Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 1, 2006 in At TMV | 18 comments

The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion

I received this unsolicited email today, and got so inspired I sent Planned Parenthood a donation.

“The purpose of No Room for Contraception is to expose the harms of contraception on marriage, society and women’s health. Both pro-choice and pro-life forces know that the end to legal abortion is coming soon, and many think that we should turn to contraception to decrease the need for abortion; the widespread availability and use of contraception, however, is what created the need for abortion in the first place.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • Noone Really

    Well that was warped.

  • Holly in Cincinnati

    Thanks Paul!

  • Lynx

    Yes, contraceptives are OBVIOUSLY to blame for uhmm, conception.

    This idea that contraceptives should be discouraged and that way kids will go back to thinking that sex is just for having babies is so simplistic and plain stupid that it makes my brain hurt. Yes, let’s just make it all better by stopping teens from having sex, I bet that’ll be REALLY simple.

    The “wait until marriage” folks have essentially lost. Only the deeply religious do that anymore (if they can help it) and even those teens have a lot of peer-pressure to be active (disclaimer: it’s equally disgusting to make a teen feel guilty for being a virgin than for not being one). This is not going away, it’s not going back. Sex for pleasure is here, and it’s here to stay. Get used to it. The best we can do is make contraception safe and available and unquestioned in the minds of teens.

    I critisize my San Francisco education a lot, and there’s a lot to criticize, but sex education was excellent. Imagine S.F in the 80s, AIDS was everywhere, and schools instilled that fear in us, telling us that a baby and much worse would happen if we didn’t use condoms. Teach teens that sex should NEVER happen without a condom, I don’t care how much “he loves you” or what trick he read about on the blog, and abortions will go down. Not to zero, you can’t stop all accidents or prevent stupidity, but it’s all we’ve got.

  • AustinRoth

    “Both pro-choice and pro-life forces know that the end to legal abortion is coming soon”

    What a truly assinine statement. On what basis does anyone think that is true? Ignoring the fact that enough key members of SCOTUS have said that they would not completely invalidate Roe, even if they did 100% overturn it, abortion would not ne illegal.

    It wasn’t before Roe either, a inconvenient truth many overlook. Intially we would go back to pre-Roe, where the states had individual control over abortion. Some woudl certainly ban abortion, or severely restrict it, but not all, and I don’t believe anything near a majority would fit that description, maybe 6 – 8 states.

    Then perhaps Congress would pass a national abortion law, but given the contentioness of the issue, I would be shocked to see a bill that came down strongly on either side of the issue being able to pass both houses and get signed.

  • corvus

    Many intelligent people have rightfully argued the Catholic Condom ban is risking lives. This article takes a very narrow historical view of the use of condoms and ignores it’s roll in preventing the spread of certain diseases.

  • gal

    Wow, arguments like that one make my head hurt. “No Room for Contraception” is about as misguided as they come.

  • Robert Bell

    Oh I wouldn’t be so hard on him.

    It’s sound economics to argue that people like sex, and that unwanted pregnancy is a cost. Therefore if you lower the cost of the side effect, the quantity demanded should increase. If the demand is elastic relative to the probability of unwanted conception, then the total number of accidental pregnancies should rise.

    The part of economics he doesn’t seem to get is that people actually derive positive utility from having sex. Even if abortion were completely illegal but contraception was available and pretty reliable, I suspect that people would play the odds and be happier for it. Even in that case, banning contraception would like to a lower overall state of societal happiness, which is what I believe he is really arguing for.

  • Jim S

    Anyone who thinks that we have an idea of what the true rate of abortion was before Roe isn’t thinking. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that this guy is all that isolated. The extreme branch of the “pro-life” movement does believe that the government should have the right to control anything they consider to be pro-life or pro-family whether it’s abortion, contraception, gay sex (not just gay marriage) or even hetero sex outside of marriage.

  • Robert Bell

    Here’s an interesting article on the role of abstinence versus contraception in reducing teen pregnancy.

    So our friend seems to be losing 86-14 in the R-squared competition.

  • Captain Comeback

    “This idea that contraceptives should be discouraged and that way kids will go back to thinking that sex is just for having babies is so simplistic and plain stupid that it makes my brain hurt.�

    Isn’t that the heart of the entire movement? Lots of things violate the notion of sex only being for the reproduction of children between a married man and woman to movement conservatives.

    Sex between teenagers violates this. Any kind of contraception violates this because sex is for reproduction. Gay sex really violates this because they cannot reproduce, but they are of the same sex! All of this begs the question: should married couples who are genetically incompatible of reproducing be allowed to stay married and continue to have sex knowing it cannot produce a child?

  • Charles Jordan

    I believe in contraception. And let me add there is a portion of society not included in this discussion because these people and there problems don’t fit into the nice pretty picture of American society: For whatever reason, a girl can’t raise her kids (because of drugs or divorce or whatever) so Grandma is back in the game again…either full time or parttime, raising kids. Now the mom is pregnant again so Grandma will soon be raising two. It’s not an uncommon.

    Not only that but what about the pure fun and wonderful pleasure of just having sex for sex’s sake? Let me tell you sex after the kids are off and on their own is a wonderful thing.

  • Sex for pleasure is here, and it’s here to stay.

    Damn, wish I had known. Lynx must not be married.

  • We’re talking about a technique with a failure of 2% in perfect use. In reality, we’re seeing anywhere from 5% to 15% just from a pregnancy viewpoint.

    I think it would be fair to assume that people who use condoms might not want to have offspring at the time of use.

    Would these same folk have had unprotected genital-genital sex otherwise? Maybe. Maybe they would have gone for oral or some other behavior. I can’t find a worthwhile study on the matter that doesn’t show massive self-selection bias.

    I don’t agree with the religious folk here – I think it’s more that we’re raising people that find mild personal inconvenience as more valuable than the destruction of something that may or may not count as human – but the math does at least work out.

  • C Stanley

    (disclaimer: it’s equally disgusting to make a teen feel guilty for being a virgin than for not being one).

    In my opinion, this is the main reason that it is important to include abstinence education (not at the expense of teaching about contraception, but in addition to it). There will always be peer pressure to have sex prior to kids really being ready for it, but if the adults are echoing what the adolescent peers are saying (“everyone else is doing it), then teens who do not feel they are ready have a much more difficult time in “saying no” if that is what they truly want to do (and I don’t have time to search the link, but there was a SIECUS survey that showed that more than half of teens who are sexually active wish they had waited longer, so I think there is valid reason to empower kids to make the choice either for abstinence or at least, delaying sexual activity).

  • Jim S


    I don’t think anyone has a problem with teaching abstinence along with contraception. My problem is with those on the right who insist on abstinence only education. I think those people are seriously out of touch with reality.

  • Thunder Snow

    It will be interesting to see if Focus on the Family, the behemoth of the Religious Right, drifts from a purely anti-abortion platform to a more Roman Catholic anti-contraception point of view. Why not? Dobson has shown drift across the years on other issues, such as evolution.

  • C Stanley

    What drift of Dobson’s on evolution are you referring to? (I’m asking legitimately, not being snarky- I don’t know what Dobson’s position on it is)

  • Thunder Snow

    There was a time when Dobson featured Hugh Ross’s book, The Fingerprint of God, on his radio show. (This was early 90’s). Ross, a Ph.D. astronomist, essentially argued for the veracity of the “Big Bang” theory, i.e. that whatever process God may have used to create, it is God behind it. The Big Bang theory, while astronomical and not biological, is a paradigm that (in my opinion) dovetails well with what is commonly called “theistic evolution.” In this way of thinking, God is the author of the evolutionary process. In the same way that God set off the “Big Bang,” and let things develop naturally from there, it could be argued that God set in motion the evolutionary forces. Essentially, this is a compromise position that was (and still is) widely accepted in Christian colleges and universities with biology departments that teach the truth of evolution as the means of creation used by the Creator.

    But back to the “drift” question. In recent years, Dobson has swung over to the side of Henry Morris &Philip Johnson (among others) who reject theistic evolution. Creationism has been dressed up in new clothes, namely, “intelligent design.” The seminal work here is bio-chemist Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. (Google it; there’s lots out there on it). Anyways, Dobson is no longer open to more elastic interpretations of evolution, and I know of at least once instance where he has put pressure on a Christian colleges that holds the theistic evolutionary position to abandon it in favor of positions more amenable to the Creationist one.

    As one who has watched Dobson over the years, I think it’s fair to say he’s had a “hardening of the categories” across the board, from politics, to issues of gender, to evolution, to even that of what version of the Bible is acceptable! (Mind you, he’s not a trained theologian; he’s a Ph.D. in child psychology, so he’s meddling outside his aread of expertise). It wouldn’t surprise me if this “hardening” spills over into the issue of birth control, where Focus has to date been anti-abortion (but live and let live on vasectomies and other birth control methods). Already, some Baptist leaders have taken up the anti-birth control position, and while Dobson’s roots are Nazarene, which is less categorical in a number or areas, his wife is more of a fundametalist Baptist, and he seems to have morphed into more of a Baptist/Jerry Falwell kind of guy in recent years, less avuncular, more rigid.

    For what it’s worth…

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :