Birth Control, Contraception Don’t Stop Abortion, Help Women

Life News ^ | 8/19/11 | Kristan Hawkins

[wagglebee]

I can’t count the amount of times I’ve been asked what my stance is on contraception. It’s not breaking news that many oral contraceptives and some invasive barrier methods (IUD) have been proven to cause abortion, including the highly controversial ella and Plan B drugs, and I stand firmly against the use of anything that destroys a life created at conception. But what about contraception that prevents conception from taking place?

I’m not the only one who has gotten this question; people want to know how the pro-life movement as a whole feels about this.

In fact, the medical students we reach out to face this question on a daily basis.

This question is a hard one to answer, which is why many avoid it: What is the pro-life movement’s stance on contraception, including methods that prevent conception?

As a physician, what is the right decision to make when a woman asks for birth control? What if she is living below the poverty line, has 3 or 4 children, hasn’t obtained a high-school diploma, and is co-habiting with a man who needs to support her financially? Presumably, she’s aware of the possibility of pregnancy and could be afraid of how she will feed and clothe another child.

What do you say? What’s the pragmatic response here?

Here’s how I think that conversation should be started:

1) Birth Control, no matter what form, doesn’t prevent abortions. In fact, it provides a false sense of security.

The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, released study showing that condoms fail 14% of the time. That’s enough to provide some concern, especially when coupled with the Guttmacher’s own numbers showing that over half of all abortions are on women who were using some method of birth control. This is a cry in the face of pro-abortion propaganda claiming that if women had better access to birth control, abortions would become unnecessary.

Well, clearly not.

Contraception gives women a false sense of security, and condoms and birth control clearly can’t be relied on as a fail-proof method of stopping a pregnancy from occurring.

2) Birth control comes with it’s own complications and risks. It some cases, it’s deadly for both the child and mother.

Aside from condoms, oral and invasive methods of birth control come with their own complications. In addition to blood clots and strokes, chemical contraceptives have been proven to end the life of a preborn human mere hours or days after conception by thinning the uterine lining and making implantation more difficult for the developing person. Invasive methods that are implanted into your upper arm or uterus come with the same set of risks to both the mother and child. The most common form of hormonal contraception, the pill, has been categorized by the World Health Organization as a Group I carcinogen. That’s the highest possible ranking; cigarettes are also Group I.

One only has to read the inserts that come with chemical contraception, listen to commercials for hormonal birth control that spew out a long list of side effects, or glance at Facebook ads calling for women who took Yaz birth control pills to contact a law firm to join the lawsuit (google Yaz and lawsuit!) to grasp the unbelievable amount of life-altering consequences of imbibing hormonal birth control.

3) Condoms and birth control are everywhere. You can obtain them for free, yet the abortion and STD rate hasn’t fallen.

Planned Parenthood and county health departments have been giving out free condoms and birth control for years. Yet, the unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and STD rate in America has failed to fall and, in the case of STDs, has significantly increased. Despite this evidence, the Obama Administration just issued a new ruling forcing all health insurance plans to cover birth control with no deductible.

What’s even more scary is that Planned Parenthood knows this. They actually rely on the failure of the contraception they provide to increase their abortion profits.

4) Finally, and most importantly, birth control – in any form – is a Band-Aid.

It seems like the best way to answer the question regarding the pro-life stance on contraception is to emphasize helping women as a whole instead of handing out a temporary “fix”.

Dolling out free condoms isn’t social justice. Handing over a pack of pills to an uneducated mother living in poverty with a man who doesn’t respect her enough to marry her isn’t restoring proper relationships in her life. At the end of the day, what have you accomplished? You’ve just acknowledged her tragic situation by implying, “I don’t know how to help you”, or, “I don’t have time to help you, but here, use these and hope for the best.”

Protecting women from the scarring trauma of abortion and repairing broken relationships in her life seem to be the best way the pro-life movement can restore true social justice – Christian justice – to this woman’s life.

These are my thoughts on how we can make a real impact, but the pro-life movement needs to come together and agree on one answer to this question. Unity will only help us protect more women and the pre-born from the injustice of abortion.

[AndyJackson]

Money makes good parents and being poor makes bad parents, what utter nonsense.

Well, at least now I have you making points we can actually debate, even if your points are in an ungrammatical monosyllabic form rather than extended sentences with subjects, verbs, objects arranged in an order to denote a flow of logic.

We are agreed that what you wrote is utter nonsense. Fortunately, just like a cheap lawyer you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

So, in order that each of us can make our own arguments, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions more relevant to my argument. Do you believe that having children you cannot properly support makes you a good parent? Suppose you can afford 2 kids and have them. Is it a sin to stop because you cannot afford 3, or 12? Is it a sin to use a condom so that you can properly raise the children you do have rather than impoverish everyone with children you cannot afford?

and by afford, I mean provide shelter and food and clothing, and such transportation as may be required to see that they are educated, even if at public expense.

I just want to know where you draw the line.

[little jeremiah]

I would debate with you if you had not been so rude and nasty to me.

So, since in my “real” life I avoid people who have cursed at me and been nasty, I do the same on FR when the situation warrants it.

I just don’t feel like subjecting myself to any more nastiness. So, I end my part of the debate here.

[trumandogz]

As usual, a whole lot of name calling, but an inability to answer a simple question.

Pleas explain the difference between the act of taking a pill that prevents implantation of a baby after conception and a partial birth abortion that takes place six months after conception.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I would but apparently you lack the comprehension skills to discern between the two.

Ergo, I won't waste my time.

[AndyJackson]

His argument is way too narrow; he is saying that good parenting depends solely on how much money they have. And then assumes that I want gov schools and so on. I want the fedgov to be pared back to its Constitutional responsibilities, which means 90% of of what it does should be stopped. That alone would leave people with a lot more money to use for child raising, charity, whatever they want. He denies my argument that immorality and lack of family stability is the cause of the problems with parenting and children. Or even plays a part. Inability to acknowledge that falls under “moral blindness”.

Just like a cheap lawyer.

First, I never said that lots of money makes good parents. My point was that the notion that it is God's will that parents have children they cannot afford is unfathomably bizarrre.

I am the one who decried federal spending. Right from the start.

Unfortunately for your economic argument, the working poor do not pay federal income tax, so shutting down the federal government will not save them money.

Lack of family stability is certainly a cause of poor child rearing. But it is a bit facile to claim that that and communism are the result of using condoms.

[BenKenobi]

Interesting. A cyberstalker.

What I said:

“I can’t help but laugh at the folks here blasting the big O for associating with Warren, when the rest of us normal folks are blasting him for associating with Obama”

Yes, I believe it’s scandalous that Rick Warren associated himself with Obama.

[BenKenobi]

“In your small little dictatorial mind maybe...just wtf do you think you are?”

Apparently a faithful Catholic.

“You’re here to post such inane, ludicrous, invasive BS so dip shit sites like DU can copy them and post them to make real Conservatives look bad.”

Have a look through my 9k or so posts here on FD. I assure you that I’m a faithful Catholic. Ask any of the Catholics here.

[AndyJackson]

Apparently you need lot's of schooling on research methods and statistical argument. Let me supply a link that references the data you are trying to rely upon, since you are too lazy to do it yourself:

SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTRACEPTIVE EFFICACY

Now let us consider this in some detail.

• This is not the actual results of a study, but merely points to the results of studies which are summarized in a secondary source " Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, Stewart FH, Kowal D. Contraceptive Technology: Nineteenth Revised Edition. New York NY: Ardent Media, 2007."
• Because we don't have the actual peer reviewed studies, we don't have explanations of research methodologies which help us to understand definitions, assumptions and explanations of techniques used. But Vlad wings it, and so must we to some extent.Even what we can learn does Vlad the Great no service.
• First, the table shows the rate of pregnancy for the first year. I.e. this is per year and not per encounter.
• Next the rate of unexpected pregnancy taking no precautions is 85%. This is per year and not per encounter. So, say 4 times a month or 48 times a year, or 1-2% per act, not the 15% probability of pregnancy per use of a condom that Vlad the Great was advertising. Funny how getting definitions and units right matters.
• While the unwanted pregnancy rate for condoms is 15% per year for "typical use" it is 2% for "perfect use," which a footnote defines as " consistently and correctly." Well knock poor old Vlad here over with a feather. If you don't use a contraceptive correctly and consistently it doesn't work. Who knew?
• Now here is the clincher. It turns out that if you use pills "consistently and correctly," the rate of unwanted pregnancy is 0.3% per year, which is a whole lot less than 85%.

  How did that old saying go? Something like "figures lie and liars figure." Seemds ol Vlad here got caught in flagrante delecto.

[BenKenobi]

“If you don’t use a contraceptive correctly and consistently it doesn’t work. Who knew?”

The point that Vlad is trying to drive home is that contraceptive devices in the real world fail and are used improperly. Sure, we can argue that under ideal conditions, where no one forgets and everything works perfectly, it’s about 1 to 2 percent. But if we do the actual studies, tracking actual people, and actual uses, what we see is startling.

Contraceptives have lead to a direct increase in abortion, which is why Planned Parenthood is so high on them. Contraceptives increase the number of abortions they can sell, which is where they make their money.

If contraceptives worked as average, the abortion rate would be falling. Instead, we have seen the opposite. As contraceptive use increases so does the abortion rate.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Yes, I believe it’s scandalous that Rick Warren associated himself with Obama.

Ah, so you do admit it is you....very good.

Since you're such a faith full Catholic with your 9k posts here on "FD", please explain your support for homosexual marriage.

Cyber stalker? No

Troll fumigator, yes.

[Las Vegas Ron]

FR’s opinion of your idol Rick Warren:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2738000/posts

[BenKenobi]

“Since you’re such a faith full Catholic with your 9k posts here on “FD”, please explain your support for homosexual marriage.”

Sigh.

I don’t support gay marriage.

If you had bothered to look through my posts you would already know this.

I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman for life. I believe that sodomy is sinful and that everyone who commits sodomy must repent.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Not what you posted on the other forum......tick tick....

[BenKenobi]

I’m not sure why you believe that Rick Warren is my idol.

I think it’s scandalous and wrong that he associated himself with Obama.

My ‘idol’ is the Panzerkardinel, tyvm.

What else would you like to know about me?

[BenKenobi]

“Not what you posted on the other forum”

I believe that’s a confession of cyberstalking. :)

I thought you said you weren’t a cyberstalker.

For someone stalking me, you sure don’t know anything about me.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Yes, I believe it’s scandalous that Rick Warren associated himself with Obama.

That post tells everyone here all they need to know.

Go back to DU.

Word.

[Las Vegas Ron]

You’re busted, your deviations won’t work.

Have a good night.

[BenKenobi]

“That post tells everyone here all they need to know:

That I’m not a fan of Rick Warren. Gosh. Didn’t I already say that I was a faithful Catholic. I can’t understand why someone who is a faithful Catholic would not be a fan of Rick Warren.

I’m sorry. I don’t like him very much. It bothers me when evangelical protestants who are supposed to be bulwarks in the Faith waver.