Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 07/03/2012 01:55:47 AM
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.
Does refusing sex without a condom not count as the existence/availability of contraception deterring sex? If there were no condoms, some of those people might be more willing to take the risk because of the lack of alternatives.
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.
In any case, it seems like this part of the discussion is going around in circles at this point. You seem intent on making simplistic statements about the complexities of human behavior and responses. My point is that there does not appear to be research backing such statements with any degree of strength.
Personally, I sure hope that the availability of birth control does encourage sex, because I'm not a repressed Puritan. I just haven't seen evidence for that.
Personally, I sure hope that the availability of birth control does encourage sex, because I'm not a repressed Puritan. I just haven't seen evidence for that.
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.
"A primary effect." If we prefer to use "primary" to literally mean "first," then preventing implantation is a principle effect.
My impression is that the only people who think of that as a principle effect are the ones who are overly concerned with it, i.e. "pro-lifers." A quick check of WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control
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.
How it works
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).
Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.3 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.
Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.3
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).
Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.3 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.
Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.3
The focus is on preventing fertilization, not implantation.
Again, preventing implantation is a principle but not the primary objective in hormonal IUDs, and arguably so in copper ones also.
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.
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 have explicitly explained my actual usage of "the movement." if you want to keep interpreting it to mean every person who identifies as "pro-life", that is not my responsibility.
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.
Also, time to update your polling data. Pro-choice now 49%, "pro-life" now 45%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx
There are a lot of fluctuations in these numbers over the years. Any single data point is not worth much.
There are a lot of fluctuations in these numbers over the years. Any single data point is not worth much.
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.
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.
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.
What the hell does Paul Ryan have to do with anything? He's anti-abortion and anti-contraception.
I have little sympathy for people who choose to associate themselves with a movement which does not represent their views, and then complain when others also associate them with it.
As I have said before, a silent majority may exist, but if it does nothing to curb the failures of the movement and push it in the right direction, its existence matters little.
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 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.
No, that's not what Voltaire's statement means. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, and ideas without merit still do not deserve respect. The "pro-life" movement has the right to say whatever it wants, but it does not have the right to be taken seriously.
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.
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.
If the supposed silent majority of "pro-life" people who support contraception are upset when the movement gets (correctly) painted as being more focused on enforcing Puritanical sexual mores, then they should speak up about their views and change that impression.
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.