Abortion rates plummet with free birth control


#1

e! Science News
I would like to know your thoughts on that matter EVEN if you think the article is fabricated or in corrected. If we could stop up to 78% of the abortions that take place on this planet by to allowing birth control. Wouldn't it be worth it? Please share your thoughts.


#2

since many types of ABC act as abortifacients the title of this thread is nonsense.and as you are posting on a fairly conservative Catholic site,i call TROLL !!


#3

While I appreciate your accusations I would STILL like an answer to my question. What is it going to hurt you?

Lovely capital red letters by the way, really classic. Instead of answering a question lets just call someone names like an adult and hope they leave.

Every time I read a post by someone like you I have to giggle to myself at the thought of the whole "What would Jesus do?". NO one every really follows that.


#4

Nope. One may never do evil even if good results. That's a dead center moral rule.

But from a purely scientific standpoint, it probably isn't even true. It may reduce the number of surgical abortions but the number of chemical ones would go up - unless the only "free birth control" was barrier.

Then let's look at the stats. Even the pro-abortion researches list 46% as the amount of women who seek abortions that aren't using birth control. So that means that 54% of those seeking abortions are already using birth control. How do you get to 78% unless you are somehow going to claim that the free birth control is not only more effective but also that women will be more compliant in using it. :shrug:


#5

A very large part of the problem is that many forms of "birth control" are in fact abortions. The "morning after" pill being the most infamous among them.

That said, although many in the Church would call me a hell bound heretic, I think you have a valid point on non-abortive methods of contraception. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I would have to spend many hours praying before I could form an opinion.

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

God bless


#6

I think Corki said it best.

You can’t say it’s ok to perform an intrinsically wrong act to bring about some form of good.

If you could then it would be morally permissible to get every person with HIV/AIDS on the planet. Put them in cages and never allow them to have contact with the outside world to stop HIV from spreading further.


#7

[quote="Hebetron, post:1, topic:301094"]
e! Science News
I would like to know your thoughts on that matter EVEN if you think the article is fabricated or in corrected. If we could stop up to 78% of the abortions that take place on this planet by to allowing birth control. Wouldn't it be worth it? Please share your thoughts.

[/quote]

this goes into the same category as the (infamous) allowance of prostitutes using boundary methods - reducing evil - unless people are still being killed.

chemical methods of birth control result in mass amounts of murder, so this rule does not apply.

so, no. it isn't worth it. you're just killing babies in a different way and promoting a hedonistic culture of promiscuity to boot, which has its own evils on top of that. totally not worth it.

[quote="Hebetron, post:3, topic:301094"]
While I appreciate your accusations I would STILL like an answer to my question. What is it going to hurt you?

Lovely capital red letters by the way, really classic. Instead of answering a question lets just call someone names like an adult and hope they leave.

Every time I read a post by someone like you I have to giggle to myself at the thought of the whole "What would Jesus do?". NO one every really follows that.

[/quote]

when have you been treated that way here? i just did a search on all four of your posts so, unless this account was created because a previous account was banned or a comment was deleted, none of those accusations happened here.


#8

I take it the post you’re referencing was deleted. Of course, no one really does what jesus would do on a consistent basis. We aren’t perfect, after all…it’s something to strive for. But, if someone treated you uncharitably, I apologize on the behalf of the other catholics on the board. It’s a fair question, after all.

My opinion: although I’m opposed to artificial birth control, I think non-abortifacient methods should be legal, available, and affordable. That said, I’m not sure I’m buying the statistic you posted.


#9

This "study" was done as a promotional trick to get the HHS to add the IUD & implants as part of the ACA mandated coverages according to the authors of the "study". Doesn't seem very scientific if you create the results that you're wanting.


#10

It isn’t working that way. Over 53 million babies have already been killed since 1973. And artificial birth control has a failure rate so what happens then? If the prevailing thought is that sometimes babies are wanted and sometimes they are not, then a method must be found to deal with the ones who are not. Right now, that is legal abortion.

What we really need to do is outlaw birth control AND abortion.


#11

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:10, topic:301094"]

What we really need to do is outlaw birth control AND abortion.

[/quote]

People would revolt! Can't do that!


#12

We could end all abortion by forcing all men to get castrated too. It doesn’t make it a good thing.


#13

I think the answer to that is, "Surgical abortions plummet", or "More abortions take place earlier rather than later, with the availability of free birth control", taking in to account the Catholic Church's teaching.

And I echo TheRealJuliane.

And, from reading what I can about the study (where's the actual study proper?; i.e. the peer-reviewed journal it was published in, what issue, what article, DOI?), it smacks of the kind of sponsored book-cooking that Reckitt-Benckiser recently engaged in to pull its Suboxone tablets (a drug used to treat addiction to painkillers and heroin, which saves many lives) from the US market ostensibly "to prevent child overdose" (the drug in reality is eminently safe - something like four child overdoses in four years, less than one in five thousand that caused even by Tylenol - and, if they're worried about children, put it in blister packs like they do everywhere else in the world), but, in reality, to retain patent protection on a new formulation of the drug (the same stuff in blister packs, but gummy instead of hard) for another seven years, and to attempt to block competition.


#14

Thanks for your replies, notice none of you answered the second part of the question.

I give up.


#15

The question, is, to Catholics, essentially a non-sequitur, as both birth control and abortion are viewed as intrinsic evils. It is like asking a followed of the Golden Rule, “is it better to murder him, or him?”; it is a question that makes no sense, or is morally abhorrent to all but utilitarians.

From a secular POV, disregarding all law, natural and divine, that study does demonstrate that free contraception should be available (and, indeed, mandatory for all women and their husbands who have not undergone a screening to determine their present financial, psychological, and emotional suitability for motherhood, fatherhood, and relationship stability), so as to save the state money on abortions, and to effect the “lesser evil” (or, as secularists see it, non-evil) of contraception as over against abortion. But I can’t imagine anyone from a secular POV looking on mass contraception as anything other than an unmitigated good, economically and socially. Nor do secularists look upon abortion any differently, for they have no belief in the soul, or intrinsic dignity of the human person vis a vis sharing a Creator; so, it seems to me entirely to be used for 1) lobbying purposes, at those who 2) believe abortion is an evil but believe contraception is acceptable, which are 3) non-Catholic Christians and other theists.

The problem is that very few men on this forum can, or are willing to, look at things from a secular POV even for a moment; it is equally a non-sequitur, and a break with our very souls and the depths of our hearts and minds; but I have attempted to, to show that it is possible.


#16

[quote="Farsight001, post:12, topic:301094"]
We could end all abortion by forcing all men to get castrated too. It doesn't make it a good thing.

[/quote]

i agree !! ouch!!


#17

The flaw with this logic is that, by Catholic definition, many “contraceptives”, hormonal contraceptive in particular, work at least some of the time by inducing abortions.

Catholic morality considers conception to occur when a sperm an egg join to become an embryo. From this point forward, the embryo enjoys all the rights and dignity of humankind.

Medical doctors, however, often define “conception” or pregnancy to begin when the embryo implants itself in the uterus. This is significant because one of the pathways hormonal “contraceptives” work is by preventing the embryo from implanting (The other main pathway is to prevent ovulation, keeping the egg away from the sperm).

Thus, by the medical definition, the conception is prevented using hormonal contraception. By the Catholic definition, a tiny baby (the embryo) is allowed to die because because it never implants.

Thus by Catholic standards, most hormonal “contraceptives” actually work as abortifacients at least some of the time. It is a play on word by the medical doctors that try to hide this fact. Innocent little children die as a direct result of taking hormonal contraceptives.

Now, true contraceptives, such as condoms, are also immoral, but do kill children. Condoms however, predispose a couple towards callous disregard for life, making them more likely to seek abortifacients, such as emergency hormonal “contraception” should the condom fail.

Allowing contraception to prevent abortions does not prevent abortions as defined by Catholic morality. ** In many cases, the contraception would simply cause the abortion at an earlier stage**, when the man and woman may be completely unaware.

The Prolife mentality about fostering respect for life at all stages. This includes a healthy respect for the sex, the method by which life is conceived.


#18

[quote="april32010, post:16, topic:301094"]
i agree !! ouch!!

[/quote]

Yes, I like to register my opposition. :)


#19

Have you ever read scientific papers?

What you are reporting on is an abstract. Abstracts are used to gain funding. I have read many a fine sounding abstract… only to find in the actual research paper methodologies are flawed.

Why isn’t the actual research paper linked, as a matter of fact, it isn’t linked at the Choice Project “Contraceptive Choice Project” choiceproject.wustl.edu/publications.html
??? What am I to think of e!science news when they don’t link the original research? What about the Project itself?

Without the actual methodology and peer-review history - you don’t know if their findings / conclusions are correct.

I will tell you, that according to “Contraceptive Choice Project” Planned Parenthood is their partner and funder choiceproject.wustl.edu/

AND

Dawnia Re: Abortion rates plummet with free birth control
This “study” was done as a promotional trick to get the HHS to add the IUD & implants as part of the ACA mandated coverages according to the authors of the “study”. Doesn’t seem very scientific if you create the results that you’re wanting.

IS correct!

Now, that just covers the Post-normal Science part of this so called “study”.

For the Religious implications…I’m Catholic :slight_smile:


#20

Birth control, as in the form of the pill, acts as an abortifacient in a significant number of cases. For example, each cycle a post-pubescent female completes, if she is sexually active and on the pill, will result in an early-term abortion or miscarriage if an egg is fertilized and becomes an embryo - a new human person that is.

You see, the pill does not reduce abortion. It only moves abortion to a zone that is not in focus a the moment. Therefore, the pill does nothing to solve our problems and only makes our existing problems worse.

Do you know what the number one cause of female cancer is? I will give you a hint. The world health organization recently declared this particular material as a class 1 carcinogen in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.