Who Can Possibly be Against 50 Million Fewer Abortions?

joseph brand

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jenny-tonge/who-can-possibly-be-against-50-million-fewer-abortions_b_1692270.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

On 11 July the UK Government and Bill and Melinda Gates, with the support of the United Nations Population Fund and world governments made history at the London Family Planning Summit. The agreement they reached exceeded all expectations for the funds that would be generated to fund family planning in the developing world, allowing 120 more million women their right to decide on the number, timing and spacing of their children by 2020.

Surely this is a big step in helping those families, mothers especially, in developing nations. Empowering women, (which I'm all for since my mother was one), is without a doubt a step in the right* direction. (no pun intended).

Despite wanting to prevent suffering and protect human dignity, a vocal minority with a seeming laudable principle view it as wrong to enable women in the developing world to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant, whether this be by using condoms, pills or any other means of modern family planning.

The forces against modern family planning are not as humane and rights-based as they pretend to be. Under the guise of respecting tradition and the overly simplistic concept of 'life' their thinking seems to stem from misogynistic, patriarchal and archaic norms that have been seeking to subjugate women since before concepts such as gender equality and family planning existed. Structures that see women's reproduction as a reason for them to be enslaved, and which actively discriminate against anyone who chooses not to live their life in a (heterosexual) 'traditional' marriage.

Each woman should be allowed and empowered to make her own decision as to whether she continues her pregnancy - according to her health, her morals, her religion, her resources and all the other circumstances she finds herself in. And at the moment when she makes this decision the only thing anyone else can do should be to offer her unbiased support in whatever decision she takes.

Family planning is not the panacea for all the challenges facing the development community, but it is an indispensable ingredient in allowing all countries the opportunity to enjoy the development that we have had.

Christian charities would be a bigger benefit to the poor in developing nations, if they took this approach. If they would just put down their bibles for a minute and think about things logically. I mean, honestly, why can't the church see that women in developing nations would be in a better position if they had two or three children (Ireland) versus having seven or ten?

Choice not chance.

doctoremma

Also, just to clarify for those who might think these funds will be diverted to abortion:

From Melinda Gates' mouth:

"One of the things we have to be clear about," she says, "is that what we are talking about is contraception – and not attaching the piece of abortion to that discussion. This is squarely about contraception. All the money being raised is about that."

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207230079.html

Snappy Smurf

Did you know that the pill can also function as an abortifacient? See here.

The scheme you mention involves the distribution of condoms, the pill, and emergency chemical abortion pills (the morning after pill).

joseph brand

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Did you know that the pill can also function as an abortifacient? See here.

The scheme you mention involves the distribution of condoms, the pill, and emergency chemical abortion pills (the morning after pill).

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini is a senior lecturer and permanent fellow at the John Paul II Institute.

Well he wouldn't be biased at all now would he. :rolleyes:

Snappy Smurf

joseph brand wrote: »

Well he wouldn't be biased at all now would he. :rolleyes:

Biased to the truth maybe? The pill has been shown to be abortifacient. There is no need for bias.

PDN

joseph brand wrote: »

Christian charities would be a bigger benefit to the poor in developing nations, if they took this approach. If they would just put down their bibles for a minute and think about things logically.

I'm not sure if you are just trolling or ignorant.

Maybe I can help you to think about things logically rather than trotting out geralisations and stereotypes. :rolleyes:

Many Christians charities do promote effective contraception in developing nations. For example, I have been involved in distributing free condoms in both Africa and Asia. We do it because of our Bibles.

qrrgprgua

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are just trolling or ignorant.

Maybe I can help you to think about things logically rather than trotting out geralisations and stereotypes. :rolleyes:

Many Christians charities do promote effective contraception in developing nations. For example, I have been involved in distributing free condoms in both Africa and Asia. We do it because of our Bibles.

I was involved in a project in South A giving out condoms for free, sex education.. It was more to prevent Aids than contraception. To be honest and sorry to Generalise or annoy,, but they don't listen or Care. What is worse is the government in some countries. Like the King of Swaziland with his umpteen wives. You have a white population who manage ok. But for Black population which are poor, to be hones contraception is not top of their list. Existing is. And there is sadly a very macho thing among african males not NOT using a condom.

I think the Gates fondation will do a lot of Good. Melinda is a Catholic who tries her best to promote good. But what is really needed is education and opportunity in Africa.

When it comes to contraception there are a lot of mixed religious views. Its all very well of us westerners to debate the merits or not . But when you actually live in Africa you see contraception as the least of many sins. Crime in many areas is rampant. Life is very cheap.

Also Sadly where help is really needed to reduce the number of births, for example somalia, The Islamic regime will never allow the Foundation in.

bonniebede

Melinda Gates appears to care for poor people. So far so good.

However her solution is not to eliminate poverty but to eliminate poor people.

This is not a correct solution to the problem of poverty.

Her agenda in fact betrays an imperialistic mindset which says that we the rich have the right to tell, and enforce, on you the poor, the details of your personal family life, presumably because you, the poor are to stupid to know how to live your own life.

If she really wanted to empower women she would a) not promote contraceptive methods which actually abort unborn women, as well as endanger the health of the women who take her pills and b) invest in empowering women by teaching them how to use non-hormonal , natural family planning by which they can effectively decide how to plan and space their children without risk to the mother or the unborn children.

Large scale Studies have shown that in developing countries natural family planning is the most effective method of birth regulation, as well as empowering women with information about their health, it is abandoned less frequently that hormonal methods, it's free to use forever, it doesn't kill unborn children by making the womb a chemically toxic environment for implantation, and there are no religious or moral objections to it.

So melinda needs to catch up on the science, ditch the imperialist propaganda, and spend her money on really empowering women.

MrPudding

bonniebede wrote: »

Large scale Studies have shown that in developing countries natural family planning is the most effective method of birth regulation, ...

Interesting. I was not aware of such studies. Can you provide some links to these studies?

MrP

joseph brand

bonniebede wrote: »

Melinda Gates appears to care for poor people. So far so good.

However her solution is not to eliminate poverty but to eliminate poor people.

This is not a correct solution to the problem of poverty.

Her agenda in fact betrays an imperialistic mindset which says that we the rich have the right to tell, and enforce, on you the poor, the details of your personal family life, presumably because you, the poor are to stupid to know how to live your own life.

If she really wanted to empower women she would a) not promote contraceptive methods which actually abort unborn women, as well as endanger the health of the women who take her pills and b) invest in empowering women by teaching them how to use non-hormonal , natural family planning by which they can effectively decide how to plan and space their children without risk to the mother or the unborn children.

Large scale Studies have shown that in developing countries natural family planning is the most effective method of birth regulation, as well as empowering women with information about their health, it is abandoned less frequently that hormonal methods, it's free to use forever, it doesn't kill unborn children by making the womb a chemically toxic environment for implantation, and there are no religious or moral objections to it.

So melinda needs to catch up on the science, ditch the imperialist propaganda, and spend her money on really empowering women.

Eliminate poor people how?

Christian Missionaries spreading 'the good news'? If that's not telling the poor how to live their lives, well then, I don't know what is.

Also, you haven't provided links to these 'studies'.

You mention natural family planning. Is this the 'pull out method'? Are. You. Serious?

totus tuus

An article in today's Vatican Insider discusses Melinda Gates and Nestle - Charity with profit!

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-17154/

daveyeh

Who Can Possibly be Against 50 Million Fewer Abortions?

Evil people? Satan?

Sonics2k

totus tuus wrote: »

An article in today's Vatican Insider discusses Melinda Gates and Nestle - Charity with profit!

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/benedetto-xvi-benedict-xvi-benedicto-xvi-17154/

What Nestle did back then was deplorable, and nobody will argue that.
But where exactly does it say that Melinda Gates will make a profit?

In fact, why even the comparison? Are you implying she'll start charging people?

bonniebede

joseph brand wrote: »

Eliminate poor people how?

Melinda Gates advocates the use of abortifacient methods which are misrepresented as 'contraception' but which in fact prevent implantation of a already existing embryo. All ordinary and emergency forms of hormonal birth control do this as one of their mechanisms.
So she is advocating the elimination of unborn children just because they happen to be the children of poor people. Surely these little ones are the poorest of the poor?

joseph brand wrote: »

Christian Missionaries spreading 'the good news'? If that's not telling the poor how to live their lives, well then, I don't know what is.

coercing someone into declaring they 'believe' is an abomination. Wherever or whenever this has happened because of Christian missionaries it should rightly be denounced. Real faith can only be a freely chosen relationship with God. It doesn't make sense to call something 'faith' which is coerced. As a Christian and a Catholic, i wopuld want to add my voice to the apology and commitment to penance that Pope John Paul expressed in the Jubilee year, which he writes of in his letter 'THe coming of the third millenium':

33. Hence it is appropriate that, as the Second Millennium of Christianity draws to a close, the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.

Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance: before God and man she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.

35. Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.

It is true that an accurate historical judgment cannot prescind from careful study of the cultural conditioning of the times, as a result of which many people may have held in good faith that an authentic witness to the truth could include suppressing the opinions of others or at least paying no attention to them. Many factors frequently converged to create assumptions which justified intolerance and fostered an emotional climate from which only great spirits, truly free and filled with God, were in some way able to break free. Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power".

joseph brand wrote: »

Also, you haven't provided links to these 'studies'.

http://billings-ovulation-method.org.au/act/trials.shtml

http://www.myfemininemind.com/2011/09/empowering-poor-with-nfp.html

http://billings-ovulation-method.org.au/act/trials.shtml


http://www.naprotechnology.com/references.htm

http://www.naturalfamilyplanning.ca/refs.htm

joseph brand wrote: »

You mention natural family planning. Is this the 'pull out method'? Are. You. Serious?

no, this is a method based on knowing that when a women is potentially fertile she gives off unmistakeable mucus signs which are easy to identify.
Once the couple knows that they are in the fertile time of the cycle they can then decide if they wish to use that cycle to conceive, or whether they will not conceive.
Any of the above links will lead you to deeper explanations of the method.


At mr P, thanks for the polite interest, hope the above links provide a starting point.:)

doctoremma

bonniebede wrote: »

Melinda Gates advocates the use of abortifacient methods which are misrepresented as 'contraception' but which in fact prevent implantation of a already existing embryo.

The primary, and by far most frequent, mechanism of the contraceptive pill is to prevent ovulation. Thus, it's not really misrepresentative to call it a "contraceptive method". I'm not arguing that a post-fertilisation mechanism doesn't occur (although there are also other secondary mechanisms that don't involve the creation of a fertilised egg), I just don't think it's Melinda Gates doing the misrepresenting here....

bonniebede wrote: »

no, this is a method based on knowing that when a women is potentially fertile she gives off unmistakeable mucus signs which are easy to identify.

Not always.

bonniebede wrote: »

Once the couple knows that they are in the fertile time of the cycle they can then decide if they wish to use that cycle to conceive, or whether they will not conceive.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/32/6/355.full

A link to an article proposing that the rhythm method kills its fair share of unborn embryos.

Zombrex

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Did you know that the pill can also function as an abortifacient?

So can sex. Every time you have sex and conceive there is an 8 in 10 chance your own body will abort the fetus.

Sex is murder!

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

So can sex. Every time you have sex and conceive there is an 8 in 10 chance your own body will abort the fetus.

Sex is murder!

Firstly, I'm very sure a lot of couples who were trying for a child would be very grateful for research that prevented that 8 in 10 chance happening, and by the by there's a huge [citation needed] over that figure.

Secondly, just because we observe something occurring in nature doesn't mean that it is acceptable to induce that conclusion. Much in the same way as if I saw someone die as a result of being struck by lightening, it wouldn't mean that it would be acceptable for me to induce an electric shock to kill someone.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

Secondly, just because we observe something occurring in nature doesn't mean that it is acceptable to induce that conclusion. Much in the same way as if I saw someone die as a result of being struck by lightening, it wouldn't mean that it would be acceptable for me to induce an electric shock to kill someone.

If you read the article I posted, there's some interesting rationale that practitioners of the rhythm method induce embryonic death more often than those using barrier or pharmacological preventative measures.

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

If you read the article I posted, there's some interesting rationale that practitioners of the rhythm method induce embryonic death more often than those using barrier or pharmacological preventative measures.

.....and if you read the responses on same link you provided, you will find some that says it's pure hogwash.

The first assumption is that there are a great number of conceptions that never result in missed menses. There are estimates that only 50% of conceptions actually lead to pregnancies.” Bovens does not favour us with the source of these estimates, but we do know that a study conducted at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne in 1985/6, debunked this myth. Women who were hoping for a pregnancy were asked to submit to regular blood tests from ovulation to the onset of menstruation to establish how many pregnancies were ending in miscarriage before menses was even missed. The figure was zero.

MadsL

Are people seriously talking about "natural contraception" in this day and age?? My friends daughter is a product of crackpot "natural contraception". You spread it to the hippies you see....:rolleyes:

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

If you read the article I posted, there's some interesting rationale that practitioners of the rhythm method induce embryonic death more often than those using barrier or pharmacological preventative measures.

If that's the case then using condoms and other contraceptive measures would be better (I'm not opposed to these in so far as they prevent conception). The article seems to be very speculative in nature though.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

So can sex. Every time you have sex and conceive there is an 8 in 10 chance your own body will abort the fetus.

Sex is murder!

Firstly, I'm very sure a lot of couples who were trying for a child would be very grateful for research that prevented that 8 in 10 chance happening, and by the by there's a huge [citation needed] over that figure.

Secondly, just because we observe something occurring in nature doesn't mean that it is acceptable to induce that conclusion. Much in the same way as if I saw someone die as a result of being struck by lightening, it wouldn't mean that it would be acceptable for me to induce an electric shock to kill someone.

Sex is a choice, a choice that most likely will result in the death of a child. Given that how can that choice be justified?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Sex is a choice, a choice that most likely will result in the death of a child. Given that how can that choice be justified?

Did you even read the post you were responding to?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex wrote: »

Sex is a choice, a choice that most likely will result in the death of a child. Given that how can that choice be justified?

Did you even read the post you were responding to?

Yes, you agreed with me, you said just because we see something in nature doesn't me should choose through our conscious actions to produce the same outcome.

Which is what choosing to have sex does. Most likely such a choice will result in the death of a child. Surely then it is immoral to make this choice then. I dont see how choosing to have sex and then choosing to take the morning after pill, which merely slightly increases the odds that a child will die, is considered much different?

Or are you arguing that if you don't know your actions will most likely kill a child, that's ok?

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

If that's the case then using condoms and other contraceptive measures would be better (I'm not opposed to these in so far as they prevent conception). The article seems to be very speculative in nature though.

Oh, I agree, it's speculative, far more of a thought experiment than research. It just highlighted a train of thought that hadn't occurred to me thus far.

As for use of condoms, it does seem that this method most satisfies the requirements of those wishing to minimise unwanted or unhealthy conceptions. The problem with this method in the context of this thread is that it's efficacy relies on male compliance, and this initiative very much focuses on giving power to the woman to control her own reproduction.

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

.....and if you read the responses on same link you provided, you will find some that says it's pure hogwash.

Citation needed. Not the link to the response, the report of the study. Am on phone so plausible such refs aren't showing.

bonniebede

doctoremma wrote: »

The primary, and by far most frequent, mechanism of the contraceptive pill is to prevent ovulation. Thus, it's not really misrepresentative to call it a "contraceptive method". I'm not arguing that a post-fertilisation mechanism doesn't occur (although there are also other secondary mechanisms that don't involve the creation of a fertilised egg), I just don't think it's Melinda Gates doing the misrepresenting here...

It is untrue to call something contraceptive which does not prevent conception, but prevents the continuation of a pregnancy by killing the child. The fact that it also works as a contraceptive, even that it mostly works as a contraceptive (though that is not clear) is beside the point. the manufacturers clearly state in their information (as you yourself acknowledge) that the the pill causes several things to happen some of which are contraceptive, some of which are abortafacient.

doctoremma wrote: »

A link to an article proposing that the rhythm method kills its fair share of unborn embryos.

That article is such utter tosh that I don't know where to begin. So I will confine myself to the observation that any research which baldly states

' This assumption is not backed up by empirical evidence, but does have a certain plausibility '

is not science but speculation, and In my opinion in this case propaganda.

Science is an activity based on advancing knowledge based on empirical observations.

I appreciate the approach in the article may have religious significance for you, but I was trying to stick to science.

doctoremma

bonniebede wrote: »

It is untrue to call something contraceptive which does not prevent conception, but prevents the continuation of a pregnancy by killing the child. The fact that it also works as a contraceptive, even that it mostly works as a contraceptive (though that is not clear)

Studies of breakthrough ovulation under a good dosage regime show it to be infrequent, maybe 10%, maybe less. Even ardent pro-lifers tout this figure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204827

bonniebede wrote: »

' This assumption is not backed up by empirical evidence, but does have a certain plausibility '

is not science but speculation, and In my opinion in this case propaganda.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support your opinion?

bonniebede wrote: »

Science is an activity based on advancing knowledge based on empirical observations.

Yeah, thanks for that. I never called it 'science' and, indeed, clarified my position further by stating it's more thought experiment than research, just an interesting line of thinking.

bonniebede wrote: »

I appreciate the approach in the article may have religious significance for you, but I was trying to stick to science.

One day, it might be possible to debate on this forum without childish digs and defensiveness. What does that even mean, 'the approach in the article may have religious significance'?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, you agreed with me, you said just because we see something in nature doesn't me should choose through our conscious actions to produce the same outcome.

Which is what choosing to have sex does. Most likely such a choice will result in the death of a child. Surely then it is immoral to make this choice then. I dont see how choosing to have sex and then choosing to take the morning after pill, which merely slightly increases the odds that a child will die, is considered much different?

Or are you arguing that if you don't know your actions will most likely kill a child, that's ok?

You've got a real gift for sophistry, but.

1) I said there was a huge [citation needed] over your figure. I'm still interested in finding out where you got it from.

2) That wasn't my point. It isn't the sexual act that destroys the embryo, and you know that very well. You can do much much better than this.

3) You ignored my point that if what you are saying is true, and there's still [citation needed] in respect to that, that there would be millions of couples looking for improvements in that respect.

4) You've missed my point about the lightning.

What part of my post agreed with what you were saying again?

doctoremma

People using natural methods are far more likely to conceive than those using barrier/pharmacological contraception. Assuming a similar rate of miscarriage between those two groups, those using natural methods will, by the act of them having sex, doom more embryos to death.

bonniebede

doctoremma wrote: »

People using natural methods are far more likely to conceive than those using barrier/pharmacological contraception. Assuming a similar rate of miscarriage between those two groups, those using natural methods will, by the act of them having sex, doom more embryos to death.

First , i dispute the statement that people using natural methods are far more likely to conceinve than those using barrier/pharmocological contraception. The research done in this area, and there is a lot of it, shows this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true. I would reccommend you follow it up, there is able material on this in the links already posted.

Secondly miscarriage is not the deliberate killing of a child, and should not be equated with it. If a child of any age dies by accident or disease, no one would accuse the parent of killing the child; if the parent deliberately poisons the child they are.

To suggest that someone is responsible for the death of a person because they have cooperated in bringing them into life is strange. By that logic, every parent, even if your children grow as old as methuselah, is responsible for that their death. After all everyone dies. not sure why you feel it helpful to rely on that premise here. Clearly, by following this line of thinking, it is true to say that the larger your family is , the more deaths your parents are responsible for. I'm not seeing how this is a helpful line of argumentation.

You assumption about a similar rate of miscarriage is also unreliable. The method of action of pharmocological contraception which I have been objecting to is precisely that action which renders the womb hostile to implantation. Obviously this action, which you do noty dispute is a mode of action for these drugs, must affect the rates of miscarriage of conceived embryos.

Finally, numbers don't count in determining the rightness of the action. It does not matter if ones action results in the death of one person, or one hundred million. It is a wrong action. The pill causes the death of embryos. This fact is entirely undisputed. The fact that embryos die in the absence of taking the pill is immaterial. The fact that the occurrence may be rare (though i do not concede that) is immaterial.

Would it not simply be more sttraightforwward to argue that although the pill does cause the death of embryos, it is morally acceptable to do so?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

That wasn't my point. It isn't the sexual act that destroys the embryo, and you know that very well. You can do much much better than this.

And so can you. You know that this isn't relevant, like saying "it isn't the gun that kills people, its bullets."

The reality is that having sex will set in motion a natural chain of events that will more than likely result in the death of a "child".

Of course it won't though, because no one, no you, not me, not the Pope, not the crazies' protesting outside abortion clinics, actually thinks of a zygote as a child.

No cares if a zygote is naturally destroyed, the vast majority of women don't even know they are pregnant as this takes place before even implantation. Even though such an event only took place due to a conscious choice by the parents to have sex.

The life begins at conception notion is morally bankrupt, it is a fraud.

philologos

By the by I've asked you to back up that claim twice now.

doctoremma

bonniebede wrote: »

First , i dispute the statement that people using natural methods are far more likely to conceinve than those using barrier/pharmocological contraception. The research done in this area, and there is a lot of it, shows this is not the case, in fact the opposite is true.

Can you post a link? I'm struggling to find anything reporting conception rates when using NFP. There are lots of studies of failure rates but, even then, no "typical use" stats for NFP; there seems to be a tendency to report only "perfect use" rates of failure.

bonniebede wrote: »

Secondly miscarriage is not the deliberate killing of a child, and should not be equated with it

Well, given that miscarriage is neither the intended nor the primary mechanism of the oral contraceptive pill, perhaps we shouldn't accuse women who take it of deliberately killing children?

bonniebede wrote: »

The method of action of pharmocological contraception which I have been objecting to is precisely that action which renders the womb hostile to implantation. Obviously this action, which you do noty dispute is a mode of action for these drugs, must affect the rates of miscarriage of conceived embryos.

There are lots of things that can render the womb inhospitable. Do we stop women drinking gin, or having various herbal teas, or force them to wear sterile face protection?

bonniebede wrote: »

Finally, numbers don't count in determining the rightness of the action.

Actually, I agree completely. I'm a person who wouldn't divert the rail trolley from it's path to killing ten people to another which would kill only one.

bonniebede wrote: »

Would it not simply be more sttraightforwward to argue that although the pill does cause the death of embryos, it is morally acceptable to do so?

I am quite happy to state this as my position. As has been done to death on various threads here, I don't consider a fertilised embryo as a child/person/sentient being.

doctoremma

To move the thread on a little, and to bring in a point made by Phil earlier, how would the detractors of this initiative feel if condoms were the contraception of choice? Do you think that placing the onus on the males renders an entirely different situation? Do we think condoms would be as successful?

28064212

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you post a link? I'm struggling to find anything reporting conception rates when using NFP. There are lots of studies of failure rates but, even then, no "typical use" stats for NFP; there seems to be a tendency to report only "perfect use" rates of failure.

This is considered to be the go-to study for contraception effectiveness rates: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

By the by I've asked you to back up that claim twice now.

Will you accept my point if I do?

doctoremma

28064212 wrote: »

This is considered to be the go-to study for contraception effectiveness rates: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html

Thanks for that. It seems condoms and oral contraception have lower failure rates than any rhythm method. I'd still like to see some studies regarding conception frequency (if it's even possible to study such a thing - I suspect not). Ovulation frequencies can be tracked but not conception.

28064212

doctoremma wrote: »

Thanks for that. It seems condoms and oral contraception have lower failure rates than any rhythm method. I'd still like to see some studies regarding conception frequency (if it's even possible to study such a thing - I suspect not). Ovulation frequencies can be tracked but not conception.

Oops, missed the conception rate part of your post

doctoremma

28064212 wrote: »

Oops, missed the conception rate part of your post

Oh no, I wasn't pulling you up I think there's a distinct lack of study (for lack of rigorous methodology) of the rates of conceptions resulting in early miscarriages, at least for those on oral contraception.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Will you accept my point if I do?

I still don't think your point is sound. Having sex does not directly cause or induce the destruction of the embyro.

Much in the same way that I had a child who later went on to get struck by lightning, it wouldn't be because I had the child that they got struck by lightning would it?

It's a poor argument, I've already told you clearly that if that were the case, there would be clear grounds for doing more medical research into why this is the case.

It's also a poor argument because just because something happens in nature doesn't mean that we should induce it ourselves. See earlier example.

You can do a lot better than this.

bonniebede

Zombrex wrote: »

The life begins at conception notion is morally bankrupt, it is a fraud.

Can you explain this further?
It seems straightforward to me.

what results from conception (lets call it 'it') how would you determine what it is?

Is it living or inanimate? As it has dna and is growing, multiplying its cells it must be a living thing, not an inanimate thing like a piece of rock.

If we dna sequence it, we will see its species, which would be homo sapiens, not a frog or a dog or whatever.

so considering the product of conception, how is it now a living human being?

This is different to asking is it a person, if by person you mean some philosophical or religious or legal attribute which it must have in addition to being a living human being.

For me, i think the human rights should be accorded to all living human beings, they don't also have to have some other attribute, like being the right colour or religion, owning property, attaining a certainly level of cognitive ability, being conscious, being potentially any of these things.

Further, in what way is the question of when life begins a moral question? Surely it is simply a question of scientific fact? What you do once the fact is determined, that is a moral issue, the underlying fact is simply a matter for empirical observation and testing, surely?

bonniebede

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you post a link? I'm struggling to find anything reporting conception rates when using NFP.

http://www.naomi.ie/effect.htm

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, given that miscarriage is neither the intended nor the primary mechanism of the oral contraceptive pill, perhaps we shouldn't accuse women who take it of deliberately killing children?

Why do you think it is not intended? The manufacturer in their user information clearly state that it is one of the mechanisisms of action, so clearly the manufacturer intends it. Presumably the woman is using the product to achieve the intended effects of the product too. i think many women do not actually know what the pill does to their body, but I reckon you probably agree (looking at your earlier posts) that women should be as educated as possible about their own bodies and fertility.

doctoremma wrote: »

There are lots of things that can render the womb inhospitable. Do we stop women drinking gin, or having various herbal teas, or force them to wear sterile face protection?

Well, as above i think women should certainly have information, especially if they are possibly pregnant, about things which are harmful to them or their child.
should we stop them doing the things you suggest?It is certainly against the law already to deliberately drink herbal teas with deliberately abortafacient substances with the intention of inducing the death of the child.
The degree to which one can separate out deliberate behaviours which are harmful to the unborn child from unintended side effects of things like drinking alcohol is problematic in formulating law. For example a recent study suggests that alcohol might not be as dangerous as previously thought, it is suggested that the intake of alcohol has to be combined with some other factor, maybe genetic. but it is too early yet to change the advice re alcohol givento pregnant women, though it would suggest that a prosecution based on causing gbh to your baby by drinking might not be a useful way to go.

doctoremma wrote: »

I am quite happy to state this as my position. As has been done to death on various threads here, I don't consider a fertilised embryo as a child/person/sentient being.

Would you care to define what is a child/person/sentient being? Do human rights belong to any of these categories? And do you distinguish between human rights which a human being has because they exist and civil rights which they have because they are given by law?

doctoremma

bonniebede wrote: »

http://www.naomi.ie/effect.htm

Thanks for that. I've had a scan and I'll have a closer look again. I was almost tempted to give this method a try - much nicer than dosing up on hormones or fiddling with foil wrappers - but now I've realised there are about ten safe days in the month and that ain't going to cut it.

If - and only if - those stats have held up to more recent studies and are representative of "typical use", given that the countries listed there are probably very roughly equivalent to many African nations in education/economy, I genuinely think that this type of information could be useful. I'm not suggesting it replaces the proposed initiatives but you're right when you say....

bonniebede wrote: »

but I reckon you probably agree (looking at your earlier posts) that women should be as educated as possible about their own bodies and fertility.

The issue I have with this kind of approach is that it takes two people, unified in desirable outcomes about pregnancy, to make it work. Now, I might be a little off mark here but I think it's fair to say that sexual activity in many African nations is not what we, the cushy westerners, might call "healthy". There's a high prevalence of rape, a high amount of ritualistic and traditional practices, for which this approach (where the female maybe doesn't have as much say it in all) will be useless.

Giving women the choice about pregnancy - via female contraceptive methods - is a very powerful tool and a very powerful statement. Given that I have zero qualms about the secondary mechanisms of the contraceptive pill, I have to support this. If the target women themselves make the choice not to take it, that's up to them.

bonniebede wrote: »

Why do you think it is not intended?

The creator of the contraceptive pill designed it to mimic early pregnancy and prevent ovulation. This is still the primary basis on which the contraceptive pill works today. That there are complimentary "back up" mechanisms is secondary and while I'm not arguing that such salient information be excluded from information packs etc, I view it as little more than propaganda to label the contraceptive pill as a "contraceptive" and "abortifacient" in equal measures.

bonniebede wrote: »

Well, as above i think women should certainly have information, especially if they are possibly pregnant, about things which are harmful to them or their child.

Agreed.

bonniebede wrote: »

The degree to which one can separate out deliberate behaviours which are harmful to the unborn child from unintended side effects of things like drinking alcohol is problematic in formulating law.

Agreed.

bonniebede wrote: »

Would you care to define what is a child/person/sentient being?

A sentient being has consciousness, can feel, has subjective experiences. We know that none of these things apply to a fertilised embryo. For sure, at some point in development, sentience is achieved and that means we have thresholds for terminations that change as science progresses. I'm not comfortable claiming that a 24 week embryo is not sentient but I'm perfectly clear that a 12 week old embryo is not. As for an 8-cell stage embryo, not a chance.

I have outlined my "definitions" of child/person on other threads. Semantics isn't helpful, concepts are. Whatever I happen to call the embryo - a fetus/a child/a person/a being, does not change how I conceptualise it.

Hence, I can't differentially ascribe human rights to

bonniebede wrote: »

any of these categories?

because it's just words.

bonniebede wrote: »

And do you distinguish between human rights which a human being has because they exist and civil rights which they have because they are given by law?

Good question. My instinct says "no", that any "right" is one offered by society, not intrinsic to the subject. Whether I think all societies offer the "rights" I think are basic is a different matter.

But then, I don't ascribe anything remarkable to human beings compared to, say, dogs, other than my innate desire to see my species do well (i.e. From a burning building, I'd save a person rather than a dog).

doctoremma

Tea break reading suggestion:

http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm

It's an essay outlining the history of the contraceptive pill in relation to the faith of the designer and the Catholic Church (with a little anthropology thrown in). Not relevant to the topic, not any kind of bias for either argument, but interesting anyway.

bonniebede

doctoremma wrote: »

Good question. My instinct says "no", that any "right" is one offered by society, not intrinsic to the subject. Whether I think all societies offer the "rights" I think are basic is a different matter.
QUOTE]


This is an interesting position, can i explore it with you? In your answer you are making the distinction between the 'rights that are basic' and the rights particular societies offer. That implies you recognise two categories of rights - one set is defined by the law of the society (or customs or other mechanisms) and the other set is 'basic'.

What is the basis of those basic rights? you have already established that the basis is not the society, or they would be in the other category.

The reason that this is important is that it is only when you have established this distinction can you criticise human rights abuses.

for example, (trying to use historical cases rather than current issues so as to stay away from controversy:))
Where the usa allowed slavery, you had a right, given by the state to own a slave, you had no right not to be a slave if you were owned, you were property.
So at that time , those were the rights given by society.

If society is the only source of rights we have, then there can be no objection to this situation., it just is the law.

you cannot say, well. I should have the right not to be a slave, therefore this is a bad law. You don't have the right not to be a slave because the law does not give you that right.

If on the other hand, one says that all people have the right to be free and not to be slaves, which comes to them from some other source than the law, then you can look at the law and say 'this is a bad law, because the rights given in law do not accord with the rights this person should have'.

That argument is the basis for all the work against human rights abuses that have happened where those abuses were sanctioned by law.

to reflect on another example, in the nuremberg trials after world war two, a number of nazis relied on the argument that they had done nothing illegal, but had followed lawful orders issued by their superior officers, who in that case were the representatives of the legal government for them.

The argument on which they were tried, convicted and punished was that regardless of the legality of their actions, their actions violated basic human rights which do not derive from the law but from another source, and that they should have recognised this and acted upon it.

On th other hand a civil right is not a human right, but one which the state gives you. for example the civil right to drive a car, or have a licence, is one that is given only to certain categories of people (by age, and competence) and can be taken away for good cause (ie repeated drunk driving) .

So to come back to your statement 'My instinct says "no", that any "right" is one offered by society, not intrinsic to the subject' would you still take that position? And if so, how would you ground an argument against a bad law?

(thanks for the reading material, will get to it at next teabreak.:))

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I still don't think your point is sound. Having sex does not directly cause or induce the destruction of the embyro.

So it is ok to kill someone so long as you do it indirectly?

If you know the most likely outcome of your actions is the death of a person is it not immoral to carry out that action, even if you don't directly kill the person?

philologos wrote: »

Much in the same way that I had a child who later went on to get struck by lightning, it wouldn't be because I had the child that they got struck by lightning would it?

If you drove your car through a storm knowing that the most likely outcome would be that the child would be hit by lightening then yes it would be. You could claim that you didn't directly cause the lightening to hit the child since you don't directly control the lightening. But you carried out an action that you know had a high probability of causing a child to be hit by lightening.

A woman cannot control directly control whether her body will or will not abort the zygote. But given the odds are that it probably will I see no difference between that and doing something where a natural process (say lightening) will most likely kill your child.

By having sex you place the child at the start of a natural conveyor belt that will in all likelihood kill it.

Except of course you don't, since these things aren't "children"

"The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies."

http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

Zombrex

bonniebede wrote: »

For me, i think the human rights should be accorded to all living human beings

Why?

What is structurally significant about a human zygote that is not present in a say a dog zygote that means we should grant this collection of cells civil rights, but not the dog zygote?

Both are living. From a structural point of view both a very similar, made up of an animal cell with a cell wall etc.

But one has a vastly larger set of civil rights than the other?

philologos

Zombrex - it's not the same thing it's analogous to miscarriage if anything. It's not the fault of the parents when this happens.

Any sane person would advocate research into miscarriage and any person who was genuinely pro-life would advocate research by done so as to improve chances of implantation. Many people who are having difficulty conceiving would be grateful for this.

Your argument is based on a warped understanding of culpability. If you're going to say this you must also say parents are responsible for miscarrying which is ridiculous to say the least.

doctoremma

Bear with me on this analogy.

In the UK (and likely Ireland), it is illegal to erect a bat box in a place where it might conceivably need to be moved from at some point in the future. This is because it is illegal to disturb roosting bats, as they are a protected species. Therefore, any activity that might lead to such a disturbance is punishable under law, including, under certain circumstances, the erection of a roost in the first place.

If I can be culpable, before the event and in an entirely unintentional fashion, of disturbing bats, why on earth am I not culpable for the unintentional death of a person, given I have deliberately taken actions that would lead to the creation of the person?

doctoremma

BB, will respond to you later, flippant remarks on phone OK, reasoned discussion not!