The Splintering of the Pro-Life Movement
by Cristina Page, Moderator, OnCommonGround
July 28, 2009 - 12:00pm (Print)
Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and is rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: "are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so."
Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro-life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.
It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.
Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. He was joined by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.
Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jews want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.
Pro-life Americans favor expanding access to contraception because of the undeniable pro-life results. Unintended pregnancy is the root cause of abortion. We know, when used properly, contraception works. Two thirds of American women on contraception are using it correctly. And from this group comes 5% of the nation's unintended pregnancies. Compare this to the 16% of women who are sexually active, at risk of getting pregnant and not using any form of contraception. That group, though much smaller, represents 52% of nation's unintended pregnancies. Then there's the 19% of women who are using contraception but incorrectly or inconsistently; from that group comes 43% of unintended pregnancies. The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple, address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception. (Article continues below graphic.)
1. Gold RB et al., Next
Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential
of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System, New York: Guttmacher Institute 2009, Figure 1.2.
To his credit, Congressman Ryan did his best to try to convince pro-life groups of this. He explained, "It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just didn't want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America's national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: If you're really for reducing abortions you've gotta be for contraception. I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and that most abortions take place for women within 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn't resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot."
The anti-contraception minority, which represents just 20% of pro-lifers, has disproportionate influence and, with it, hopes to derail common ground efforts the public has longed for. It's time for the disagreement over contraception to be addressed by the pro-life community at large. We will have no chance of making a real impact on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates without dramatic informed strategies on prevention. The pro-life public must demand accountability and representation for their pro-contraception values. Considering that 80% of pro-life Americans support contraception, isn't it time to establish at least one pro-life organization in support of it too?
Congressman Ryan thought that would be a great idea. He predicted such a group would expose those who really aren't interested in reducing the need for abortion. "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress and pro-life legislators a common sense approach to this and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."
Thanks for this insightful and informative post about Congressman Ryan's leadership in seeking common ground around what is really at stake - public health. Your thoughtful presentation of data, coupled with news about Ryan's efforts, shed much-needed light on a third way that may indeed signal the end of the abortion war stalemate.
In Westchester County NY, we have been working with legislators on both sides of the aisle to support education for Plan B emergency contraception as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies in our county. Anti-abortion extremists disseminate misinformation and call Plan B a form of abortion. What they are doing is turning people off the only form of contraception that can work AFTER sex. They do themselves and the fetuses they wish to "protect" a disservice.
This is one of the best blog posts I've ever read. It is well researched and even contains charts to illustrate its very logical points. Rep. Tim Ryan's story is one I have never seen or heard in the mainstream media--but it's a story that should be told!
Thank you for this post. I confess, I had lumped all pro-life people with the anti-contraception movement. The stats you cite give me hope that even if the two sides never agree about about abortion, they can all agree on common sense approaches to reduce the need for abortion. In particular, covering all forms of contraception 100% in the new health plan being discussed in congress. Contraception is such a no-brainer that sometimes I feel like banging my head against a wall when I hear or read an anti-contraception rant. The levels of hypocrisy and irony are stunning sometimes. Thanks again for giving me hope.
cristina--this big division in the prolife movement is nothing new.
for example, in the 1985 book prolife feminism: different voice, gail grenier-sweet advocated contraception & warned that its detractors could end up sabotaging the prolife cause.
as far back as i can remember, there have been pro contraception voices among prolifers.
It's certainly interesting that 20% of the ProLife movement is representative of only 2% of the general population. It's absolutely stunning that media reports of the public policy arguments seem to highlight the views of that 20% while ignoring the 80% majority.
A very good comment made on the emphasis that media targets, I would further ask why would the information be highlighted? And in a positive or non biased filter? For there seems to be only one way in which people may believe, and that is with the majority to be accepted.
Media have a preference for extremist views because they result in great tape -- a nice calm scientist or sociologist reporting boring statistics like "Among condom users, inconsistent use accounts for a large proportion of unwanted pregnancies. In a 1982-84 US study, for example, almost 60% of pregnancies among condom users resulted from inconsistent use" isn't going to pull in any viewers. What gets those numbers up is a frothing at the mouth fanatic who uses juicy phrases like "murderer" and "baby-killer" and who can be counted on to make totally off the wall statements like:
“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Pat Robertson
Unfortunately, the focus of the media is no longer on 'reporting unbiased news' but instead on 'increasing ratings to increase ad revenue'.
There have been pro-contraception voices within the anti-abortion movement for a while--but never before has such an overwhelming portion of the U.S. and anti-abortion populace supported contraception. Let's hope that more voices like Rep. Ryan's can come through and we can work together to reduce unintended pregnancies and improve sexual health of young and old Americans.
I'd also like to point out that the majority of time and resources spent by pro-choice organizations are not on abortion rights, but these broader prevention strategies. Too bad the anti-abortion elites have been so successful at stopping broadly supported, common-sense measures.
I personally have never, ever trusted the Pro-Lifers, even the ones who presumably support the use of contraception, because even they don't seem to realize, or care to understand why abortion rights must be kept in place, and why abortion must be kept safe and legal. Also, who knows..pro-lifers who presumably support contraception might very well make an about-face and start campaigning against contraception, if one gets the drift.
I completely agree, I feel the same way. Even if they do support contraception, these anti-choicers still don't believe that I should have the right to my own body.
I don't trust anyone who thinks I shouldn't have the right to decide what happens in my own body. The people who are against abortion but for contraception may be fractionally less dangerous than the nuts who oppose ALL reproductive freedom....but they are still not to be trusted 100%, IMHO.
given the fact that people who're involved with movements such as the Pro-Life movement often end up despising and turning on each other, as well as their opponent(s).
thanks for the post!as for me i'venever belived in thise pro-life movement
Let's look at the effects of contraception.
Since the advent of the Pill, have there been more abortions, or fewer?
I'd say a heck of a lot more.
Abortion is *back up contraception*. Contraception and abortion on twins. Contraception creates a more sexualized culture, with more risk-taking and less responsibility.
There can be no common ground, because pro-lifers fight from a position of fetal rights. When are we going to get common ground on that?
Let's look at the effects of contraception. Since the advent of the Pill, have there been more abortions, or fewer? I'd say a heck of a lot more.
*** How can you possibly back that up with fact? That is a statement you completely pulled out of your ass.
Abortion is *back up contraception*. Contraception and abortion on twins. Contraception creates a more sexualized culture, with more risk-taking and less responsibility.
*** And this kind of thinking is why so many people don't know facts about contraception. If you do not know anything about abortion and birth control and the correlation between contraception and "sexuality", don't write about it. Because you look stupid when you do.
There can be no common ground, because pro-lifers fight from a position of fetal rights. When are we going to get common ground on that?
*** So now contraception is "evil". It isn't about birth control anymore, it's about fetal rights! God, please do not procreate. People like you are the strongest evidence Darwin is full of shit. Because you should have died of your own stupidity a long time ago. Enjoy your soapbox, bitch.
Perhaps common ground can't be obtained between pro-choicers and pro-lifers because there is none to speak of. If both contraception and abortion (which, btw, aren't twins--there's a difference between them) were outlawed, there'd be many more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, increased welfare roles, ill-begotten marriages, more domestic violence, more "shot-gun" weddings and more women and girls either dying or being permanently maimed as a result of an unwanted pregnancy or an illegal abortion. Is that what you want? I sure don't.
Legalized birth control and legalized abortion, on the other hand, are much, much safer, because technicians who're trained in the abortion procedure work under safe, sanitary conditions and within the law instead of operating underground, the way unscrupulous back-alley butchers who not only performed illegal abortions, but totally exploited women and/or girls who were facing unwanted pregnancies and were desperate, did. Legalizing birth control also does much for preventing most unwanted pregnancies. Legallzed contraception and legalized abortion also put most of these unscrupulous, exploitive back-alley butchers out of business.
Sounds more like you fight from a position of wanting to sniff through people's panty drawers.
How do you know how many abortions there were before the Pill?
"Contraception creates a more sexualized culture...."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
"....pro-lifers fight from a position of fetal rights."
OK, if you think fetuses are so great, then get one to cook a meal or design a bridge or write a book. People like you only succeed in turning people like me against fetuses...you pit them as the potential adversary against women. Because of people like you, I'm considering getting my tubes tied.
Hey...this is uncool. I get as angry as anyone, even occasionally derisive...but name-calling is out of bounds!
I have no problem with contraception except when it's promoted as a magic bullet.
Guttmacher has produced evidence that a reduction in abortions among teens has been associated with greater contraceptive use. But, for older women, abortion rates have declined without an increase in contraception use. Why?
I don't believe the decline in abortion is a result of pro-life legal restrictions on access. The statistical evidence is very contradictory on that issue. I believe it was a result of factors during the Clinton years that made life better for women, broad-based growth, declining poverty, growing access to health care, among others.
If all we do is look at contraception, then we'll miss possible policies that would reduce the need for abortion by making women's lives better. These issues go beyond the scope of the policies being proposed by Rep. Ryan.
As for the splintering of the pro-life movement, that's not surprising. From a pro-life perspective, the biggest abortion disaster of the past 36 years has to be the Bush recession, which is apparently leading women to abortion clinics in record numbers. Conservative-led welfare reform in the mid-1990s, enacted over the protests of pro-life groups, seems to have increased abortions among poor women. Of the 10 Supreme Court justices appointed to the Court since Roe, 8 have been nominated by supposedly pro-life Republican presidents and, of those, four have supported the right to choose. The fact that Roe remains on the books is largely a Republican achievement, thank you.
Pro-life politics is a lie. After 36 years, people are beginning to realize that, which is another reason why this Common Ground initiative is so important.
If there's no access to either abortion or contraception, AnonymousAnonymous, how do you propose to make life better for women?
Imho, this argument:
If all we do is look at contraception, then we'll miss possible policies that would reduce the need for abortion by making women's lives better. These issues go beyond the scope of the policies being proposed by Rep. Ryan.
doesn't even begin to hold water. Part of good healthcare is access to both safe, legal abortions and safe, legal contraception for women and girls. As for contraception, both women and men should take some responsibility and contribute to preventing unwanted pregnancies. There are always condoms available for men, for instance.
I'm from Canada, so here are the facts from North of the border. Stats in the US are similar per capita.
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 United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision connected contraception and abortion.
“. . . in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. … For two decades of economic and social development, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”
There is no culture or subculture in the world that has permitted contraception and then has not gone on to permit abortion. As acceptance of contraception increases so does acceptance of abortion. Why is this the case? Because at the root of contraception is the notion that a couple can engage in sexual activity and avoid its natural consequences. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than than those who do not use artificial means of contraception.
That is why the pro-life movement will not support it.
Because at the root of contraception is the notion that a couple can engage in sexual activity and avoid its natural consequences
YES. It only took three acts of intercourse to give us our three sons. If you are suggesting that people only engage in PIV when pregnancy is the desired outcome, and that wives should abstain if pregnancy is not desired, then I suggest you aim your message at the husbands of the world. Wives everywhere would be ever so grateful, and I'm sure that husbands will be fully cooperative. No really.
Natalie is certainly not suggesting PIV only when pregnancy is desired, but I am pleased to see you call the husbands into the issue. They have been ignored in this forum.
The statistics don't lie and your reasoning is sound.
As acceptance of contraception increases so does acceptance of abortion. Why is this the case? Because at the root of contraception is the notion that a couple can engage in sexual activity and avoid its natural consequences. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than than those who do not use artificial means of contraception. That is why the pro-life movement will not support it.
So pro-lifers won't support contraception because only people who support abortion rights support contraception because the people who oppose abortion refuse to support it because the people who support it support abortion.
Brilliant.
Once you throw out the circularity all you're left with is "the notion that a couple can engage in sexual activity and avoid its natural consequences", in other words pro-lifers want people punished for having sex and the whole "saving babies' lives" schtick has been a red herring the whole time.
Which is pretty much what the pro-choice movement has been saying all along.
Now Dave, let us not inject reality into the discussion. That would require admitting that women exist for reasons other than producing the next generation. And we cannot have THAT.
"....pro-lifers want people punished for having sex and the whole 'saving babies' lives' schtick has been a red herring the whole time. "
This is what I've believed ever since I was old enough to be aware of the issue. No matter what, there are always some Puritans around who don't want anybody to enjoy life...without paying for it.
Popping pills is very different from the natural methods. They (pills, patches etc.) compromise women's health and as ahunt suggests ignore the man's responsibility in sex. I'm an advocate of natural procreative technologies (NOT the Rhythm method!) because they work. Their development began 20 years ago with Drs. John and Lyn Billings, who created the Billings Ovulation Method. Researchers have worked at St. Louis University and Creighton University Schools of Medicine and most recently at the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction (Omaha, Nebraska) to create a standardized modification known as the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System (CrMS).
It basically cooperates with the natural functions of the human reproductive system. It allows women to very accurately chart their menstrual cycles using biological markers (bio-markers). She learns the pattern of her own fertility and infertility and then communicates it with her partner - makes for great communication.
Artificial contraception, on the other hand, keeps both parties ignorant of her cycle. It is rather redundant to artificially sterilize women when they are only fertile for a 24 hour period each month.
DaveL, you should read the studies. Pro-lifers, in fact, have the BEST sex!
Natural procreative technologies require a committed relationship and guys who are willing to commit. Not so with with artificial contraception. Interesting...
Pro-lifers, in fact, have the BEST sex!
Is that what the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction says?
I'm an advocate of natural procreative technologies (NOT the Rhythm method!) because they work.
Unfortunately, their real-life failure rates are abysmal, probably the real reason why the religious right advocates their use.
It allows women to very accurately chart their menstrual cycles using biological markers (bio-markers). She learns the pattern of her own fertility and infertility and then communicates it with her partner - makes for great communication.
No amount of bio-markers make for good communication between partners. One of the principal failures of NFP is that it depends on a woman's ability to negotiate sex with her partner, a situation that's far from guaranteed in our culture and more the exception than the rule in the developing world.
Artificial contraception, on the other hand, keeps both parties ignorant of her cycle
Patent nonsense. Not requiring knowledge is not the same as preventing you from acquiring it. Artificial contraception doesn't keep you any more ignorant of your cycle than potato chips do.
DaveL, you should read the studies.
Then post links. I hope they include "typical" or "in-use" failure rates.
Pro-lifers, in fact, have the BEST sex!
Let me guess - self-reported?
Sorry Natalie, but I loved my time on the pill. I loved knowing nearly to the hour when my period would start. I particularly loved the enormous physical freedom of 2.5 to 3-day, light flow periods, and the lack of cramping. Young women today even have BC options that eliminate monthly periods, reducing the event to four times a year. I'm nostalgically envious.
Oh, and thirty years into my marriage, I can definitely assure you that the best sex is sex without the fear of pregnancy.
I'm 25 years in and I second that. Sex without fear of pregancy is fantastic. A vasectomy proved not only to be
You can argue all you like for NFP (or NPT), but please keep in mind that the issue isn't as important as the abortion issue. Non-contraceptive couples may have the best sex, and non-contraceptive women may have the best reproductive health. You're entitled to promote that line of thinking, but please reflect on the fact that if people disagree with you on contraception they're not necessarily costing anyone their lives.
I argue that Pro-Lifers can afford to be tolerant about contraception. Abortion, on the other hand, is a matter of justice. It wouldn't do to be tolerant about that.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
If it's "natural" it's not going to work. Look how well "natural" cleaning products and "natural" medical remedies work.
Besides, humans are "natural" in that we occur naturally. That being the case, wouldn't it logically follow that anything we invent is also "natural"?
Natural procreative technologies require a committed relationship and guys who are willing to commit.
OK, once again, conservative Christian males are no more apt to be faithful to their wives and/or stay married than any other guy in the country nor are they any more apt to provide child support.
Your (ahunt) experience is not universal and don't presume that it is. Women deserve to know and benefit from the remarkable research in the field of reproductive medicine that does not do violence to their fertility. The harms of the pill and other artificial forms of birth control are well documented. Apart from the ethical and moral implications of BC, they compromise women's health.
It is a myth to suggest that failure rates are abysmal. This kind of misleading information from people who know nothing about the subject prevents women and couples who would like to know about other kinds of methods from doing so. They success rates both for achieving and avoiding pregnancy are equal to if not better than their artificial counterparts. use effectiveness of the Creighton Model to avoid pregnancy has been well studied and documented. When used to avoid pregnancy, the method-related pregnancy rate was less than 1%. Accounting for user error, the pregnancy rate was less than 5%.
Adherence to the contraceptive mentality is contributing to high abortion rates. This site claims to want common ground - start looking into alternative methods that are natural, promote better communication and responsibility between spouses, and are actually environmentally sound. Another documented outcome of so much pill use is the contamination of major water supplies in our cities. "The results were nothing short of frightening. Exposing fish to tiny doses of the active ingredient in the pill, amounts little more than a whiff of estrogen, started turning male fish into females. Instead of sperm, they started developing eggs. Instead of looking like males, they became indistinguishable from females. Within a year of exposure, the minnow population began to crash. Within a few years, the fish, which at one time teemed in the lake, had practically vanished." http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22999
The association you note between artificial contraception and abortion is a matter of correlation, not causality. If your personal beliefs lead you toward NFP, then you are also more likely to reject abortion as an option. Artificial contraception doesn't cause abortion. It comes back to personal beliefs.
But, clearly, contraception isn't a point of common ground either between prolife and prochoice groups or even among prolifers.
Natalie, I'm doing my best to be civil here, so...in order:
1) I did not claim my experience was universal, merely very positive. 2) What do you mean by "violence?" 3) Permit me to point out that the harms of pregnancy and childbirth are also very well documented. 4) Correlation is not causation, and I would remind you that your own preferred method of contraception no less reflects the desire NOT to conceive (contraceptive mentality) than any other form of birth control. 5) I suggest you do a little research on estrogen mimicking compounds in our water before making ignorant statements here.
Nothing like male "stunted genitals" to get Stephen Colbert's attention. Kudos to Nicholas Kristof and Stephen Colbert for recently highlighting the threat posed to America's health by endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and the intersex consequences of these chemicals.
Colbert highlighted "lady pee" as a primary source of problematic EDCs in the drinking water supply. In fact, our wastewater treatment facilities filter out the vast majority of estrogens excreted by humans before the water is released to rivers, lakes and oceans (1). Furthermore, men, children and the elderly also produce and excrete estrogens, while the synthetic estrogen used in oral contraceptives contribute only 1% to the total amount of estrogens excreted by humans (2). Clearly, other sources of both natural and synthetic estrogens are contaminating our waters and contributing to intersex fish.
In terms of natural estrogens, why not blame the cow? In fact, cows, chickens, and even pigs are a grossly ignored source of estrogens, with agricultural manure contributing an estimated 90% of estrogens to the environment (3). Manure is applied directly to farmland without treatment, despite studies showing hormones from the manure can reach surface and ground water. Moreover, livestock are pumped full of hormones increasing their excretion up to six fold (4) It has been estimated that if just 1% of the estrogens excreted by livestock in the UK reached water sources, it would account for a staggering 15% of all the estrogens in water (5). Certainly, there is a significant need to study the fate and transport of livestock estrogens before dramatizing the contribution from women on the pill.
As discussed in the NY Times Opinion Column, the types and sources of EDCs in the environment are diverse, and we are exposed in more ways than just our drinking water. EDCs are all around us in plastics, household products, cosmetics, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and many are yet to be identified. Oral contraceptives in drinking water represent only a very small part of the presence of estrogens in the environment.
This is not to say we should not be concerned about EDCs, both natural and synthetic, in our drinking water. Rather, drawing such specific attention to women on the pill as a key source of the problem and ignoring other more significant sources of estrogens, like livestock and industry, is short-sighted and especially dangerous to the already contentious topic of reproductive choice and women's health.
In order to begin addressing this problem, a more concerted focus needs to be placed on solutions and reforming chemical policy. It's true that the pollution of waterways by these chemicals falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA to regulate. It is also unfortunately true that the chemical policy structure in the United States puts the burden of proving a chemical's harm (or safety) on the government and NOT the companies that manufacture them. It's great to see such an important issue being brought to light and we hope this can begin the process of discourse about how to better protect our health and the environment.
References
1. de Mes T, et al. Occurrence and fate of estrone, 17beta-estradiol and 17alpha-ethynylestradiol in Sewage Treatment Plants for domestic wastewater. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology (2000) 4:275-311.
2. Central Bureau of Statistics (2002) Statline, http://www.cbs.nl/
3. Maier RM, et al. Terrestrial Environment. In Environmental Microbiology; Academic Press: 2000; pp 61-80.
4. Callantine MR, et al. Fecal elimination of estrogens by cattle treated with diethylstilbestrol and hexestrol. Am J Vet Res. (1961) 22:462-465.
5. Johnson AC, et al. The potential steroid hormone contribution of farm animals to freshwaters, the United Kingdom as a case study. Science of the Total Environment (2006) 362:166-178.
It's interesting to see the pro-choice arguments for having sex all 30 days of a month instead of just 28 days (25 days back in our ancient rhythm method days). Instant gratification - that's what this contraception push is all about.
0.o Did I just read that? NFP involves more abstinence than that (assuming you don't also use other methods, but that's another argument altogether). Five days before peak fertility for the life of sperm within the body (more, depending on the signs a woman sees), three days after due to inexactness on knowing when ovulation occurs. Add to that men and women who aren't comfortable having sex during her period and you're talking a full third of the month, maybe more, that's off-limits.
I'm not saying that FAMs don't have a place, but given the choice of contraception options it's simply easier (and more fun) to keep a box of condoms on the bedside table. And hearing the merits of NFP from a woman with 9 kids wasn't very convincing, either.
for not researching NFP before posting. I based it on a post by a woman claiming such accuracy. Regarding the old fashioned "rhythm method", we had only one "surprise" in 30 years. Contraception would probably had the same result, if not more.
Rubbish. People want to have sex when they will truly enjoy it, Jim. And as some of us have spouses who are in the military, or whose employment obliges frequent absences, or, as in my case, dealing with three boys under the age of five exhausting me, or any number of other circumstances that "get in the way," we'd like the security of knowing that when the moment does arrive, the threat of unwanted pregnancy is not a desire-kill. Okay with you?
Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception.
The Catholic Church actually has a past, you know. In 1962, Pope John XXIII called together a commission of religious and lay people, experts in theology and medicine, to make recommendations about the use of artificial contraception. The commission met for five years and recommended that Catholic couples be allowed to use various forms of artificial contraception. In the mid 'sixties, 75% of Catholic bishops favored the idea of removing the prohibition against artificial birth control.
What happened? Pope Paul VI was lobbied heavily by right wing Catholics who prevailed upon him to ignore the recommendations of the commission. On July 25, 1968 he published Humanae Vitae. Most Catholic bishops and pastors tried to ignore it (but, of course, could not publicly criticize it).
Since 1968 many progressive Catholics have been driven out by the strident and inflexible right wing of our church. Very few lay Catholics are willing to be as outspoken as the Catholics in the 'sixties.
Catholic opinion on contraception has been split in ways that opinion on abortion has not. Many Catholics fit the Pro-Life/Pro-Contraception profile. The typical Catholic is outraged by the fact that the unborn have hardly any protection in this country but supports efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
"The commission met for five years and recommended that Catholic couples be allowed to use various forms of artificial contraception. In the mid 'sixties, 75% of Catholic bishops favored the idea of removing the prohibition against artificial birth control." News to me. Can you direct me to the commission report?
News to me. Can you direct me to the commission report?
Jim, I couldn't find the report published on the web. Here is the Wikipedia article on the report: Pontifical Commission on Birth Control
Here is a link to one of the many books on the topic. "Included is the full text of the commission's 'Majority Report,' never officially released by the Vatican." You may be able to find this book at your local public library.
Thank you for the reference, Arium. From the Wiki article and reviews of the book on Amazon, I gather that the Pope simply disregarded majority opinion and kept basic teachings in place. Good for him! The Catholic Church is not governed by majority rule. The Bishops, even today, especially today, are timid representatives beholden to the cries and donations of their parishioners. If they stood for true Catholic values they would not have allowed the priest sex scandals to remain under cover and escalate to the horrendous levels that they did. They could have ended that tragedy before it ever got going. I stand by the Pope, not the Bishops.
This:
The typical Catholic is outraged by the fact that the unborn have hardly any protection in this country
is not true. Most Catholic women are in favor of the right to choose.
I get it. Been there often. Our beliefs, however, tell us to wait and when it can happen it's even better. I do not suggest that you adopt our beliefs, ahunt, so go right ahead.
Gee, Jim, aside from your incredible lack of knowledge about the amount of abstinence involved, it seems unlikely anybody who's an actual adult would assume that couples are willing and able to have sex 30 days a month. Due to work and family commitments, some are lucky to be able to have the time, energy and privacy once a week.
To avoid pregnancy, a woman with cycles between 26 and 32 days long should not have unprotected intercourse on cycle days 8 through 19.
This is, of course, what you describe as "the ancient Rythym Method": Days 8 through 19 seems to me to count up to 14 days - half the month.
some are lucky to be able to have the time, energy and privacy once a week. Bears repeating. Good Lord, Jim...do (or did) you...actually have kids?
Yes, we actually have some. All wanted, but one was a surprise. That one, if we had held your beliefs, would not have been born. I can't imagine life without her.
That one, if we had held your beliefs, would not have been born
EXCUSE ME?! You think we PLANNED to have two kids, 11.5 months apart? Knock it off with the insulting assumptions, Jim.
Obviously, if your wife had had an abortion, you wouldn't be able to imagine a life with her. The argument that different must be bad is pretty shallow.
We never had to abstain for such long stretches. Ignorance is bliss! Menstrual flow was usually not a big deterrent after the first couple of days so we didn't seem to have that many "forbidden" days, not that we used every safe day, of course.
the method-related pregnancy rate was less than 1%. Accounting for user error, the pregnancy rate was less than 5%.
A ridiculous lie. From the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Model_FertilityCare_System
The Pope Paul VI Institute reports a perfect-use effectiveness rate of 99.5% in the first year.[5] In clinical studies of the CrMS conducted at the Pope Paul VI Institute, researchers excluded most pregnancies from the typical-use rate calculation, on the grounds that they believed the affected couples had used the method to deliberately attempt pregnancy.[6] The Institute reports a typical-use effectiveness of 96.8% in the first year.[5] Most studies of similar systems do not exclude such pregnancies from the typical-use failure rate.[7][8]
How do the researchers determine if someone is using the method to "deliberately attempt pregnancy?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8057183?dopt=AbstractPlus
The practitioner informs each couple that if they choose to have genital intercourse during the fertile period, they have abandoned the model as a method of pregnancy avoidance and have adopted it as a method of achieving pregnancy.
Sorry, you don't get to leave out pregnancies caused by failure to follow the system any more than we would leave out pregnancies caused by failure to take pills or use condoms. That's just common sense, or intellectual honesty if you prefer.
Apart from the ethical and moral implications of BC, they compromise women's health.
Having become something of a cynic regarding this topic, my guess would be if the first part of this sentence wasn't an underlying concern, the second half wouldn't seem very important.
I'm not actually aware of any ethical problem with 'not wanting to be pregnant right now' or any moral implications of 'not wanting to be pregnant right now' that aren't based in religious beliefs. Assuming this statement isn't entirely based in your personal religious beliefs (which of course are totally irrelevant to everyone else), you might want to clarify those 'problems' for the rest of us.
I'm not actually aware of any ethical problem with 'not wanting to be pregnant right now' or any moral implications of 'not wanting to be pregnant right now' that aren't based in religious beliefs.
OK, here's where I pipe up and point out that if you're talking about Catholic religious beliefs there is no ethical or moral problem with not wanting to be pregnant or not wanting to have a child. And if we're not picking on Catholics, I'd be curious to know which religious group makes a moral issue out of not wanting to be pregnant. You could argue that Catholics teach that it's wrong to marry if you're completely unwilling to have a child, but that speaks to the definition of marriage rather than to the moral implications of wanting to remain childless.
As far as Church doctrine goes, I'm on solid ground when I say that couples have a right and an obligation to be responsible parents and to modify their family size to fit the realities and limitations of their situation. I get that out of Humanae Vitae.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
That would be the SBC (Albert Mohler) and variations (quiverful movement, etc.)
I thought it was pretty clear from my post that I was REQUESTING information from the previous poster about what THEY meant by "ethical and moral problems of contraception", not asserting something.
Historically, there has been a lot of propaganda, usually based in some religious view of 'woman's role', that stigmatizes sexually active women who don't choose to be mothers. I would assume this is based in the underlying assumption that FOR WOMEN the only acceptable reason to give up the status of virgin is the desire to assume the role of 'mother'.
...at least take on its sophisticated version:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/04/the-myth-of-the-contracep...
There are, in my view, three main points to make. First, it isn't clear that the issue of unintended pregnancy is related to access to contraception or how to use it properly in the first place:
"According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.” That means virtually all women of childbearing age (a) know about contraception, (b) know how and where to get it, and (c) have, in fact, used it."
Second, even if this was the issue, though its seems counter-intuitive, it isn't clear that improving on it would decrease unwanted pregnancies and/or abortions:
"In his 2005 article, “Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Contraception Have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?” Duke University professor Peter Arcidiacono suggests that increasing teenagers’ access to contraception “may actually increase long run pregnancy rates.” Even research by the Alan Guttmacher Institute supports this corollary: In its March 2005 “Contraceptive Use” brief, Guttmacher reports that a 2-percent decrease in contraceptive use from 1995 to 2002 did not accompany a rise in the annual number of abortions but, in fact, a drop in the number, from 1,359,400 to 1,293,000."
Finally, the contraceptive mentality, even if it could reduce abortion somewhat in the short-term (and I think the previous two challenges call that into serious question), is perhaps the strongest intellectual underpinning for abortion that we have and therefore would likely institute abortion in the long-term:
"Contraception is the promise of child-free sex, and when something goes wrong and a child is conceived—due either to the technical failure rate of contraception or to the possibility of human error in anything we humans undertake—abortion takes that child-free promissory note to the bank."
There is a reason why Europe still has an very high abortion rate despite have contraceptive saturation and strong social support for women: it is the mentality that consent to sex is not consent to procreation. This makes abortion just follow logically in a culture. Happily, we impose this connection on men against their will who don't pay child support even if they say 'consent to sex isn't consent to procreation and I'm not paying for no baby.' Let's apply this principle consistently.
Let's apply this principle consistently.
I have a better idea: Stop trying to argue that people should not have (safe, responsible) non-procreative sex. The argument is pointless---as if people en masse would ever take up that idea!---and it says a lot more about you than it does about sexual norms in our society.
Oh, and just because a person has used contraception in the past, and knows where and how to get it, doesn't mean that they are necessarily able to get it (contraceptive access) or that they know how to use it properly.
Should we also give up trying to argue that people should give a substantial amount of money to the poor? Or that they should spend time working in women's shelters? Or that we should stop eating factory farmed meat? I believe that one has a duty to do all of these things as well, but I have no illusions that people will 'en masse' start doing these things. That this should be a requirement for ethical exhortation seems arbitrary and just plain strange.
Should we also give up trying to argue that people should give a substantial amount of money to the poor? Or that they should spend time working in women's shelters? Or that we should stop eating factory farmed meat?
No, because those are good and worthy things to do. You're trying to argue that non-procreative sex is inherently a bad thing. Not only did you lose this argument a long, long time ago (the Catholic Church is rather fond of it), you're trying to fight with the very notion of what it is to be human. And the fact that you're tilting at this windmill only casts aspersions on your status as a well-adjusted human being.
What it is to be human? Hmmm. You mean like hording resources for yourself? Dominating those less powerful than you? Treating animals and the environment like things there merely for our use? If one cares about ethics one simply cannot have an uncritical stance towards what humans do naturally.
As humans depopulate themselves into economic chaos and turn the few humans that do remain into naked projections of the will of the humans that created them...and we begin to deal with the devastation that is already happening as a result of this...the argument will swing back in favor of treating contraception as something less than the silver bullet for all of our problems.
What it is to be human? Hmmm. You mean like hording resources for yourself? Dominating those less powerful than you? Treating animals and the environment like things there merely for our use? If one cares about ethics one simply cannot have an uncritical stance towards what humans do naturally.
If you think that having safe, responsible, non-procreative sex---as pleasurable as it is, as close as it can bring two people together, as awesome an expression of vitality that it can be---is a bad thing to be counted among those, then that's your problem. Most people do not share your screwed-up attitudes about sex, and your attempts to convince them otherwise are (to put it charitably) quixotic in light of their own experience with it.
As humans depopulate themselves into economic chaos and turn the few humans that do remain into naked projections of the will of the humans that created them...and we begin to deal with the devastation that is already happening as a result of this...
Wait... what? What the hell are you blabbering about? One minute, you're talking about non-procreative sex being bad, the next minute, you're talking Mad Max...? Whatever the argument was you were trying to make, it just flew off the tracks and crashed into Mars.
the argument will swing back in favor of treating contraception as something less than the silver bullet for all of our problems.
Since when has contraception been held to be "the silver bullet for all of our problems?" It is a solution to unwanted pregnancies. Which in turn helps with a lot of other problems, but certainly not all of them.
So, yeah, if you expect a reply from me I'm going to insist you use language which is respectful. To this point, you are not arguing like someone that actually wants to engage.
I'll take your retreat from the argument that 'anything that humans do is good' to mean that you concede the point. Good. Now, the question then becomes whether a thing that humans do helps them flourish. Our current contraceptive behaviors, far from helping human beings flourish, are depopulating ourselves to the brink of economic ruin (see Europe, Japan and Asia)and are turning children into objects of our will rather than free gifts with their own dignity: this is true broadly throughout society, but see in particular Octo Mom and designer children as in-your-face examples. The contraceptive mentality CERTAINLY doesn't lead to long term limiting of abortions as this blog post tries to argue (or, better, takes for granted) as it disconnects sex from procreation in precisely the way that makes abortion make sense.
Free Gift? You cannot be serious. But if I'm following you correctly, you object to sex absent the threat of an unwanted pregnancy. Allow me to point out that it only took three acts of intercourse to give us our (wildly expensive) 3 sons. Are you suggesting that people who do not want children at a particular point simply forgo sex until such time as pregnancy is desired? Just checking.
Our current contraceptive behaviors, far from helping human beings flourish, are depopulating ourselves to the brink of economic ruin (see Europe, Japan and Asia)
Considering the mushrooming population of the world, this is an inherently tribal, verging on racist, attitude. There are lots and lots of people already, and the idea that to further 'ourselves' women must "produce soldiers for the motherland and girls who can be future mothers of soldiers" or even "children whose taxes will pay our Social Security" ignores the fact that those soliders or consumers don't have to be our ethnic twins.
The contraceptive mentality CERTAINLY doesn't lead to long term limiting of abortions as this blog post tries to argue (or, better, takes for granted) as it disconnects sex from procreation in precisely the way that makes abortion make sense.
Just what is "the contraceptive mentality"?
Second question: if this mentality is what makes abortion make sense, just what exactly was behind all those abortions that happened historically throughout recorded history before modern contraception was invented?
Crowepps, perhaps you are referring to the tribe of Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, the entire Soviet Union, and Japan? What's the name of that tribe again? Anyway, do you support the kind of free market trade that will produce the workers to provide for your children's social security? In addition, the policies advocated in this blog post will filter down (its already starting in happen in various places in the Middle East) to the rest of the world and the birthrates will be similar to the death spiral in most of the developed world. The contraceptive mentality is too complex to explain here, but at the very least it involves the promise of child-free sex. With regard to your second question, you have a good point, and I should have spoken more precisely. The contraceptive mentality is what abortion 'largely' what abortion makes sense 'today.' Of course, before Christians came to power, most of the world thought that even newborn infants were not persons and this justified not only abortion but also infanticide. (In point of fact though the abortion rate in ancient societies...insofar as it can be ascertained from the birthrate...was far, far lower than it is in the developed world today...even with contraception factored in.) Today, the issue is largely not about that...but rather the duty one has to sustain a fetus with one's body. If consent to sex is not consent to procreation then obviously one has no duty to support a fetus and abortion follows logically.
Crowepps, perhaps you are referring to the tribe of Northern Europe,
Southern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, the entire Soviet
Union, and Japan? What's the name of that tribe again?
"Civilized"?
Anyway, do you
support the kind of free market trade that will produce the workers to
provide for your children's social security?
Free market trade has failed pretty disastrously to provide for the "security" of anyone except the rich.
In addition, the policies
advocated in this blog post will filter down (its already starting in
happen in various places in the Middle East) to the rest of the world
and the birthrates will be similar to the death spiral in most of the
developed world.
An ever increasing population is not necessary for economic growth. This fallacy is part of the "comsumer mentality".
The contraceptive mentality is too complex to explain
here, but at the very least it involves the promise of child-free sex.
Either explain your term so that it can be discussed under it's clear or stop using it as an argument. Using a term "too complex to explain" and expecting it to be persuasive based on the fact that it sounds vaguely perjorative is propaganda, not argument.
With regard to your second question, you have a good point, and I
should have spoken more precisely. The contraceptive mentality is what
abortion 'largely' what abortion makes sense 'today.' Of course, before
Christians came to power, most of the world thought that even newborn
infants were not persons and this justified not only abortion but also
infanticide.
Both before and after Christians "came to power" most of the world felt that only men who owned property had rights, and that everyone else, fetus/infant/child and adult were fair game.
(In point of fact though the abortion rate in ancient
societies...insofar as it can be ascertained from the birthrate...was
far, far lower than it is in the developed world today...even with
contraception factored in.)
The birthrate in ancient societies was actually higher than it is today by a considerable margin, however the incredible mortality of women, infants, toddlers and youth (only 50% of children survived to age 5) and the very high death rates from disease and infection did succeed in keeping the population low.
Today, the issue is largely not about
that...but rather the duty one has to sustain a fetus with one's body.
If consent to sex is not consent to procreation then obviously one has
no duty to support a fetus and abortion follows logically.
This is certainly a matter of personal opinion, which is why the law allowed each person to follow their own conscience. Most Americans have a problem with people who assign OTHER people "duties" to which they are not liable themselves - as for instance when Whites decided that it was the duty of Blacks to be 'subservient'.
Wow, its interesting when people are forced to say wild things in order to prove their point. Leaving aside the question of whether the US, Australia, etc. are civilized, are you suggested that those countries with high birthrates are not civilized? I hope not. Free market capitalism has brought more people out of poverty in the last three generations than anything in the history of human civilization. An increasing population is not necessary for growth (is that what I argued?)...but a depopulating one sure can't provide for its more numerous older members (which is what I argued). Are you suggesting that Christianity didn't bring with it difference in thinking about the rights of infants? No, it is not a matter of personal opinion...if fetuses just randomly show up attached to one's body one doesn't have a strong duty to provide sustainment for them anymore than one would have to provide it for a violinist. However, if consent to sex is consent to procreation then one does have a duty to provide...just as a father much pay child support for a one night stand.
Wow, its interesting when people are forced to say wild things in order to prove their point.I'm not trying to "prove a point" - I'm trying to have a discussion.
Leaving aside the question of whether the US, Australia, etc. are civilized, are you suggested that those countries with high birthrates are not civilized? I hope not.No, what I'm saying is that concern about the 'right people' reproducing is based in the idea that it is necessary to continue their CULTURE which is inherently superior to or more valuable than that of those who do have those high birth rates.
Free market capitalism has brought more people out of poverty in the last three generations than anything in the history of human civilization.I might agree to this statement if you would concede that the necessary REGULATION of free market capitalism was what actually spread the wealth through mechanisms like minimum wages, unionization and Workman's Comp, among others.
An increasing population is not necessary for growth (is that what I argued?)...but a depopulating one sure can't provide for its more numerous older members (which is what I argued).Your assumption here is that the numerous older members weren't able to save anything and be self-sustaining but instead will be impoverished and will need to be supported through government wealth redistribution, which by the way is a mechanism totally incompatible with "free market capitalism".
Are you suggesting that Christianity didn't bring with it difference in thinking about the rights of infants? No, it is not a matter of personal opinion...if fetuses just randomly show up attached to one's body one doesn't have a strong duty to provide sustainment for them anymore than one would have to provide it for a violinist. However, if consent to sex is consent to procreation then one does have a duty to provide...just as a father much pay child support for a one night stand.
No, Christianity historically didn't bring much difference in the rights of infants. Certainly there were no revolutionary changes in whether the lives of BORN infants were protected, particularly if the men in control of their mothers felt them to be 'illegitimate'.
No, Christianity historically didn't bring much difference in the rights of infants. Certainly there were no revolutionary changes in whether the lives of BORN infants were protected, particularly if the men in control of their mothers felt the creation of them to be 'illegitimate'.
If consent to sex is consent to procreation then what are all those fathers doing having one-night stands? Are they cuckoo birds trying to spread their genetic inheritance by requiring others to support and bring up their offspring? Behavior which is the antithesis of both Christian teachings and personal responsibility, in my opinion. When religion starts taking MALE promiscuity seriously, and punishing it by law, then banning abortion on the "consent to procreation" argument might make sense. Just for one example, think how much easier it would be to find adoptive homes for those unwanted children if their promiscuous fathers were sentenced for 18 years to payment of a monthly fine, creating a pool of money upon which adoptive parents could draw for expenses. Of course, the men couldn't be allowed actual CONTACT with the children, since their 'rounder' behavior proves they're unfit.
I'm not interested in the kind of people that are reproducing or not. I'm interested in societies reproducing such that they are self-sustaining and can provide a social structure for the weak and especially the old. One cannot do that, we are finding out, if one does reproduce at at or near the replacement rate. This is why Japan, Europe and Russia are falling all over themselves to get their citizens to have more babies: unfortunately, the contraceptive mentality has taken hold so strongly that it is rough-going to do reach this goal. I'm certainly in favor of regulated market capitalism. If you don't understand how, historically, Christians coming to power gave infants a right to life they never had previously I can point to several thinkers (both Christian and secular) who make this point explicitly. Are you seriously denying this? These fathers are having one night stands, in part, PRECISELY BECAUSE the idea that consent to sex is also consent to procreation is a joke. However, we do 'punish' them by law if they do not pay child support...though, I agree, not severely and not often enough. But the fact that we make any pay at all is evidence that we DO think that consent to sex is consent to procreation...otherwise why make the guy pay for his one night stand?
If you don't understand how, historically, Christians coming to power gave infants a right to life they never had previously I can point to several thinkers (both Christian and secular) who make this point explicitly. Are you seriously denying this?
Oh, you're talking about *thinkers* who *philosophically* assigned "a right to life they never had previously". I'm sure it's very important that church moralists had lots of lofty thoughts about the value of infants, but I was talking about how actual real infants were actually really treated in the REAL world, which wasn't much different at all. Aside from being *philosophically* assumed to be full of *original sin* of course.
At first. But then the culture followed. People who like newborn babies owe Christians coming to power for the shift which made them full members of the moral community. You're welcome. :) Interestingly, as Christian influence fades, we see a softening of the claim that newborn infants are persons in the same sense you and I are. Partial birth abortion, opposition to the infant born alive act, the Groningen Protocol, etc. are all pieces of evidence which suggest a reversion to old ways of thinking about newborn infants in solidly underway.
Just for one example, think how much easier it would be to find adoptive homes for those unwanted children if their promiscuous fathers were sentenced for 18 years to payment of a monthly fine, creating a pool of money upon which adoptive parents could draw for expenses.
Something that's not legally mandated at all. Excellent point crowepps.
So, yeah, if you expect a reply from me I'm going to insist you use language which is respectful. To this point, you are not arguing like someone that actually wants to engage.
I don't see much to engage with. You obviously have some serious hang-ups about sex, that you denigrate the (healthy) sex lives of others, with some rather strange arguments in the mix.
I'll take your retreat from the argument that 'anything that humans do is good' to mean that you concede the point. Good.
I haven't conceded anything. Where did I make that point? I said that non-procreative sex is a positive aspect of human nature. Human nature has its dark side, obviously, but that's not all of it.
Our current contraceptive behaviors, far from helping human beings flourish, are depopulating ourselves to the brink of economic ruin (see Europe, Japan and Asia)
I'll grant that these regions are having some hard times, but then, so are we. Why do you think that their economic difficulties are a result of depopulation, and not, say, their fiscal policy? Or their welfare structure?
and are turning children into objects of our will rather than free gifts with their own dignity: this is true broadly throughout society, but see in particular Octo Mom and designer children as in-your-face examples.
Objects of our will? Free gifts? I prefer to think of children as human beings, thank you very much.
That aside, are you trying to argue that the solution for the "economic ruin" problem you describe is for people to have children they don't want? Because that sounds to me more like a recipe for social ruin.
The contraceptive mentality CERTAINLY doesn't lead to long term limiting of abortions as this blog post tries to argue (or, better, takes for granted) as it disconnects sex from procreation in precisely the way that makes abortion make sense.
That makes about as much sense as arguing that seat belts don't save lives.
It is also true that over half the women seeking abortions report using contraceptives in the previous month (Guttmacher, I'll look for the reference).
Again, contraception isn't the complete answer. Isn't even close.
Again, contraception isn't the complete answer. Isn't even close.
I haven't seen anyone arguing that contraception, all by itself with no other steps necessary, is a "complete answer" to anything. Most complex problems don't have easy, one-step answers. Instead, they have complex solutions with many different steps.
Insisting that the only solution to abortion is outlawing it in all cases is also not a "complete answer" since it ignores a huge number of KNOWN problems such as medically necessary abortions, illegal abortions, maternal mortality, the difficulties society has supporting and adequately raising unwanted children, etc. All of which problems are not only well described in the historical record but are actually demonstrable today in those places where abortion was made illegal.
I guess I meant to say that, in this discussion, I think we're overstating its importance when it comes to reducing the need for abortion. But I agree that making abortion illegal won't accomplish what most prolifers think it will.
as for me i've never trusted very much all this pro-life people
... on the issue of contraception as a means to prevent abortion. I went to Catholic school for 13 years where we were taught that abortion AND birth control were evil, and I never understood how people didn't see the blatant hypocrisy. I also feel that so much of the abortion debate has been focused on the question, "Is abortion morally right?" instead of questions like, "Should abortion remain legal given the adverse effect of making it illegal?" and "How do we prevent women seeking abortions?" I've only recently come to realize how many pro-contraception groups and movements there are, and I feel happy that I've found a place where I belong and am supported! I'm fighting with you!
Thank you Cristina, thank you so much for pointing out that these groups are indeed in the minority. I've met many people, in online communities and in real life, who are pro-life and pro-contraception, and very few who are anti-contraception. And this majority is willing to work with and support pro-choice groups that try to increase access to contraception and sex ed and help women who choose to have children.
Now if only more pro-choicers would open their minds and consider for a second that maybe, just maybe, we're not about punishing women.
(My plural, btw...)
If so, they'd be all for any kind of contraception to help eliminate the need for abortion. The reason that the hard-core PLer's are against it in any way/shape/form is because (whether they can admit it to themselves or not) it's about punishing women for having sex because "they're all whores," for having the audacity to no longer totally submit to male dominance, and for daring to presume their value can extend beyond procreating more dominant males.
But then, many of these people believe the world began 4,000 years ago, so any sort of reasoning is futile.
....for or against abortion, contraception, or non-procreative sex.
I just know that I plan to continue having non-procreative sex for as long as I want. Whether I'm married or not. And I will get birth control on the black market if necessary. If my birth control fails, I will have an abortion even if I have to do it myself.