Yes, I am selecting only "greater than," because "equal to" is no more a possibility than "less than." Contraception CANNOT DISCOURAGE sexual activity, and significantly reduces the chance of something that deters sexual activity so much it motivates entire national policies aimed at reducing sex. If contraception even marginally encourages even one person to have sex, it encourages overall sexual activity, because it cannot deter anyone. The only debate left is HOW MUCH greater than zero its effect on sexual activity is. Common sense, which definitely includes experience with humans, dictates that, but logic is sufficient. Nothing suggests contraception deters sex, nor that everyone with access to it discounts it as a factor in sexual activity (in practice, for various reasons, many otherwise consenting adults refuse sex without a condom.) Therefore, contraception must encourage sex, to an undetermined degree.


"A primary effect." If we prefer to use "primary" to literally mean "first," then preventing implantation is a principle effect.


The movement is very large, and almost inevitably diverse as a result. Very few people are completely apathetic about abortion; nearly everyone has at least some opinion one way or the other, and since the federal late term abortion law increased awareness in the late '90s polling has never shown less than 40% support for either side. Even at the lowest pro life ebb in Gallup polling, which was also at the lowest US population level in that polling, support was at 33% of 260 million, or 86 million Americans. I doubt there are 86 million anti-contraception Americans NOW, but polling says there are about TWICE that many pro lifers. You would be hard pressed to get all 160 million of them to agree even on what "pro life" means (nearly twice as many support restricted abortion as oppose/support it under ALL circumstances) let alone how they feel about contraception. I think I linked this at some earlier point, but just to be sure:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

"The movement" reads more as a collective than qualified statement. I am unconvinced even a majority of pro lifers are anti-contraception, and strongly doubt most of them are, though many must be since there are around 160 million total.


I guess linking Dave Lipman was asking for that, but my is a movements leadership, particularly a large movements, does not always fully reflect all member views. I would not call Paul Ryan "ineffective;" last I checked, the leadership of BOTH major parties hope he will be VERY effective this November.

In the main, I would argue pro-contraception pro lifers have a tremendous effect on the movement through votes, activists and funding. Various pundits claim that reality drove Obamas tactical decision to push for and then retreat on requiring Catholic hospitals and schools fund employee contraception. Personally, I still feel he can gain no sympathy fighting for something unless/until he actually FIGHTS for it, but the basic logic is valid. Barring large systemic polling errors, we must either accept that a near majority of America opposes contraception, or reject the premise most pro lifers do. They may not be a silent majority, but neither are they a trivially small minority.


That remains a legal issue, not a medical one. The majority of your paragraph referenced law, not medicine, which was only referenced as such in a single sentence. If you intended a medical focus, you did not achieve it.


The notion the movement and its members are unworthy of respect is precisely the problem. Ethically, that people deserve respect even when they disagree with us, even for fallacious reasons, is a cornerstone of liberalism, as in Voltaires statement that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Pragmatically, if 51% of America identifies with one position, respecting them encourages them to respect us enough not to marginalize our minority. Politically, denying them respect because of their views and/or the basis on which those views are held only supports pro life claims pro choice advocates cheerfully devalue and then eliminate everyone whose existence is unwelcome.

People outside the movement by definition disagree with it, but the issue has never been and will never be decided on the basis of whether/when a majority believes a fetus is or is not an entity. The "critical masses" are the majority that believes a fetus an entity at various points prior to the third trimester, the critical issue how they believe that should be legally addressed. Beginning from the position they also oppose contraception due to provincial puritanical views of sex and therefore do not merit respect is a poor approach. It can only alienate them, and there is no better example of how counterproductive such alienation is than the support the pro choice position got when pro lifers started throwing around the phrase "baby-killer." Such an approach seems like it should be effective, but it backfires because the vast majority of people recognize it as specious slander against not only their friends, family and neighbors, but often against themselves.