Without contraception there'll be more abortions

[tjm190]

Give me a break. What is your source as to what is a properly conducted survey? Gallup consistently gauges the pulse of the whole nation using only a few thousand responses. Given the tiny population which consistently practices NFP, 505 couples is quite persuasive.

A sample size of 1000-2000 or so is good no matter how large the population. Let’s say you want to take a sample of a well mixed pot of soup. You decide a certain spoon is adequate for you to get a good idea of what the soup tastes like. Guess what? If the pot is 1 million times as big, the same spoon size still works. From an actuarial perspective, ‘500’ is far too small.

Let me adjust the underlying assertion slightly. Among those who receive training in NFP methods (and training is often/usually necessary for successful practice), a very small percentage later obtain divorces. See, additional discussion of the survey at physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36/.

They can discuss the survey however they like, it is completely inadequate.

In that study, even if EVERY couple who failed to mail back in a questionnaire had obtained a divorce (an obviously unlikely scenario), the rate of divorce among those who had received NFP training is something like 25%, still remarkably lower than average (even among Catholics).

A- It was drawn from the wrong population B- Mail surveys are invalid anyway.

And while one should certainly consider an organization’s mission and agenda in evaluating studies it conducts, this is certainly not dispositive. It is unlikely that the organization is fabricating their results outright. This is not a situation where responses could be exaggerated, where subjects could be cued by the survey conductors, etc. This is not an experiment, its a survey, not about opinions, but about facts.

The results are presented in a completely biased manner- it makes me suspect that the survey they send out may also be inadequate.

And where in the world do you get this idea that the survey questionnaire needs to be presented? I once conducted surveys for Gallup. Even a simple presidential poll was at least 15 questions long. Have you ever heard each question given when evaluating the poll? And surely “Are you divorced or not” is a question much less subject to bias than asking which president a person prefers, intends to vote for, identifies with, etc.

Those results are generally presented in the format “when asked XXX, Y% answered this”
The survey talks about things such as “they are more happy with their marriage” and other things like that.

Further still, the findings of the above study are entirely plausible and expected. NFP increases cooperation and communication between spouse. Secular psychologists and sex therapists would overwhelmingly agree that this would make divorces less likely. Is there iron-clad, statistical proof that NFP reduces divorces? Perhaps not, but I would assert that there are neither sufficient people practicing NFP nor institutions sufficiently disinterested to yield the kind of proof you demand.

Speculation is not a form of statistical evidence

This study may not be perfect, but you cannot deny that it provides evidence for the assertion that couples who practice, and receive training in, NFP are less likely to be divorced. A rational person believes things most based upon evidence, no? If you wish to dispute that above assertion, the real question is, where is your evidence to the contrary?

It isn’t just imperfect, it’s completely invalid. It is drawn from the wrong population, suffers from nonresponse bias, we can not see if the survey itself was biased, a margin of error is not presented, it is a mail-in survey, fails the ‘success failure condition’ (a survey of this type must have atleast 10 'yes’es and 'no’s), and on top of that is far too small.

It’s a complete train wreck that nobody with even the most basic statistic knowledge could help but laugh at. There is no evidence for anything present in that survey, aside from the fact that it proves the individuals conducting the survey had no idea what they were doing.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know in what context you guys are debating contraception and it’s relationship to abortion, BUT, I agree that without contraception there will be more abortions. There are a plethora of abortions now and there is free access to contraception. I’m not sure why some people think the situation will get better by increasing unwanted pregnancies.

The number of unwanted pregancies won’t increase, because people are already aware that uncontracepted sex often leads to pregnancy.

What they don’t know (and the reason there are so many abortions) is that contraception only works some of the time. For a couple having the same amount of sex with or without contraception, contraception reduces the number of pregnancies (it does not eliminate the number of pregnancies) - but that’s not what happens. When people use contraception, they increase the amount of sex they are having, and the number of pregnancies occurring then remains the same as when they were having less sex, with no contraception.

 

[camerong]

It isn’t just imperfect, it’s completely invalid. It is drawn from the wrong population, suffers from nonresponse bias, we can not see if the survey itself was biased, a margin of error is not presented, it is a mail-in survey, fails the ‘success failure condition’ (a survey of this type must have atleast 10 'yes’es and 'no’s), and on top of that is far too small.
…
There is no evidence for anything present in that survey, aside from the fact that it proves the individuals conducting the survey had no idea what they were doing.

You have not shown that the survey came from the wrong population (whatever that means). You have a point about the non-response bias, but all a nonresponse bias indicates in this situation, where there are only two response, this bias can be resolved by presuming that each couple that failed to respond had gotten a divorce (which I mentioned before and you failed to address). In this situation, mail-in survey bias relates only to the non-response bias. Your success failure condition also leads nowhere. Double suicide also causes a zero percent divorce rate among those who practice it. Do you mean to say that a survey of couples who both kill themselves, which reveals zero divorces after the practice, is invalid?

Among the points I made to which you failed to respond, this is evidence of a certain assumption. Even assuming all of the biases you suggest, among a group of 550 couples, less than 25% obtained divorces years after receiving NFP training. This is evidence that people who obtain NFP training are less likely to later obtain divorces. It is not evidence that all people who practice NFP are less likely to get obtain divorces. It is not evidence that NFP prevents divorces. You are, as always, free to present evidence to the contrary.

 

[tjm190]

The number of unwanted pregancies won’t increase, because people are already aware that uncontracepted sex often leads to pregnancy.

What they don’t know (and the reason there are so many abortions) is that contraception only works some of the time. For a couple having the same amount of sex with or without contraception, contraception reduces the number of pregnancies (it does not eliminate the number of pregnancies) - but that’s not what happens. When people use contraception, they increase the amount of sex they are having, and the number of pregnancies occurring then remains the same as when they were having less sex, with no contraception.

People are well aware of the fact that contraception can fail- the question is, if contraception fails X% of the time, will people decrease sexually activity by >X% without it. I would wager no.

 

[tjm190]

You have not shown that the survey came from the wrong population (whatever that means).

the people surveyed were selected from those who had undergone a training course. Those people are only a subset of all people using NFP. The survey does not even discuss the method for selecting individuals to be surveyed.

You have a point about the non-response bias, but all a nonresponse bias indicates in this situation, where there are only two response, this bias can be resolved by presuming that each couple that failed to respond had gotten a divorce (which I mentioned before and you failed to address).

You can’t make any assumptions based on non-response bias- all you can do is toss the survey.

In this situation, mail-in survey bias relates only to the non-response bias.

True.

Your success failure condition also leads nowhere.

A survey with less than 10 success and failures is invalid and should not be published. No exceptions.

Double suicide also causes a zero percent divorce rate among those who practice it. Do you mean to say that a survey of couples who both kill themselves, which reveals zero divorces after the practice, is invalid?

Yes- no conclusions can be drawn from such a survey. You can logically prove that a divorce is impossible, but the survey itself is invalid.

Among the points I made to which you failed to respond, this is evidence a certain assumption. Even assuming all of the biases you suggest, among a group of 550 couples, less than 25% obtained divorces years after receiving NFP training. This is evidence that people who obtain NFP training are less likely to later obtain divorces. It is not evidence that all people who practice NFP are less likely to get obtain divorces. It is not evidence that NFP prevents divorces. You are, as always, free to present evidence to the contrary.

Well the group of 550 is too small to draw ANY conclusions at all.

The non-response bias, failure to draw from the correct population, the small sample size, and the failure to obtain 10 'yes’es and 'no’s each are sufficient to toss the survey completely.

You said there were multiple studies, right? Perhaps one of them is statistically sound.

 

[OraLabora]

People are well aware of the fact that contraception can fail- the question is, if contraception fails X% of the time, will people decrease sexually activity by >X% without it. I would wager no.

The pill has a less than 1% failure rate. Overall couples engaging in sex every other day will conceive about 25% of the time, presumably using the pill, 1% of the time.

Ballpark estimate, you’d have to have sex 25 times more often with the pill in order to match the rate from having sex every other day without it (other factors such as time in the cycle and how the rates were calculated etc would complicate the calculation but we’re talking orders of magnitude here).

Let’s see, 25x more than 15x a month is 375 times a month. I don’t know about you but even in my early 20s I doubt I could have survived having sex 375 times a month!!!

The pill is a highly effective contraceptive.

But that has no bearing on the morality, or rather lack of morality, of it.

 

[camerong]

the people surveyed were selected from those who had undergone a training course. Those people are only a subset of all people using NFP. The survey does not even discuss the method for selecting individuals to be surveyed.
You can’t make any assumptions based on non-response bias- all you can do is toss the survey.
True.
A survey with less than 10 success and failures is invalid and should not be published. No exceptions.
Yes- no conclusions can be drawn from such a survey. You can logically prove that a divorce is impossible, but the survey itself is invalid.

Well the group of 550 is too small to draw ANY conclusions at all.

The non-response bias, failure to draw from the correct population, the small sample size, and the failure to obtain 10 'yes’es and 'no’s each are sufficient to toss the survey completely.

The evidence presented is evidence that a rational person should consider. Simply because it fails to meet certain arbitrary standards (at least 10? Why not 9? Why not 11?) means nothing as to its evidentiary value. Having learned your definition of a “properly conducted” study, you are right that there are none. But you have utterly failed to show that failure to meet your standards wholly negates the evidentiary value of the survey results.

Imagine a similarly-situated study speaking to the efficacy of a certain herb at reducing pain of a certain medical condition. 99.8% of respondents (composing 75% of those asked) mailed in surveys saying it cured their pain. Only a handful mailed in surveys saying the herb failed to help their pain. If you suffered from that painful condition, you would absolutely nuts to completely ignore the results, even though the survey was sent out to less than 1,000 people, even though people had to mail in results, even though 25% failed to respond, and even though the survey was conducted by a group promoting alternative medicine. Would the survey be enough to convince you of the efficacy of the herb? No. But should you consider it? Of course.

 

[jmcrae]

People are well aware of the fact that contraception can fail- the question is, if contraception fails X% of the time, will people decrease sexually activity by >X% without it. I would wager no.

Okay, let me try again.

The average teenager out there thinks that contraception is a kind of magic - that if you take the pill at the same time every day, you will be prevented from getting pregnant, no matter what you do.

This isn’t actually true.

But because the teenager thinks it is true (and was probably put on the pill in the first place by well-meaning people who told her, “Now you don’t have to worry about getting pregnant if you happen to get pressured in to having sex”), she has sex any time her boyfriend asks her to, because she thinks she’s protected from getting pregnant.

What she doesn’t realize is that, the pill doesn’t do what she thinks it does. It only reduces her chances of getting pregnant. It doesn’t actually cause her to become completely infertile. Imagine her surprise, then, a few months later, when she realizes that she has become pregnant. Her first reaction is not going to be joy, let me tell you. She is much more likely to go back to whoever put her on the pill, and ask for an abortion. She is certainly not going to go back to the boy and say “look what you did,” because she had already promised him that there would be no consequences for having sex with her.

By contrast, let’s look at the teenager who isn’t using any form of contraception. First of all, she is less likely to get pressured into having sex, because she took seventh grade biology, and she knows where babies come from. If she does get pressured into having sex and gets pregnant, she can go back to the boy and say, “Guess what, you have a child.” She is free to do that, because he already knew the risk he was taking, when he talked her into having sex with him. She probably even asked him, “What do we do, if I get pregnant?” They probably already have the sketchy outlines of a plan.

 

[tjm190]

The evidence presented is evidence that a rational person should consider. Simply because it fails to meet certain arbitrary standards (at least 10? Why not 9? Why not 11?) means nothing as to its evidentiary value. Having learned your definition of a “properly conducted” study, you are right that there are none. But you have utterly failed to show that failure to meet your standards wholly negates the evidentiary value of the survey results.

These are not my standards, these are the standards that have been set out by the actuarial community over the past couple centuries (mostly just this past century and the one before it). Mathematically, there are strict conditions you must meet before you can claim “the rate of this is X.” In fact, the only way to make that claim is after an all-inclusive census.

Imagine a similarly-situated study speaking to the efficacy of a certain herb at reducing pain of a certain medical condition. 99.8% of respondents (composing 75% of those asked) mailed in surveys saying it cured their pain. Only a handful mailed in surveys saying the herb failed to help their pain. If you suffered from that painful condition, you would absolutely nuts to completely ignore the results, even though the survey was sent out to less than 1,000 people, even though people had to mail in results, even though 25% failed to respond, and even though the survey was conducted by a group promoting alternative medicine. Would the survey be enough to convince you of the efficacy of the herb? No. But should you consider it? Of course.

Well if those conducting the survey seemed to have a clear bias towards the drug, I wouldn’t take it seriously- how am I to know that the sampling was truly random when their sampling method isn’t even listed, as it wasn’t in this survey?

 

[tjm190]

Okay, let me try again.

The average teenager out there thinks that contraception is a kind of magic - that if you take the pill at the same time every day, you will be prevented from getting pregnant, no matter what you do.

What makes you think that?

 

[jmcrae]

What makes you think that?

The fact that girls who use contraception tend to be sexually active, because they think they won’t get pregnant.

 

[camerong]

Let me interject into the larger debate. I believe there are several reasons why wide-spread contraception is not a viable solution to reducing abortions, even if it reduces abortion procedures in practice.

First, as has been noted, there is a significant risk that chemical contraception can act as abortive. A woman using the pill could theoretically have dozens or far more–we really can’t know–of abortions, just from the pill itself. While these abortions may not have the emotional effect on the woman as one from an abortion mill, the death toll is the same.

Second, contraception is, as we Catholics believe, a sin. Sin separates us from God. Contraception is more tolerable to the average person than abortion, so more people will be involved in the sin of contraception than abortion. It is a terrible thing that we are killing babies, but God can see after those souls. A world where everyone uses contraception but no one has abortions is not clearly better than one where most people use contraception and some people have abortions, because the amount of sin is not clearly reduced. In fact, contraception has the tendency to make sex more casual–to deny this is to deny the sexual revolution of the past fifty years–and thus further distance sex from God’s purpose for it.

Third, its really not clear that contraception is worse than abortion. Abortion kills someone, true, but God can take care of that soul. Otherwise, both abortion and contraception are grave sins. So its really like asking whether adultery or fornication is better. Adultery arguably has a worse effect on those involved, but if there was a way to rid adultery by having everyone fornicate, it would not be a good solution.

Fourth, if we take an attitude that contraception is somehow acceptable, and we cause an increase in the use of contraception, we will likely cause some people to use contraception who would not otherwise have had abortions. In this way, we cause others to gravely sin, and thus gravely sin ourselves.

 

[tjm190]

The fact that girls who use contraception tend to be sexually active, because they think they won’t get pregnant.

People wearing helmets tend to dangerous things, but that doesn’t mean they think the helmet is some sort of magic barrier.

 

[Rence]

The number of unwanted pregancies won’t increase, because people are already aware that uncontracepted sex often leads to pregnancy.

What they don’t know (and the reason there are so many abortions) is that contraception only works some of the time. For a couple having the same amount of sex with or without contraception, contraception reduces the number of pregnancies (it does not eliminate the number of pregnancies) - but that’s not what happens. When people use contraception, they increase the amount of sex they are having, and the number of pregnancies occurring then remains the same as when they were having less sex, with no contraception.

**Women were aware before Roe vs Wade that they could get pregnant with unprotected sex and they made back alley abortion “doctors” rich, they drove up the cost of care due to infections and injuries, and even died. **

**NFP is a Fertility Awareness Method of birth control and “The typical failure rate for most FAMs is 25% during the first year of use” (Lowdermilk D.L., Perry, S.E. (2007) Maternity & Women’s Health Care, (I9th ed.) p. 209). In addition, they don’t protect against STIs or HIV.

“NFP has such a low rate of success because the exact time of ovulation cannot be predicted accurately …. Women with irregular menstrual periods have the greatest risk of failure with this form of contraception.” (Lowdermilk D.L., Perry, S.E. (2007) Maternity & Women’s Health Care, (I9th ed.) p. 210). It really only works when women have regular menstrual periods, and many many just don’t. We are constantly getting our periods a few days before or after when we expect it. In addition, the education period can be quite lengthy because you need to take an “average” of cycle length over a period of time. In addition cycles can change in length due to diet or stress, which makes all that training and preparation ineffective.

Combined Estrogen-Progestin contraceptives inhibit ovulation. “Taken as directed,oral contraceptives prevent ovulation, and pregnancy cannot occur; the overall effectiveness rate is almost 100%. Almost all failures are caused by omission of one or more pills during the regimen. The typical failure rate of COCs due to omission is 8%” (Lowdermilk D.L., Perry, S.E. (2007) Maternity & Women’s Health Care, (I9th ed.) p. 220).

Reducing the number of abortions would be more effectively accomplished if women were taught the correct way to take oral contraceptives, not telling them not to have sex. That didn’t work in the past, why would it work now? Remember, we’re not dealing with practicing Catholics. We’re dealing with people out there having sex already, It’ll be too tough a sell to protect the unborn lives we’re wishing to save by telling their mothers simply to abstain. It’s a tough enough sell for the Catholics I grew up with. You won’t sell it at all to someone not practicing any religion at all or someone who has fallen away from their faith, or deciding to practice some but not all of their religion’s teachings. I believe saving unborn lives is the priority, and it’s not going to get done by shoving our religious and spiritual beliefs down someone’s throat who is not willing to listen. You can work on bringing the mother back to the grace of G-d after. In the meantime, preventing unwanted pregancies (and abortions) can be done with education and getting the mother to understand how to use contraceptives. **

 

[Jermosh]

Its a subjective argument. On one hand you could argue that western European Countries that have high Sex Education and services also have low abortions, then you have Poland and Ireland who have very low abortions and have strict laws on the issue. It really all depends on how you spin your facts.

As for whether I think its true or not? It depends on the culture really.

 

[Alindawyl]

“NFP has such a low rate of success because the exact time of ovulation cannot be predicted accurately …. Women with irregular menstrual periods have the greatest risk of failure with this form of contraception.” (Lowdermilk D.L., Perry, S.E. (2007) Maternity & Women’s Health Care, (I9th ed.) p. 210). It really only works when women have regular menstrual periods, and many many just don’t. We are constantly getting our periods a few days before or after when we expect it. In addition, the education period can be quite lengthy because you need to take an “average” of cycle length over a period of time. In addition cycles can change in length due to diet or stress, which makes all that training and preparation ineffective.

This is just another example of the misconception rampant in (and out of) the medical field that NFP is only synonymous with calendar methods such as the Standard Days Method. While it’s true that the Catholic Church approves SDM because it isn’t morally unacceptable, there are other methods which are also approved and are more effective. The USCCB recommends that in the United States we use one of those more effective methods rather than a calendar method.

My wife and I learned a sympto-thermal method in our NFP classes which combines a symptom method such as Billings or Creighton with basal temperature charting. It works just fine if a woman has variable length cycle, which my wife does. She could have a 24 day cycle, followed by a 42 day cycle, followed by a 31 day cycle, and the method of determining when phases I-III fall in each cycle is identical. They even covered the topics of stress, diet and other irregularities such as illness affecting the cycle and charting.

 

[camerong]

This is just another example of the misconception rampant in (and out of) the medical field that NFP is only synonymous with calendar methods such as the Standard Days Method. While it’s true that the Catholic Church approves SDM because it isn’t morally unacceptable, there are other methods which are also approved and are more effective. The USCCB recommends that in the United States we use one of those more effective methods rather than a calendar method.

My wife and I learned a sympto-thermal method in our NFP classes which combines a symptom method such as Billings or Creighton with basal temperature charting. It works just fine if a woman has variable length cycle, which my wife does. She could have a 24 day cycle, followed by a 42 day cycle, followed by a 31 day cycle, and the method of determining when phases I-III fall in each cycle is identical. They even covered the topics of stress, diet and other irregularities such as illness affecting the cycle and charting.

Agreed. While the effect of NFP on divorces may not be documented in rigorous studies, the effect of NFP at preventing pregnancy is. See, for example, the review at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7484685. Even an actuary would have to admit this.

 

[jmcrae]

**Women were aware before Roe vs Wade that they could get pregnant with unprotected sex and they made back alley abortion “doctors” rich, they drove up the cost of care due to infections and injuries, and even died. **

This is a popular myth, but the actual history shows that nobody ever went to “back alley abortion doctors” - such “doctors” didn’t even exist. Did some people get their ObGyns to do an abortion on them; perhaps, but even this was rare, since the ObGyn would lose his license if he got caught. I grew up during that era, and we were simply taught to avoid the sort of boys who would ask for sex before marriage. Most people managed to do that; the few who didn’t, simply left school and married young.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Reducing the number of abortions would be more effectively accomplished if women were taught the correct way to take oral contraceptives, not telling them not to have sex. That didn’t work in the past, why would it work now? Remember, we’re not dealing with practicing Catholics. We’re dealing with people out there having sex already, It’ll be too tough a sell to protect the unborn lives we’re wishing to save by telling their mothers simply to abstain. It’s a tough enough sell for the Catholics I grew up with. You won’t sell it at all to someone not practicing any religion at all or someone who has fallen away from their faith, or deciding to practice some but not all of their religion’s teachings. I believe saving unborn lives is the priority, and it’s not going to get done by shoving our religious and spiritual beliefs down someone’s throat who is not willing to listen. You can work on bringing the mother back to the grace of G-d after. In the meantime, preventing unwanted pregancies (and abortions) can be done with education and getting the mother to understand how to use contraceptives.

The first problem I see is that because contraception is evil we cannot promote it’s use ever. This is not a solution.

You say it didn’t work in the past…then why were abortion rates so incredibly low before Roe v. Wade? I’d argue it was because back then there was a strong stigma attached to fornication and children were taught sexual self-control. And it seemed to work.

The other issue is that contraception and abortion are not merely religious issues but social ones. Their social effects are devastating and hurt people regardless of whether they believe their use is morally wrong or not. So we have every right to regulate them and see them done away with.

 

[Secret_Square]

At first glance, it seems counter-intuitive if not totally illogical to think that contraception would not decrease the need for abortion. After all, if you don’t get pregnant you won’t need an abortion, right? So anything that keeps a woman from getting pregnant would therefore mean fewer abortions, right?

Not necessarily. Even the most liberal and secular scholars, authors, etc. acknowledge that the so-called “sexual revolution” would never have been possible without the invention and ready availability of the Pill and other birth control methods. These same observers, even those who think the sexual revolution was a good thing, also acknowledge that it led to more divorces, more children being raised in single parent homes, and fewer people getting married in the first place.

When people began thinking of sex as something they had an inalienable “right” to have whenever they wanted, and with whomever they wanted, it inevitably followed that anything which interefered with that “right” – such as marriage vows or childbearing – would come to be regarded as a burden to be avoided or eliminated. Hence a mentality developed that regards sexual freedom as the most important “freedom” of all, and the right to abortion as the cornerstone for protecting that “right.”

When pro-life Catholics say that contraception leads to abortion, they don’t necessarily mean that it does so in every individual case; I think they mean it in a more general or “big picture” sense – that on the societal level, making contraception easily available to everyone has fostered a mentality that also favors abortion.

As for the statistic about the low divorce rate among NFP users, I think it might be partly due to the fact that couples who have the commitment, mutual respect and self-control needed to successfully practice NFP are less likely to divorce anyway, no matter what method of family planning they use. However, the periodic abstinence required for avoiding pregnancy with NFP can actually enhance one’s sex life by making it less routine or taken for granted. So does NFP create stronger marriages or do couples who practice NFP have stronger marriages to begin with? It’s sort of a (pardon the pun) chicken-and-egg question.