Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Remove all ads!

As I alluded to in my previous post, it's not even an issue of trust sometimes. I've dated intelligent women that were simply forgetful/pre-occupied/whatever. It's not that they were deliberately forgetting to take the pill in an effort to get pregnant - quite the opposite in fact - I know the one definitely didn't want to get pregnant while she was still in college. It's just that if they were busy doing something else at the time they were supposed to take the pill, they'd forget, and inadvertently skip it for the day.

Can you show me an abortion advocate? I really don't think I've ever seen one. Sure, I've seen people who are pro-choice, and advocate for the right of a woman to get an abortion, but I've never seen someone who was pro-abortion advocating that people actually should get abortions.

 

Bleh, bad terminology. Pro-choice advocates, then. Or abortion rights advocated. Or whatever.

 

I dont subscribe to anti abortion arguments, to me anti abortion nuts are hypocrates, unless theyre also anti contraception, after all, a sperm can develop into so much more.

you also have to bare in mind that while debating this with me, I do not place value on life. I know alot of people dont like that but I will only this kind of thing without emotional or empathic view points.

that relies on "what if" instead of solid "is" just because a rose bush can grow beautiful roses, doesnt mean its going to.

a fly is a fantastic piece of natural developement, their bodies being so tiny and yet so advanced, that they lack intelligence on a human level... sorry a soul is irrelevent, their physical form is perfect.

is it?

thats hardly a supporting statistic for your "almost guarenteed" comment.

 

They, uh, often are.

 

Ive never found one, they always say its the woman's own fault for not using contraception

 

I've also met a few people who were a waste of sperm....

 

I have to agree, and you are quite perceptive, Shosi. That's been pretty much the subtext on this thread.

 

Not without an egg to work with. I'll agree that there's some logic there, but not unassailable logic. Anyway, my point was that, despite what you said, most pro-lifers (that I've met at least) actually do know a lot about the processes of development and abortion.

Do you see an abortion as any better than killing a newborn? If you don't, and simply don't value either life, then that's an entirely different issue of discussion. If you do see a difference, then whatever value you place on either is irrelevant, as the difference between the two is what we're talking about.

True, but ultimately everything in life depens on 'what if' more than 'is'. 'What if' someone smashes into your car as you pass through the next intersection is more a concern than the fact that, currenty, your care 'is' whole and undamaged.

They are a facinating work of engineering. Perfect, I would disagree with, but quite nice. Still, ultimately, they are replacable (in all the ways that I value, at least). A human life isn't.

From a statistical point of view, yes. Note that I said, "almost guaranteed", not "actually guaranteed".

I have not heard anything about that study before. Looking it up, it seems only the beginning of the research to me. I've found no replication, and numerous mentions of followup research that they want to do (one example was whether there's a difference between women in different professions), so I wouldn't take it as the gospel truth. Unless a lot of women had undiagnosed tumors or the like, though, it does sound like a solid assessment. Still, that at least leaves a substantial majority.

I've only heard of them among Catholics.

 

There are a lot of Catholics. The pro-life movement in the USA started with them (the NRLC was originally a catholic organization) and Catholics are still disproportionately represented within the pro-life movement. Most of those Catholics are against all forms of contraception that block implantation as well. This means no Morning after pill, no IUD's, not even the birth control pill. The only options left are condoms*, the rhythm method** and the sin of Onan***.

* Condoms suck. Hard. There's no point to having sex when you can't feel anything. Think about it -- if condoms really felt like nothing was there, why would the manufacturers need to advertise so damn much? If I had to choose between Rosy Palm and a condom, I'd pick Rosy. I'm so glad I had a vasectomy...
** Laughably ineffective, this was originally a method people used to get pregnant. It doesn't work so well in reverse.
*** Don't worry, baby, I'll pull out...

Spoiler

...oops.

 

One, I didn't realize how thoroughly the Catholics started the ball rolling. These days they just seem one of a number of major players (almost all of which are Christian of one kind or another). A bit of research, though, tells me they were basically the only ones before Roe v Wade and that they galvalized the efforts afterward. Two, at least the standard birth control pills (as opposed to the morning after pill) aren't intended to block implantation. They work to block the egg from ever becoming fertilized, either through never letting it be released, or a much thicker mucus layer. I've heard that, if used improperly, they could terminate an active pregnancy, but then so could hiking*. Third, as for official Catholic teaching, both condoms and Onan's method are sins (Onan was killed for his act, after all). Of course, the vast majority of American Catholics don't pay attention to that. One survey I saw said that 96% of sexually active Catholic women used either the condom and/or the pill.

*and falling, and landing wrong. The point is, plenty of things done wrong can kill an embryo.

 

NOG, I have no interest in debating the reality of how birth control pills work when the topic is the position of Catholic pro-life activists on the pill. The Catholic activist position is well known, well documented, and whether or not they are right doesn't change what their position actually is. I also find the 96% figure highly suspect. More than 4% of sexually active Catholic women are going to be post-menopausal and Catholic birth rates are among the highest in the country. 96% is a cartoonish exaggeration. A substantial portion of Catholics differ with the Church on contraception -- hell, I used to be one of them -- but those Catholics aren't usually the activists.

 

I saw a similar study that showed nearly 40% - as in 40% of fertilized eggs never actually become a baby. In the vast majority of these cases, it was either that the egg failed to implant, or that the woman's hormone levels didn't rise fast enough to prevent her from getting her period (which basically would be a miscarriage). In both cases, the woman would likely never know that she was (albeit briefly) pregnant.

I agree with Drew that 96% is unbelievably high if they mean currently. I can believe 96% have, at some point in their lives, used some form of contraception. Heck, the pill has been commercially available for how long now? 50 years? Presumably nearly every post-menopausal Catholic were sexually active at a time when the pill was available. Condoms were around even earlier than that.

And just because Catholics have a high birth rate doesn't prove that they tend to not use birth control at all. In fact, because it is so rare anymore to see families with 5, 6, 7, etc, children actually suggests that they do.

 

I'll say my points simply:

1: I am opposed to abortion on demand.

2: I am not opposed to other birth control methods.

3: If sex is consensually engaged in, and a pregnancy results, then both parties, (the male and the female) should share equal responsibility for the pregnancy.

4: They should also have equal rights with regards to the pregnancy. If desiring equality makes me a sexist pig, then oink oink.

 

Rare? Sure, but a hell of a lot less than 96% of Catholics are using contraception. A Harris poll of 2217 Catholic women found that 97% of its respondents had once used a banned form of contraception, but that could have been a condom, the pill, an IUD, daily sponge, diaphragm, or a spermicide -- and that still doesn't indicate for us how many of them use it on a regular basis, nor does it tell us what contraception they use. A young teen using condoms for fear of VD is a far different thing from an adult taking the pill, for example. I grew up Catholic at a fairly liberal (Fransiscan) church, and it was positively scandalous when someone used the pill.

 

I grew up Catholic too, Drew. I was an altar boy (and no, I wasn't anally raped by my priest), briefly served the church as an acolyte, and even attended a Jesuit university. Keep in mind that I said that I agreed that there's no way 96% of Catholics regularly use birth control - only that 96% may have, at some point in their lives, used some form of contraception. I only specifically mentioned the pill and condom, as that seemed like the most common choices. Your study seems to agree with this.

And your church was a lot more liberal than mine - there were no scandals involving people using the pill, because most people at my church did not openly discuss their sex lives, nor contraceptive use.

 

The 'at one point' may have been in there, I'm not sure. I'm working from memory. It doesn't change the point (unless they're talking about pre-conversion use) that most Catholics ignore the ban on contraceptions. And no, I don't think the (Catholic) teen using a condom for fear of VD is all that different from the (Catholic) adult taking a pill, except maybe that the teen is ignoring a lot more than just the ban on contraceptives.

 

I tend to agree with this. In fact, while my evidence is only anecdotal, I'd say a majority of Catholics regularly ignore the ban on contraception (unless they are specifically trying to get pregnant of course). However, there are some facts I can offer that aren't anecdotal. The number of children per household has dropped over the years, and has for Catholics just like everyone else. So there seems to be two possibilities why this is so. Either people are using contraceptives more, or people are having sex less. I, for one, like having sex with my wife, but I don't like the prospect of having tons of kids, so my money is on the former.

I also think that age plays a role. Obviously, women in their 50s and over aren't still having kids, and don't have to worry about contraception, but I'm talking about their child bearing years. I think the older you are the greater the chance that you didn't use contraception at the time that you could have had kids. My wife is the youngest of 7 kids, so it certainly suggests her parents didn't use contraception, or if they did, they used it poorly. But as the youngest of 7, my wife's parents are both in their 70s.

You see this time and again. I know one couple under the age of 40 who has more than 3 kids (and they actually wanted three kids, but when she got pregnant the 3rd time, it was with twins, so the 4th child wasn't by design). But I know tons of people who are my parents' age who come from families with 4 or more children. Once you go to my grandparents' age bracket, having 4 or more children was practically routine. In fact, all four of my grandparents came from families where they were one of at least four siblings (with the maximum of 7).

Considering when contraceptive use - especially the pill - became widespread we see a corresponding drop in birth rates. (You can look up the data - it happens in the mid-60s.) To think that the two are unrelated - even among Catholics who aren't supposed to use them - is implausible. While your priest may frown on the use of contraceptives, there's no reason he has to know you're on them either.

 

Contraceptive medications are also used for things other than simply preventing pregnancy. Sometimes a course of pills to alter hormone levels for specific surgeries are also employed - they are still classified as contraceptives because that's what they were made for, yet doesn't mean there are no other benefits to a medication.

I'm on a pill that's an anti-depressant, as part of its chemistry helps painkillers enter and remain in the system for longer. I'm not using it as an anti-depressant yet someone who sees the list of medications I'm on is just as likely to judge that I am.

Would I still have to tick the box on a medical questionnaire saying I have or had in the past three months taken anti-depressant medication? Yes, because of the chemistry involved.

I have no problem imagining a catholic woman, who is single or even with a partner yet unmarried on a contraceptive pill for the benefits it subscribes even if she was not sexually active.

 

Guys, I think we need to stick to talking about the activist Catholics rather than the rank and file, and there are a few points I need to address. First of all, Latino birth rates are still very high. Latinos are almost uniformly Catholic, and now make up 45% of American Catholics between the ages of 18 and 39. Not only do a majority of Catholics differ with the church on the matter of contraception, but they also differ on the matter of abortion in general. Clearly, Catholics that differ with Rome on both issues are not activists. We already know that both the pro-life and pro-choice movements exist on the margins, so the fact that Catholics who agree with Church teaching on both abortion and contraception are rare is largely irrelevant. To quote Obi-Wan, they aren't the droids we're looking for.