Er, no, requiring sex involve a condom does not mean condom availability deters sex, just the opposite: When a condom is present, sex occurs; when it is not, not. If there were no condoms, the risks of sex without a condom would remain as great, without that means of reducing them, thus deterring sex.


It is going around in circles because there is research backing the statement (which I have cited) but also research backing the opposite conclusion. Neither study surveyed the general population, so their conflicting conclusions cannot be extrapolated to it, forcing us to rely on logic alone. That logic is fairly compelling; returning yet again to square one, there is no reasonable way contraception access could deter sex, and many ways in which it encourages it, ergo it can only encourage sex.

It so happens that the study I found showing contraception access encouraged sex also (logically) showed the increased rate of sexual activity was FAR less than the contraceptions success rate. In other words, despite prompting increased sexual activity, contraception access significantly lowered pregnancy rates, as we would expect, and that is a powerful argument for expanding contraception access whenever possible.

The fly in the ointment is, as it usually is on this issue, minors, whose legal consent is their legal guardians responsibility. I know of no one, not even Santorum and his fellow right wing Catholic lawmakers, who argue adult access to contraception be restricted (though the definition of "restricted" varies with whom we ask.) However, minor access to contraception is a widely contentious issue, precisely because guardians responsible for their well being and legal consent object to things encouraging minors to give illegal consent.


Well, I identify as pro-choice and am concerned with it; whether I am "overly" so depends on whom one asks. My concern is that many pro-choice women share: Uterine abrasion and irritation is a risk factor for both uterine infections and cancer. Whether and how much copper IUDs prevent implantation seems to also depend on whom one asks, but your cite also states it among the two mechanisms of hormonal IUDs. It is not the primary mechanism, but is a principle one.


Again, preventing implantation is a principle but not the primary objective in hormonal IUDs, and arguably so in copper ones also.


You treat "the movement" as a monolithic organization whose pro-contraception members are trivially small anomalies and/or mutely passive followers, and it has been amply demonstrated that is not the case. There is a broad range of pro-life positions that includes millions of ardently pro/anti-contraception members, just as there are millions who accept abortion as a necessary evil under varying degrees of conditions. I would be in that last camp myself were it not for the fact I see few practical means of establishing restrictions that are not both immorally coercive and lethally ineffective.

Indeed, among the millions with a given qualified position some identify as pro-choice and others as pro-life depending on how absolutely they view those they consider opponents. Much of that is a product of each sides absolutists courting those with qualified positions by defining THEIR opponents in absolute terms, but whether it is pro-lifers defining pro-choice as "abortion on demand up to the moment of birth" or pro-choicers defining pro-life as "anti-choice and anti-contraception in any circumstances" it is equally unfair, inaccurate and counterproductive. People can be and many people are ardently pro-life and pro-contraception, lending their time, money and energy to both causes.


Fine, let us assume for the sake of argument there are "only" 145 million self-identified pro-lifers in the US; how significant is that difference? Answer: About 5%. It still defies plausibility to suggest more than a tiny fraction oppose contraception. According to the CDC, contraception use among US adults of child-bearing age is around 80% for women and >70% for men:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5406a1.htm

According to another CDC survey of women 18-44, 98% of those who have had sex at least once used contraception at least once.

American opposition to contraception itself is VERY low, probably only a single digit percentage even among 145 million pro-lifers. The debate is over the best forms and the basis of its availability.


Sorry, I merged my Catholic Midwestern GOP House members named Ryan; my bad. The one from OH made a significant effort to "curb the failures of the movement and push it in the right direction," at no small professional risk. I would also say he associates with a movement that shares his ABORTION views, at least in part, even though it does not share his views on some other reproductive health matters. Though how much the second part is true may depend on whether we are speaking of public policy or personal practice. As a Roman Catholic, his church categorically forbids contraception, but it does not follow from that that Congressman Ryan must oppose or even limit public access to it, any more than Catholic Sen. John Kerry must oppose Roe v. Wade because of his personal opposition to abortion.

There is a definite gray scale involved in dealing with 300 million peoples views on a deeply important issue, especially when only 6% take NO position.


The people who hold an idea deserve respect whether or not the idea does. However, and far more importantly, you continue begging the question: Who said the pro-life "movement" categorically opposes contraception, let alone from a vindictive desire sexually active people who do not want kids be "punished" with them anyway? Really, there are already enough pro-lifers who think pro-choicers view children as a blight to be purged; do not encourage them. Many pro-lifers took that position in the first place because they consider even undesired children a great benefit (sadly, many do not feel that strongly enough to help any underprivileged parents rear those undesired children, though many others do feel that strongly.)

People deserve respect whether or not their ideas do, but misrepresenting the unrespectable ideas of some as those of all does not justify disrepecting all.


You have not demonstrated puritanical sexual mores are their only concern, only alleged it.

Regardless, there is a deeper issue here than your misunderstanding of millions of pro-lifers: Your misunderstanding of millions of pro-choicers. The leaders of the pro-life movement (who, IMHO, are just as puritanical as you claim) learned the hard way that lumping every juvenile victim of incestuous rape with executives who abort inconvenient pregnancies only alienated those sympathetic to the former. It drove millions of people who abhor abortion but recognize the need in cases of teen pregnancy, rape, and poverty into allegiance with those advocating abortion on demand.

Believe it or not, those puritans are not as unsophisticated as you might like to think; that is why they shifted tactics two decades ago. They no longer shout, "BABY KILLER111" as they unleash some killing of their own; now they concentrate on things like late-term abortion bans (cleverly marketed as "partial-birth" abortion bans.) Pro-life leaders are wooing back those qualified supporters of abortion, and alienating them by demonizing them along with and as synonymous with pro-life leaders is just conceded the fight for their hearts and minds. America is still a constitutional republic governed by laws, not referenda, but republics enact their laws via referenda, so it is a bad idea to aid ones opponents efforts to gain popular majorities.