Effective birth control reduces abortions...unless you view birth control as abortion or sex as something that needs government regulation.
Researchers using federal data have found two interesting trends that chart the relationship between abortion and contraceptives.…
Article comments
26 - Dawn
If religious fundamentalist don't want their kids to learn basic biology and how reproduction occurs, or in otherwords, the very basis of life, then they shouldn't send their children to public schools.
Honestly, I agree with zingzing and the others who suggest parents reiterate what the life sciences teach their children with good old fashion communication.
Again, this is just so obvious.
27 - Michael J. West
Josh,
I think you missed what I was getting at. I wasn't sure what RJP was saying...but it sounded very close to saying that school should teach kids "don't have sex" and that's it. A three-word sex education course, without giving them the important facts about sex. And if that's the case, it's the HEIGHT of irresponsibility.
28 - Josh
Sorry, Mike, I misinterpreted what you said.
29 - owned
bring out the old school chastity belt. like bullet proofing ur daughter's cooch or sheathing ur sons wiener.
30 - hello
Dr. Janet Woodcock??!?!?!
that can't be real.
31 - RedTard
From the sum of the responses since my post I get the distinct impression that most on the left do want the government to indoctrinate kids with sexual values but only those of your choosing. You guys are really sad.
You're so scared of freedom, always afraid that somebody will exercise theirs in a way you consider 'wrong'. You gasp at the thought that parents teach their children anything themselves. Only government is capable of doing anything properly, families, communites, and individuality are weaknesses that must be destroyed. Everyone must conform, must be identical robotics cogs in the great socialist machine.
32 - Howard Dratch
The conservatives are right.
There should be no education about sex. Birth control information and access to supplies should be closely guarded. The Plan B pill should be restricted.
Legal abortion should be stopped.
War should be stopped.
Corruption in government should not exist.
Violence and bigotry should be removed from our society.
People should not be addicted to anything -- starting with nicotine, caffeine and chocolate.
There should be no divorce.
All children should be wanted, loved, cared for, and have enough money to be healthy and happy.
Until all these things come about open discussions of sex and contraception and the availability of anything medical science has to offer should be available to prevent pregnancy. Abortion must remain legal and available to prevent unwanted children (those the right loves to protect from inception and hates to take care of). The millenium could be just around the corner. Then we won't need these freedoms. All the adolescents will stop being interested in their hormones. Won't they? All the passion of youth will be channeled into religious paths. Won't it?
33 - Baronius
Okay, let's at least acknowledge that the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies varies by culture. Some times/places/groups have had more, some have had less. Young people are capable of behaving responsibly. Not all the kids, not all the time, but overall a culture can encourage or discourage restraint. So the argument that "they'll do it anyway" is facetious.
And it's a cheap shot to say that the right wing only cares about children up until they're born. It is possible to care about children and disagree with Johnson-era social policies. For the sake of civil conversation, I'm going to assume that the left wing is trying to destroy this country because they don't know any better. Please do me the same courtesy, and assume that I'm acting in good faith too.
One last one, then I'll shut up for a bit. Contraception isn't the "new" abortion. Historically, the debate about contraception predates the current abortion debate by about 100 years. Before 1920, all the major Christian denominations opposed contraception. It was argued that if contraception were permitted, abortion could be next. But that was dismissed as a scare tactic, and one by one, denominations accepted contraception.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold forbid restrictions on contraception. The naysayers argued that abortion would be next, but they were written off. Then the Supreme Court based its Roe ruling on Griswold. Now, many churches are drifting toward a pro-choice position. The naysayers as usual were right.
34 - Nicholas Stix
This essay is deeply dishonest. It is based on the notion that there is something called "emergency contraception." Pray tell, what that might be?
'Wait a minute, baby, let me put on a condom -- stat!'
Or, a man runs across town to reach a drug store and buy a condom, just in the nick of time!
Or a woman tells her lover during the act, "Pull out!"
Sean approvingly quotes the term "emergency contraception" and himself uses the term "contraception." But that isn't what Sean means at all. He is writing in support of an abortifacent.
And he even opens that decreased use of contraception leads to an increase in abortions.
Correct. And yet, he supports more and easier abortions for people, including kids, who failed to use contraception.
His rhetorical trick is to redefine some abortions as non-abortions via rhetorical sleight of hand. And he has the nerve to mock Christians as benighted?
"Some Christian conservatives are starting to jump on the same bandwagon that Catholic groups have occupied for decades: Life begins at fertilization and anything that interferes with that is abortion. And they're willing to use laws and government regulations to force everybody to conform to their beliefs."
That anything that interferes with fertilization after the fact is abortion, isn't a "Christian conservative" doctrine; it's the definition of abortion.
If you support the over-the-counter sale of "Plan B," aka the abortion pill aka the morning after pill, to minors, then be honest about it, without making false claims that it isn't an abortifacent.
There is no such thing as "emergency contraception."
It's really simple: Anything that prevents conception before the fact is contraception. Anything that stops conception after the fact is an abortifacent.
And then Sean engages in all this scare-mongering rhetorical a whoopin' and a hollerin': Only ignorant, authoritarian Christians would even consider an abortion pill anything but a contraceptive, etc.
"Why the opposition to Plan B? The stated reason is that it is an abortifacent, on the theory that at least occasionally it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. But since Plan B is simply a higher dosage of regular birth-control hormones, the same arguments could be applied to the Pill. And IUDs. (And breastfeeding, BTW). And never mind that many of these same groups also oppose other forms of contraception such as condoms and diaphragms. Or that this represents a moving of the goalposts in the abortion debate."
The above "argument" is a combination of sophistry and smearing. 'Since drinking a dealdy dosage of 10 ounces of 80 proof liquor in one gulp is simply a higher dosage of regular alcohol, the same arguments could be applied to all alcohol.'
No, the same arguments do not apply to a higher dosage of something that in lower doses has a different purpose, different consequences, and is in this case in virtue of the different dosage, a different thing.
And to say "many of these same groups also oppose other forms of contraception such as condoms and diaphragms" is both shameless and irrational. In case you don't win your case on the sophistry, you'll do it by embarrassing people who aren't conservative Christians and who don't want to be associated with them. 'That's the sort of thing they would say.'
It is Sean who is moving the goalposts.
BTW, why does Sean feel the need to misrepresent conservative Christians as ignorant bumpkins? (If he says, "that's because they are," it will simply mean that he knows nothing about them -- and also that he grossly exaggerates his own level of enlightenment.)
That's all pretty desperate, epsecially coming from someone who claims to be fighting for enlightenment against the powers of darkness.
And since Sean has brought sex ed into the argument, that means he wants kids to be able to buy the abortion pill over the counter. There's no other reason for mentioning it.
Sex ed is not about giving kids "information"; it's about using the power of the state to promote attitudes favorable towards premarital sex. That's what it has always been about. At the beginning of the sex ed movement, sex "educators" were open about their aims. They wanted to revolutionize society. But once premarital sex, ever younger sex, and illegitimacy exploded, and most adults failed to see the beauty in such developments, the "educators" lied, in denying that that had been their goal, and changed their story to one in which education merely "mirrored" society. Nonjudgmentally, natch.
"Non-judgmental" teaching of kids about sex -- what a crock. Talk about peeing on someone's leg, and telling him it's raining!
What I'd like to know is, why do people who are so sure that they occupy the moral and intellectual high ground feel the need to lie and otherwise deceive?
35 - Concerned Person
That is really dumb. Personally I think all american's should be prevented from procreating and imposing this bullshit on the rest of earth
36 - Bliffle
Beyond abortion and contraception lies the real target of We The Righteous: celibacy. Anyone who refuses to procreate when so prompted, or who refuses another persons Holy Urge to procreate is no better than a murderer.
They should be hung in the public square to warn other mortals of what happens to sinners who deny Gods Holy Goal.
37 - Druxxx
Wow Nicholas.
Who is trying to scare whom? IMO people who favor comprehensive sex ed in public schools are looking for one of two things to happen; Abstinence or responsible sex.
What is wrong with giving kids the facts? Why does biology scare you?
How a baby is produced is scientific fact. Wait, for you it must be some miracle and we’ll leave it at that. Teaching science may lead to teaching evolution and that’s bad.
Maybe abstinence will be more realistic if you give kids a good reason to abstain. If an activity could kill me, I would make dam sure I either avoided it, or if I decided to do it anyway, I would use all safety devices at my disposal. Just telling a kid to wait until marriage is not going to be a good enough reason to wait.
Unfortunately, we cannot count on parents to get kids all the needed facts. We can leave ethics and morals out of sex ed. Why is it so hard to understand that telling kids about available methods of STD and pregnancy protection due not in themselves encourage sex? Sex does not need to be encouraged to happen.
Conservatives like to think by teaching abstinence only we will eventually find ourselves in a utopia where sex only happens as part of marriage and people will be willing to accept all of gods miracles that he gives us. If we all waited until marriage there would be no need for STD prevention of contraceptives. Oh wait, don’t married couple use contraceptives because most women don’t want children in the double digits.
Sex should not be put on a pedestal. It is something that should be respected, not feared. If I want to have sex purely for pleasure, that is my right. But I do have to deal with any of the consequences of my decision. I have a feeling I will make better decisions if I am educated about all the facts.
The problem with sex is not that people have it, it’s that they have sex irresponsibly.
38 - Michael J. West
most on the left do want the government to indoctrinate kids with sexual values but only those of your choosing.
Because I want qualified educators to teach kids about the biological and physiological processes associated with sex? God, what fiendish propaganda I have in mind!
39 - Michael J. West
Nicholas, you actually had some reasonable arguments going on, until you undermined your credibility with the vast-left-wing-conspiracy garbage.
Of course, if you believe that, you can certainly understand why someone believes the following:
I don't think you believe the above, Nicholas, but it is not one iota less ridiculous than your statement.
40 - troll
it's all a gnostic plot...only through total celibacy (or infertility) can humans put an end to this tale of woe - this twisted existence created by that flawed demiurge...Sophia's unnatural spawn
troll
41 - Nicholas Stix
The difference, Michael, is that my statement is factual.
42 - Michael J. West
Your statement is absurd.
43 - Blue Meanie
Nicholas states: "They wanted to revolutionize society. But once premarital sex, ever younger sex, and illegitimacy exploded, "
Now, there are some interesting arguments going on here, but I felt forced to point out the sheer idiocy of the quoted statement.
Let me put this in simple terms;
How long during human history, even christian history, has the age of marriage been above the early teens?
Biology at war with theology it seems. I'm for education.
44 - Sean Aqui
#34: Nicholas, a detailed response:
Sean approvingly quotes the term "emergency contraception" and himself uses the term "contraception." But that isn't what Sean means at all. He is writing in support of an abortifacent.
You are free to believe that. But you ignore certain facts about biology, such as a) it can take several days after intercourse for an egg to be fertilized, or b) breast feeding has exactly the same effect as Plan B. Not to mention the countless times a fertilized egg fails to implant for other reasons. That's why the medical definition of pregnancy involves implantation, not fertilization.
And he has the nerve to mock Christians as benighted?
I don't recall mocking anybody.
That anything that interferes with fertilization after the fact is abortion, isn't a "Christian conservative" doctrine; it's the definition of abortion.
Incorrect, since the medical definition of abortion involves implantation.
It's really simple: Anything that prevents conception before the fact is contraception. Anything that stops conception after the fact is an abortifacent.
Even using your definition of "pregnancy", Plan B is not a pure abortifacent. Most of the time it works the way birth-control pills work.
BTW, why does Sean feel the need to misrepresent conservative Christians as ignorant bumpkins?
Please show where I did that. I think the folks who oppose contraception are following a principle off a cliff, and I further think this is an inappropriate use of the regulatory and legal process. But I never said they were stupid.
And since Sean has brought sex ed into the argument, that means he wants kids to be able to buy the abortion pill over the counter. There's no other reason for mentioning it.
First, it's not "the abortion pill." RU486 is "the abortion pill." Plan B is not.
Second, sex ed was a minor tangent in my piece, which became the main topic of discussion in the comments. But for the record, I think the drugmaker's second application (restricting the sale to those 16 and over) was reasonable. I wouldn't raise a fuss if the age limit was raised to 18. That defeats some of the public health purpose of making it available OTC, but is still better than keeping it prescription-only for everyone.
Sex ed is not about giving kids "information"; it's about using the power of the state to promote attitudes favorable towards premarital sex.
Says you. For a more fact-based analysis, you should look at what is actually taught in schools. Here, for instance, are the Washington State guidelines. Don't rely on the web page summary; download the guidelines and read them yourself. They're really quite reasonable. And if you still don't like them, most school systems allow you to opt out of sex ed. The schools are not interfering with your parental prerogatives in the least.
45 - zingzing
whoo-hoo! let nick be against sex! may he never procreate!
okay, that was silly... (seriously, though, nick... don't do it...)
nick is paranoid. did you ever take sex ed, nick? what was it like?
was it some old health teacher wandering around naked, folding back his foreskin to show off his smegma?
or some hoary old goat with a vulva hanging down to her ankles showing you 8x10 ft pictures of horrible horrible cases of syphillis?
or maybe all the cheerleaders got up and showed you what "lesbian" means.
or maybe "lesbians" weren't mentioned at all.
maybe you looked at boring textbook drawings of a woman's spread naughties and a man's hangdown with perfect views of their assholes... maybe it was a glorified biology class with special attention paid to nasty diseases THAT ATTACK YOUR CROTCH and ways to avoid said nasty diseases (INCLUDING ABSTINENCE) should you run into the possibility of the biological process outlined in the earlier chapters... trust me, i'm young enough to remember it, and other than a little bit on canker sores, i don't remember popping a smile once, much less popping a boner or thinking, "i'm gonna go do this tomorrow!"
if they instilled any values in me, it was to avoid getting incurable rotting rashes on my penis. may you avoid that fate as well.
46 - PolarBear
I haven't got through all the comments yet but I feel the need to say this:
Someone mentioned that the people pushing for the removal of sex ed programs in school are conservatives who feel that parents should be teaching the kids, not strangers/teachers.
The sad irony of this is the fact that many of the conservative people who are in this group are too embarassed to talk about sex with their kids in the way that it needs to be done.
You can't expect uptight people with strong "morals" about sex to have that frank and open discussion that is needed with their (OH MY GOD) children.
47 - Manon Maru
I'm kinda with C.S. Lewis where the idea of abstinence and the sanctity of life and all that is beautiful, but it you don't believe in it, then it is better to live in "sin" rather than make a promise you don't intend to keep, and abort or prevent a pregnancy that you don't intend to nuture.
48 - Nature rules
This is just an evolutionary process. We are just animals like all other creatures, so who gives a rats ass.