Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Chicago Tribune had an article this weekend by Judith Graham that indicates that the religious right is now broadening their focus on abortion to include opposition to contraception itself.
Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement's success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it's time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.
Even prominent Protestant leaders like Albert Mohler are recognizing this growing trend:
"Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else," Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran whose Pro-Life Action League sponsored the conference, said in an interview.No one knows how many supporters Scheidler and his colleagues have, but conservative leaders are watching to see if the anti-contraception rhetoric gains traction.
Of special interest is how closely evangelical Christians are willing to align themselves with traditional Catholics on the issue. The Catholic Church long has opposed contraception, but evangelicals generally embraced its use--until recently, some argue.
"It is clear there is a major rethinking going on among evangelicals on this issue, especially among young people" disenchanted with the sexual revolution, said Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "There is a real push back against the contraceptive culture now."
Whether or not Mohler is right about young people, the sympathetic sentiments of a key leader in the nation's largest Protestant denomination adds fuel to the debate.
Let's also not lose sight of the broad religious right support for abstinence-only sex education, which is clearly tied in with anti-contraception views. Under Federal rules, in order to qualify for funding as an abstinence-only program a curriculum is forbidden to even mention contraception except to point out failure rates (usually vastly exaggerated at that).
The illogical thinking of some of these people is absolutely astounding:
"I think it's great that more pro-life people are finally speaking up about it," said Helen Mazur, 27, who flew in from Philadelphia with her husband for the conference, called "Contraception is Not the Answer.""It's always been a touchy subject, but you have to stand strong on your beliefs. Contraception is the root cause of the explosion of the amount of abortions in the world," Mazur said.
Wow. If you want to see an explosion in the number of abortions, all you have to do is ban contraception. Widespread availability of contraception absolutely reduces the number of abortions, as does comprehensive sex education. The Netherlands has the world's most comprehensive sex education curriculum, offering contraception and pregnancy and STD testing not only freely but anonymously as well. The result: the rate of teen pregnancy in that country is 1/7th the rate of American teens, and so is the rate of abortions among teens.
And the illogic doesn't stop there:
Another line of argument against contraception, that it harms relationships between men and women, is advanced by Janet Smith, professor of moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit."When people use contraception, they're not asking themselves, do I want a lifetime relationship with this person or would this person be a good parent," Smith explains. "They're simply hooking up, typically because of sex, and sliding into marriage."
The result, Smith says, is disappointment and divorce.
For crying out loud, is this woman braindead? More people slide into marriage because they get pregnant than because they're trying to prevent it. Using birth control helps avoid bad relationships brought on by "shotgun weddings", relationships that are damaging for all involved. If you are not ready to have children, it is absolutely irreponsible not to use contraception. If these cretins have their way, the result will be the exact opposite of what they claim. It will be an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and a great deal more unhappy relationships.
I think if the religious right really decides to take up this fight, they're going to lose public support in a serious way. While a lot of people have moral qualms about abortion, very few, even among Catholics, feel that way about birth control. The percentage of women who have used birth control at some point in their lives is over 90%, and I don't think any sane person could view this as anything but healthy. Clearly, we are better off as a society with fewer unwanted pregnancies and with the ability to put off pregnancy until one is ready for the enormous challenge and commitment of being a parent. And as the Tribune article points out, over 90% of American support access to birth control.
Comments
So if I understand this correctly, more unwanted children are what we need to enhance the value of children.
I'm confused.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | September 25, 2006 1:06 PM
Scheidler's brother Tim later went on to explain that fire extinguishers were the root cause of fire trucks.
Posted by: steve s | September 25, 2006 1:10 PM
The "contraception devalues children" argument is that birth control treats conception and pregnancy as if they were diseases, something bad that you have to avoid. This habit of thought is supposed to then spill over into how you feel about children in general and your children specifically.
I once got into a very strange argument with a Catholic who felt that birth control was wrong even for married couples -- and he was trying hard to argue this from a purely secular standpoint. He said that while choosing to hold off on having children you couldn't afford was a right and moral choice, to then go on and have sex anyway corrupted the justness of your decision. He made the analogy that "it would be like a judge deciding a case correctly, and then taking money for that." One should pay a price for the good one does -- benefiting is crass.
Sorry, try as I might, I just could not see the analogy or the problem. We eventually concluded that yes, it is very hard to make a case that contraception is morally wrong from a purely secular, rational starting point.
Posted by: Sastra![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 25, 2006 1:22 PM
For some reason I keep early Monty Python...
"Every sperm..."
Bunch of loons.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 25, 2006 1:23 PM
Not to mention those who believe in "saving themself for marriage" and so get married as early as possible so they can finally have sex.
Posted by: Skemono | September 25, 2006 1:24 PM
Is there no end to the insanity of these people? I'm serious, seeing actual human beings who can actually believe these things is making suicide look tempting.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 25, 2006 1:24 PM
This is an issue that has been gaining a lot of traction over the last few years. With "conscience" clauses being enacted in many states to allow pharmicists not to fill scripts because of religious belief. These people are absolutely nuts and unfortunately, gaining momentum.
Another big problem with sexual health is situations like this one. . .
In short for those who don't follow the link. This is the story of a woman who has 3 kids already with her partner. She cannot take hormonal birth control any more and the depo shot sent her to the ER. So she and her partner started using condom instead. Unfortunately they had one break. So she subsequently called around to ER's (it broke on a friday night) trying to get a script for Plan B. She was repeatedly told she probably wouldn't get a script for it because all the doctors that are willing to prescribe it have critera she didn't meet - because she and her partner aren't married.
Absolute insanity.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2006 1:30 PM
This could be a blessing in disguise.
It's one thing to try to restrict abortion. Lots people who aren't religious fundamentalists and who do support abortion will still agree that that some limits are appropriate.
But if the fundys seriously try to restrict access to condoms and birth control pills, I predict they will quickly encounter strong resistance from the majority of Americans. This could be a big political misstep by the fundys, and will hopefully remind most people why religion and government shouldn't be mixed.
Posted by: qetzal | September 25, 2006 1:31 PM
If these fruitcakes stay in power, count on a legal assault on Griswold. I know you've said in the past, Ed, that it's safe, that there are too many people who would oppose overturning it, but it seems clear that these folks don't inhabit the same reality we do, and that they won't hesitate to grab that lance and charge that windmill...
Posted by: NJ | September 25, 2006 1:31 PM
Maybe that's the idea... making life so completely irrational for those that pay attention that they feel the need to take themselves out of the equation. Secular/religious dialectic... pshhh. They're trying to kill us! :P
Posted by: C. Lathe | September 25, 2006 1:35 PM
these stories infuriate me! I'm female and have a hormonal problem. I have too much testosterone and need to take estrogen to regulate that.
here's the fun and ironic bit. If I don't keep taking estrogen pills (birth control pills) then I will never stand the chance of getting pregnant. My body simply would be too damaged and confused by the years of being out of whack.
So idiots like those mentioned above are getting in the way of doctor/patient relationships by trying to prevent these things. That they are also getting in the way of a person taking responsibility for their sexual preferences is (imho) adding insult to injury.
I really do like talking to wingnuts about this. They start the conversation saying that they'd deny me medical treatment... up until they find out that it's the only way I could have children... then suddenly they're whistling another tune entirely. I have a hard time determining what these people want.... from the sound of it they want people in loveless marriages, less joy in sex and more children in the bargain. How does that lead to a happy healthy society again? I'm a little lost...
Posted by: Kate | September 25, 2006 2:17 PM
"Clearly, we are better off as a society with fewer unwanted pregnancies and with the ability to put off pregnancy until one is ready for the enormous challenge and commitment of being a parent"
It's not clear at all. Out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood have increased with (some have argued because of) contraception and abortion becoming more available.
Posted by: Carter | September 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Carter, that study is at least 10 years out of date. Do you have more current information? Or are you saying that nothing in society has changed in the past ten years to merit further investigation?
Posted by: Kate | September 25, 2006 2:21 PM
It's actually quite logical, if you accept their premise.
A. Only people who don't want kids use birth control.
B. Because birth control fails a lot, these people get pregnant.
C. They didn't want a kid, so they have an abortion.
D. If they didn't have birth control, they wouldn't have sex because, yes, they don't want kids.
See? It's simple. No more birth control means people just won't have sex if they don't want a kid. And *that* means abortions will stop.
Posted by: The Ridger | September 25, 2006 2:24 PM
I love this. Honestly, these smug, judgmental pillocks who think that they should in some way have the right to withold legitimate medical help from people should be dragged out into the street and beaten to a bloody pulp in front of their family and friends. If you don't want to administer medical care then don't become a doctor.
Conscience exemption, my arse. That's a total cop out. If they won't treat patients, sling them out.
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 2:26 PM
Well, I have been trying to warn people of this movement for some time now and yes, it is growing. The more fudies homeschool and send their kids to christian schools the more stupid the next generation becomes. The fudies have even started Jesus camps to prepare their children for governmenal positions to push their ideaologies on the rest of the world. And that means women will suffer cuz thats what gawd wants, the bible says so! This is an all out war on women and us women need to start pushing back! I think another march for womens lives is needed, but one that exposes the bible and christians for what they really are...he-man woman-haters!
Posted by: Amy | September 25, 2006 2:32 PM
"Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else."
...
Frank Black comes to mind here: "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."
As for those confused about how stopping contraception and abortion is supposed to "increase the value of children", it's not. That's just the talking point. The real goal is to outreproduce all those swarthy Mexican bastards filtering in across the border. Keep America white, and all that.
Never forget who we're actually dealing with here.
Posted by: Joshua | September 25, 2006 2:33 PM
Matthew, in all honesty I haven't encountered problems with any of the number of doctors I've gone to.
Now if I had to list the right-wingers who have looked down their noses at me... well, let's not go there...
Posted by: Kate | September 25, 2006 2:43 PM
"he-man woman-haters!"
You give them too much credit. If they were "he-men" they wouldn't be so threatened by female sexuality. Add in the usual dash of homophobia and, well, it isn't a pretty picture.
Maybe, to paraphrase the illustrious governor of California, a better term would be "girly-man woman-haters."
Posted by: MJ Memphis | September 25, 2006 2:45 PM
I wrote:
"Clearly, we are better off as a society with fewer unwanted pregnancies and with the ability to put off pregnancy until one is ready for the enormous challenge and commitment of being a parent"
And Carter responded:
I'm having a difficult time figuring out why you think that actually responds to what I said. I wasn't talking about either single mothers or out of wedlock births, I was speaking of couples choosing to put off parenthood until they're ready for it emotionally and financially, among other ways. Surely no one would dispute that this makes them better, more responsible parents and makes those families more stable and more likely to stay together.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 25, 2006 2:46 PM
The ridger said:"See? It's simple. No more birth control means people just won't have sex if they don't want a kid. And *that* means abortions will stop."
OK, now that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard! Sex is not a choice, it is an instint! There is a reason us humans can have sex when ever we want and not just seasonal. Our emotions are deeply connected to our sexuality. Sex is a way to release our emotional anxiaties and aslo a way to form deeply emotional bonds. If we were meant to only have sex for procreation we would be seasonal animals! And what makes you think that if people don't want children then they don't want a deeply emotional relationship with another person? I know lots of married people who don't want children does that make their commitment less valid then those who do?
Posted by: Any | September 25, 2006 2:48 PM
I'm going to go home right now and have sex with my wife and use a condomn - simply out of protest, and by God no one is going to stop me!
Posted by: Russell Claus | September 25, 2006 2:50 PM
Close Ridger- what will "stop" abortion is making it illegal. And then making contraception illegal too. So that the only women who get abortions are criminals who can then be jailed when caught. Or better yet they can be confined and forced to give birth, even if it might kill them, because that's the way God intended it.
In related news: fire bad.
Posted by: Leni | September 25, 2006 2:52 PM
Any - reread Ridger's post, but this time turn on your Sarcasmograph and see if it registers.
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 2:53 PM
"girly-man woman-haters."
I don't know, that kinda sounds like a dig at females. Maybe..insecure little boy woman-haters?
Posted by: any | September 25, 2006 2:54 PM
I'm going to go home right now and have sex with my wife and use a condomn - simply out of protest, and by God no one is going to stop me!
Well, from my experience with marriage, I would say that your wife might stop you.
Posted by: Miguelito | September 25, 2006 2:54 PM
Mathew Young said:"reread Ridger's post, but this time turn on your Sarcasmograph and see if it registers."
I sure was hoping, but I thought I would vent just incase. lol
Posted by: any | September 25, 2006 2:59 PM
The Religious Rightwing dwell in a Bizarro world, where down is up and goodbye is hello. An attack on contraception doesn't surprise me. One of the whackos I know (who is connected to the Chalcedon Institute) has been arguing that America's reproduction rate is too low. He also argues that immigration should be cut back drastically, because there are too many people around.
Kinder, Kirche, Kuche!
Posted by: mark | September 25, 2006 3:07 PM
I'm having a difficult time understanding why I'm not supposed to think you are referring to unwanted pregnancies and society as a whole when you specifically state you are.
You also said: "If these cretins have their way, the result will be the exact opposite of what they claim. It will be an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and abortions" and "Widespread availability of contraception absolutely reduces the number of abortions, as does comprehensive sex education" but these sweeping generalizations are not supported by what actually happened as birth control became widely available. I've never seen any proof that comprehensive sex education has much of an effect, either (as if the only difference betweeen the US and the Nethelands was education), or that "shotgun weddings" are more damaging for children than single motherhood.
Posted by: Carter | September 25, 2006 3:12 PM
...from the sound of it they want people in loveless marriages, less joy in sex and more children in the bargain. How does that lead to a happy healthy society again?
By forcing everyone's expectations down to what narrow-minded squinty-eyed fools can actually provide. Seriously. Many people in this camp (and on the far left as well) despise times of progress and prosperity: first, because people start wanting things for themselves, and start questioning the old fear-based order; and second, because the more choices people have, the more jealous they get of people who are happier than they are, and the more resentful they get when their own choices don't bring them the mind-blowing bliss they had been led to expect.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 25, 2006 3:15 PM
This shit from Al Mohler is no different than the feeble bleatings of creationists who refer to evolution as "a theory in crisis." It's a reliable sign that they're losing the fight and know it, and realize that blind rhetoric is their only recourse.
How would one even assay such a "push-back" against "the contraceptive culture" anyway? Are condom sales and OCP prescriptions down? I don't know, but I doubt it. And if they are, but this is not occuring in the content of less sex overall, then the necessary outcome of such a "push-back" would be an increase in birth rates, abortion rates, or both.
My fervent wish for all of these people is to have them accidentally walk in on their teenage daughters being rummeled (consensually!) with furious but electrifying and screech-eliciting force by the football team's star linebacker, who would of course be wearing not only but a huge grin but a condom or two. So much for God's will and grace, ya ding-a-lings.
Posted by: kemibe | September 25, 2006 3:19 PM
Carter: just like the rest of the religious right, you deny seeing evidence after it was waved in front of your face. Do you really wish to deny that at least some women who don't want kids will use birth control in order to avoid having to get an abortion? Every woman who makes this choice is, ipso facto, preventing abortions. QED. (That's Latin for DUH.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 25, 2006 3:21 PM
Good call, Ed.
This has been on the table for a long time now, and I think the anti-birth control elements of the Christian and religious right are both trying to rally thier base, pre-Nov. '06 elections - for a GOTV effort - and also are laying the groundwork for legislative battles on the issue - probably more at the state level - to build for the '08 election. My guess is that few in the movement expect quick gains and that the expectation is that the push to ban contraception will take years. But, the psuh has begun.
Posted by: Bruce Wilson | September 25, 2006 3:31 PM
'Freakonomics' also has a rather interesting bit on the direct correlation between legalised abortion and a dropping crime rate. I know this is just pop-economics for coffee tables, but perhaps we should cite it as irrefutable evidence that abortion should not only be legal, but compulsory. It could be integrated into the state lottery system.
On a more serious note, people saying that contraception leads to abortion make me laugh. An abortion is the one thing that contraception is pretty much guaranteed not to lead to. It's like suggesting that employing more firemen will lead to more fire-related deaths as people won't take the threat as seriously anymore, now that they know they are protected.
In fact it's almost as good as claiming that atheism led to the Holocaust when the motto of the Nazi regime was the above-mentioned 'Kinder, Kueche, Kirche'.
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 3:33 PM
Carter said:"or that "shotgun weddings" are more damaging for children than single motherhood."
Why is it that fudies think that single mothering is the decline of society? Wheres the poof?
Women have been successfully raising children by themselves since the begining of time. It was the rise of patriarchy(aka male bias religions) that destroyed the mother/infant bonds and has turn society on its head with its anti-female, anti-child, anti-sex and anti-pleasure policies.
Posted by: any | September 25, 2006 3:39 PM
Carter,
I have now read the paper you presented as furthering your assertion. I am rather underwhelmed. You say that there is not enough attention paid to the fact that the Netherlands and the US are different countries. I would assert that taking statistics on birth control spanning from 1964-1984 will also not extrapolate into a parallel 22 years later.
22 years is a very long time, in culture, in technology, in societal norms...
I may not know all that much about the scientific method, but I realize that on an issue like this there should be more studies to show causation instead of mere corellation. It's been 22 years after all... (10 since the policy paper was published). Can you please provide us with any of those studies?
If not, letting religious wingnuts make decisions about my health based on their beliefs of my promiscuity is not simply offensive, it's in violation of my rights, and you should be speaking out against it, not for it.
Posted by: Kate | September 25, 2006 3:47 PM
I thought they got off lightly for this little gem as well:
Wonderful. Given the incredible overpopulation of the planet a falling birthrate anywhere is a good thing you nasty little racists. What they presumably mean by this is that falling birth rates amongst club-footed, inbred, borderline retarded, nice white Christian folk are bad because then the darkies (who breed like rabbits - just can't stop themselves - live like savages, those people, don't you know) will increase in numbers and we may have to share a street with them. Oh the horror.
Presumably the idea that falling birth rates in the first world will give somewhere for the people crammed into the overpopulated third world somewhere to go is about as appealing to these people as being gang-raped by a troupe of angry baboons before having a pineapple shoved up their arse, and being covered in honey, dressed in a tutu and suspended from a tree right outside a nest of angry wasps.
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 3:47 PM
The logic that contraception and sex education promotes abortion is on the same level of logic that supporting the troops means sending them to war unecessarily.
This is basically what one gets when people decide on a faith first approach to policy - it's what they WANT to believe, and therefore they can ignore any contradictory evidence.
I do hope this helps the religious right crash and burn. I wonder how the companies that make $$$ off of contraceptives will react . . .
Posted by: DragonScholar | September 25, 2006 4:06 PM
"being gang-raped by a troupe of angry baboons before having a pineapple shoved up their arse, and being covered in honey, dressed in a tutu and suspended from a tree right outside a nest of angry wasps."
That happened to me once! I do NOT recommend it. We'll the bit with the pineapple was semi enjoyable in an odd way, but the rest of it? eurgh.
I think you hit the thing squarely on it's head. These people are very unhappy about people who are less white breeding in great huge filthy flocks with their smelly cooking and such. If they can justify a full quiver of arrows by wrapping it in some smarmy psuedo-christian moralistic rhetoric that will demonize libruls so much the better. Hate disguised as the culture of life is so much fun.
Posted by: bybelknap | September 25, 2006 4:28 PM
I could respect the "pro-life" movement despite disagreeing with them, if preventing abortion was really what they were about. But more and more it is becoming clear to me, with recent incidents regarding stem cells, contraception, and AIDS policy, that the "pro-life" movement is actually about something entirely different, and it is hiding behind the abortion issue as a way of promoting an entirely different (and occasionally entirely arbitrary) agenda.
I also suspect that there are a great number of people who identify as "pro-life", but would not identify with the "pro-life" movement if they really had a clear idea of what, exactly, it was promoting and doing. I wonder, how could the actions and motives of the "pro-life" movement could be made more clear to the people who support the movement but do not pay much attention to its actual behavior?
Posted by: Coin | September 25, 2006 4:34 PM
That is perhaps the single dumbest thing I've read on the net in some time.
Hasn't the teen birth rate been going down for the past decade?
Posted by: Uber | September 25, 2006 4:36 PM
This poster Carter needs to do some homework, viewing the statistics from the Clinton era (of sainted memory). The Clinton administration made it a priority to disseminate thorough and complete sex education and birth control education. The result was the lowest abortion rate in decades. Oh, but I keep forgetting that facts have little impact on a conservative's world.
Posted by: gary l. day | September 25, 2006 4:51 PM
Heresy! Heresy! Cease and desist immediately in the name of the Lord. Facts lead to Darwinism and Darwinism leads inextricably to the apocalypse! Away, away with your facts and your cold, hard, irrefutable evidence! Witch; bandicoot; burglar; liberal; scientist!
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 5:24 PM
Their form of logic is impeckerable, to them: "If it makes me feel 'pure' and allows me to hector, even control, someone else's life choices, it is good."
Xians are determined to find a perfect state of Unhappiness and have it declared Happiness, without anyone - even themselves - believing the change is more than in definition.
Posted by: goddogtired | September 25, 2006 5:38 PM
I think the best argument against the anti-contraceptive whackos is the fact that abstinence has never, in the entire recorded history of the human race, ever been proven to prevent SEX in any way, shape, or form; be it premariatal, extramarital, homosexual, (and etc.) let alone pregnancy or abortion!
Birds do it
Bees do it
popes and priests in diocese do it...
Posted by: twincats | September 25, 2006 5:55 PM
Listen. There is one, and only one, 100% effective method of birth control. And that is homosexuality.
Posted by: Coin | September 25, 2006 6:10 PM
Actually, the US teen pregnancy rate has been going down for the last 49 years and is now at its lowest point since 1941 (which is when it was first measured). The decline became particularly steep in the last decade.
All that said, the way the teen pregnancy rate is calculated really limits its usefullness; the cutoff age of 20 is a nice round number, but it doesn't correspond to any sort of legal, developmental, or social milestone. It's not at all clear why a pregnancy in a 19-year-old should be treated any differently than one in a 20-year-old. The big problem is that it lumps together pregnancies in 18-19-year-olds, all legal adults, mostly high-school graduates, and frequently married (and these account for about 2/3 of all "teen pregnancies") and pregnancies in 10-17-year-olds (parenthood before adulthood, often resulting in interruption/termination of education, almost always leading to single motherhood). The two are really completely separate phenomena.
Posted by: ebohlman | September 25, 2006 6:21 PM
Years ago the wife had our first child at a local, very nice, secular hospital with a popular birthing center. There was a very good Catholic hospital nearby.
The running joke in that part of town was the secular hospital was where Richmond's Catholics all came to have their LAST child - because the Catholic hospital wouldn't perform tubal ligations.
I think there should be a spotlight aimed at every mention of anti-contraception by every winger out there. Best thing that could happen to the pro-life movement...thekeez
Posted by: Jeff Keezel | September 25, 2006 6:39 PM
In my college fraternity, there were three brothers that were heavily involved in their respective churches. They planned on staying virgins until their wedding nights.
These three were the first three married from my fraternity and all were married because they had gotten their girlfriends (now wives) pregnant.
Hmm...this is just one more reason I am cynic.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | September 25, 2006 6:50 PM
Bear in mind that in religious circles this was probably considered a good thing. Getting people married and breeding nice and early prevents such wicked practices as women developing any sort of career and fellas gadding about mounting the local fillies of an evening. The naughty sex bit was probably forgotten very, very fast in light of the greater good that had been accomlished.
Posted by: Matthew Young | September 25, 2006 7:10 PM
There is one way in which they might not be loonies. To an anti-choicer, contraceptive pills kill babies, because if they don't prevent ovulation (and sometimes they do miss) then they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Preventing implantation = abortion to them.
Posted by: cv | September 25, 2006 8:24 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
I agree: "some women who don't want kids will use birth control in order to avoid having an abortion." But that doesn't get you to "DUH" on the question of whether "widespread availability of contraception absolutely reduces the number of abortions." Wouldn't a sound analysis examine the other effects of the "widespread availability of contraception," in particular the number of people who would have abstained from or delayed sexual intercourse absent easily available contraception?
Posted by: Ramsey Wilson | September 25, 2006 8:39 PM
Ramsey Wilson wrote:
What I don't understand is why this is considered a good thing, even if it's true. Even if we accept the notion that without contraception some people will just stop having sex, it's more than outweighed by the reduction in unwanted pregnancies by those who continue having sex regardless of whether they have contraception. The problem is that this position is taken primarily by those who think that sex exists only for procreation, which I simply do not accept. Contraception allows couples to have sex while dramatically reducing the risk of pregnancy during those times when they do not want to get pregnant, and that is a very healthy thing for relationships. Bringing children into a relationship that is not well established or before the people involved are ready for the responsibility of having children is bad for everyone involved (especially the child). But to abstain from sex in that relationship also undermines the intimacy of the relationship because one of the primary reasons sex is so important is as an expression of intimacy between couples. Thus, contraception is absolutely a healthy thing for couples in relationships and a healthy thing for families.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 25, 2006 8:54 PM
gary l. day wrote
Never forget that the wingnut brigade is populated with people like creationist Salvador Cordova, quoted in Nature as sayingPosted by: RBH | September 25, 2006 9:05 PM
Ed wrote:
Right on, Ed. I agree that sex is for the purpose of procreation and enhancing spousal intimacy.
Ed wrote:
I ask the following question only to suggest that you are making an assertion that cannot be supported on logic alone; it requires empirical investigation (which may have been conducted, for all I know): How do you know "it's more than outweighed"?
Posted by: Ramsey Wilson | September 25, 2006 9:11 PM
Ramsey Wilson wrote:
Because that's my judgement. And I'm not weighing numbers alone. Your argument assumed that if contraception were not available, people would stop having sex. Certainly we can agree that some will and some won't. But one thing we absolutely know is that those who use contraception are far less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy than those who don't use contraception. But I'm not merely addressing the quantitative question of whether no contraception or lots of contraception leads to more or less unwanted pregnancies. I also made a qualitative argument, or values laden argument, that the more you have people in relationships (note that I did not say marriages) abstain from sex because contraception is not available, the more you would damage those relationships as a result, or risk unwanted pregnancies, either of which is unhealthy for those relationships. And that's without even bringing up the legal question, which is simply that neither you nor any majority no matter how large has the legitimate authority to tell consenting adults whether they can use birth control or not. Regardless of the cost benefit analysis based purely on the number of unwanted pregnancies, the no contraception position is outweighed by the moral and legal considerations in my view.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 25, 2006 9:41 PM
The problem is that this position is taken primarily by those who think that sex exists only for procreation, which I simply do not accept.
I don't think that is necessarily true. It certainly isn't that simple. I know a lot of people who are anti-contraceptive, who believe passionately that sex is a very important part of keeping a marriage alive. Hell, my mom used to have something of that attitude - I think I helped change that attitude some - but she was, still is, to a certain extent apposed to public schools teaching contraception and the wide availability of condoms.
I think far more prevelent is CV's point - many of them see the pill as a form of abortion, especialy plan B. And they also see teaching a child about safe sex is the same as telling them to go ahead and do it. Instead they focus on what they really want - abstinence. Even though it's quite likely that their child will be sexually active, they want to pretend that they can be better parents than those other parents whos kids do have sex. In reality they are really just playing the damned lottery - one that can lead to abortion, grandkids out of wedlock, unpleasant diseases - even ultimately, a very horrible death from HIV/AIDS. But they would much rather live in there damned stupid fantasy land where that happens to other people's bloody kids.
Keep in mind that their kids are the one that, if they do have sex, are for more likely to think that chanting "no baby, no baby," over and over before they have sex it can help prevent pregnency. Or the ones who think if you use a douche after sex (which can in fact drive sperm further inside and increase the chance of pregnecy) your ok. Some even believe if they hold their breathe when they have an orgasm they are absolutely safe. And the last thing most of them are thinking about is venereal diseases - because those can only happento to other people - a concept they learn from their moronic parents.
[in particular the number of people who would have abstained from or delayed sexual intercourse absent easily available contraception?
Kids have been fooling around since time began, in nearly every culture - certainly the "christian" world of antiquity. The numbers may fluctuate a little bit from this period to that but I doubt by very much. It isn't going to go away because you quote figures and statistics. And just remember that it could be your kid that ends up dying of AIDS because they don't know anything about or have no access to condoms.
Sorry if I come off a little too harsh but I watched my uncle die of AIDS and have several freinds in various stages of HIV/AIDS. Sure they have great drugs now to extend life, that's great. But they are expensive and they have evil side effects. I know a couple of folks who often have to wear adult diapers to bed because of what the drugs do to the bowels. Ans some of the side effects are far more unpleasant and painfull. It's not a lot of fun having to clean the vomit off a dear friend who passed out trying to sit up to get it into a bucket - and most don't have someone around to take care of them, hell, my old roomie doesn't even have me, or anyone else there to help anymore.
I think abstinance can be great for a kid but it's also highly unlikely. The least we can do is teach them to protect themselves when they do have sex. You could be saving their life.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2006 9:43 PM
Posted by: Bill from Dover | September 25, 2006 9:48 PM
Don't forget STDs and bad teeth.
Posted by: Bill from Dover | September 25, 2006 9:50 PM
Matthew Young said: "What they presumably mean by this is that falling birth rates amongst club-footed, inbred, borderline retarded, nice white Christian folk are bad because then the darkies (who breed like rabbits - just can't stop themselves - live like savages, those people, don't you know) will increase in numbers and we may have to share a street with them. Oh the horror."
This also explains why our current, misguided administration witholds AIDS relief funds to countries that promote condom use as a way to prevent AIDS until they agree to switch to 'abstinence only' education and quit handing out condoms.
Posted by: twincats | September 25, 2006 10:07 PM
Leaving out the contraception vs abortion rate debate, have you looked at the rate of out of wedlock pregnancies in the decades prior to the widespread acceptance of contraception to now? Have you looked at the divorce rates in the decades prior to its acceptance compared to the decades since. Consider the explosion of pornography and the objectification of women since the "sexual revolution". While you are analyzing the way contraception transforms the act, it also has a much more significant change on attitudes.
I'll give yo this: I would classify modern contraception as one of the most transformative medical shifts of the 20th century. But I wouldn't consider it all for the best.
You also seem to have the opinion that married people just can not control their fertility without contraception. A very minor amount of abstinance (about a week per cycle) can often be all that is necessary. But in today's culture, we can't restrain ourselves.
It's amazing: we often look down upon overweight people as having no discipline or self control about their eating, but consider similar discipline in the sexual realm an unworthy goal. We also sometimes tease that those super skinny models "cheat" and induce their own gag reflex to gain those figures. But at the same time, we sterilize otherwise fertile acts.
I know it may seem counterintuitive to your rational mind, but those Catholic marriages where both partners embrace the Catholic teaching tend to statistically have very high rates of marriage satisfaction and extremely low rates of divorce -- in the low single digits of percent. Compare this with those who form their marriage ideals from television and Oprah.
Posted by: Scott | September 25, 2006 10:08 PM
I read somewhere yesterday--maybe in the Tribune article on the fundies meeting on contraception--that something north of 90% of American women have used birth control in their lives. If that's the case, then that means that the majority of virtually every segment--Christian fundamentalists, Roman Catholics, and virtually all other religions--have used contraception, ignoring what their "leaders" say. Given that, I suspect that any effort to seriously limit the availability of contraception would bring a revolt that would make Martin Luther King's march on Washington back in the '60's look like a Sunday school picnic and George Bush would wind up singing soprano.
Also with regard to the consequences of abstinence only versus comprehensive sex-ed the Wall Street Jouranl has a lengthy article July 22nd of this years about Bamberg and Allendale counties in South Carolina where Bamberg has provided comprehensive and Allendale abstinence only sex-ed for more than 20 years. The results are striking with the teen pregnancy and abortion rates being noticeably lower in Bamberg than in Allendale. And the presence of the comprehensive was entirely due to the unrelenting zeal of one woman who built a curriculum that starts in the fourth grade. And when she was banned from providing free condoms in the school, she got the local barber shop, laundromat and beauty salon (where the youths hung out) to stock them and hand them out when asked.
And increasingly schools, after finding that abstinence sex-ed doesn't work and that more than 80% of parents want comprehensive sex-ed, are opting out of federal funds for sex-ed. The fundies may have engineered a few victories in Washington but the country as a whole is moving the other way, Abstinence only simply doesn't work
Posted by: Keanus | September 25, 2006 10:16 PM
From Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Third Edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003:
"Sexual power for many men involves not only sexual
competence-the ability to have sex-but also sexual control. This means knowing when not to have sex, and putting sex in its place. Their aversion to what appear to be sexual aberrations-including misplaced gender roles, such as women assuming dominant positions in the public arena-are examples of sex out of control. To many men these phenomena also exemplify a wider form of social disorder: they are illustrations of the encroaching power of evil, demonstrations of the pervasiveness of the lack of moral values, and examples of how social definitions have become skewed. In The Turner Diaries, for instance, William Pierce spoke of what he called "Women's lib" as being "a form of mass psychosis . . . promoted and encouraged by the System as a means of dividing our race against itself."
Tree: Anti-contraception is more about feelings of sexual humiliation because a Guy can't get a job and buy a concubine/wife anymore. He's been downsized, outsourced and those Girlz are going to college in greater numbers, no reason for any of them to take a second glance at Bubba. Never mind that it's the Oligarchs who got tired of paying his daddy union wages, drove up the demand for cheap illegals and drove down his wages. No, the problem is them Uppity Wimmin, and the only way to take back manly self-respect is to keep them bare foot and pregnant.
I think that Juergensmeyer's explanation for Fundamentalist reactionism (whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist) as a manifestation of sexual humiliation is dead on. The Boyz are mad, not merely that they can't get laid, but because they no longer have complete, society-approved mastery over a female. (And now you know why Westley became The Dread Pirate Roberts - he had no money for marriage - joke)
Barefoot. Pregnant. Because it's easier to keep them down on the farm than to fight against the aristocracy, safe in their gated communities.
Posted by: Tree | September 25, 2006 10:26 PM
Scott - The problem is that of the five ex-girlfreinds I have had who were Catholic, only one was interested in condoms - all of them were interested in sex. Unfortunately, when I was younger I wasn't so adamant about condoms - you often aren't at sixteen. So I had unsafe sex with two of them - thankfully without negative consequences. A little older and wiser, I refused to sleep with the other two - but I guarantee that others didn't. Sure, some devout Catholic girls may obstain from sex, but those who don't are less likely to use condoms, thus compounding their sin. Some of the smarter ones figure if your doing one you might as well do both but does that outweigh those who aren't that bright?
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2006 10:45 PM
DuWayne,
4 "Catholic" girls who reject condoms but are interested in having sex are not advocating a Catholic viewpoint. And it certainly wasn't both partners taking a Catholic view.
Look, before I get categorized as an ignorant religious fundie, I should also mention that I don't think these positions will change in our laws anytime soon. I find the mindset way too entrenched in our western culture.
I just can't find sufficient evidence that a wide embrace of contraception has proven to make out of wedlock conception rates go down, abortion go down, or families more stable. I don't see it as the panacea that nearly every "those damn fundies" commenters here seem to. Don't give me studies that all take place since contraception has been widespread. Show me that it's statistically better than it was before it was so accepted. Show me that the Netherlands (bow our heads in homage to their superior culture) has higher marriage rates than they did a century ago and has a fertility rate to sustain their population.
Posted by: Scott | September 25, 2006 11:13 PM
Thats what I thought.
This is simply an absolute bullshit statement. In the last Barna poll Catholics came out marginally better than the rest of the religions and well behind secular marriages. It was also thought that Catholics may have had the highest rate due to many not referring to their first marriage as a marriage due to the fantasy the church calls an annullment.
I will mention I find the Catholic teaching on marriage/divorce absolutely irrational and immoral. It is a position that many language scholars and historians know is not correct in practice and one the church did not originally conduct. It is a 16th century construct. Of all their teachings it causes much real world harm.
Pornography has existed long before the pill. It's prevalence today has more to do with media than anything else. Besides your not getting anyone pregnant messing around to Jenna Jameson. The divorce rate is something I will never understand. It's more important to have good marriages than a marriage. If it takes someone a few tries to get it right but he does eventually get it right that is better than staying in a marriage that sucks for all involved. There is no honor in staying married. There is alot of honor in having a good marriage.
I also feel the focus on out of wedlock pregnancy is an argument that misses the point. Teen pregnancy has been going down since 1949. So where do you think it was before 1949?
This is another clueless argument. If you abstain during the fertile period are you not willfully preventing a child from being born? So what is the real world difference between that and taking a pill to prevent the same? On all levels the anti-contraception argument is a loser.
Posted by: Uber | September 25, 2006 11:18 PM
Posted by: Uber | September 25, 2006 11:24 PM
Scott said -
4 "Catholic" girls who reject condoms but are interested in having sex are not advocating a Catholic viewpoint. And it certainly wasn't both partners taking a Catholic view.
I never said it was. What I said implied that some Catholic girls, interpret the Catholic viewpoint to mean it is bad to have sex out of wed-lock, but it is much worse if you use a condom. The view of the church is that contraception is sinful. That the view of the church on extra-marital sex is also sinful isn't relevant - because regardless of the view of the church, catholic girls have extra-marital sex anyways. What concerns me is the ones who think that having sex with a condom makes it that much worse. And that is the same with those of other Christian faiths who tell their kids the same ridiculous crap. It is simply gambling with your childs life - period.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2006 11:34 PM
Note: I did not say just Catholic marriages. I said marriages where both spouse embrace the Catholic viewpoint. I fully acknowledge that most Catholic couples openly reject or are ignorant of the full Catholic teaching and indeed have a divorce rate that matches society as a whole.
If they're so similar, why not abstain? Because they're not. One says "make this act sterile". "I want sex whenever the hell I want, no limits." "My fertility is a curse but if I do this, I can work around it NOW." The other recognizes the mutual fertility of the couple and just waits a short spell if they are not ready for a child. One rejects the body's cycles and the other respects it. There are any number of reasons a couple might not have sex for a short spell. One might not be feeling well, one might be tired, etc. There are any number of circumstances. A married couple briefly postponing sex because they're not ready to have a child is in full compliance with what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholic teaching has nothing against birth control, but it does object to contraception.
Posted by: Scott | September 25, 2006 11:43 PM
Scott - So what about Catholic kids and their sex lives? Regardless of whether they are "properly" interpreting the Catholic "viewpoint" or not - many have sex and at least some of them refuse to use birth control - in my quite limited expierience, four out of five refused to use condoms. What about them?
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2006 11:51 PM
I quote the Netherlands because they are often mentioned about what can occur with progressive contraception.
I care about the marriage rate in a society. I care about productive societies too.
Posted by: Scott | September 25, 2006 11:53 PM