Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

aloyisious

Looking at today's N.I court ruling that N.I,s existing law on abortion is not in compliance with the U.K human rights commitments, and the chances that the DUP got together with SF, got the assembly up & running and got a joint agreement to introduce some anti-abortion legislation that skirts the stated non-compliance before the 22nd deadline, it looks like the chance that roadblocks can be put up by the DUP to the UK Govt legislation are slim.

The only thing that could happen is if Boris and the DUP made some deal in their recent chat on the other hot issue and supporting him in parliament, and Boris himself managed to pull the UK abortion-provision legislation as a gift to Arlene for her help on Brexit.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/northern-ireland-abortion-law-breaches-human-rights-court-rules-191003153501011.html

Hotblack Desiato

No way Boris will be able to get that overturned, he has no majority DUP or no DUP.

Bredabe

'Unplanned' showing at a chain of national cinemas this week, demo's outside local cinema's and the usual bot attacks online.

Cabaal

"Pro Life" zealots attacking an MP in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/06/stella-creasy-anti-abortion-group-police-investigate-extremist-targeting

Scotland Yard is investigating the intimidation and harassment of Stella Creasy following the “extremist” targeting of the Labour MP by anti-abortion protesters over the past week.

For the third time in a week, supporters of the UK branch of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR UK), an American anti-abortion organisation, gathered in Walthamstow town centre on Saturday and became embroiled in heated exchanges with passing shoppers.

You may remember Bio-Ethical Reform in Ireland were the one's that put very graphic posters outside McDonalds, Schools and Hospitals in Ireland during our ref, I'd like to thank them for helping the yes vote by doing so :pac:

....group’s strategy was aimed at ensuring phrases such as “baby murderer” became normalised, warning that such tactics had the potential to radicalise individuals and had incited violence in the US.

Thankfully such tactics in Ireland simply didn't fly and we as a country had little time for them, I know of one incident in Waterford where they had posters up near a school at a roundabout and parents stopped and got out of cars and got seriously angry with them which resulted in the Gardai showing and removing them from the roundabout.

Igotadose

Violence is o.k. if your pro-life. As are lies.
If not, our erstwhile compassionate pro-lifers on this thread would decry and condemn the actions in the UK.

(Oh yeah, need another link to the video of the guy kicking the pro-lifer in the US, which was categorically condemned here when it happened.)

Bredabe

Bredabe wrote: »

'Unplanned' showing at a chain of national cinemas this week, demo's outside local cinema's and the usual bot attacks online.

Whole thread on here with the usual anti suspects, going for the free speech angle against the protesters.

Bredabe

DubInMeath wrote: »

Whole thread on here with the usual anti suspects, going for the free speech angle against the protesters.

I imagine there is, funny or ironic that the ppl going on about free speech are the ones' who spend lifetimes making sure the rest of us didnt have access to info they didnt approve of.

Cabaal

Bredabe wrote: »

'Unplanned' showing at a chain of national cinemas this week.

I'd rather see the Irish version of Unplanned featuring Noel Pattern,

Any suggestions for who could play Noel?

For those that don';t know Noel, lets refresh your memory https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

You may recall those ‘My Abortion’ story billboards. The Noel featured turns out is a fake. Save8.ie have since deleted his story (this is the cached page)

Considerable (well, not really. It was pretty straightforward) leg work went into proving this guy is not a nurse, has a city and guilds cert that appears altered (provided to us by Pro-Life activist John McGurk), has lied about his experience, is a self confessed convicted armed robber and self-professed gun runner…

Instead of doing the sensible thing and throwing him under a bus ( OMG he lied to us) John McGurk and Save the 8th are claiming Noel left the campaign because of bullying by repealers.

This was either a very clumsy attempt at duping folks or it was incompetence on a grand scale. Either way I for one hope they continue with such own goals. Its awfully entertaining!

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd rather see the Irish version of Unplanned featuring Noel Pattern,

Any suggestions for who could play Noel?

For those that don';t know Noel, lets refresh your memory https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

Apparently John has moved to targeting immigrants now that the 8th has passed and he's not getting any money out of the cause he so strongly believed in.

https://twitter.com/soundmigration/status/1180451165571633158?s=21

reminded me of the comments during the referendum campaign made by the save the 8th campaigner that it wasn't real Irish women traveling or seeking access to abortion.

Cabaal

I was trying to figure out what the heck gript was from that tweet, I'd never heard of it and thought maybe it was a typo.

Now I see its supposed to be some sort of "news" site, instead its a women hating, gay hating, pro life zealot, anti climate change and racist train wreck of a site.
Parts of it read like Gemma wrote it, is she involved by any chance?

Igotadose

The pro-lifers are stirring up because of what's going to happen in NI in a couple weeks is my guess. Once the legislation is in effect there, hopefully forces will move quickly to enable women seeking abortions to find them in NI.

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

The pro-lifers are stirring up because of what's going to happen in NI in a couple weeks is my guess. Once the legislation is in effect there, hopefully forces will move quickly to enable women seeking abortions to find them in NI.

Yep, thats exactly what they are freaking out.

Heavens forbid that women might have some control over their own bodies, crazy stuff altogether

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

I was trying to figure out what the heck gript was from that tweet, I'd never heard of it and thought maybe it was a typo.

Now I see its supposed to be some sort of "news" site, instead its a women hating, gay hating, pro life zealot, anti climate change and racist train wreck of a site.
Parts of it read like Gemma wrote it, is she involved by any chance?

Can't link to the posts on the phone but it's already been mentioned on this thread and was linked to Tim Jackson of Youth Defence.

Usually used as a source along with the liberal in the usual immigrant/refugee/homosexuality etc threads by certain posters, such as can be found in the one on unplanned.

robindch

Facebook reports that around $1.3m was spent by around 300 Irish groups, and around $100,000 was spent by 50 non-Irish groups on referendum-related advertising in the run up to the abortion referendum last year.

Hotblack Desiato

SIPO should be all over that, totally illegal.

Hotblack Desiato

DubInMeath wrote: »

Whole thread on here with the usual anti suspects, going for the free speech angle against the protesters.

Aontu's twitter account described 14 members of Galway Pro Choice peacefully holding placards outside a cinema as "thugs".

Fcuk sake.

Bredabe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Aontu's twitter account described 14 members of Galway Pro Choice peacefully holding placards outside a cinema as "thugs".

Fcuk sake.

That makes a lot of sense, the dog piling I got and outright bullying when I expressed concern that the cinema showing it in Galway, is almost right on the road and there maybe ppl so upset about the film content that they could easily walk into traffic.

I would have thought that they would be concerned that pro lifers like themselves would be injured supporting their propaganda.:eek::eek:

aloyisious

Watching the clock, 13 days to go to the UK Govt legislation deadline, the 21st.

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

Watching the clock, 13 days to go to the UK Govt legislation deadline, the 21st.

No chance of a government being formed between now and then,
As much as the DUP may want to stop abortion, they dislike the Irish Language Act far far more and until they agree to that SF won't play ball.

They are between a rock and a hard place,

Also if the had a government formed when hard brexit hit then they'd be afraid they actually have to make decisions, including culling herds of cattle due to the collapse of the NI diary industry. They don't want to be anywhere near that sh*t storm!

Loafing Oaf

Cabaal wrote: »

As much as the DUP may want to stop abortion

Do they really though? Or do they just not want to be seen to be responsible for its 'introduction' to NI...

aloyisious

From google-search on DUP position on support for Boris. It seems the DUP leadership recognized they would lose a fight in Westminster against the legislation despite Jim Wells [former DUP health spokesperson] and Jim Allister being very much against it. Former DUP health minister Jim Wells - who has had the whip withdrawn from him over over a dispute with the leadership - urged the Government to pull the legislation to prevent the changes going through.
If that did not happen, he said "it should be made very clear that the confidence and supply agreement is at an end and the Government will not have the support of our MPs in a no confidence vote".
Similarly, former DUP MEP Jim Allister, leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice party, urged the DUP to "thwart this meddling" by ensuring that reversing the amendments is "the cost of the new confidence and supply arrangements which require to be negotiated with the new Prime Minister".

Boris was happy to leave it to MP's voting conscience and to leave it to the DUP oppose it in Stormont, which they did not take up and the DUP chief whip, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, agreed with that point of parliamentary procedure.

Link from July 10th last: https://inews.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-gives-no-hint-it-will-topple-the-government-over-abortion-and-marriage-law-changes.... I'd like to see the date of the report as a portent.

Igotadose

Free contraception for women starting in 2021, per Simon Harris. Well done, this'll reduce the frequency of abortions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/women-to-have-access-to-free-contraception-from-2021-minister-1.4046712

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

Free contraception for women starting in 2021, per Simon Harris. Well done, this'll reduce the frequency of abortions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/women-to-have-access-to-free-contraception-from-2021-minister-1.4046712

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

chris525

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ah yes, cause all these silly women signed up for abortions with no idea what they were getting themselves into and did no research on the procedure whatsoever.
They probably thought it was the latest beauty treatment lols!

But luckily you’ll be standing nearby on hand to inform them of the ‘reality’ that they’re evil murderers.
Saving them from themselves, because they don’t know any better and are incapable of making an informed choice about their own medical care.

You and your ilk are modern day saints, really.

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

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Free contraception for women starting in 2021, per Simon Harris. Well done, this'll reduce the frequency of abortions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/women-to-have-access-to-free-contraception-from-2021-minister-1.4046712

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

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

After all, its no good throwing condoms and tablets at people if they don't know how to properly use them!

Right now even in Ireland education is lacking. Grown adults are often clueless about how things should be properly used.

If you look at the good old US of A they have great access to contraception but education is seriously lacking in numerous states just to nonsense abstinence only teachings in schools.

So you end up with sexually uneducated people (who are also often from religious families) getting pregnant and often accessing abortion services because of this because of finance reasons, shame from family or numerous other factors.

So claiming one goes hand in hand doesn't prove anything, esp if you don't factor in other things. Otherwise you can claim all sorts of stuff like,,,

SusieBlue

chris525 wrote: »

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

If they can't think "that logically", as you so kindly put it, why on earth would you be trusting them with rearing an innocent child for 18+ years?
You don't trust them with a choice, but you do trust them with a baby??

Unplanned pregnancies happen every single day. You're extremely naive if you believe differently. Just because we wish they weren't an occurrance, doesn't mean they won't happen.

Your gender has no relevance whatsoever here

lazygal

People with planned pregnancies have abortions too.

Hotblack Desiato

chris525 wrote: »

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

How can someone still be this ignorant* after 2+ years of national debate leading up to the referendum vote?

* I'm not intending to insult, I mean uninformed. All of these issues were discussed in detail on TV, radio, newspapers, and online.


I don't see good reasons why it's going to take until 2021 to get free contraception in place. As soon as the abortion legislation was passed, Harris should have been on this. It's not like he's brought in safe zones legislation in the meantime :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

So claiming one goes hand in hand doesn't prove anything, esp if you don't factor in other things. Otherwise you can claim all sorts of stuff like,,,

I like the one about the inverse correlation between the number of pirates and climate change.

aloyisious

chris525 wrote: »

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

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

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

chris525 wrote: »

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

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

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

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

aloyisious

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

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

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

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

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

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Link to this claim?

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

Cabaal wrote: »

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

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

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

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

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

Access to free birth control reduces abortion rates


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

Care to row back on it a bit?

nozzferrahhtoo

chris525 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

chris525 wrote: »

This is coming from a female.

How is that relevant exactly?

Calina

chris525 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

You may want to consider a little self education.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Definitely floodgates will open this time.

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

aloyisious wrote: »

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

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gctest50

Probably this ?

From the shower at Human Life International

Human Life International

Contraception and its Deadly Consequences

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


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

– Fr. Paul Marx, founder of Human Life International

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something doesn’t add up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, contraception kills. It destroys lives and families.

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

gctest50

.


Now after that brief interlude, back to reality :

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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