Pages

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

You can be pro-life and pro-contraception. Most of us are!

Many pro-lifers object to contraception that prevents implantation or otherwise works post-fertilization, but they believe contraception that prevents fertilization is morally acceptable. I’m not addressing those pro-lifers here. In this post, I’m addressing those who believe any form of artificial contraception is unacceptable.

Polls suggest the strong majority (89%) of Americans think contraception is morally acceptable (including most Catholics (76%), Evangelicals (90%), and pro-lifers (78%, minimum)). Research suggests the strong majority (over 80%) of sexually active American women use some form of artificial contraception. Note that, if about half of American women are pro-life, this means the majority of self-described sexually active pro-life women use artificial contraception.

Despite the widespread acceptance and use of contraception among both the general population and self-described pro-lifers, the pro-life movement has a reputation for being anti-contraception. Some pro-lifers believe pro-choicers purposefully try to paint us as anti-contraception to make us less palatable to the American public. I think, though, that many pro-choicers sincerely believe their own accusations, and with decent reason. Consider quotes like this:
“Contraception closes the sexual act to the gift of life. Once a contracepting man and woman have allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep into them, they immediately view a newly created child as an inconvenience at best and as a hostile intruder at worst. For them, the only solution is to get rid of the baby through abortion. You see, contraception leads to the need for abortion.”

(Of course this quote is just one example. But, speaking anecdotally, nearly every time I bring up contraception in pro-life circles, someone responds along the same lines.)

I have a real problem with this perspective. In fact, I have several problems with it, so I numbered them for you guys.

***

1. “The gift of life.” In the context of sex and especially birth control, the "gift of life" is a loaded phrase in two ways.

1a. First, I think the phrase suggests a religious perspective not everyone holds. Often people use the phrase “gift of life” because they believe God decides who will get pregnant when, and therefore pregnancy is a gift and God is the gift-giver.

Pictured: Pregnancy?

But suppose *ahem* some people don't believe in God; then the pregnancy = gift from God idea doesn’t mean much. (Not to mention how, for someone who wants to conceive but physically cannot, the idea comes across as fairly insensitive.) From a more secular perspective, pregnancy is the result of reproducible biological processes, and those biological processes don’t have a will. They’re not trying to give you a gift, or a punishment, or anything. They just work the way they do, and whether or not pregnancy is a gift really depends on how the people who get pregnant feel about it. Which brings me to:

1b. The phrase “gift of life” implies pregnancy is always a good thing, for everyone. That’s not true. Just because abortion is bad doesn’t mean pregnancy is always good. For example (to take it to the extreme) you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that a 12-year-old rape victim who conceives is experiencing the “gift of life.” And even less dire pregnancies aren’t necessarily gifts. Many people are simply in particularly bad positions in their lives for having kids. Some people actually don’t want to have kids at all, for their entire lives. Not everyone considers pregnancy a gift, and that’s okay. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not wanting to have kids as a baseline position.

Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it's almost always wrong to get an abortion, but that doesn't mean I believe people have to feel happy, grateful, or gifted with their unintended pregnancies either. Even for women carrying planned pregnancies, it’s normal to feel some less-than-positive emotions throughout the process. Many people do feel their pregnancies are like a gift, and that’s wonderful. But many people don’t necessarily feel that way, and that’s okay too. In any case, it doesn't make sense to chide people for avoiding a "gift" if (a) they don't believe there's a gift-giver and/or (b) they don't consider the subject in question a gift at all.

2. “…allowed a contraceptive mentality to seep into them…” Based on the conversations I’ve had with anti-contraception pro-lifers, the phrase “contraceptive mentality” appears to mean the belief that it’s okay to try to separate sex from procreation. In other words, you think it's okay to have a sex life even when you specifically don't want to get pregnant (or get someone pregnant). From what I understand, many anti-contraception pro-lifers believe this perspective is immoral. They believe it reflects a broader attitude about sex and children—an attitude fraught with irresponsibility, selfishness, and ignorance. They further believe this attitude is related to and inclines people toward abortion.

Interestingly, in my experience people only reference the “contraceptive mentality” when we’re talking about artificial contraception. I’ve never seen anyone talk about the contraceptive mentality behind Natural Family Planning (NFP), despite how NFP proponents celebrate NFP’s relatively high success rate (depending on the form of NFP you use) for avoiding pregnancy. People who use NFP are trying to have a sex life and not get pregnant, yet no one accuses them of a “contraceptive mentality.”

(EDIT 7/16/14: Since publishing this post, several readers have informed me that, within some Catholic circles, there is a lot of conflict about whether NFP users have a contraceptive mentality. My point here is not to suggest NFP users have a contraceptive mentality, but do agree that they don't. I just ask that those readers who recognize you can avoid pregnancy without accepting abortion further recognize you can do so whether you are using NFP or artificial contraception.)

Anti-contraception pro-lifers have told me NFP users are, by definition, more "open to life." Yet NFP's perfect use rate (0.4% unintended pregnancies) is on par with the pill and the copper IUD (0.3% and 0.6%, respectively) and is actually better than condoms (2%). (Again, these are all perfect use rates, not typical use rates.) It's not NFP itself that is "open to life" - the method can be just as effective at separating sex from pregnancy as common artificial methods are.

If NFP users are more open to life, I suspect it's because they are also more likely than other groups to be in communicative, committed relationships and to hold religious beliefs that incline them to be pro-life. And that's exactly my point: it's not the method of avoiding pregnancy that tells us how a couple will react to an unintended pregnancy; it's a whole lot of factors. If NFP users get a pass on the "contraceptive mentality" accusation, it's because the lone fact that people want to have sex and not get pregnant isn't enough to insist they've let some insidious mindset "seep" into them.

3. “…they immediately view a newly created child as an inconvenience... a hostile intruder…” Back up. The world isn’t divided into (a) people purposefully trying to get pregnant and feeling overjoyed and jubilant when they do and (b) people trying not to get pregnant and feeling panicked or regretful when they do.

It's actually more complicated than this.

There are a lot of factors that affect how people feel about pregnancy (planned or unplanned), and emotions can run the gamut. As I mentioned, it’s not uncommon for even people who got pregnant on purpose to feel some anxiety and hesitancy, especially during a first pregnancy. And it’s not uncommon for people who didn’t intend to get pregnant to feel some excitement and anticipation.

Consider how many unplanned pregnancies are carried to term: according to the CDC, about 37% of births result from unplanned conceptions. In 2012 there were about 3.9 million births, meaning over 1.4 million women carried unplanned pregnancies to term. These women would include those who accidentally got pregnant while using NFP, artificial contraception, or no contraception at all. We shouldn’t generalize how people will feel about or proceed with their pregnancies based solely on the type of contraception (or lack thereof) that they use.

4. “For them, the only solution is to get rid of the baby through abortion.” Clearly not. See the above stats. Plenty of people carry unintended pregnancies to term. Plenty of people want to have sex, don't want to get pregnant, and are still willing to carry a pregnancy should it happen.

It’s not accurate to insist that people who use artificial contraception must have the vaguely ominous “contraceptive mentality” that inevitably leads to abortion.

***

Equating using contraception with choosing abortion is not only inaccurate, it’s harmful to the pro-life movement and our goals. Here’s another numbered list for you:

1. Contraception decreases unplanned pregnancies. It’s true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, yes. It’s also true that almost no one stays abstinent until marriage and not all married couples want kids anyway. However we may feel about those two issues, the bottom line is lots of people are having sex when they aren’t ready for or don’t want kids. Sure, we may wish they wouldn’t take the risk. I also wish we could cure cancer and invent calorie-free chocolate that tastes the same. Meanwhile, back in reality, there’s plenty of sex-with-no-desire-for-pregnancy going around—and in that reality, I’d much prefer people use contraception. Sexually active women who use contraception experience far fewer unintended pregnancies than sexually active women who don’t.

Look at this chart. Just look at it! Source.

2. The vast majority of people are okay with contraception. (Here’s this link again.) And if we make them think they can only be in the pro-life movement by being against all contraception, we’ve created one more barrier to increasing our anti-abortion numbers. The same idea goes for alienating the many pro-lifers who already use contraception. Let’s not do that, hm? Being anti-contraception is not a prerequisite to being anti-abortion. Those are different issues.

3. The pro-life movement is about saving human lives, not controlling sex lives. There is nothing about purposefully preventing fertilization that destroys human lives. When we try to position being pro-life in opposition to using any artificial contraception, we make it seem like being pro-life is about how people should be having sex instead of about protecting already-created human lives. I don't think that's what most anti-contraception pro-lifers mean, but I can understand how people would be confused. And if that is what you mean, go away.

*** 
 
Look, I understand that a lot of the people who object to artificial contraception do so based on religious reasons very dear to them. I am not saying you must accept artificial contraception or even that you must stop speaking out about your problems with it. I am, however, asking that you make a distinction between a religious basis for being against artificial contraception, and a so-called "pro-life" basis. A minority of pro-lifers are against all forms of artificial contraception, but people don't have to be against all forms of artificial contraception to be pro-life. And people don't have to be okay with abortion to use artificial contraception. Kindly stop conflating all of that.

613 comments:

1 – 200 of 613   Newer›   Newest»
argent said...

I don't really like the phrase "abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy". Abstinence from PIV sex is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, but that's not at all synonymous with abstinence from sex.


Otherwise, great post!

Janet Susan said...

M, I'm going to read this probably tonight. Very interested to learn what you have found. :)

Sean said...

I absolutely agree that you don't have to reject all contraception in order to be pro-life. So I am with you in the conclusion.

Can you please clear this up for me: "Now, I still think if you accidentally get pregnant it's almost always wrong to get an abortion..." What do you mean, "almost always wrong?" When is it ever ok to get an abortion? Please clarify.

Kelsey said...

Abortion to save a mother's life, etc. Also, in many cases women and girls are coerced into having abortions, in which case the wrongdoer isn't the pregnant mother, but the abuser.

m17l6s85 said...

Good point. It's hard to cover everything in one post!

GodsGadfly said...

Even the most Catholic countries permit "life of the mother'" exceptions if only because, legally, life-saving procedures that kill the baby by accident could be considered "abortion."

GodsGadfly said...

I'll grant that the anti-contraceptive argument presumes a Natural Law and a natural lawgiver. The rest depends upon one's definition of "pro-life" versus anti-abortion. Two objections, though. First, the "contraceptive mentality" refers to motivation, and includes many people who practice and teach NFP. It does not refer to those who have grave reasons to postpone pregnancy. It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money" includes affording McMansions, HDTVs, game consoles, etc.
Second, the chart is deceptive. "Fertility awareness" is not equivalent to NFP, since it involves using a condom at the time of fertility. True NFP has been shown by several secular studies to be 1% effective.

argent said...

She doesn't say that fertility awareness is equivalent to NFP, and earlier, she gives the perfect-use rate of NFP to be 0.4%. I don't see how you could characterize this as misleading.

Andrew Votipka said...

I have a problem with the way #2 portrays (let's just say it) Catholics. First, it's silly to trot out the old "you can't have sex unless you're trying to get pregnant" line. No pope or respected catholic ethicist has ever said such a thing. Stop misrepresenting the opposing view. Babies are a natural part of sex, and when we draw this clear distinction between the two we do create an anti-life mentality. That's just common sense.


Second, NFP is inherently not contraception, but plenty of people (look up Fr. Koterski for instance at Fordham) have argued that NFP can be abused. So again, you're not even trying to be fair.


I don't see a ton of people being repulsed by the pro-life movement because of Catholics. And we probably shouldn't use polling as a "gotcha" method for discounting someone's views (because most people weren't in the pro-life camp that long ago). This was a particularly shallow post. Why are we always trying to divide everyone?

m17l6s85 said...

I described the contraceptive mentality based on my understanding of it from my conversations with people claiming using artificial BC is inherently the contraceptive mentality. Before I wrote the post I also talked to some of my anti-BC friends to ask them if they thought that was a generally accurate description and they said yes.


If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume I was trying to strawman you. I'm responding to the accusations others have levied at people who use artificial BC in general.


I don't see how the post is divisive, and it's not my intention for it to be divisive. I'm not asking people to be okay with artificial BC, or to be quiet about their problems with it. I'm asking them to not insist (incorrectly and harmfully, IMO) that anyone who uses artificial BC has a mentality that inclines them to abortion. To me, *that's* a very divisive claim, and I've seen it many times.


I meant the post as a call to less divisiveness, not more, so I'm sorry to hear that it's coming off as the opposite.

kitler said...

Family planning is NOT anti life. By your logic, NFP should also be anti life since the intent is NOT strictly to get pregnant. .
And its child abuse to have more children than you can adequately care for.

Btw great article M. I have been dismayed by all of the pro lifers who are happy that contraception will not be covered. Their tax dollars come before preventing abortions.

kitler said...

Over on RHRC we have been lectured by a catholic over the last few weeks who repeatedly told us that sex without intent to procreate was immoral and false. That any couple who had sex using contraception were merely using each other, and that true love must result in a pregnancy. That lifelong abstinence within marriage is superior to contraception.

As a bonus, we also had a catholic male refer to us as "Nazi bitches" and brag about how he fantasized about throwing us in a wood chipper.

Andrew Votipka said...

Therefore ALL Catholics...

argent said...

A piece of advice I really like when it comes to people who speak up is "you didn't make things tense, you pointed out the existing tension", and I think it applies to the 'divisiveness' that people are talking about. When anti-contraception pro-lifers claim that people who use contraception are necessarily more inclined to abortion, they divide the pro-life movement by marginalizing all the contraception-using and pro-contraception pro-lifers out there. But when you point this out, people who don't want to confront that fact see you as the one who is being divisive.

kitler said...

Only the whackjobs. Most catholics use contraception and religious women have abortions in the same ratio as non religious
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org

m17l6s85 said...

That's pretty bad. Does RHRC have a problem with feeding trolls? I know SPL does sometimes.

kitler said...

Yes.

We have one teenager who repeatedly returns just to be an ass.

And we get a lot of the whackjobs like the one I mentioned. It doesn't help that Amanda Marcotte writes for the site - her articles result in an influx of angry MRAs. Last week we had alllll of AVFM and one whackjob was anti contraception because selfish bitches be peeing out their BCP and poisoning men!

Coyote said...

Couldn't castration also be a 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy even if one has PIV sex afterwards?

JDC said...

I suppose it could be, but how many men want to do that?

argent said...

Probably few men, but probably many trans women, for one.

JDC said...

Good point.

Thomas said...

Family planning is about having a child and not about NOT having one. Makes sense :)

Thomas said...

Hi :)

Thomas said...

Andrew, Kitler is a troll on any site that promotes pro-life views whether secular or eligious-based.

Thomas said...

These Catholics do not speak for the religion. Whether one agrees with the religious orientation to the pro-life movement or not, it is understood that to be a Catholic is to be pro-life.

Michelle Ewing said...

Yes anal and other forms of outcourse are 100 percent effective so far. That being said, many people have vaginal sex went trying to use thoses two methods. Im not sure how often that happens compared to abstaining, but it is something people should keep in mind.

Coyote said...

Probably not many, but I am tempted to say that it *should* be an option for those men who *do* want to do this.

argent said...

I guess if you're going to include in the NFP failure rate those times when people change their minds in the heat of the moment and say "actually we'd rather have PIV sex than not have a kid" (which most sources I've seen do), you should include in the non-PIV failure rate as well...


But seriously, deciding in the 'heat of the moment' not to abide by the guidelines you set out at the beginning of the night, when it comes to something as major as your chances of creating a new human being, is not a healthy way to conduct a relationship.

JDC said...

True, I do agree that it should be an option for those who want it.

m17l6s85 said...

Wow. I don't even.


Sorry, what's AVFM?

argent said...

A Voice For Men, I don't know that much about it but I know it's one of those anti-feminist men's sites.

kitler said...

Aw yes Thomas. You spent the last week on RHRC 1) refusing to debate Suba 2) taking screenshots and accusing us of being feminazi murderers

kitler said...

Christianity has thousands of different denominations, and everyone disagrees over 'who' is interpreting the bible correctly. Catholics are no different. Wars have been fought over who exactly has 'correctly interpreted' scripture.

kitler said...

Wrong.


It's about birth spacing (for healthier outcomes for mom and child) and about limiting the # of children one has for the best outcomes.


And catholics do engage in family planning, otherwise catholic families would be like the quiverfull with 20 kids.

Thomas said...

Contraception is a personal choice based on a lifestyle "need" and, what's more - contraception's purpose is not to prevent abortions. Arguing this angle is non-sequitur.

GodsGadfly said...

Sorry. Missed the .04% part (and, yes, I did read it). Either case, I was talking about the chart being misleading, as most people would think "fertility awareness" means "NFP." Fertility awareness basically shows that condom "effectiveness" is skewed by condoms during infertility.

kitler said...

Actually, contraception DOES prevent abortions, and it saves blastocysts from certain death:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html


And seeing as how abortion is 1) expensive 2) can be painful


Then yes, I would have to say that contraception IS indeed preferable to abortion.

GodsGadfly said...

What exactly is a "whack job"? Someone who disagrees with you? Lots of Catholics skip ?Mass on Sunday or shop on Sunday without good reason. Lots of Catholics swear. That doesn't make them any less sinful, and anyone who allegedly fantasizes about killing people for any reason is not pro-life.

argent said...

I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production--that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone.


Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited.

Thomas said...

The Teutonic Knights and their Crusades and are a thing of the past so you are a little too late to bring that up :)
I speak to the 2000 - year old dogma that unites Christianity. If some lost their way in their skewed attempt to "re-interpet" Christianity's pro-life foundation, IT IS on them....

kitler said...

Not old.
Even today protestants say that catholics are not true christians

Thomas said...

Let me repeat myself:
"having many children has not proven in itself (emphasis added) to be detrimental to a woman's health.

expect_resistance said...

I love Catholics for Choice!

expect_resistance said...

I grew up Catholic. My parents were pro-choice. Most women I knew used contraception at some point in their childbearing years. And Catholic women also have abortions. I know the Pope and the church authorities would life to believe women are not using birth control or having abortions but it's a reality of life.

Thomas said...

Is that what you meant by a "war?" Pro-life ultimately always prevails.

kitler said...

What are the risks of spacing pregnancies too close together?

Limited research suggests that a pregnancy within 12 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

The placenta partially or completely peeling away from the inner wall of the uterus before delivery (placental abruption)
The placenta attaching to the lower part of the uterine wall, partially or totally covering the cervix (placenta previa), in women who had a first birth by C-section
Autism in second-born children

Research also suggests an increased risk of uterine rupture in women who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) less than 18 months after a previous delivery.

In addition, a pregnancy within 18 months of giving birth is associated with an increased risk of:

Low birth weight
Small size for gestational age
Preterm birth

Some experts believe that closely spaced pregnancies don't give a mother enough time to recover from the physical stress of one pregnancy before moving on to the next. For example, pregnancy and breast-feeding can deplete your stores of essential nutrients, such as iron and folate. If you become pregnant before replacing those stores, it could affect your health or your baby's health. Inflammation of the genital tract that develops during pregnancy and doesn't completely heal before the next pregnancy could also play a role.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/family-planning/art-20044072

kitler said...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_146646.html

Women who wait less than 18 months after having a child to get pregnant again are more likely to have a shorter pregnancy and a preterm birth, according to a new U.S. study.

The study authors recommended that women be educated about the importance of "birth spacing" to help reduce rates of premature births and the associated health problems.

"We know that inadequate birth spacing is associated with more adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, in many countries like the U.S.," John Thorp, BJOG's deputy-editor-in-chief, said in a journal news release. "This large population-based study further strengthens this and puts more emphasis on the importance of optimal birth spacing, of 18 months or more, especially among women with additional risk factors for preterm birth."

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, preterm birth -- before 37 weeks' gestation -- affects nearly 500,000 babies every year. That's one of every eight infants born in the United States. Some problems that a baby born too early may face include: breathing and feeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, and hearing and vision problems.

GodsGadfly said...

That sounds like one of the aliases of a weirdo who trolls Catholics on Facebook saying evil things like that. I was responding yo your claim that only Catholic "whack jobs" oppose contraception.
Speaking of which, How is being a pro-choice catholic being "secular pro-life"? Anyway, you apparently hold that if X claims to be Y, and X believes Z, then all Y are Z, even if Y officially condemns Z. That is illogical, and since you answered my question by restating your false generalization, I'll ask you to com

lady_black said...

It would definitely be very harmful to some women. Physically and mentally. In fact, post-partum depression and psychosis doesn't improve over time. It tends to get worse. Therefore, for those women, having many children IN ITSELF is detrimental to their health.

GodsGadfly said...

consider who's trolling. (apologies for the technical difficulties).

lady_black said...

That's just factually wrong.

lady_black said...

Family planning is just what it implies. Planning to have a family (or not).

Thomas said...

In case you missed it I am not arguing whether contraception is not preferable to abortion. Nice try but no e- cigar. What you blatantly attempt to argue is that public or employer funding of contraception would reduce abortions. Shaming, aren't we? I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more.
Abortion "choice" is a totally independent discussion from contraception "choice" with unrelated premises. Makes sense?

Thomas said...

To have a family, the not does NOT make sense here.

lady_black said...

Yes actually, it does. Some people intend their family to be only the married couple, which is, all by itself, a family. If the couple intends to be child-free, then contraception is essential to their family planning. You do not get to define OR plan anyone's family but your own.

Coyote said...

"I would imagine, though, that orchiectomy would be uncomfortable for a cis man because of the loss of testosterone production"

Yes, along with a perceived loss of masculinity. However:

1. A castrated man can still increase his levels of testosterone using hormone replacement therapy.
2. A lower amount of testosterone might not necessarily be a bad thing. After all, some men might enjoy having less of a sex drive. In addition, it might be possible that having lower levels of testosterone increases one's life expectancy, though I am unsure as to exactly how solid the evidence for this is.

"that's my impression of why trans women get it, not necessarily in preparation for vaginoplasty but to stop the production of unwanted testosterone."

As far as I know, you are correct in this regard.

"Although my knowledge of orchiectomy, especially outside a MTF context, is rather limited. And I agree that it should be available for anyone who wants it, cis or trans."

Agreed, especially considering that:

1. As far as I know, it is the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy for cis-men if they sleep with a fertile woman.
2. Some cis-men might also want to have lower levels of testosterone as their "default" option (as opposed to taking drugs to lower their levels of testosterone).
3. It is safer to get an orchiectomy (castration) in a medical setting than to have someone either try doing this himself or herself (in the case of trans-women) or to have this individual try getting this done "in a back-alley".

Thomas said...

They are NOT planning a family, they would be planning a life together. Family planning involves bringing offspirng into the union.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The difference between NFP and contraception is that NFP works with your body's natural fertility cycles (or, in religious circles, God's design for your body). Contraception is intended to disrupt those cycles by creating what is essentially artificial infertility, via hormones or a barrier.

That's why NFP isn't contraceptive - it does not introduce anything artificial to prevent conception either before, during, or after sex. If you have sex during the infertile time of a woman's cycle, that's natural infertility, not artificial.

lady_black said...

Um, NOPE. That's one option. But a married couple is a family, with or without children. I'm not addressing your whackadoodle religious beliefs, but the law.

kitler said...

Here's the whackjob, read his history:

http://disqus.com/defensorvitae/


And yes, every pro-life catholic who opposes contraception because 'people can't have a loving relationship if they don't get pregnant every time they have sex' are fruitbats.

argent said...

Thank you for enlightening me, and yay for people being able to control their hormone levels and fertility!

kitler said...

Yes, public funding WOULD reduce unintended pregnancy which WOULD reduce the abortion rate.


Kinda elemental there, Einstein.

lady_black said...

WHATEVER. This site is not supposed to be about god-bothering, is it?

Coyote said...

No problem! I think that the info which I stated here in regards to this is accurate, though one is welcome to correct me if I stated any incorrect information here.

For the record, I *did* previously do some research on this topic, so it is not like I am completely clueless about it.

kitler said...

Gonna post those screenshots Thomas?

argent said...

Just a suggestion, how about we decide to not import drama from other sites here?

Thomas said...

You do understand that the incidences of post-partum are still very minimal and that this serious medical condition is not the result of having a child Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that correlation.

"There's no single cause of postpartum depression. Physical, emotional and lifestyle factors may all play a role."
So arguing that pregnancy causes post-partum is not credible in the face of current knowledge base on this disoder...

kitler said...

Cursory review of pertinent literature on the topic does not indicate
pregnancy in itself as the cause. In fact nowhere will you find that
correlation.


Pregnancy is in fact the cause of post-partum stress disorders and depression - it comes from withdrawal from the 'feel good' hormones that the woman was infused with )(from the fetus)during the pregnancy.

And then there's this:

http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/

Thomas said...

Can public funding reduce unintended whoopee? :)

kitler said...

Thomas started it. Don't blame me. He has been harassing us for over a week. threatening a grand expose of our pro-choice death camps.

kitler said...

wtf does that even mean

Thomas said...

This site welcomes all pro-lifers. The cause unites us. Welcome JoAnna....

kitler said...

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/you-can-be-pro-life-and-pro.html#comment-1488440868


Have a chat with your pro-life pal if it really bothers you.

lady_black said...

That depends upon your definition of "prevails."

Thomas said...

It means that if I pay into a program purpose of which is to reduce irresponsible intercourse, will you ultimately benefit? Primary intervention methods. I'd rather pay for that than pay to clean up your mess aftert the fact.

lady_black said...

And someone should use a method of controlling birth that is 1% effective... WHY, exactly? Hey why go to all the effort? Oral or anal sex is 100% guaranteed not to result in pregnancy.

kitler said...

Irresponsible intercourse = sexual relationships that Thomas doesn't agree with


You can't expect people to remain abstinent for their entire lives, bro. It's not realistic.

Thomas said...

No matter how the the term "family planning" is twisted, it will remain about planning to have a family and not preventing from having one - there is no escape from the simple premise behind that term.

lady_black said...

Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy, and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy).

Thomas said...

The operative term is "limited." Furthermore I'd like to see the methodology as well as the overalll research design of this limited research.

Thomas said...

You are the one who brought up abstinence, not me nust remember that :)
I am simply pointing out your convolution regarding the purpose of contraception. I agree with every single sexual encounter you want to have. Go to town, just not on my dime. Makes sense?

lady_black said...

OMG. Mansplainer PLEASE. Of course pregnancy causes post-partum depression and psychosis, and it is INDEED very serious. Find me one woman who suffered PPD or PPP without first having given birth.

lady_black said...

There is no such thing as "family un-planning." It's Planned Parenthood, as opposed to UN-planned parenthood. Seriously, there is nothing I can compare this particular variety of cognitive dissonance with. Nobody ever suggests that we not plant crops because that "goes against nature." Nobody ever suggests that when we suffer discomfort, it shouldn't be treated, because that "goes against nature." Nobody suggests that we shouldn't use computers or wear clothing because they aren't natural. The only thing this "natural" crapola ever applies to is women deciding if and when they will gestate. And I suspect if you scratch the surface, that's what lies beneath, 100% of the time. This entire notion that women are evil or weak-minded and cannot be trusted to manage their own lives. And of course we can't *really* be happy unless we devote the best years of our lives to gestation. Here's a clue: LEAVE US ALONE. We do not need you to manage our lives and decide what's best for us. You are strangers. You have no opinion worthy of consideration.

lady_black said...

As I already explained further down, it's Planned Parenthood, as compared to UN-planned parenthood. I have a family with my husband, and nothing additional is needed. YOU get to mind your own beeswax. It's none of your business whether or not your neighbor has children.

DarkCougar555 said...

We still need more male contraceptions...

Thomas said...

It is the woman' s biopsychosocial predisposition. NOT pregnancy. Please review the literature...
Can't contain the urge to insult? If again, I will flag your comments as well.

lady_black said...

There are already many sites for religious pro-lifers. This one is supposed to be secular, and secular doesn't include nonsense about what "god intends." Try to be consistent. People are certainly free to god-bother, but that doesn't mean I can't point it out as being inconsistent with secularism.

Thomas said...

I'm with you :)

Thomas said...

Are you going to dictate whom this site guests? If going by this standard: you are not a pro-lifer so what is the reason you're spamming this thread?

lady_black said...

I think he's justified in asking you what you mean. You out yourself as being sexually controlling. That's what you're all about... not "life." Flag away. You are not the arbiter of responsible screwing.

Thomas said...

I just wrote what I meant. Can you keep up please :)

lady_black said...

"Spamming" doesn't consist of posting comments that you don't agree with. I didn't say the other poster was spamming. I said the comment wasn't consistent with a secular viewpoint. It isn't.

Thomas said...

Flag for profanity not reasoned arguments. RHRC crowd has a tendency to employ gutter-type debate style.

lady_black said...

Of course we do. However, that doesn't negate the need for female contraception.

lady_black said...

There's nothing profane in what I said. Your sex hang-ups aren't my problem.

lady_black said...

I doubt you have "a dime." You're very insulting, you know that? How is anyone taking anything from you?

Thomas said...

Are you serious? Let me work the logic for you. PP is a slaughter house of unborn life. Planning is not synonymous with abortion. Yuo want to argue planning as synonymous with adoption, you will have a point.
Just the same, you do not have the right to expect anyone to pay for your contraception. Fair?

lady_black said...

You're a very funny guy. NO, Planned Parenthood is NOT a slaughter house of unborn life. My city has had a Planned Parenthood for 4 decades now and not a single "unborn" has been "slaughtered" there. EVER. Yet they are always busy. If you are going to ask me to "follow logic" you are going to have to know what logic means. You don't qualify.

Thomas said...

Did you get that response in the context of your comment that ostracised Joanna? You claimed that religious people are not welcome here and I countered that this is still a pro-lifer site thus you may not be welcome here. Please try to keep up :)

lady_black said...

No I never claimed that religious people weren't welcome here. I claimed that religion isn't secular.

Thomas said...

PAY FOR YOUR OWN!!!

Thomas said...

So what, being pro-life ultimately unites us. You have no case :)

Thomas said...

I am a Republican and a Conservative. Are those poor types to you? Get lost.
If you want whooppe, pay for the contraception. You pay for other vices in your life don't you, so you do have a dime after all :)

DarkCougar555 said...

I actually agreed with you! :)

My point is, we already have many female contraceptions. Male BCs can be added to balance gender contraceptions. It would be nice.

Thomas said...

You don't keep up much do you?

Thomas said...

This is not a birth expense. Right there you lose.

lady_black said...

Flag away. I haven't insulted you. I stated that you are an egregious mansplainer. In this comment, you state that certain women are "biologically predisposed" to PPD and PPP. Therefore it IS the pregnancy that causes it. Had they not given birth, they would have neither condition. In essence, pregnancy isn't good and desirable for these women.

Thomas said...

Would you like a Nobel for this exclamation? It's already been suggested that sex is not necessarily defined by intercourse alone. Try to keep up, will you :)

Jennifer Starr said...

She didn't use any profanity, Thomas.

Thomas said...

Is there a TEST for possible PPD? By your logic no woman should ever become pregnant because she may have issues. Yeap, Lady_Black wants to scare women into a state of suspended procreation because there may be problems. Stay in you house today because there may be a black cat cutting in your path :)

Thomas said...

We were referring to Kitler in that comment Jennifer, right ;)

fiona64 said...

Speak of the devil, and one of the aforementioned trolls turns up.

What's the matter, Tommy; couldn't get enough adulation to suit you over at LieSite? You can always go back to smooching Cassy Fiano's tukkus ...

kitler said...

Harassing by, instead of sticking to the topic at hand, badgering me about your stupid screenshots as your second post on SPL.

kitler said...

Why are you typing on a computer?


That goes against nature, Tommy.

kitler said...

It's also common sense that having babies back to back is not going to be healthy for anyone, you dingbat.

kitler said...

Oh, a Republican.


So you're one of those who cheers the GOP when they cut funding to disabled children?

Thomas said...

And if you read our exchange, it followed Kitler's use of a specific three letter phrase. I even informed LAdy_Black of referring to Kitler. You gals can't keep up at all.

kitler said...

wtf = profanity


He also flagged me for asking him if typing on a computer was natural

kitler said...

wtf = what the fig


you really have a dirty mind, Thomas

Unicorn Farm said...

She meant that expenses for the birth of a child are expenses that result from having the evil sex. Therefore, if contraceptives aren't covered, birth expenses shouldn't be either. Pay for your own childbirth expenses. Get out of MY picket for your 30,000 dollar cesarean. Geeze. You selfish moocher.

kitler said...

Yeah. What Unicorn Farm said. If you have a preemie that has 1milion dollar hospital bills, I expect you to pay for it out of pocket. I shouldn't have to pay for your extracurricular activities.

kitler said...

I totally agree. Men need more control over their reproductive capacities.

Jennifer Starr said...

It refers to those who presume that a couple should "stop" at two kids, "wait" till they're "ready,"think that "not enough money"



These seem to be logical and practical considerations to me. I don't see a problem.

Thomas said...

comment flagged.

Jennifer Starr said...

That's not something I would recommend--I'm not even sure you could do that as an elective procedure. A vasectomy can fail, but it's much simpler.

kitler said...

I am going to ignore you now, because you are a child.


Argent kindly asked that we don't bring drama here, and she was right.



You are extremely childish, by continuing to play these idiotic games.

Thomas said...

You finally show your true disgust for life. Keep going.

Jennifer Starr said...

That's not actually profanity.

Thomas said...

What planet are you from?

Jennifer Starr said...

Spamming would be like that politician on the RHRC board who was posting campaign messages on various disqus boards. This is not spamming.

kitler said...

He's so desperate for attention.


Flagged me for:


1) asking if typing on a pc was natural


2) use of the profane phrase: what the fig

Jennifer Starr said...

I have a friend who says 'What the Fudge'.

Unicorn Farm said...

Respond to the substance of the post. How is complaining about insurance covering the cost of childbirth- a result of sex- worse than complaining about insurance covering the cost of contraceptives- a much less expensive result of sex?

kitler said...

And on BSG they said 'what the frack' I think

Thomas said...

But I am not going to ignore you :) :) You are trolling a pro-life site with the intent to spew the RHRC garbage here and frankly I don't think it's right. You have already proven how extremist your reasoning is, eeven on the topic of contraception. Notice, you have no support other than your RHRC feminstas. Does that tell you anything?

Thomas said...

stop spamming.

kitler said...

I'm not trolling. I have been posting here for *months* Thomas.



And I have had many good debates with Coyote, Simon Jm and others.

Jennifer Starr said...

You don't like fudge?

Thomas said...

So are we not debating?

kitler said...

No, because you insist on acting like a spoiled baby desperate for attention by flagging every comment because of perceived profanity.


You still have to explain how 'typing on a pc is not natural' is a profane comment, honey.

Thomas said...

Well I stand mistaken. In this case it prevents 2nd - wave feminists from procreating and that is a good thing for OUR society :)

Thomas said...

That is not a factual statement and you know it.

Jennifer Starr said...

The vast majority of women in this country use or have used contraception at some point. This includes Republicans, Conservatives, Evangelicals and yes--even Catholics. Yet you seem to want to paint it as a 'vice'. Might I ask why?

kitler said...

Looks like Jennifer is correct:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/08/475380/house-gop-cuts-disabled-kids/

House Republicans recently proposed billions of dollars in cuts to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a critical income support for kids with severe disabilities who live in households with very low-income and
assets. While the proposed cuts amount to just one 1/100th of a percentage point of the federal budget, they would be nothing short of devastating for our nation’s most vulnerable children, and the families
who care for them.

Jennifer Starr said...

Actually, yes it is. But if you have proof that Republicans don't try to cut these things, I'd sure like to hear it.

Thomas said...

Oh well, so all that discussion in which I refuted your and other RHRC's posters assertions this past few hours is not debating. Face it Kit, you are right and disseent is wrong. IT's even more wrong when it comes from males. Read the comments in which I counteracted your points...

kitler said...

Wait until Suba gets home. You never did address any of her arguments. NOT ONE.

kitler said...

FYI, I am Mirable, Purrtriarchy, Jejune, and a bunch of others. I change my nick regularly cuz i get bored.

Thomas said...

It speaks to your overall character that is for sure.

kitler said...

Why? is changing one's nym a sign of immorality?

Jennifer Starr said...

That's something that I don't understand either.

kitler said...

I think it's related to the kind of thinking that also goes into the double effect doctrine. The idea is that if you cut out the woman's fallopian tube, you are not 'directly killing' the already doomed embryo. But, dissolving it with a drug is really no different. Both methods end in the embryo's death.


This is just one of those things that enables true believers to convince themselves that they are conforming to their faith. Kind of like Jews who don't want to break the Sabbath, so they invent machines to do the work for them, so they can 'get around' the law.

Coyote said...

"Castration is not done as a way of preventing pregnancy,"

Depends on which doctor we are talking about here.

Of course, if it is not possible to do in a medically safe setting, then one can try doing this himself/herself or try getting it done "in a back-alley", which is (much) more dangerous.

Also, I might consider castration to be a better option than abstaining from vaginal sex for life.

"and has other dire health consequences (which is why it's not done to prevent pregnancy)."

I am not so sure about that. It might defend on what exactly you define as "dire" here. Also, does it have these same or similar consequences for non-human animals? In addition, many/most/all of these consequences can be alleviated with hormone replacement therapy.

Coyote said...

The words "can fail" are the problem with a vasectomy. Simplicity is one thing, but failure isn't necessarily something that one wants to risk or to deal with.

kitler said...

BTW, it's possible to get pregnant even without vaginal sex.



Rare but...semen *can* enter the cervix from outside the vagina. Trickle up effect, if you will!

Coyote said...

Yes, this might be true.

Jennifer Starr said...

Yeah, that's a point, but it just seems very drastic. I did actually know someone as a child who sustained a war wound of that nature, but I don't know that many men would actually do that voluntarily. There is actually something called chemical castration, but I don't actually know what that involves.

Jennifer Starr said...

I've heard of that--there's a risk if semen gets in contact with the vaginal area, even if penetration is not involved.

Coyote said...

Unfortunately, sometimes reality creates a need for drastic options. After all, the other risk-free alternative, abstaining from vaginal sex for life, is also arguably (very) drastic.

I have heard about chemical castration; however, I have a question--is it guaranteed to make one infertile?

As for males to voluntarily get it done, here is an article on this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/no-sex-please-were-eunuchs-28469767.html

fiona64 said...

"You murdered your children" is not comparing abortion to child murder, liar.

fiona64 said...

How many times must "how insurance works" be explained to you before you understand it, Tommy?

Unicorn Farm said...

Why wont you answer my post!? Why should I pay for your wife's childbirth!?!?!

fiona64 said...

Tommy thinks "any woman who is smarter than me" means spamming.

fiona64 said...

Straw men, nothing but straw men ...

Just sing it to the tune of the "Star Wars" theme.

kitler said...

Because he is interested in intelligent debate UF, which means following me around and flagging my comments instead of answering your questions.

fiona64 said...

Tommy is just angry because Cassy Fiano isn't responding to his smooch-smooch-smooching, I think.

kitler said...

Cassy has a nice set of knockers. And she poses with knockers + gun. No wonder Tommy is in love.

Coyote said...

Also, again, I am unsure that there are *no* positive *health* benefits to castration:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/us-science-eunuchs-idUSBRE88N0NJ20120924

kitler said...

Yep. It was even a theme on Scrubs!

Plum Dumpling said...

There is a male contraceptive pill in the testing stage right now. It will be as big a game changer as the first Pill was.

Jennifer Starr said...

I agree. I would like to see a male pill.

Plum Dumpling said...

Doing NFP is a behavior designed to be prevent conception. It most certainly is contra conceptive.
What a terrible argument = 'It is not a contraceptive because it is a behavior and not thing.'
It is the age old question = are Catholics stupid or crazy. I am a Catholic. It may be both.

fiona64 said...

You're still claiming that you refuted *anything*? You are delusional.

Plum Dumpling said...

Zealots of any stripe make no sense. They are crazy.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am absolutely prolife and so, of course, I am prochoice. All sane people are prolife.
False dichotomy.

kitler said...

He's like Michelle Bachmann. Repeat the same lies and hope nobody will notice. And if they do, just double down!

Plum Dumpling said...

Nonsense. I am prolife and prochoice. All sane people are prolife.

Plum Dumpling said...

The lights are on but nobody is home.

Coyote said...

Also, again, I want to point out that if one is not allowed to get something done in a safe, medical setting, then one could instead try doing this himself/herself or try to do this "in a back-alley", both of which are (much) more dangerous. Pro-choicers love using the back-alley abortions argument, and while I am unsure that the back-alley argument works for abortion (because I am unsure if abortion is morally justifiable; after all, there is more than one individual involved in an abortion), the back-alley argument *does* appear to work for things such as castration.

Plum Dumpling said...

Catholics are repulsive. Sex is to Catholics as food is to bulimics. Where human sexuality is concerned, the RCC is objectively disordered. And I am a Catholic.

Plum Dumpling said...

Oh, use of force. Kool Okay, Toon, I will flag every one of your comments every time I see one. Let us rumble. >tic<

Plum Dumpling said...

Translation = Please don't hit me anymore.

Plum Dumpling said...

Wave your bippy up and down
Through your roof and over the town
And WTF WTF WTF.

Plum Dumpling said...

No. You are a stone fool. You have no clue what debate is. You throw tantrums. You make ridiculous rules because you get mad.

DarkCougar555 said...

Cheers to you and kitler. =)

Jennifer Starr said...

If someone voluntarily chooses to do that, I certainly would not stand in their way.

Plum Dumpling said...

Gift of life? If I have to take it, it is not a gift.

Unicorn Farm said...

Yes, clearly. I enjoy pointing out his many inabilities. I'm sure I'm not the first woman to say that.

Unicorn Farm said...

Having a child is also a choice. Why are you MAKING me pay for your wife's expensive child birth, Thomas?!?! R.U.D.E!!

Unicorn Farm said...

" I think you desire public resources to be expanded on your private sexual choices and nothing more."
You do you think YOU get to stick your grubby little sex-having hands into the public pot to pay for YOUR wife's expensive childbirth!! Your private sexual choices got her pregnant. Get your hands out of MY pockets.

Plum Dumpling said...

Contraceptives certainly prevented many abortions I would have had.

Unicorn Farm said...

Your use of the phrase "stone douchebag" earlier today cracked me up. Love it.

Unicorn Farm said...

Not on your dime!?? Why are you expecting me to pay for your wife's C-sections and expensive child birth? YOU had sex with her, YOU pay for it!!!!

Unicorn Farm said...

Right, and if you want "whoopee" (FFS dude, really?), you pay for your own childbirth. Get your grubby little hands out of MY insurance.

Plum Dumpling said...

We know that easily available contracpetion reduces abortion.

Coyote said...

Agreed, but I would hope that this individual will be able to get this done in a safe, medical setting (obviously after first being told all of the information which relates to this).

Unicorn Farm said...

You are a horrible little man and a terrible communicator. She was responding to this quote "Babies are a natural part of sex" by the moron pro-life poster above her.

Jennifer Starr said...

Yes, countries where birth control is widely available--and generally covered under health care--have very low abortion rates.

DarkCougar555 said...

Good to know! I just happen to remember something. I read that article said radical feminists were outrageous against the male pill in somewhere South America.

Anyway, I think I should point out about other something. Not all BCs come from Planned Parenthood. It just bugs me that they assume BCs must come from PPs. My personal contraception comes from the regular clinic... Like, they expect that I would get an abortion if I use my pill. Which is not necessarily true...

Plum Dumpling said...

Put bippy in
Take your bippy out
Jump up and down
Let out a shout
And WTF WTF WTF.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 613   Newer› Newest»