Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 19/02/2012 01:56:18 AM
Common sense is just basic reason, and quite useful, ESPECIALLY for human behavior. It has limitations (e.g. complex dynamics, particularly with counterintuitive outcomes) but serves well if we recognize those limitations. Recognizing limitations of not just our knowledge but means of acquiring it is also useful. At the risk of a tangent, I cannot help wishing schools spent more time on division by zero so people do not forget it exists, or expect to define it "someday, when we know more."
In this case, we have conflicting data: One study of a large but incomplete group shows a positive correlation between contraception use and sexual activity, but another study of a large partially overlapping group shows a negative correlation. Absent additional studies, preferably of ALL people rather than just those with low incomes or in their teens, firm conclusions FROM DATA are impossible. However, FROM LOGIC, we can indisputably say increased contraception use in no way deters sex, which most people enjoy (though I do not have any data handy to support that "proposition.") Thus contraception can ONLY encourage sexual activity.
While increased contraception use significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy, and therefore a deterrent to sexual activity, I have not seen even a speculative suggestion of why it would encourage sexual activity, so it is hard to see how it could cause the reduced sexual activity in the study you cited. The most logical explanation is probably that promoting abstinence and other things styled as "oppression" actually HAVE increased teen abstinence, though increased awareness that contraception is imperfect may have been a factor also. That should not obscure the fact promoting abstinence remains an inadequate solution to teen pregnancy, because many teens will disregard it, and thus the proper use of birth control, along with its risks and limitations, should be taught in school health classes.
In this case, we have conflicting data: One study of a large but incomplete group shows a positive correlation between contraception use and sexual activity, but another study of a large partially overlapping group shows a negative correlation. Absent additional studies, preferably of ALL people rather than just those with low incomes or in their teens, firm conclusions FROM DATA are impossible. However, FROM LOGIC, we can indisputably say increased contraception use in no way deters sex, which most people enjoy (though I do not have any data handy to support that "proposition.") Thus contraception can ONLY encourage sexual activity.
While increased contraception use significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy, and therefore a deterrent to sexual activity, I have not seen even a speculative suggestion of why it would encourage sexual activity, so it is hard to see how it could cause the reduced sexual activity in the study you cited. The most logical explanation is probably that promoting abstinence and other things styled as "oppression" actually HAVE increased teen abstinence, though increased awareness that contraception is imperfect may have been a factor also. That should not obscure the fact promoting abstinence remains an inadequate solution to teen pregnancy, because many teens will disregard it, and thus the proper use of birth control, along with its risks and limitations, should be taught in school health classes.
Since you have brought up mathematical analogies, the situation we have is: (effect of contraception on rates of sex ) ≥ 0. You are selecting only the "greater than" and ignoring the "or equal to."
Logic suggests that it might encourage sex, but absent hard evidence, that is only a suggestion, not a conclusion. Applying straight logic to human behavior, without strong grounding in evidence of one's initial assumptions, is tricky at the best of times.
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.
I suspect it depends on how one defines "miscarriage." Since preventing uterine implantation of fertilized eggs is a primary goal of IUDs, they SHOULD raise rates of "spontaneous abortion" as defined by those who believe life begins at conception: That is the POINT. If they do not, they are just uncomfortable placebos. What is critical is that is one small part of a "life begins at conception" article premised on promoting effective contraception. It is proof of pro-contraception members of even the strictest pro life factions, which makes categorically dismissing all pro lifers as anti-contraception unfair and inaccurate.
Actually, the primary mode of action for IUDs is preventing sperm from reaching the egg. Preventing fertilized eggs from implanting is a secondary effect.
"A primary effect." If we prefer to use "primary" to literally mean "first," then preventing implantation is a principle effect.
I have never categorically dismissed all "pro-lifers" as anti-contraception. I have always been talking about the movement, and the only significant counterexample that has been offered is Tim Ryan. I certainly appreciate knowing about him and his efforts, but his own story shows exactly what I was saying about the movement, i.e. those people and organizations which dedicate time and money to the issue.
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.
Ryans legislation earned many pro life critics; they do not necessarily represent "the movement at large." It is VERY "large," with widely disparate views, the point I (and nossy) have tried to convey. Just a couple days ago I saw a story about a pro life group assailed by far right pro lifers for promoting the anti-mercury campaign as "pro life." It basically went as one would expect; some critical pro life groups even took a moment to explicitly deny global warming along the way. Part of the problem is the sheer size of the pro life movement that not only creates great diversity, but attracts demagogues who care no more about fetuses than about babies, far less than they care about a way to rally millions to their far right agenda. This covers that well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1PUFNZgWD0
Exactly; the movement does not really care about fetuses or babies, but instead focuses on pushing other agendas under that guise. That is the point I have been making. I don't generally take the time while making that point to add "except for some small, ineffective faction" because, well, that faction is small and ineffective.
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.
Separate, but related. You led off mentioning the contention abortion is murder and the following sentence noted murder has moral precedence over birth control. Miscarriage was only referenced as a medical rather than legal concern ONCE, auxillary to the initial argument and preliminary reinforcing it by pointing out the rarity of "legislator[s]... trying to criminalize miscarriages." That was the second (and only other) mention of miscarriages, and even that was in the context of law, not medicine. So, yeah, if three of five sentences in a paragraph that begins and ends discussing law are also about law, and only one of the remaining two is about medicine, I am unlikely to conclude the paragraph is about a medical epidemic. Do I really need to explain how paragraphs work? I take it you remain unconvinced self-righteous condescension will not persuade pro lifers to alter their position. 
From what I can tell, you, I and nossy are in basic agreement on the legal and policy issues, but the reaction from pro choice people like us suggests your advocacy could use improvement.
From what I can tell, you, I and nossy are in basic agreement on the legal and policy issues, but the reaction from pro choice people like us suggests your advocacy could use improvement. I referred to legislators trying to criminalize miscarriages as to say "even on the rare occasions when the 'pro-life' movement considers miscarriage, they generally screw that up, too."
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.
My intent is not to persuade "pro-lifers" to alter their positions, because I am not Sisyphus. People outside of the movement need to realize its illegitimacy and lack of relevant effort toward its stated cause, so that the national conversation can stop according it any measure of political respect.
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.