort to promote the use of contraception) is it wants to take the “control” away from the “population”. Governments and international agencies should not play God or plan other people’s families.

Pretty obviously, those women who seek abortions to end unwanted pregnancies, even when they are illegal, are crying out for “better” options…

Yes I think you are right that many women who resort to abortions* seek* better, but abortion is not better.

…I can’t honestly say that I believe that to a woman who is already unable to care for her existing children due to lack of resources a new pregnancy that she did not want is automatically “better”. …To tell that woman it is better that she should have no choice in whether or when she gets pregnant again is what I find just as oppressive as anything else.

Certainly, I agree that “better” includes the ability to have an equal opportunity to choose or space one’s pregnancies within the parameters of one’s values, beliefs and resources as any other woman.

I want to offer women and their families the better and best choices. In order to offer better and best choices, we need to properly understand sex, love and reproduction.

Sex is a very powerful human drive. The sex drive is usually a large motivating factor when men and women falling in love. When properly ordered, the sex act expresses the love between husband and wife and that “two become one” union may result in a child. Keeping the natural link between the sexual act and the possibility of pregnancy helps keep the sex drive properly ordered toward love.

Due to health, finacial or other reasons, some couples feel the need to avoid pregnancy. NFP is a method of birth control that requires couples to monitor a woman’s fertility and then them decide based on their individual circumstances what’s “best” for them. If the couple discerns they should not have another child, then out of love for each other and their existing children they abstain from sexual relations when the woman is fertile. You wrote much earlier that one problem you see with NFP as a form of birth control is that the men may be unwilling to use it. I think that both partners use it makes it a “better” method of birth control. NFP gives couples *more *choices and more control, as they decide to act or not act, rather than other methods that require no self control and that can not be easily reversed should the family’s circumstances change.

Keeping sex associated with the possibility of pregnancy and within marriage helps women avoid exploitation. Promiscuity and unplanned pregnancies increased after contraception became widely accepted in Western Civilization. Abortion increased. Pornography increased. Disordered sex drives can lead to the sexual exploitation of women. In some nations, such disordered lust results in the actual enslavement of women and children in sex trade. Lust, prostitution and pornography degrades women and men.

 

[KarenNC]

A big problem that I have with the population control movement (that is largely behind the international effort to promote the use of contraception) is it wants to take the “control” away from the “population”. Governments and international agencies should not play God or plan other people’s families.

Hence my objection to forced policies, either of forced abortion/sterilization/etc or forced lack of access to contraception/punitive measures against those that desire to use such.

Yes I think you are right that many women who resort to abortions* seek* better, but abortion is not better.

I quite agree. Proactive measures to prevent pregnancy are much better. I know of no one who is happy at the chance to have an abortion or anyone who had an abortion who considered it an easy decision. It is without exception a tragic situation for all involved.

You wrote much earlier that one problem you see with NFP as a form of birth control is that the men may be unwilling to use it. I think that both partners use it makes it a “better” method of birth control. NFP gives couples *more *choices and more control, as they decide to act or not act, rather than other methods that require no self control and that can not be easily reversed should the family’s circumstances change.

All methods require some measure of self control and there are many that can just as easily be reversed. Condom usage comes to mind immediately as fitting both criteria. I understand that you think that NFP is best. No problem with that, but it would not have been best for my family. We made the choice that was best for us out of the available options. I am advocating options so that people can indeed choose what is best in their terms.

Promiscuity and unplanned pregnancies increased after contraception became widely accepted in Western Civilization. Abortion increased. Pornography increased.

What is the date (year, at least a rough estimate) at which you would consider contraception became widely accepted in Western Civilization? Are you speaking of one form or all forms? Could you link to the studies that show the above, as I am not familiar with them?

Disordered sex drives can lead to the sexual exploitation of women. In some nations, such disordered lust results in the actual enslavement of women and children in sex trade. Lust, prostitution and pornography degrades women and men.

Very true.

 

[KarenNC]

My experience is that **virtually all non-Catholics **leap to the same conclusion. A few Catholics leap to this conclusion, but I’ve never heard of a Catholic leaping to this conclusion about somebody whom they knew is a Catholic.

I am not talking only of people that other people know to be Catholic. Non-Catholics, in my experience, may well assume that the small family is using some form of contraception, but they do not assume and state that the family is sinful for doing so, which is a separate issue. Most non-Catholics in the US that I have encountered would also assume that most Catholics with small families are also using some form of contraception, because they likely are

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/02/opinion/polls/main685025_page4.shtml
"*Historically, views of most Catholics on the issue of birth control have been in opposition to that of Church doctrine. In a poll conducted in April 2002, 71 percent of Catholics favored the use of artificial methods of birth control. These views have not changed very much over the years. 64 percent of Catholics favored the use of artificial methods of birth control in 1987; and in 1985, when those who were raised Catholic were asked about birth control use, seven in 10 said they favored using artificial methods of birth control.

Even a majority of the most devout Catholics support the use of artificial birth control methods. In 2002, 59 percent of Catholics who went to church weekly favored the use of birth control; 34 percent opposed. In the same survey, six-in-10 people who called themselves “strong” Catholics said they favored the use of artificial methods of birth control.* "

But in this case most of the blame should go to the fact that the majority of couples in Western societies with 2 or fewer children, have used contraception. These days it’s all too easy to assume that the couple you’ve just met are just another one of the majority.

It is not an issue of “blame” it is an issue of fact. This is, as you support, the automatic assumption of most people about small families unless they are Catholic and happen to know or believe that the family in question is Catholic (and “good” Catholic at that). I will agree that the issue of viewing these small families as sinful is primarily a Catholic view of non-Catholics.

My mother was an only child. Her parents were very poor and used NFP to avoid having further children. Nobody in those days ever leapt to the conclusion that they had contracepted.

And you would know this how about your grandparents’ generation? You are in Australia, and, while you do not list your age, I am presuming that it your mother was likely born in the first half of the twentieth century. Birth control measures other than NFP were far from unknown or unused.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCG/is_2_17/ai_105657389/pg_13 has some interesting information comparing the use of various forms of contraception (including the rhythm method) between Australian and English couples, including the marriage cohort from 1941-1950.

www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/australia.html#9
“According to Siedlecky and Wyndham (1990), there have been six successive waves of contraceptive innovation in Australia; the main methods used in the early part of the century were condoms, douching, withdrawal, and abortion. Later, quinine pessaries and other spermicides were the most-used methods. By the late 1940s, the diaphragm, first introduced in the 1920s, became popular, and the intrauterine device during the 1950s and early 1960s.”

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I understand that you think that NFP is best…

To make my position clear, I think the best is when couples do not need to avoid pregnancy because there is adequate resources, health, etc. to welcome any children that may result from their marriage union. That is the ideal. When for health, financial or other reasons couples discern that they should postpone or prevent pregancy, then I consider NFP* better* than artificial contraception or sterlization.

(I avoided the NFP vs. artificial contraception discussion earlier in this thread because not every couple needs or wants to attempt to avoid pregnancy. I didn’t want this thread to get off on the “NFP vs. ABC” tangent which is found so frequently in discussions this forum. I brought NFP up now because you said, “To tell that woman it is better that she should have no choice in whether or when she gets pregnant again is what I find just as oppressive as anything else.” I wanted to make it clear that wasn’t my position either.)

 

[Petergee]

I am not talking only of people that other people know to be Catholic. Non-Catholics, in my experience, may well assume that the small family is using some form of contraception, but they do not assume and state that the family is sinful for doing so, which is a separate issue. Most non-Catholics in the US that I have encountered would also assume that most Catholics with small families are also using some form of contraception, because they likely are

It is not an issue of “blame” it is an issue of fact. This is, as you support, the automatic assumption of most people about small families unless they are Catholic and happen to know or believe that the family in question is Catholic (and “good” Catholic at that).

Thank you, I’m glad we agree. So why did you bash Catholics for leaping to the same conclusioin which non-Catholics even more commonly leap to?

I will agree that the issue of viewing these small families as sinful is primarily a Catholic view of non-Catholics.

You’re not “agreeing” with the Catholic view. Small families are not sinful. Use of contraception is sinful, regardless of whether one has zero, two or 20 children.

various forms of contraception (including the rhythm method)

The rhythm method was **not **contraception. Why do you keep making this false assertion?

And you would know this how about your grandparents’ generation?

Because my grandparents told me, obviously. They did speak to me quite often.
Yes you are correct, contraceptives were freely available in Australia through the 20th century. That is exactly my point, that despite this nobody assumed my grandparents were using them just because they had only one child. OK, to be precise, I suppose it is possible that some people did assume it but never voiced their assumption.

 

[Petergee]

I disputed that abortions, sterilizations and the use of contraception are forced on women in developing countries by US as a condition of receiving economic aid. I still don’t see evidence of that as US policy.

Here’s some for you:
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020408.html

Dr. Edward C. Green, PhD, an AIDS prevention worker and senior research scientist at the Harvard Center for Population and Development says that the success of Uganda’s AIDS prevention program has so infuriated Western AIDS prevention groups, they are willing to destroy it rather than change their condoms-only approach.

……….

Green writes that foreign donors have been systematically undermining Uganda’s successful model. Now condom advertising is ‘ubiquitous’ in Uganda and there are currently no plans for interventions that promote fidelity or partner reduction. “Indeed,” Green says, “with rare exceptions, they have simply refused to pay for” such programs.

This shift has not been the work of Ugandans themselves. Senator Sam Brownback, after a trip to Uganda, said, “African leaders are growing resentful that U.S. dollars are contingent upon acceptance,” of condoms. Brownback said the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, is “in a battle with Western donors,” to keep condom promotion out of his innovative AIDS program.

Green concludes, “It is by no means clear that empirical evidence can overcome ideological blinders or compete with the big business in pharmaceutical products that AIDS prevention has become.”

Do you agree with Petergee that “Western civilizations impose enormous economic burdens on people with families” (ie burdens beyond those that are engendered by having children, period, regardless of the location of that family)? If so, perhaps you could lay out what those are (other than the fact that I cannot send my small child out to work in a factory or on the streets to earn her keep or raise family income because of child labor laws)?

Well I suppose if a couple in a Western country chose to try to impose “third world” conditions on themselves, and gave away most of their possessions and tried to live as subsistence farmers with no machines or mod cons, then having an extra child would eventually be an economic advantage. Though even if the parents were crazy enough to do this, if the children had any sense they would run away as soon as they were of age.

Yes, parents do in theory have this “choice” to evade societal oppression, but it hardly makes it less oppressive.

What folks seem to not be answering from the post to which you refer is the core question: “Is it inherently oppression or punitive for a government to offer financial incentives in order to manipulate population growth?”

Yes, if they are intended to deliberately discourage couples from conceiving and bearing children, and so undermining marriages.

 

[KarenNC]

To make my position clear, I think the best is when couples do not need to avoid pregnancy because there is adequate resources, health, etc. to welcome any children that may result from their marriage union. That is the ideal. When for health, financial or other reasons couples discern that they should postpone or prevent pregancy, then I consider NFP* better* than artificial contraception or sterlization.

Agreed. In an ideal world, that would be the case. I fully understand that there are couples who will consider that NFP is superior to any other means of preventing pregnancy. No issue there. We didn’t.

(I avoided the NFP vs. artificial contraception discussion earlier in this thread because not every couple needs or wants to attempt to avoid pregnancy. I didn’t want this thread to get off on the “NFP vs. ABC” tangent which is found so frequently in discussions this forum. I brought NFP up now because you said, “To tell that woman it is better that she should have no choice in whether or when she gets pregnant again is what I find just as oppressive as anything else.” I wanted to make it clear that wasn’t my position either.)

Absolutely not every couple needs or wants to do this. Those couples are not the issue. It is the ones who do. I believe they should have access to the same range of options and freedom of choice in that arena that you and I do, regardless of where they live, so that they can find a way that works within their individual situation, resources, values and beliefs.

 

[hasikelee]

Ugh, this thread gives me a stomach ache. Some people are so sheltered from real life and what goes on in the world. Take a 101 international class or go visit a country or something. :banghead:

It is very discouraging to listen to fellow Americans argue so confidently when they have no idea about the horrors, unspeakable pain and suffering, that goes on in some places of the world (even in America itself).

Choice smoice. How did America end up so sheltered?

P.s. the subtopic going on in this thread about NFP will never be resolved until the debators agree what “contraception” means. Obviously, if a person defines contraception as a barrier of or destruction of fertility, then NFP is not contraception. Many people confuse methods to control or space pregnancy with actual contraceptive methods. This little definition issue will ruin the whole debate.

 

[KarenNC]

Here’s some for you:
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020408.html

That is not the picture that I see painted here:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4195968.stm

mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=249282&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/

Well I suppose if a couple in a Western country chose to try to impose “third world” conditions on themselves, and gave away most of their possessions and tried to live as subsistence farmers with no machines or mod cons, then having an extra child would eventually be an economic advantage. Though even if the parents were crazy enough to do this, if the children had any sense they would run away as soon as they were of age.

Yes, parents do in theory have this “choice” to evade societal oppression, but it hardly makes it less oppressive.

So far, the only evidences you have presented of this “economic oppression” is that families are expected to provide basic levels of nutritious food, clothing, shelter, education and health care for any children they produce as well as for themselves. Gardenswithkids has added to it the need to buy a larger vehicle to hold car seats for the children a family chooses to have.

I fail to see how the expectation to provide basic care is inherently more oppressive than the same expectations which exist worldwide. Now I do agree that the percentage of the economic resources required to do so are indeed different in developed vs. lesser developed countries, but I see that percentage as much higher in the lesser developed countries, particularly those in which there is no access to government supported education and health care or supports for the poor through social services.

The only way in which one can realistically examine the economic impact of childbearing on a family is in relation to its resources. One has to look at what proportion of its resources are required to meet the basic needs (not wants) of rearing the child.

If in the US a loaf of bread costs $3 and the average hourly wage is $16.75, then it takes about 18% of an hour’s work to buy a loaf of bread in that economy if one earns the average. If one earns the minimum wage (currently $5.85, due to increase soon), it takes 51% of an hour’s work to buy the same loaf of bread. If one has a larger family, one has to buy more loaves of bread and spend a larger proportion of one’s economic resources and earning time to do so. That is a sheer physical fact, not oppression. More people consume more food.

Drain on economic resources will fall proportionately harder on the poor in any economy because they get less income from an equal time of work (if work is available to them). Most of the world’s poor (as measured against an absolute poverty line) live in developing countries. Drain on economic resources will fall harder on households who have larger numbers of people to feed relative to the number of wage earners regardless of income level and hence need a larger number of loaves of bread from the same income than smaller households.

igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/summer2001/poverty.html (my emphasis)
"As the media presented retrospectives on the 20th century, they gave ample space to its human-made horrors: six million murdered in the German holocaust, 30 million starved to death in Mao?s Great Leap Forward, 11 million wiped out by Stalin, two million killed by the Khmer Rouge, half a million hacked to death in Rwanda. When there are earthquakes, storms, and floods, we have them on the evening news, with footage of desperate parents grieving for their dead children.

What is not mentioned in the retrospectives and not shown on the evening news are the ordinary deaths from starvation and preventable diseases; some 200 million in just the few years since the end of the Cold War. Most of these 18 million dying each year are children whose parents simply cannot afford to give them access to safe water, nutritious food, vaccines, or basic medications. "

The vast majority of families in Western countries are far from “economically oppressed” in these terms. These are the people that I say should have as much access to reliable means to space or prevent pregnancy as anyone in a Western country, not because the children are a bit inconvenient to their plans to travel (as shown in one of your articles) but because it might help their children survive.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I quite agree. Proactive measures to prevent pregnancy are much better. I know of no one who is happy at the chance to have an abortion or anyone who had an abortion who considered it an easy decision. It is without exception a tragic situation for all involved.

…What is the date (year, at least a rough estimate) at which you would consider contraception became widely accepted in Western Civilization? Are you speaking of one form or all forms? Could you link to the studies that show the above, as I am not familiar with them?

Here are a couple of resources that probably won’t interest you since it appears you have made up your mind.

*In Canada, the “birth control pill”, was legalized in 1969, the same year that abortion was made legal. The following year, Canada Statistics reported 11, 152 abortions. Today that number is sadly 106,418. A ten-fold increase in abortions since 1970 has occurred during a period of unprecedented contraceptive use. The World Health Organization reports that “among Canadian women age 15–44, 86% report using contraception [the pill]”. *

The World Health Organization (WHO) …WHO notes “between 1987 and 1994, the rate of teenage pregnancy rose by more than 20%.” “The out-of-wedlock birth rate to sexually-experienced teens did not decline from 1988 to 1995, but actually increased 29%, despite a 33% increase in the use of condoms.” 8

adolescent women who are not married but cohabiting experience a failure rate of about 47% in the first year of contraceptive use. 9

Source:http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004_docs/contraceptionmisconception.htm

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.o...=4321&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary

According the a 1994 report by the Guttmacher Institute 43 percent of women will have an abortion by age 45 *Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, 1994

(Please note: this statistic is from the United States where contraceptives are readily available and their use is highly promoted.)

Also from http://www.prolifeaction.org/cgi-bi...l=http://www.prolifeaction.org/cinta/case.htm

"At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.” —Alfred Kinsey, 1955

“As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.”
—Abortionist Malcolm Potts, 1976

“There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.”
—Abortionist Judith Bury, 1981

 

[KarenNC]

Here are a couple of resources that probably won’t interest you since it appears you have made up your mind.

No, they do interest me. It is a question of defining terms so that one can actually discuss them. Apparently when you say “contraception” you actually mean “birth control pills and/or legal abortion” rather than all forms of contraception. That is what I wanted to ascertain. I mean “any method that seeks to prevent a pregnancy while still allowing sexual intercourse”. Condoms have been readily available for centuries to a greater or lesser extent and to a greater or lesser degree of reliability, as have other means of contraception such as IUDs, sterilization, male withdrawal, douching with various substances, pessaries, abortion (legal or illegal), etc.

I don’t see that they show evidence that contraception causes an increase in abortion. If that were the case, I think you would agree that we should be seeing a continual steady increase in the number of abortion and rates of abortion in the US, which we do not. Access to legal abortion certainly does increase the number of legal abortions.

Contraception has not become less available in the US, but the abortion rate, ratio and sheer number have shown a pretty steady decline

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

*Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2004, a total of 839,226 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This change represents a 1.1% decline from 2003, for which 49 areas reported 848,163 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).

The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1; Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2004, the abortion ratio was 238 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas and 239 for the same 47 reporting areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable, at 23–24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during 1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–2002 both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. During 2003–2004, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000, decreased to 15 per 1,000 in 2003, and to 16 in 2004 in the 47 reporting areas.
*

cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#010
shows that in the US, the percentage of out of wedlock births to women under the age of 20 dropped from 50% to 23.7%, though it did rise in women over age 25 (from 18% to 37.8%) between 1970 and 2004.

That’s a start. May not get back to answer more fully for a while as the schedule is pretty packed through Sunday afternoon.

 

[gardenswithkids]

No, they do interest me. It is a question of defining terms so that one can actually discuss them. Apparently when you say “contraception” you actually mean “birth control pills and/or legal abortion” rather than all forms of contraception.

You misunderstand me. I included abortion stats after introduction of the birth control pill in Canada because you asked for evidence that contraception corresponds to increased abortion

That is what I wanted to ascertain. I mean “any method that seeks to prevent a pregnancy while still allowing sexual intercourse”.

I don’t consider NFP to be contraceptive, nor do I believe it even fits with your description of contraception. Effective NFP requires abstinence. I consider NFP a method of regulating birth, but not all methods of birth control are contraceptive. “Contra”—means against. Hormonal contraceptives, IUDs, condoms and other barrier methods, spermacides—all of those work *against *conceiving and they allow sexual intercourse at any time of the month. NFP prevents pregnancy by timed abstinence and as apointed out much earlier, can also be used to help regulate birth towards conception. As pointed out by the woman with a stomach ache:

the subtopic going on in this thread about NFP will never be resolved until the debators agree what “contraception” means. Obviously, if a person defines contraception as a barrier of or destruction of fertility, then NFP is not contraception. Many people confuse methods to control or space pregnancy with actual contraceptive methods. This little definition issue will ruin the whole debate

.

I don’t see that they show evidence that contraception causes an increase in abortion. If that were the case, I think you would agree that we should be seeing a continual steady increase in the number of abortion and rates of abortion in the US, which we do not…Contraception has not become less available in the US, but the abortion rate, ratio and sheer number have shown a pretty steady decline.

Look again at the statistics YOU posted.

“Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990,”

From 1973 -1990 the abortion rates* increased.* The decline is only in recent years, and he rates are still higher than they once were. The decline in recent years might be partily attributed to abstinence education programs, which is a different topic.

shows that in the US, the percentage of out of wedlock births to women under the age of 20 dropped from 50% to 23.7%, though it did rise in women over age 25 (from 18% to 37.8%) between 1970 and 2004.

Imagine that—live births declined once American teenagers had the legal option to abort their babies. I may be naïve, but I’m not stupid. Look at the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy increases when teenage sexual activity increases. Teenage sexual activity outside marriage increased once contraceptive became widely available.

---

We wandered far off the original topic. Rather than continuing this discussion here on this already very long thread, if you dispute the association between the availability of contraception, increased sexual activity out of marriage and abortion, I prefer you open a new thread. I brought it up because people in developing cultures may recognize that introduction of contraception changes sexual behavior and negatively effects their society. If you want to debate the difficulties of raising large families in Western cultures today, (which, as I mentioned earlier pales in comparison to what women and poor families experience throughout the world) I also prefer you move that discussion move to a new thread.

Those are off the original topic, and I want to stop discussing them here. The original topic was about how many women in developing nations resent American and international policies regarding artificial contraception. I gave numerous examples of horrible abuses to women done in the name of “reproductive health” such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, unsterile and unsafe IUD’s, untested and unsafe hormonal contraceptives, untreated ectopic pregnancy following sterilization, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The original topic was about how many women in developing nations resent American and international policies regarding artificial contraception.

I wonder if it’s hard for those of us in developed nations to register the resentment of these women, as we ourselves embrace artificial contraception to the exclusion of other, possibly better reproductive choices. My own doctor, at one point, gave me a range of options for birth control. None of these involved fertility awareness. When I told her I wanted to use Billings NFP, she noted on my chart that I was using Rythm Method. She wouldn’t even let me explain the difference.

So why does the medical establishment in both developing and developed nations largely ignore birth control methods that involve fertility awareness? I believe it is because contraception is quick and easy to dispense. Patients are numbers. Contraception also generates revenue.

Fertility awareness/NFP, on the other hand, requires a small investment of time and a personal encounter. Even the manuals I’ve read for home study are full of personal anecdotes from authors like John and Sheila Kippley and Toni Weschler.

In the end, I suppose, it is the women of wealthy nations who are the lemmings, never demanding the reproductive choice to understand and work with our own marvelously designed bodies when we need birth control. May those of us who know better join in the resentment of the world’s “poor” women.

 

[Petergee]

That is not the picture that I see painted here:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4195968.stm

mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=249282&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/

Try reading them without the spin, you’ll see they illustrate exactly what I was talking about - the western-dominated UN aid agencies trying to sabotage Uganda’s successful abstinence-based program by cutting off funds unless they buy the West’s condoms. Evenb though condoms have been proven to increase rather than reduce AIDS rates.

What is not mentioned in the retrospectives and not shown on the evening news are the ordinary deaths from starvation and preventable diseases; some 200 million in just the few years since the end of the Cold War. Most of these 18 million dying each year are children whose parents simply cannot afford to give them access to safe water, nutritious food, vaccines, or basic medications. "

The vast majority of families in Western countries are far from “economically oppressed” in these terms. These are the people that I say should have as much access to reliable means to space or prevent pregnancy as anyone in a Western country, not because the children are a bit inconvenient to their plans to travel (as shown in one of your articles) but because it might help their children survive.

And what is also not mentioned is that the answer to hunger is NOT telling poor people not to have children, but feeding them which the West could more than adequately do, and save money at the same time, simply by ceasing the absurd subsidies it pays farmers NOT to plant crops, to plough them into the ground, and to dump them in rubbish dumps, just to keep the prices up.

The hypocrisy of the rich Western powers and their UN-agency puppets is sickening.

 

[KarenNC]

Try reading them without the spin, you’ll see they illustrate exactly what I was talking about - the western-dominated UN aid agencies trying to sabotage Uganda’s successful abstinence-based program by cutting off funds unless they buy the West’s condoms. Evenb though condoms have been proven to increase rather than reduce AIDS rates.

*But Ugandan Health Minister Mike Mikula rubbished the report, saying condoms remained a vital part of the country’s Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms (ABC) strategy.

“The weight of the ABC is all equal in that abstinence has been one of the critical strengths of Uganda’s ability to reduce the prevalence in the country. And obviously, being faithful, which is the B has equally done very well. But condoms and the distribution of condoms continues unabated.” He said 65 million condoms had been procured about two months ago and another 80 million were on the way. Uganda is often held up as a model of how to fight HIV/Aids, with infection rates falling from 15 to 5%.*

Evidence to support that condom usage increases the spread of HIV?

And what is also not mentioned is that the answer to hunger is NOT telling poor people not to have children, but feeding them which the West could more than adequately do, and save money at the same time, simply by ceasing the absurd subsidies it pays farmers NOT to plant crops, to plough them into the ground, and to dump them in rubbish dumps, just to keep the prices up.

I do not suggest that there is also the need to assist with food aid, however the West does indeed provide food aid which in many countries rots on the docks or is confiscated by the governments in the countries before it reaches those in need.

The issue here is not “telling poor people not to have children”. It is the attitude that providing information about spacing pregnancy or preventing pregnancy and the means to do so to those who obviously want and need it because they are aborting pregnancies (even dangerously and illegally) and abandoning children is somehow inherently oppressive.

 

[KarenNC]

From 1973 -1990 the abortion rates* increased.* The decline is only in recent years, and he rates are still higher than they once were. The decline in recent years might be partily attributed to abstinence education programs, which is a different topic.

The rate of legal abortions increased once abortion was made legal. The rate of legal abortions is higher now that before abortions were legal. Hardly shocking statements. Does not show a causal relationship between specific forms of contraception and increased abortions.

Imagine that—live births declined once American teenagers had the legal option to abort their babies. I may be naïve, but I’m not stupid. Look at the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

Neither am I, hon.
guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
*Among teens in the United States, at least in recent years, declining birthrates are not the result of more pregnant teens opting to have an abortion.

Pregnancy. Recent declines in teen birthrates, then, are attributable to reductions in pregnancy rates. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose. They remained steady through the 1980s, even as sexual activity among teens increased, due to improved contraceptive use among those teenagers who are sexually active. …
The AGI analysis concluded that approximately one-quarter of the decline in teenage pregnancy in the United States between 1988 and 1995 was due to increased abstinence. (The proportion of all teenagers who had ever had sex decreased slightly, but nonsignificantly, during this period, from 53% to 51%.) Approximately three-quarters of the drop resulted from changes in the behavior of sexually experienced teens. (The pregnancy rate among this group had fallen 7%, from 211 per 1,000 to 197.)
…By 1995, more than one in eight teen contraceptive users (13%) was using a long-acting method, and primarily because of this shift, sexually active teens became increasingly successful at avoiding pregnancy.

Despite all this good news, the fact remains that teenagers in the United States continue to experience substantially higher pregnancy rates and birthrates than do teens in other Western industrialized countries (see chart). The adolescent pregnancy rate in the United States, for example, is nearly twice that in Canada and Great Britain and approximately four times that in France and Sweden. Moreover, teen birthrates have declined less steeply in the United States than in other developed countries over the last three decades.*

We wandered far off the original topic. Rather than continuing this discussion here on this already very long thread, if you dispute the association between the availability of contraception, increased sexual activity out of marriage and abortion, I prefer you open a new thread.

That strategy is certainly one that avoids having to support one’s allegations. Don’t forget that you also said it causes an increase in pornography and several other things.

I brought it up because people in developing cultures may recognize that introduction of contraception changes sexual behavior and negatively effects their society.

You would do well to show that the introduction of contraception to which you object actually does negatively affect society by that society’s standards and does so to a greater extent than population growth that outstrips resources.

If you want to debate the difficulties of raising large families in Western cultures today, (which, as I mentioned earlier pales in comparison to what women and poor families experience throughout the world) I also prefer you move that discussion move to a new thread.

As you and Petergee were the ones to introduce that topic, I will let you continue it in a new thread if you desire.

The original topic was about how many women in developing nations resent American and international policies regarding artificial contraception. I gave numerous examples of horrible abuses to women done in the name of “reproductive health” such as forced abortion, forced sterilization, unsterile and unsafe IUD’s, untested and unsafe hormonal contraceptives, untreated ectopic pregnancy following sterilization, etc. etc. etc.

No one has disputed that there have been abuses to the system and that such are wrong. What has been disputed is that the mere provision of information and access to options to be used voluntarily constitutes “oppression” when there are women in these countries who are abandoning babies, voluntarily seeking abortions that are often dangerous and illegal, etc in attempts to exercise some control over their reproduction.

 

[gardenswithkids]

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
… In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose. …
…

That strategy is certainly one that avoids having to support one’s allegations. …You would do well to show that the introduction of contraception to which you object actually does negatively affect society by that society’s standards and does so to a greater extent than population growth that outstrips resources.

That “strategy” is because we wondered off topic, and we don’t seem to be communicating very well with each other. You post links that acknowledge that pregnancy rates rose in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which was the point I tried to make that you disputed.

I realize methods of pregnancy prevention and contraception existed long before the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, the large scale acceptance of contraception in the US began in the 1960’s followed shortly after by what many call the “sexual revolution”. Note that the teen pregnancy rates rose in the 1970’s and 1980’s. I supported my allegations, and the statistics and sources that you site also support my allegations.

That topic deserves it’s own thread. But you added a qualifier when you want me to show that the introduction of contraception negatively affects society "to a greater extent than population growth that outstrips resources." I grow tired of debating you, but I’m glad you finally admit your fear that population growth will outstrip resources.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I wonder if it’s hard for those of us in developed nations to register the resentment of these women, as we ourselves embrace artificial contraception to the exclusion of other, possibly better reproductive choices. …In the end, I suppose, it is the women of wealthy nations who are the lemmings…

Excellant post!

I also think many women in developed nations have a hard time imagining that women in developing nations* really* want many children and large families.

 

[consumedconvert]

Contraception also generates revenue.

BINGO! The almighty dollar wins out!

 

[KarenNC]

That “strategy” is because we wondered off topic, and we don’t seem to be communicating very well with each other. You post links that acknowledge that pregnancy rates rose in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which was the point I tried to make that you disputed.

I realize methods of pregnancy prevention and contraception existed long before the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, the large scale acceptance of contraception in the US began in the 1960’s followed shortly after by what many call the “sexual revolution”. Note that the teen pregnancy rates rose in the 1970’s and 1980’s. I supported my allegations, and the statistics and sources that you site also support my allegations.

That topic deserves it’s own thread. But you added a qualifier when you want me to show that the introduction of contraception negatively affects society "to a greater extent than population growth that outstrips resources." I grow tired of debating you, but I’m glad you finally admit your fear that population growth will outstrip resources.

I have been talking about population growth, within a society and within a family, as it relates to available or foreseeable resources all along.

The point you seem to be determined to overlook is that teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, etc have been dropping for decades while contraception use has not. Also noteworthy is that our American experience is much different than that of other developed countries who also have legal abortion and ready access to contraception in terms of the high rates of teen pregnancy, etc.