Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

aloyisious

chris525 wrote: »

Well then why did they pregnant if they didn't want to? It's not difficult to prevent. If they can't think that logically then how would they know to make an 'informed choice'? Not talking about the 'hard cases'. This is coming from a female.

One might factor in a faulty condom or other anti-pregnancy contraceptive measure used, no failure of logical thought about the pregnancy they might have to make a later informed choice on, just an unforeseen event.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

chris525 wrote: »

Well then why did they pregnant if they didn't want to? It's not difficult to prevent. If they can't think that logically then how would they know to make an 'informed choice'? Not talking about the 'hard cases'. This is coming from a female.

One might factor in a faulty condom or other anti-pregnancy contraceptive measure used, no failure of logical thought about the pregnancy they might have to make a later informed choice on, just an unforeseen event.

I had tubal ligation last year which has a failure rate, most commonly resulting in ectopic pregnancy which would mean I'd need an abortion. I think after three kids and three complicated pregnancies I'm entitled to decide our family is complete.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure it'll be against somebody's christian values and they'll feel it'll corrupt Ireland
:rolleyes:

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

aloyisious

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

Only it might be the visitors from abroad flooding our streets determined to ensure the land of saints and scholars stays intact and true to the faith of our fathers.

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

Only it might be the visitors from abroad flooding our streets determined to ensure the land of saints and scholars stays intact and true to the faith of our fathers.

Ermahgerd... perhaps the floodgates did open all the other times we were warned they might... :eek:

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Link to this claim?

Fair question. I had a link some months back and now I can't find the bloody thing. I'll keep looking.

Cabaal wrote: »

Also, what about education?, is this being factored into your claim correlation?

Just to be clear; what I'm pointing to is correlation, not causation.

Certainly simply distributing contraceptives does little or nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies, in much the way that distributing condoms, in isolation, proved to be largely ineffective as a method of controlling the spread of HIV infection. You need education and information, not just in in the technical sense of getting people to understand how contraceptives operate and how they should be used, but in the wider sense of empowering them to think about the issues involved and make and implement responsible and effective choices.

One theory about why more contraception doesn't seem to do much for unplanned/unwise pregnancy rates is not that it causes pregnancies, but b\that both the promotion/distribution of contraception and the persistence of unplanned/unwise pregnancies are manifestations of underlying cultural trends - changes in attitudes to sex and sexuality. These could be positive changes - less shame, less condemnation - or not so positive - a hedonistic attitude which denies or eclipses the need for maturity, responsibility in sexual choices - and to some extent the same changes can be differently characterised, depending on the stance of the person doing the characterisation.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, improved access to contraception and an increase in the abortion rate tend to be positively correlated, which is not what you'd expect. Nobody quite knows why this is, but it definitely is.

Really? A quick Google says the exact opposite. With many links to many studies, but here is just one:

Access to free birth control reduces abortion rates


Now I'm sure there are provisos around education and cost of contraception etc (eg taking into account when religious healthcare companies refuse to fund 'artificial' contraception, meaning it's not as accessible as all that). Still, I'm not seeing anything from a non religious site that makes the claim you've just made.

Care to row back on it a bit?

nozzferrahhtoo

chris525 wrote: »

Well then why did they pregnant if they didn't want to? It's not difficult to prevent.

Why do people get injured? It's not difficult to prevent. Yet the fact is that despite most of us not getting injured most of the time.... some people still do. Some while doing things that might invite it.... like sport..... but some while just going about their daily business.

Prevention is great, but there are so many of us that even with a TINY % of failures in prevention, there are always 1000s of people who need help in a crisis. Be it injuries..... or unplanned pregnancies. That is the power of statistics. When you have millions of people, tiny %s suddenly result in large groups of people.

Worse though, a massive flaw in your assumption is that they did not want to. Many people get pregnant fully planned, but then their circumstances change drastically to the point they can not follow through with their original plans.

chris525 wrote: »

This is coming from a female.

How is that relevant exactly?

Calina

chris525 wrote: »

Well then why did they pregnant if they didn't want to? It's not difficult to prevent. If they can't think that logically then how would they know to make an 'informed choice'? Not talking about the 'hard cases'. This is coming from a female.

There are a number of reasons why people wind up pregnant unintentionally.

1) sometimes people's cycles vary changing the window of opportunity.
2) lots of women do not realise sperm may cause fertilisation up to 5 days after sex
3) Some of them did not get any choice about the sex anyway
4) condoms break
5) no pill is 100% effective
6) some contraceptive measures can be disrupted by diarrhea
7) MAP costs money and can still be a problem to acquire for a lot of women.

The fact that you claim to be female adds nothing to your argument; you pretend an argument from authority. But any woman should be aware that apart from just not having sex at all, there is no fool
proof way of avoiding unplanned pregnancies.

You may want to consider a little self education.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

The whole country will be swamped in a sea of ridin'. Down with this sort of thing!

aloyisious wrote: »

Only it might be the visitors from abroad flooding our streets determined to ensure the land of saints and scholars stays intact and true to the faith of our fathers.

Here to grab some free johnnies and maybe a ride...

Peregrinus wrote: »

a hedonistic attitude which denies or eclipses the need for maturity, responsibility in sexual choices

Ah, where would we be without the good old Christian Judgemental BS™

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair question. I had a link some months back and now I can't find the bloody thing. I'll keep looking.


Just to be clear; what I'm pointing to is correlation, not causation.

Certainly simply distributing contraceptives does little or nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies, in much the way that distributing condoms, in isolation, proved to be largely ineffective as a method of controlling the spread of HIV infection. You need education and information, not just in in the technical sense of getting people to understand how contraceptives operate and how they should be used, but in the wider sense of empowering them to think about the issues involved and make and implement responsible and effective choices.

One theory about why more contraception doesn't seem to do much for unplanned/unwise pregnancy rates is not that it causes pregnancies, but b\that both the promotion/distribution of contraception and the persistence of unplanned/unwise pregnancies are manifestations of underlying cultural trends - changes in attitudes to sex and sexuality. These could be positive changes - less shame, less condemnation - or not so positive - a hedonistic attitude which denies or eclipses the need for maturity, responsibility in sexual choices - and to some extent the same changes can be differently characterised, depending on the stance of the person doing the characterisation.

Would the study or whatever your post contents are based on refer only to females and their contraceptive devices and measures and ignore condoms as a method of male contraception? It seems to me that a major part of the theory or study you are quoting from relies on the angle that hedonistic and/or an unthinking attitude are responsible for the increase in pregnancies and abortions. Is the theory of the hedonistic attitude referred-to a two-party issue or down to the female alone, and therefore liable to be statistically misused by whomever uses the study or stats?

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Would the study or whatever your post contents are based on refer only to females and their contraceptive devices and measures and ignore condoms as a method of male contraception? It seems to me that a major part of the theory or study you are quoting from relies on the angle that hedonistic and/or an unthinking attitude are responsible for the increase in pregnancies and abortions. Is the theory of the hedonistic attitude referred-to a two-party issue or down to the female alone, and therefore liable to be statistically misused by whomever uses the study or stats?

Bit hard to discuss the detailed contents of a study that nobody else has seen, and that the person alleging its existence seems not to know anything much about, not even whether it's a single study by the Iona Institute or multiple studies by actual scientists.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair question. I had a link some months back and now I can't find the bloody thing. I'll keep looking.


Just to be clear; what I'm pointing to is correlation, not causation.

Certainly simply distributing contraceptives does little or nothing to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies, in much the way that distributing condoms, in isolation, proved to be largely ineffective as a method of controlling the spread of HIV infection. You need education and information, not just in in the technical sense of getting people to understand how contraceptives operate and how they should be used, but in the wider sense of empowering them to think about the issues involved and make and implement responsible and effective choices.

One theory about why more contraception doesn't seem to do much for unplanned/unwise pregnancy rates is not that it causes pregnancies, but b\that both the promotion/distribution of contraception and the persistence of unplanned/unwise pregnancies are manifestations of underlying cultural trends - changes in attitudes to sex and sexuality. These could be positive changes - less shame, less condemnation - or not so positive - a hedonistic attitude which denies or eclipses the need for maturity, responsibility in sexual choices - and to some extent the same changes can be differently characterised, depending on the stance of the person doing the characterisation.

Also, a link to this theory too please - you start the post by saying you're not saying there is a causal link, and then you inform us that there's a theory about just such a causal link.

Who holds this theory please and would they by any chance have anything to do with a religious group of some sort?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Also, a link to this theory too please - you start the post by saying you're not saying there is a causal link, and then you inform us that there's a theory about just such a causal link.

Who holds this theory please and would they by any chance have anything to do with a religious group of some sort?

I'm still hunting for the bloody paper, and I can't find it.

No, so far as I recall it wasn't from a religious group. It was an academic paper from medics published in one of the journals that deals with public health. My memory tells me it was comparing the success of strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancies in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and the conclusion was that the effective strategy was one which empowered women, and particularly younger women, to make and act on sexual choices, but that increased availability of contraception didn't seem to be an effective way of doing this.

But, given the countries concerned, this may be in a context where contraception was already fairly readily available, and therefore whatever empowerment gains could be acheived by this had already been acheived, and other strategies for empowering women were needed.

Sorry, I realise that without a cite to the paper this is all fairly wooly and easily dismissed, so I'm going to shut up about this unless I can find the paper.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm still hunting for the bloody paper, and I can't find it.

No, so far as I recall it wasn't from a religious group. It was an academic paper from medics published in one of the journals that deals with public health. My memory tells me it was comparing the success of strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancies in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, and the conclusion was that the effective strategy was one which empowered women, and particularly younger women, to make and act on sexual choices, but that increased availability of contraception didn't seem to be an effective way of doing this.

But, given the countries concerned, this may be in a context where contraception was already fairly readily available, and therefore whatever empowerment gains could be acheived by this had already been acheived, and other strategies for empowering women were needed.

Sorry, I realise that without a cite to the paper this is all fairly wooly and easily dismissed, so I'm going to shut up about this unless I can find the paper.

I think you dreamt it - you wanted so much for it to be true that it came to you in your dreams!

I looked too, and not only can I see no sign of anything of the sort, but even if it does exist, for it to be worth anything, there would need to be some explanation of why it should be more accurate than the multiple studies that find exactly the opposite.

Another problem is that you said you weren't claiming a causal link, only to go straight on and suggest one (the usual Judeo-Christian guilt tripping one, of course) - so is that a theory that was in this alleged study or is it straight out of your own head? Because if it's an actual theory held by more than the anonymous authors of this study you can't find, then surely you could find that published in other publications? As it is, woolly is not the word that comes to mind. To be frank.

Also, when you couldn't find the study, why didn't you take into account, or even mention, that bizarrely you did find several studies that said the opposite, and consider their contents? One of the first that came up when I went looking for your study was one about the Netherlands saying contraception did reduce abortion, and yet you're still suggesting that it might have been the Netherlands - because you're actually searching for a (non existent?) study that says what you already believe.

gctest50

Probably this ?

From the shower at Human Life International

Human Life International

Contraception and its Deadly Consequences

By Fr. Shenan J. Boquet|August 12th 2017


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

– Fr. Paul Marx, founder of Human Life International

Several years ago Ann Furedi, the former director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Britain’s largest abortion provider, made a shocking admission. A survey of 2000 women who sought abortions at BPAS had found that two-thirds of them were using contraception at the time they became pregnant.

“Contraception,” she lamented, “lets people down.”

I’d go much further than that. Contraception doesn’t just let people down; it destroys women, families and society.



Fr. Marx often warned that contraception and the contraceptive mentality are the root cause of abortion and have a direct correlation to other assaults against life and family, such as euthanasia and homosexuality.

He would also emphatically add that not only does access to contraception fail to decrease the abortion rate, it actually increases it.

People often scoff when I tell them the same thing. For some reason, this claim strikes many people as counter-intuitive, even logically contradictory. “How can that be?” they ask. “If contraception reduces the risk that sex will result in pregnancy, then surely it reduces the abortion rate!”

Ironically enough, one of the first people to predict that the widespread use of contraception would increase rather than decrease the abortion rate was not a pro-life activist. Far from it! It was the first medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Dr. Malcolm Potts, who predicted in 1973, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.” Moreover, he added, “Those who use contraceptives are more likely than those who do not to resort to induced abortion.”

Unfortunately, this was a rare flash of honesty from a pro-abortion leader and death peddler.

For the most part, pro-abortion talking points – propaganda – are painfully consistent: Modern contraception [they claim] is a highly effective method of preventing unplanned pregnancy. With consistent use, a couple using modern methods of contraception will avoid unplanned pregnancies. This in turn eliminates the need for abortion. Therefore [according to pro-abortionists], if pro-lifers really wish to decrease abortions, they should support making contraception more easily available.

Sadly and scandalously, this deceptive argument and propaganda has found far too many believers – even inside the Church.

And yet, for all that, a full two-thirds of women seeking abortions at BPAS in the UK were using contraception at the time they became pregnant. Common sense points to the reality that following the invention of the Pill, abortion rates skyrocketed. If contraception is so amazingly effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies, how can this possibly be?

Something doesn’t add up.

Ann Furedi, in another rare flash of candor from a top abortion activist, gives us part of the answer. In the same revealing remarks mentioned above, Furedi referred to pro-lifers who strongly critique the claim that contraception reduces abortion: “Arguably they [pro-lifers] are right.”

She went on explaining why contraception doesn’t do what it is designed to do:

Access to effective contraception creates an expectation that women can control their fertility and plan their families. Given that expectation, women may be less willing to compromise their plans for the future. In the past, many women reluctantly accepted that an unplanned pregnancy would lead to maternity. Unwanted pregnancies were dutifully, if resentfully, carried to term. In days when sex was expected to carry the risk of pregnancy, an unwanted child was a chance a woman took. Today, we expect sex to be free from that risk and unplanned maternity is not a price we are prepared to pay….The simple truth is that the tens of thousands of women who seek abortion each year are not ignorant of contraception. Rather they have tried to use it, indeed they may have used it, and become pregnant regardless.

This is all very true. Contraception, by providing the illusion of perfect safety, creates unrealistic expectations about the outcome of engaging in sex, so that when contraception fails (as it often does), couples are far more likely to “take care of the problem” than shoulder responsibility for their behavior.

But even this doesn’t fully capture the staggering impact of the contraceptive revolution. What Furedi neglects to mention is that, not only does contraception make a person facing an unplanned pregnancy less willing to “compromise their plans for the future” than in the past, it also makes them far more likely to engage in casual sexual behavior that could result in an unwanted pregnancy in the first place!

This was also the conclusion of Professor Kingsley Davis of the United States Commission on Population Growth and the American Future:

The current belief that illegitimacy will be reduced if teenage girls are given an effective contraceptive is an extension of the same reasoning that created the problem in the first place. It reflects an unwillingness to face problems of social control and social discipline, while trusting some technological device to extricate society from its difficulties.…The irony is that the illegitimacy rise occurred precisely while contraceptive use was becoming more, rather than less, widespread and respectable.

The sexual revolution was predicated upon the highly dubious claim that modern technology had “solved” sex, ushering in a shining new era of sexual “freedom” in which people could “express themselves” sexually with whomever they liked without any of the traditional fears of pregnancy or STDs. Sex could be as meaningful, or as casual, or as frequent as you liked.

Millions of people took the sexual revolutionaries at their word. But instead of enjoying a shining age of consequence-free sex, we got AIDS, the gonorrhoea super bug, the vast normalization of fornication and adultery, an explosion in the divorce rate, and hundreds of millions of dead unborn babies!

In a press release after announcing the finding that so many women seeking abortions at BPAS were using contraception, Furedi, in a chilling statement, exposed the brutal truth behind the contraception lie. Women, she concluded, “need accessible abortion services as a back-up for when their contraception lets them down.”

This is the macabre business model of the abortion industry: Make millions by selling vast quantities of contraceptives to couples by lying to them about its long-term reliability, and then make millions more by cleaning up “the mess” when they took you at your word.

And even so, we have not taken into account the truth that science has since uncovered: that not only do many forms of chemical contraceptives prevent a baby from being conceived in the first place, they also have the secondary effect of preventing an already conceived baby from implanting in his or her mother’s womb – by acting as an abortifacient.

How many millions of unborn babies have died in the first few days of their development by being unable to find a home in an environment made hostile to them through the use of the Pill or other forms of chemical contraception? It is impossible to say, but chilling to ponder.

We should take one final point to heart. Fr. Marx was deeply dismayed at the failure of the ministers of the Church to draw this powerful connection between contraception and abortion – anti-life mentality. He wrote:

The evidence is mountainous that contraception leads to abortion, and yet bishops and priests just do not seem to see the connection, if one may judge by the fact that they rarely (if ever) preach against it. I myself have preached in more than 600 parishes in the last thirty years, always telling it as it is and then going to the back of the church to absorb the flack of departing parishioners. In 95 percent of the parishes, people tell me I am the first priest to talk about contraception and sterilization from the pulpit.

Yes, contraception kills. It destroys lives and families.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, let us pray that our spiritual leaders will shoulder their responsibility to proclaim the life-and joy-giving truth Blessed Pope Paul VI courageously reaffirmed.

gctest50

.


Now after that brief interlude, back to reality :

The abortion rate [ in the Netherlands ] fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world.

Between 1965 and 1975, a shift from a largely agricultural society to an industrial society, rapid economic growth and the establishment of a welfare state, a reduced influence of the church in public and personal life, introduction of mass media, and a rapid increase in the educational level of both men and women brought about a rapid change in traditional values and family relations in the Netherlands.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7971545/

TLDR : If you want the abortion rate to go down, hang the priests

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you dreamt it - you wanted so much for it to be true that it came to you in your dreams! . . . .

I dispute the motivation, but I can't really deny the conclusion!

Even if my recollections are correct, I have to concede that they don't support the statement I initially made, which is that improved access to contraception is associated with a rise in the abortion rate. The most we can say - and to say even this with any confidence I'd have to find the damn paper - is that in certain circumstances or conditions improved access to contraceptives might be associated with a rise in abortions.

In general it strikes me that the efficacy of making contraception more accessible is going to depend on how accessible it already is. If contraception is already pretty readily available, making it more freely available is only going to have a marginal effect. It's

In this case, the proposal is to make contraception available at no cost. But it's already the case that the cost of accessing contraception in Ireland is a tiny fraction of the cost of either carrying a child to term or accessing an abortion, so the financial incentives are already heavily weighted towards encouraging sexually active people to use contraception. I'm dubious about the idea that shifting that cost-benefit calculation a little bit more towards contraception is going to make a huge difference. Whatever the factors are that are stopping people from using contraception, I don't think the desire to save money is likely to be the biggest one.

I think it's telling that the proposal is to make contraception free to women, but I'm not quite sure what it tells us. Is this the state buying into and reinforcing the notion that it's a woman's role to take responsibility for contraception? Is there research that shows that women find the cost of contraception a barrier but men do not? (Which would be a bizarre finding, given who the costs of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies tend to fall on but, if that's what the research shows, then that's what it shows.) Is there something else going on here?

The Minister's proposals haven't been published yet, but I'm thinking that the starting point has to be an exploration of the extent to which, and the reasons for which, sexually active people are not using contraception. Until we know that, we have no reason to assume that making contraception available for free is going to have much of an impact; the impediments to contraception use may have little to do with money.

I understand your suspicion that my position here is religiously-motivated. But, really, the whole premise behind this initiative is that a high abortion rate is a Bad Thing. If a women doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place, not getting pregnant in the first place is obviously a better outcome than getting pregnant and then obtaining an abortion; I don't think you need any religious motivation to hold that view, or that holding that view is in any way inconsistent with simultaneously affirming a woman's right to access an abortion. My point is that strategies aimed at avoiding unnecessary abortions need to be evidence-based; until we know that it's the cost of contraception that discourages contraception use, we can't assume that putting our resources into making contraception free is the most effective use of those resources. For the reasons already pointed out, I'm sceptical that the cost issue is a big driver of the choices people are making in this regard.

(And, if it is a big driver, that's some wildly irrational decision-making going on right there because, on any view, for a sexually active person using contraception costs a lot less than not using it. If perceptions of cost are the issue, we might still get better outcomes by putting our resources into equipping people to make reproductive choices that take account of the costs on both sides of the question.)

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's telling that the proposal is to make contraception free to women, but I'm not quite sure what it tells us. Is this the state buying into and reinforcing the notion that it's a woman's role to take responsibility for contraception? Is there research that shows that women find the cost of contraception a barrier but men do not? (Which would be a bizarre finding, given who the costs of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies tend to fall on but, if that's what the research shows, then that's what it shows.) Is there something else going on here?

Per this report from February: https://www.thejournal.ie/free-contraception-simon-harris-4494474-Feb2019/

female contraception includes a Doctor's visit plus the cost of the treatment. Numbers I've seen thrown around online are $100-200 for the treatment alone (assuming this is contraception not sterilization which requires hospitalization, and is very difficult for a woman to get in Ireland). I agree, much MUCH cheaper than the cost of a child, but non-zero, and you know how in Ireland the "beal bocht" is a common refrain.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dispute the motivation, but I can't really deny the conclusion!

Even if my recollections are correct, I have to concede that they don't support the statement I initially made, which is that improved access to contraception is associated with a rise in the abortion rate. The most we can say - and to say even this with any confidence I'd have to find the damn paper - is that in certain circumstances or conditions improved access to contraceptives might be associated with a rise in abortions.

In general it strikes me that the efficacy of making contraception more accessible is going to depend on how accessible it already is. If contraception is already pretty readily available, making it more freely available is only going to have a marginal effect. It's

In this case, the proposal is to make contraception available at no cost. But it's already the case that the cost of accessing contraception in Ireland is a tiny fraction of the cost of either carrying a child to term or accessing an abortion, so the financial incentives are already heavily weighted towards encouraging sexually active people to use contraception. I'm dubious about the idea that shifting that cost-benefit calculation a little bit more towards contraception is going to make a huge difference. Whatever the factors are that are stopping people from using contraception, I don't think the desire to save money is likely to be the biggest one.

I think it's telling that the proposal is to make contraception free to women, but I'm not quite sure what it tells us. Is this the state buying into and reinforcing the notion that it's a woman's role to take responsibility for contraception? Is there research that shows that women find the cost of contraception a barrier but men do not? (Which would be a bizarre finding, given who the costs of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies tend to fall on but, if that's what the research shows, then that's what it shows.) Is there something else going on here?

The Minister's proposals haven't been published yet, but I'm thinking that the starting point has to be an exploration of the extent to which, and the reasons for which, sexually active people are not using contraception. Until we know that, we have no reason to assume that making contraception available for free is going to have much of an impact; the impediments to contraception use may have little to do with money.

I understand your suspicion that my position here is religiously-motivated. But, really, the whole premise behind this initiative is that a high abortion rate is a Bad Thing. If a women doesn't want to be pregnant in the first place, not getting pregnant in the first place is obviously a better outcome than getting pregnant and then obtaining an abortion; I don't think you need any religious motivation to hold that view, or that holding that view is in any way inconsistent with simultaneously affirming a woman's right to access an abortion. My point is that strategies aimed at avoiding unnecessary abortions need to be evidence-based; until we know that it's the cost of contraception that discourages contraception use, we can't assume that putting our resources into making contraception free is the most effective use of those resources. For the reasons already pointed out, I'm sceptical that the cost issue is a big driver of the choices people are making in this regard.

(And, if it is a big driver, that's some wildly irrational decision-making going on right there because, on any view, for a sexually active person using contraception costs a lot less than not using it. If perceptions of cost are the issue, we might still get better outcomes by putting our resources into equipping people to make reproductive choices that take account of the costs on both sides of the question.)

I dont have time to do more than skim this just now, but one thing that jumps out is that your point that contraception costs less than pregnancy etc negates the need for free or nearly free contraception, but this supposes that people think the situation through very deeply and completely rationally every single time before having sex - which we know isn't true.

It's like accidents - we all know that driving too fast increases your risk of an accident, and yet who can guarantee that when they're late for an important appointment they won't take a chance "just this once". Or even regularly.

Or safety procedures at work - sure everyone thinks they're important, but how much effort (and money, for the employer) is everyone really prepared to put into following procedures every single time, without fail?

Basically, any extra expense or difficulty of access to contraception will end up meaning that some people will occasionally take a chance and hope for the best.
That's why accidents happen. Of any sort. And telling people that if they do get injured the hospital will tell them that it's just too bad and they won't treat them may prevent some accidents, but it won't prevent them all, and it isn't a way to run a health service anyway.

That's why your whole "point" is pointless anyway - because even if it were true, I don't think people would ever decide that this was a good enough reason to go back to a regime where women lived in fear of getting pregnant. And because it self evidently isn't true anyway.

Hotblack Desiato

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably this ?

Human Life International

Contraception and its Deadly Consequences

By Fr. Shenan J. Boquet|August 12th 2017

In summary:

Every sperm is sacred.

Women are sluts.

But what else would you expect from the RCC.

In days when sex was expected to carry the risk of pregnancy, an unwanted child was a chance a woman took.

Think Fr. Marx might need some remedial sex education.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In this case, the proposal is to make contraception available at no cost. But it's already the case that the cost of accessing contraception in Ireland is a tiny fraction of the cost of either carrying a child to term or accessing an abortion, so the financial incentives are already heavily weighted towards encouraging sexually active people to use contraception. I'm dubious about the idea that shifting that cost-benefit calculation a little bit more towards contraception is going to make a huge difference. Whatever the factors are that are stopping people from using contraception, I don't think the desire to save money is likely to be the biggest one.

I think this argument is deeply flawed. Many of those starting to become sexually active will have either no income or limited income so cost of contraception is a major issue. The fact that carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion is even more expensive is not particularly relevant as history shows us that a large number of people will take risks here particularly where there may be drink involved. The issue is not one of cost-benefit but rather risk mitigation.

aloyisious

IF the combined Fr Marx and Fr Shenan J Boquet article is the one which provided the paper on which Peregrinus based his/her post, then IMO, a large part of the post is faulty as both priests were using earlier papers from BPAS and IPPF from which they extracted two items about contraceptive usage and turned them about to prove a point about what they claim was the cause for an increased number of abortions; that giving people access to contraceptives and the legal right to use them was what was wrong.

Put differently, both priests were not interested at all in people being educated in how to use contraceptives properly with forethought and afterthought in order for them to prevent conception. Both want the legal right to use contraceptives restricted to rein in humans "hedonistic" desire to copulate as they see the contraceptive reduces the concept of responsibility for their actions in their minds. They wants women to abstain from sex if they are not copulating for the purpose of producing babies for the good of families and society. That point is accentuated by this sentence from Fr. Shenan J. Boquet in his dated document; August 12th 2017, "I’d go much further than that. Contraception doesn’t just let people down; it destroys women, families and society".

Fr Boquet also showed where he was coming from when he described Dr Potts one of the part-authors of the earlier papers he based his on as a death-peddler.

Mark Hamill

gctest50 wrote: »

Probably this ?

This article from them gives the links to the studies (from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) they say support their claim.

The first study just says that 1in4 women having abortions used contraception, but it failed. All contraception has a failure rate, so this is not especially surprising.
The second link says that while more abortions are performed earlier than 10 weeks (compared to 2005) thanks to improved access, the rate of abortions performed after 20 weeks has not fallen. In cases were contraception was involved but had failed (based on a study of 28 women), the issue was in the women not recognising their pregnancy due to hormonal contraception altering their menstrual cycle. You will notice that this does not mean that these contraception-using women were having abortions they wouldn't have had if they didn't use contraception (and therefore increasing the overall rate of abortion because of the contraception). It means they were having the abortions later than they would have had, because the failed contraception hid the signs. This data does not mean that overall rate of abortion increased.


So, shock horror, a religious pro life group has taken two studies and twisted them to say something they don't say.
Also just shocking that they omit the conclusion of the first study:

Ann Furedi, bpas Chief Executive, said:

“The answer to unsafe abortion is not contraception, it is safe abortion. When you encourage women to use contraception, you give them the sense that they can control their fertility – but if you do not provide safe abortion services when that contraception fails you are doing them a great disservice. Our data shows women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, even when they are using some of the most effective methods. Family planning is contraception and abortion. Abortion is birth control that women need when their regular method lets them down.”

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think this argument is deeply flawed. Many of those starting to become sexually active will have either no income or limited income so cost of contraception is a major issue. The fact that carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion is even more expensive is not particularly relevant as history shows us that a large number of people will take risks here particularly where there may be drink involved. The issue is not one of cost-benefit but rather risk mitigation.

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mm. Condoms are pretty affordable; I doubt cost is a significant barrier to use, which means that we can't assume that making other forms of contraception cheaper or free would necessarily do much to alter choices or change behaviour. The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception, even if they were as cheap as condoms.

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making; wouldn't a sounder approach be to examine the reasons for this behaviour and tackle those? If people are only making their reproductive choices while in drink, doesn't that speak of a deeply conflicted and unhealthy attitude to sexuality? That's not a problem you're going to fix with price reductions.

Lol, I see I was right that the "theory" was actually out of your own head and you didn't need a study at all to get it from, it's just what you already believe.

lazygal

Walkingstik wrote: »

WATCH the video "SILENT SCREAM "on liveleak or bestgore
The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements
Really nice what the left want
Hopefully they get the same treatment

And despite what communists call a child in womb he/ she will fight the doctors tools of death

[UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED BY MOD]

It's like anti choice bingo.

robindch

Walkingstik wrote: »

[UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED BY MOD]

Now, now, no need for that kind of language. Have a read of the forum charter and get back to a mod if you feel it’s unclear in any way.

Welcome to A+A.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The factors that lead people not to use condoms may also lead them not to use other methods of contraception

I think contraceptive methods are so diverse that there is likely only to be a minimal overlap in such factors. Taking a pill daily any time you want contrasted with using a condom "in the heat of the moment" for example are subject to many different factors. Factors that are also much different to, say, having a vasectomy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Making contraception cheaper is a poor solution to the problem of risky behaviour and poor decision-making

If it was THE solution I would agree. It being one part of a chain of solutions, ideas and initiatives however would seem to me to be much different. Making contraception affordable is a great thing to do. Making it less affordable is dumb ass.

I just would not recommend relying on it alone to have much of an effect. Suffice to say though....

Peregrinus wrote: »

wouldn't a sounder approach

.... these things are not mutually exclusive. I do not see either as "sounder". I see them both as important and we should be doing both. And many other things besides.

nozzferrahhtoo

Walkingstik wrote: »

The way a doctor shreds a child with his steel implements Really nice what the left want

We do not really have a "left" and "right" here in Ireland, are you american?

Really however the vast majority of abortions occur in or before week 12 of gestation. That is.... over 90%. At this point abortion is done medically through pills, not surgically as you describe. What people.... or your imaginary "left"..... generally want is for no abortions to have to occur, but when they do we want them to be early term medical abortions.

Late term abortions, which are usually performed for medical necessity and not by choice at all..... are the exception to the rule. Your little propaganda movie has aimed to deceive you there.

Walkingstik wrote: »

Hopefully they get the same treatment

Nice. So while most pro choice people want to give people the CHOICE of medically, not surgically, terminating a pregnancy.... thus killing a non-sentient fetus that is incapable of suffering or experience of any kind..... you want to tear apart actual living human adults? Does this not say a lot more about you than the "left" you imagine you deride??

Walkingstik wrote: »

And despite what communists call a child in womb he/ she will fight the doctors tools of death

Ah yes I am sure our regular "hit and run" poster will be in at some point to once again get excited that it's tongue moves and it responds to needles. But alas autonomic responses of this sort, which can also be observed in simple ameoeba, are not really indicative of anything much at all.