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.

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.

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.

n/t

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.

 

 

 

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.

The statistics don't lie and your reasoning is sound.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

The Program for Environmental and Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco took up the question of the contamination of water supplies by birth control. The findings show that the claims about this problem are terrifically exaggerated. Please see their post about it, after the subject was taken up on the Colbert Report with the guest Nicholas Kristof, below:

 

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.