Study: Contraception use up, abortions double; researchers can’t figure out why
The January issue of the journal Contraception contains results of a 10-yr study “to acquire information about the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of elective abortions,” reads the abstract.
The results were unsurprising, “yet another example of the counter-intuitive effect of more contraception,” wrote Christina at Real Choice. What was laughable was the researchers’ conclusion. Read on….
STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.
RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.
CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.
As Suzanne at Big Blue Wave noted:
So in the ten year period that contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.
Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding.
Contraceptive use only provides a false sense of security. As most recently evidenced on the MTV abortion special, minor girls and young women are too immature or irresponsible to handle contraception properly, for starters. Men aren’t so good at it either, since even as the pro-abort group Guttmacher notes, the failure rate of condoms is a whopping 17.4%.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Contraception is very good on a tactical level but very bad on a strategic level. By this I mean, that if you are about to have sex, not considering for a moment any moral objections to contraceptive use, you really want to be using contraception so as not to produce an unwanted pregnancy.
However, when mass reliable (supposedly) contraception comes on the market, it encourages people to engage in much more sexual activity than otherwise. Put bluntly, lots of men think they will get lucky and will convince women to have sex, thinking that it is now “risk free”.
It is no wonder that the unwanted pregnancy rate and the killing unborn children rate both go up in tandem.
Where is Jayn, Joan, DD and the rest moaning about the need to for more access to contraception and how we pro-lifers could at least agree to that? Ugh. Nope. Here you go pro-aborts. This is what we’ve been saying all along. Contraception does not reduced unwanted pregnancies.
I hit this one hard using CDC data:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/02/09/planned-parenthood-in-new-initiative-targets-10-year-old-children-with-condoms-that-dont-work/
This is very easy to understand. Every method of contraception has an associated failure rate. That rate is a constant, such as the 17.4% failure rate of condoms during “typical use”. All one need do is multiply the number of people using the contraceptive method by its failure rate to get the number of undesired outcomes (pregnancies).
If 100 couples use a condom as their sole method of contraception, then 17% of them will experience pregnancy within one year: 100 x .17 = 17
If we double the number of couples using condoms as their sole means of contraception, then the number of unintended pregnancies will double within one year: 200 x .17 = 34
So is it really surprising to see unintended pregnancy and abortion increase in a dose-dependent manner relative to contraceptive use? Not at all. The math is brutally simple.
“However, when mass reliable (supposedly) contraception comes on the market, it encourages people to engage in much more sexual activity than otherwise.”
So folks engaged is less sex in the days before mass marketing of contraceptives? The Irish “Magdalene Laundries” had lots of “workers” who produced babies for the dreadful Irish orphanages. (Terrible scandal which the church and the Irish government is still paying for) And this was in a Catholic country where sex was considered a sin. Births out of wedlock always occured because people always had sex out of wedlock regardless of contraception. Educating about contraceptive use is very important and that’s why comprehensive sex ed is important.
And regarding the “casual sex” scold. (Oh, those slutty girls whom we love if they have their baby!!!) Were married women included in the study and if so, can the term “casual sex” be applied?
Note: Now that it’s the New Year, I’m going to settle on one set of initials – the ones I use over on RH Reality Check and the ones that are my real initials. Yes, I’m the poster formerly known as “Artemis” or “Artemiserable” by the esteemed Dr. Nadal.(But some of you knew that from the IP) I always thought that “Artemis” was a bit ironic as she is the godess of childbirth. Anyway, I got banned but my exile is now over and I won’t “blaspheme” again. Sorry about that.
CC
”Contraception does not reduced unwanted pregnancies
Really?
ATLANTA — The rate of teen births in the U.S. is at its lowest level in almost 70 years. Yet, the sobering context is that the teen pregnancy rate is far lower in many other countries. The most convincing explanation is that contraceptive use is much higher among teens in most Western European countries…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/teen-pregnancy-us-_n_802854.html
And from the Guttmacher study that Jill provides on first year contraceptive failure – if the pill is used correctly the failure rate is .3. Typical use is .8. Other barrier methods aren’t as reliable.
CC,
“So folks engaged is less sex in the days before mass marketing of contraceptives?”
In a word, yes. Most women actually were virgins when they married, and stayed faithful. Most of the children in those orphanages were there because of widespread disease, much of it secondary to the effects of grinding poverty and starvation in the parents.
Not to get the thread derailed so early on, the point remains, and all the smoke and mirrors can’t eclipse it that every contraceptive has an associated failure rate that is a constant numeric value. The more the method is employed, the greater the number multiplied by that constant failure rate, the greater the number of failure events (pregnancies).
You can’t argue with the data, CC. It is what it is.
“every contraceptive has an associated failure rate that is a constant numeric value. The more the method is employed, the greater the number multiplied by that constant failure rate, the greater the number of failure events (pregnancies).”
Oh yeah, probability rules!
P(AB)=P(A)P(B) when A and B are independent events.
Look out, there’s a mathematician in the house!
When I was a teen in a small community, I knew that if I gave into a boy’s pressure to have sex, I risked getting pregnant. In a small community, that is a pretty good deterrent: everyone’s going to know, to get involved. His parents and my parents would be involved. It made me think twice, three times! Then I went away to college. Add in contraception, which, while it had been available before, wasn’t marketed to me in high school as hard as it was marketed in college. Add in attractive males who would never meet my parents and who’s parents I would never know. Suddenly the kind of hook-up that was unthinkable in another environment became possible, probable, even desirable.
Now, if a pro-abort wants to say I’m “shaming” young women, that’s on him. I’m saying that a young person’s reasoning is affected by what is being promoted and the removal of a close knit social network. Just because I can say me and my friends became more reckless, I’m not judging us and calling us names. What happened is easy to see when you follow the facts. As young people, when we had our families as our base of operations we knew what a family was, how important, how integral to our lives. When “family” suddenly becomes an abstract, and then children can be killed in complete secrecy, no one should be suprised the abortion rate skyrocketed among girls of my age group.
Have you seen this blog?
loveundefiled.blogspot.com
Joan, I hadn’t seen that blog before but thanks for the link.
Gerard Nadal says:
January 3, 2011 at 9:28 am
This, this, this. I could not agree more. This isn’t even complicated math. If I can get it down…
You seem to be *assuming* that sexual activity increased with contraceptive use. Without *actual data* on levels of sexual activity, all you have is a fallacious “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after that, so because of that) argument. The study’s abstract does not provide any data on levels of activity. Has anyone read the actual study?
ninek’s argument is valid on its own, but it’s moot in the current case. The cited study was on Spanish women of childbearing age, not American girls at college far from home.
I found the article. They did not collect data about rate of sexual activity. (That really surprises me!)
The study notes that the number of women 15-49 went up 11% in the study period.
This tidbit is interesting, though: The percentage of contraceptive use among teens (10% of the study population) went up from 20% to 60%, and condom use went from 21% to 38%. The study does, in fact, note that teen girls are pressured into having sex more frequently, and “present limited capacity to negotiate use of condoms or withdrawal, and must assume responsibility for and possible consequences of emergency contraception and sometimes elective abortion.”
The authors also cited a Russian study: “Interestingly, the availability of
abortion was one of the reasons cited for nonuse of contraception.”
And this from a Danish study: “Furthermore, in this group of women, a partner’s negative attitude towards contraception was associated with an eightfold increased OR [odd ratio compared to a control group] for requesting abortion”
Not rocket science, I have worked with teens for years if the “You are going to do it anyway” campaign is embraced, pushing contraception and condoms as the norm it creates a false sense of security especially for teens, then when contraception fails (which it often does) the next stop is to the abortion clinic (I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “but we were using protection” meaning using pills, shots, patches, cervical rings, condoms and even IUDs). Contraception brings in money and when the contraception fails abortion brings in more money at about $400-500 a pop. Watch the movie “Blood Money” excellent interview by Carol Everrett about ( I am paraphrasing here) “we counted on getting teens hooked on sex, breaking down their inhibitions, passing out birth control so we could count on each of these teen girls having 4-5 abortions each”.
Teens are thankful and relieved to hear a message of hope, setting high goals, self-discipline, self-respect, 100% risk elimination, the safest and healthiest message with practical ways to avoid sexual activity and sexual pressure. In healthcare it is called primary prevention doesn’t make PP any money but it sure works. Seen kids I have worked with as teens come back as young adults, college students and newlyweds so thankful they heard and followed the message.
Wow, didn’t realize the Moops were still in control of Spain. I guess I learn something new everyday. Lol! (*little Seinfeld humor there)
The failure rate of condoms at 17.4% is actually worse than Russian roulette odds?!
Not quite, Chris. The failure rates are based on 1-year’s worth of sexual activity, not one instance. If you played Russian roulette as frequently as you presumably were having sex with a condom, you would almost always end up dead before you/your partner ended up pregnant. But yes, if six condom-only couples were to go through a year, statistically, one of those couples would be pregnant by December.
Gerard, regarding contraceptive failure rates, I think your assumptions regarding condoms are inaacurate. Correct me if I am wrong, but to me failure rate for a condom means that it breaks, leaks or physically fails in some way, not that pregnancy develops. I cannot speak to the other methods of contraception, but since this is a mechanical means (as opposed to a chemical means) of birth control, your effect would be wildly overstated. I am not opining that condom use is OK in any way. I’m just pointing our an apparent misconception.
Excellent post, and information that is badly needed. Even the Supreme Court of the United States, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (’92) stated that we have built our relationships around the availability of abortion, should contraception fail. Contraception is a contract: No children will come from sex. Abortion is the back-up contract.
I keep on hearing about the teen birthrate falling, which is good, but has the abortion rate among this group increased? The U.S.’s high teen pregnancy rate is often compared to that of other countries like Sweden where there are no parental notification laws and where almost 70 percent of teen abortions are terminated (most “reproductive rights” types would not have a problem with this, of course). I often hear that the U.S. is “backwards” in regards to social issues, but I understand that if a teen in Sweden actually choses to have her baby, she is thought to have psychiatric problems!
So has the abortion rate fallen for women aged 15-19 as well? Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks Leila. I did not know the Supreme Court got the point in their decision about abortion being back-up contraception in PP vs. Casey in 92. No wonder the pro-aborts are so adamant about their “choice” that every woman be guaranteed a dead baby if she doesn’t want a live one.
Byzcat, Gerard is correct. If you look at the Guttmacher chart that Jill linked to, the male condom typical use failure rate is the failure rate as contraception. Considering what it means for a condom to fail in regards to pregnancy, the overall failure rate for condoms (breakage, spillage, STD transmission) over the course of a year can only be higher.
I am seriously shocked at how fully we have managed to delude ourselves socially into believing that there is such a thing as sex without strings. When people get pregnant while contracepting, there seems to be an attitude of, “IMPOSSIBLE!” which amazes me considering that pretty much every tv pregnancy occurs while contracepting! Yet still, the attitude pervades: “I was (using a condom, taking birth control, on the nuva ring, etc)! How could this possibly have happened?!?”
Some results I’ve observed. When announcing our second pregnancy, the response amounted to, “You don’t know how to prevent this yet?” Our SECOND pregnancy. Friends of mine seem to feel that they deserve no responsibility should their bc method fail (regardless, I will note, of whether they were using it properly). And then of course, the abortion problem. The 50 million+ little lives intentionally ended for being inconvenient. :(
Byzcat,
Your point is well made, but misses the mark. Let me explain. The 17.4% failure rate for condoms uses pregnancy as the definition of failure. Why? The answer is simple. Guttmacher is looking at the condom as a means of contraception. Therefore, failure is defined as conception.
Conception occurs in a very narrow window monthly, and not all full ejaculations in that window lead to conception anyway owing to a host of normal and pathologic conditions in the male and female. Thus, condom failures in that window, not leading to pregnancy do not get accounted for in the 17.4% rate, nor do any other failures during the other 25 days of the month.
So in reality, the failure rate for condoms is catastrophically higher than 17.4%, and accounts for the breathtaking rise in STD’s in the link I posted in my first comment on this thread.
Morality aside, these simple facts, coupled with the CDC data I link to show a Public Health Disaster, ad I want to know why the other side can’t admit as much. If anyone is ideologically driven to minimize this catastrophe, it’s the pro-aborts. With data such as I’ve linked, I don’t see how anyone can overstate the case.
“Safe sex” which is highly promoted is a myth.
Planned Parenthood plans for contraception methods to fail and for all women to have 3-5 abortions. See the documentary BLOOD MONEY and the former abortion mill owner speaking of the agenda of ‘sex ed’ and so forth.
Promiscuity leads to death.
I wonder if the economic conditions over the time frame have any influence on the use of contraception and abortions. That period saw the tech-bubble burst and effects of 9/11 on world economies. The next three years (2008, 2009, 2010) would include the sub-prime bubble burst, so if economic conditions influence the use of contraception and abortions, then there will be an increase over those three years. I also wonder if there is any data on the amount of “sex-ed” spent on the “Spanish women” over the time frame…
With the freaky winter in Europe and Russia, I bet over the next two months we’ll see an increase in contraception sales, and then an increase in abortions, and then in about nine months a baby-boom.
Seat belts and air bags don’t always work, but is that any reason not to use them?
(actually,many of the worst airbags are anti-choice fanatics).One reason many abortions happen is because too manypeople are just plain foolish,thoughtless and irresponsible and don’t use contraceptives at all.
But the way the Catholic church demands that no one,even non-catholics use contraceptives is mind-bogglingly foolish. Despite their problems,contraceptives have actually PREVENTED countless abortions from happening over the years.
Reports of how dangerous contraceptives are have been wildly exaggerated by anti-choicers. There are some risks, but there are many other pills which people take which are otentially far more dangerous.
And I repeat- there is no such thing as an “abortificatient “pill. No pill can cause an abortion. An abortion is the surgical removal of a partially formed fetus.
Women’s bodies routinely eject fcells and no one calls this an abortion or even a miscarriage. Like it or not,contraception is here to stay. Any argument for making
it illegal is idiotic.
“An abortion is the surgical removal of a partially formed fetus” So the Ru-486 abortion pill is what exactly?
Bergermeister-meisterburger, you make me laugh.
Cha-Ching! + 1 from Mr. Berger = $14 for our CPC’s.
But I gotta love the ole dig at the Catholics. Of course it’s ALL il Papa’s fault that more than 52 million American babies are dead. Riiiiiiggght. Hey, I got this bridge to sell ya, good price…
To CC and others who claim that people always had sex outside of marriage at the same rates, this is not supported by any evidence and contradicted by much. If these rates were anywhere near the same, and especially in the absence of general contraceptive use, we should have seen incredible rates of illegitimacy, teen pregnancies, veneral disease, etc. But until the late 1960’s the rates for these things were very low, if even unmeasureable- 5% or less, compared to 33% illegitimacy, 1/4 people with a V.D., today. The culture was entirely different and every element that can be cited shows this- the laws(fornication, adultery, and contraception were criminal); the values portrayed in entertainment, the arts; the generally accepted custom of waiting until marriage.
The lower teen birth rates- and it is critical to note it is birth rates not pregnancy rates- in other countires can easily be explained by the fact that they may just be having more abortions, which may certainly be so given less restrictions: i.e. the legal age is lower, 14 or 16 often in these countries; no parental notification laws; no waiting periods. And now with drugs like RU-486 and Plan B, there are how many more abortions, and which may not even be counted as abortions, if just due to the denial that these are abortifacients. The fact this is the birth rate we are speaking of can also be very misleading, as the rate obviously will be lower since abortion was legalized, so statistics before then are uncomparable to a certain extent.
The burden of proof is on those who deny the contraception-promiscuity link to explain why, during the exact time period that people have been using contraception more than ever and for longer periods of time than ever, that there has not been any stagnation or diminishing of all the assoicated condequences of fornication- V.D., illegitimacy, but only significant increases in any country in which contraceptive use has been adopted.
“ And I repeat- there is no such thing as an “abortificatient “pill. No pill can cause an abortion.”
Robert, repeat it all you want, but you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Even the pill manufacturers have stated as much in their literature,
But keep repeating it Robert. You’re still as wrong, every time.
Gerard, while we’re on the subject.. I’m not a nurse or a doctor (though I work in the Health Care profession as a paper jockey), so I don’t know the answer to this:
What is the effect of a pill like RU486 or ELLA one when taken by a young woman who is NOT pregnant? Is the effect on the body the same regardless of whether conception has occured? Isn’t the effect on the body quite dangerous (bleeding, cramping, etc. for extended periods of time)? If a teenage girl were to take these drugs on 5 or 6 separate occaisions over a couple years, how is that affecting her body?
And if I could go one question further, What would happen if you slipped it to a male? Anything? I ask because of a newsstory last year about a woman who was slipped the RU drug in her food by an irate boyfriend. What would happen if the perp accidently drank the dose himself?
Mr Berger, CC, et al,
I never cease being amazed at the lengths people will use to insist that contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and so forth work. Often we’ll even hear that these are marvelous things and that the number of abortions has decreased as a result. Just one little problem: Even if I agreed that these assessments were accurate–I don’t–there’d still be the problem of whether we’re really addressing the right problem or not.
We aren’t.
Cutting the number or proportion of abortions has never been the real point, but has always been the compromise that the pro-choice side will “accept”. The real concern, teaching reasonable morals, has always been forced off the table. Period.
The only way that I see most state-sponsored efforts having a worthwhile impact on society will be to insist that “comprehensive” sex ed..become genuinely comprehensive. For my purposes, that means teaching kids–both public and private schools–as much about the virtue of chastity and abstinence as about “birth control” methods.
I know, I’m “imposing my values” on others. Tough!
If I had a dollar for each time MY values have been turned upside down for want of “tolerance”, I’d be wealthy. I’m severely tired of hearing that I’m ignorant for challenging known “facts”. The only facts the “choice” side ever admits..are those that distinctly defend their views. These constitute a determined culture of death for my purposes.
If we wish to have a serious,worthwhile debate about how to solve society’s myriad problems, religious values will need to take center stage, If not, we’ll merely tolerate more gov’t waste.
As usual.
CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.
At least those people doing the research were sensible about this. Good grief – look at the economy in Spain. It is no wonder that slightly less pregnancies are wanted – the same effect is underway in the US.
Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding.
Now this is ludicrous. Whoever wrote this is not grounded, mathematically. For example – a higher rate of having sex could indeed result in more unwanted pregnancies, but to put the “contraception use notwithstanding” in there is just plain silly, since the effect, there, could be much, much greater.
The correct way to look at it is how has contraception affected the abortion rate, versus *what it would have been,* all other things being equal. Not necessarily an easy calculation, but it’s the only way to the truth, rather than this silly discarding of the other factors, i.e. saying, “notwithstanding….” as well as forgetting about everything else.
And come on, Bobby, my old friend – yes, going from 5.5 to 11.5 out of 1000 is indeed a doubling, even a little more than that, but it’s still only talking about 6 women in 1000, and economic effects, etc. can and do make more difference than that.
In better economic times, if the rate declines, are we going to then declare that “the availability of contraception cut the abortion rate in half”?
C’mon, man…. : P
The study does, in fact, note that teen girls are pressured into having sex more frequently, and “present limited capacity to negotiate use of condoms or withdrawal, and must assume responsibility for and possible consequences of emergency contraception and sometimes elective abortion.”
What I’ve been saying for years: women have less power now in relationships than they did prior to the sexual revolution. Most teengirls feel very very pressured to hook up, especially in college and university but also at the high school level.
Girls saying no means the loss of boyfriends and social isolation. Teens want to fit in.
Girls also have the perception today that if they are not sexually desirable they are not attractive. Thus the skanky behavior and dress.
Sadly while all this has changed, it is girls who generally bear the consequences of sexual behavior alone. Boys continue their education while girls leave school to care for their new baby. Unless of course, they abort. In which case they spend years trying to recover from the abortion.
The expectation today is that everyone will become sexually active at least by their late teens. This means more opportunities to have an unwanted pregnancy, contract STI’s etc. I don’t see how anyone can fail to see that more singles have more sex today than compared to the previous generation.
This loss of reverence for women and the general increase in immorality was predicted by Pope Paul VI.
Thanks for posting this study and I look forward to further commentary on it.
Admittedly, I’m no statistican. However, I have two concerns: First, statistics are slippery things and it’s tempting to quote them when they seem to support our view and downplay them when they don’t. With any study involving the extensive use of stats, it’s best to withhold a declaration of victory until 1) the internal numbers are fully analyzed for strengths and weaknesses, and 2) the methodology of the study is subject to further peer-review. To cite one example, in 1994 (some) pro-lifers went crazy citing a statistic from the Daling study which allegedly indicated that women undergoing first trimester abortions were 800% more likely to develop breast cancer by age 35. Not long after, the alleged statistic was shown to be a fluke, a random statistical error that sometimes creeps up in large samples. Applied to the study in question, I’m not suggesting that pushing contraceptives on unmarried couples has no impact on abortion rates. I’m only appealing for caution while we await further commentary.
Second, regarding some comments above on BC pills functioning as abortifacients, my own organization takes a cautious view while we await further evidence. That is, while we don’t think there is sufficient evidence to say for certain that the pill functions as an abortifacient in the event of breakthrough ovulation, we do think there’s sufficient evidence to indicate it may function that way. Thus, given human life is at stake, we should err on the side of caution while we await further evidence, meaning we do not endorse its use. But we are careful not to overstate our case and claim certitude when the evidence is still open to debate. (We have dealt with that debate on our blog, so I won’t go into it here.)
In short, it’s important that pro-lifers function with intellectual integrity, meaning we go only so far as the evidence allows. Perhaps the Spain study is in the main accurate; if so, it’s useful for confronting the lies of PP. But while we await further review, I think we should hedge our conclusions just a bit.
Angel is absolutely right. Sexual activity outside of marriage certainly has increased, you don’t have to be a statistician to see that, in the last 40 years, our society has become obsessed with extramarital sex. We have less sex in marriage, as marriage is on the decline as a result. When women have sex outside marriage, they lose. So do their abandoned children. And ultimately society.
We can thank the false promises of contraception for that. AND Planned Parenthood, which deliberately markets unbridled sexual activity among teens (as a teacher I attended their marketing sessions) knowing the failure rate will make them BIG MONEY. And ruin the lives of the teens as a result.
Pope Paul VI was vilified by the world when he predicted the decline in morality and the dignity of women, as a result of contraception, yet history has proven him right.
Contraception is destroying marriage and the happiness of women, when it promised the exact opposite. See Dr Janet Smith’s famous talk, ”Contraception, Why not?”
Hi Scott, nice post.
statistics are slippery things and it’s tempting to quote them when they seem to support our view and downplay them when they don’t.
Yes, exactly. Frankly, any serious look at the conclusion that “contraception causes more abortions” for that time period in Spain would result in it being laughed off…. That is because no other factors are being considered. Example: blood donation during the time period of 1997 to 2007 in Spain increased. Do we then say, “Aha! Donating blood increases the rate of abortions.”?
The only decent way to be accurate is to adjust for other pertinent factors (and while blood donation probably isn’t too pertinent, things like the economy certainly are).
Also, being blind to everything else while blindly stating such a conclusion flies in the face of what we know to be true in the US. Have people not been using contraceptives in the US, for example, in the past 30 years? The US abortion rate has been declining, a fairly smooth overall trend, during that time.
Hi Doug,
I both agree and disagree with some of your points. As Scott suggests, I grow uneasy when Catholics and Christians insist that some study or some statistic proves this or that regarding faith or truth. At least half the time, if I do a little more research, I find that the claims made often eclipse the actual acceptable findings of the study or stats. I often wonder if the Pro-Life movement has, unintentionally, helped the abortion industry to grow, if only because too often, we don’t ultimately demonstrate that we precisely know what all we’re talking about.
That’s been a huge pet peeve of mine for decades actually.
On the other hand, I think you’re rather too dismissive of the chance that contraceptive availability has aided the increase in the number of abortions. I understand very well that many factors might be involved, but I’m stuck remembering the training that I,personally, saw in college. Essentially, the local health department advocate came, showed us how to put the condom on the plastic penis (can I say that here?), handed us each a condom, and called it a job accomplished. Certainly they made the usual caveats about how it would only work if you followed the label instructions, etc..
And..therein lies the key problem: Even ignoring the failure rate (breakage, leakage, whatever) of the condom, the assumption has always been that two or more people would obviously use the condom (or whatever) correctly.
Without getting too sordid, I’ve long felt that to be an assumption motivated by sheer lunacy.
I’ve heard metric tons about sexual identity and whatnot over my lifetime. Ultimately, I’m forced to ask: How many people do we each know who, every time they’ve felt, er, amorous, bothered to use the condom precisely as the manufacturer suggested? “Safe sex” has always been based on a reasoned argument, but it’s a reasoned argument regarding human behavior that almost abandons reason.
Ultimately, there may be a host of economic, social, and other factors involved with whether abortion rates rise, fall, or remain even. I think it foolish though, to insist that contraceptives cannot have played a dramatic role in the rise of abortions. If you have millions of people being constantly encouraged to get busy with someone, I think we’d best expect the conception rate to jump.
Doing otherwise would be about like insisting that the fuel consumption rate will fall or remain level because of improvements in fuel efficiency in motored vehicles. Technology may improve all right, but it’ll most likely encourage more people to drive and more often. Fuel consumption rates will almost certainly rise accordingly.
Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding.
This jumped out at me, because the results say nothing about sexual activity rates. Clearly, more people are trying to prevent pregnancy, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to more people are having sex, or people are having more sex. The more likely conclusion to me is that there are cultural or economic factors pressuring women to not have kids, which could push up both numbers independently of each other.
“The US abortion rate has been declining, a fairly smooth overall trend, during that time.”
The decline is in surgical abortions and much of that is masked by two factors.
1. As many abortion clinics have been closing, hospitals are taking up the slack and not reporting the numbers because they don’t want the sidewalk protests.
2. Chemical abortions have begun to replace surgical abortions and are not counted in those data.
” Do we then say, “Aha! Donating blood increases the rate of abortions.”? No, drinking bottled water must increase the rate of abortions, oh ye of little logic. Lol!
Dr. Dean says that food that is labeled “fat free” or “low fat” or other labels like that can cause weight gain… because people eat much more of it, thinking that it won’t make them fat. So they consume more calories overall. Contraception is not so different. We have very high obesity rates in this country. If I said it was because we eat too much and don’t exercise, are the pro-aborts going to tell me I must be wrong, that more research needs to done?
When a long term couple expects not to have children, they have a relationship in which this discussion and behavior can take place, such as avoiding intercourse when the woman is most fertile. When people hook-up casually, they are just not as careful. That’s the fact, jack.
Jayn,
Do you mean to suggest then that Planned Parenthood’s efforts at “educating” children and teens with regard to sexuality have NOT led to increases in casual sex?
Havn’t the folks at Planned Parenthood already offered statistical evidence that, in fact, imply that casual sex rates HAVE gone up? Precisely BECAUSE of above-mentioned sex ed?
You can’t have it both ways…..
(Uh, please, people, don’t take THAT comment out of context…..)
When it comes to the realities of contraception I think a quote from Yogi Berra states it very succinctly – “In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they’re not.” All of these “experts” are shocked – SHOCKED I tell you – when objective reality shows them their level of ignorance.
John,
I was only replying to Jill’s interpretation of the results of this study, which is only one of the possible implications of the results. We know that contraception use and abortion rates are up, but this study doesn’t tell us how they’re connected, or even IF they’re connected. I don’t read everything PP publishes, nor am I very well versed in statistics, so I’m not commenting past there.
Jayn,
Uh..have a great week, but your comments don’t really make sense.
If you re-read her article, the comments about contraceptives and abortion rates are both underlined.
We all know where babies (aborted or living) come from, and it ain’t from suffering a national great depression, nor from a frog and a termite looking lovingly into each other’s eyes.
How long will you keep looking before you see the giant, white elephant standing in the room?
Thank you John.
For years the pro-aborts have been whining that if only there was more birthcontrol, then abortion would be reduced. They ignore us when we remind them how ubiquitous birth control is, how easy to get and how cheap. They ignore us when we say the birth control mindset leads to abortion as a back up to get rid of the pregnancy that wasn’t wanted. They told us if only we would help women have their babies, then they attack CPC’s with organized hostility. Meanwhile rich women pay tens of thousands for IVF then abort some of those babies. They told us that without abortion women are brood mares. Then well-to-do couples hire poor women in India to carry children which is treating women exactly like brood mares.
They told us that if only women had more financial support, they’d not abort their babies. They blame everything, the economy, the Catholic Church, everyone except themselves, the pro-aborts.
During the height of the Great Depression, Father Baker’s maternity home housed about 150 young women. Today? Less than 10.
Behold the elephant.
if all parents would be just that: parents, alot of this could be avoided. you are not their pal, their buddy, their girlfriend. YOU are their parent. you are the boss, the protector, the teacher. It’s time for moms and dads to take back the reins and be what they signed up for:
PARENTS
Ninek,
Great point! Where is the feminist outcry over the horrible usery of women as surrogates, most especially in poor areas? Where is the concern for men and women treating these women, as you so accurately stated, as “brood mares”? Why is it that when you are expected to take responsibility for your sexual behavior you are being shackled and treated like a third-class citizen, yet when you turn to surrogacy for a source of income (and are still underpaid), you are simply being selfless?
Which isn’t to say that I don’t have some degree of understanding for women who turn to surrogacy. The people I’m not sympathetic toward are the couples collecting on the desperation of these women. Couples who all too often spent years practicing contraception and some of whom are post-abortive. And the feminists who exault them for ‘taking control of their fertility’.
Why would a downturn in the economy cause unwanted pregnancies?
My husband and I laugh at the warnings when we get antibiotics. Something like, “This may cause your birth control to be less effective, which could result in pregnancy.” There’s a step missing, people. Pregnancy is not caused by the absence of birth control.
Pregnancy is caused by (spoiler alert!) sex.
Contraceptives make conception less likely, but it is not their absence that causes the pregnancy. I was a virgin for 20 years without using birth control, and never once during that time did I get pregnant.
So first we need to figure out how wantedness works. How plannedness works. How couples (and singles) see and use sex.
So I suppose you are right that this study doesn’t show that contraception causes abortion. But it certainly doesn’t show contraception stopping abortion. It would seem that contraception and abortion rising together at least refute the myth that widespread contraception can end or significantly reduce abortion.
Obviously, those women contracepting are having sex. But it is unknown whether the increase in contraceptive use is among those who used to be having sex without contraceptives or those who used to be not having sex, or a combination.
I’m not seeing aborting an unplanned pregnancy being more likely in a poor economy. I don’t think it works that way.
If a woman conceives unexpectedly, she either wants a child or does not; she either respects the baby’s life or does not. I don’t see how the economy enters into it.
What probably is true is that there are less planned pregnancies in a depressed economy. Some people will choose to postpone in hard times–not all, because a bad economy doesn’t affect a biological clock, times are not bad for everyone, and some people just don’t care. So it is possible that if there were less planned pregnancies, a greater percentage were unplanned. It could be that if more women were not planning pregnancies, yet the same amount were having sex, the amount of unplanned pregnancies total would increase. But that would not lead to an increase in abortion unless those couples not planning a pregnancy for economic reasons would also abort for economic reasons, and I don’t think I buy that.
It is so not true that there was no premarital or teen sex in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The teen birth rate PEAKED in the 1950’s – 60’s and was DOUBLE what it is today - google it. The difference was these young women/couples were majority white and already or quickly became married parents. And economic success without or with just a high school diploma was easier than today. So the future and picture of teen parents was quite different than the stereotype (and realities) of today.
In 1910 61% of men had had sex before marriage – so much for the ‘most were virgins back then’ theory.
So if they had sex, then got married, at 16, they couldn’t still be having premarital sex at 17, at 18 with a different guy, at 19 with a third guy, et cetera.
Kylie,
Might I ask what resource you’ve googled that gave you this number?
Every credible source I’ve heard from in the past 20 years has commented that, in spite of legal abortion and contraceptives being available, the number of unwed mothers has steadily risen since the 60’s. Sorry, to be more precise, I keep hearing that the number of illegitimate children–those whose mothers and fathers aren’t married–has gone from (insert number here) to 33%, to 40%, all within the period of 40 years or so.
So if we have ever increasing percentages of illegitimate kids, ie. unwed moms and dads, there’s been a correlative increase in the overall numbers of unwed sexual activities. I don’t know what the numbers are for teens in particular, but I don’t think we’re focusing solely on teens here, are we?
ycw,
I disagree. I think that when more people are feeling more financial pressure, there is more desperation on which to play and therefore I could certainly see the abortion industry experiencing higher profits during that time.
What I cannot accept is the argument that this provides for the entire disparity in the 10 years of the study cited. Additionally, I agree with the point that has been made repeatedly that regardless of whether or not contraception has caused the rise in abortion, it can certainly not be said to have caused a decrease in the number of abortions, as is so frequently & foolishly argued by pro-aborts.
I think you’re rather too dismissive of the chance that contraceptive availability has aided the increase in the number of abortions.
John, I certainly agree that the availability of contraception means that some pregnancies result as people have it fail and/or use it incorrectly. So there is a “plus” there. I also think that were there no contraception, the number of unwanted pregnancies added would be a much higher number. IMO, the absence of that fact is a bigger “minus.”
And yeah, were there no contraception, there would be less episodes of sex, but would there be enough less to counteract the increase in unwanted pregnancies due to no contraception. I don’t think so.
(YWC): Why would a downturn in the economy cause unwanted pregnancies?
Because then people are less willing to take on the additional cost of having kids or more kids.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/21/health/main7172465.shtml
The teen birth rate has fallen pretty sharply, and the economy is said to be at least partly responsible.
During the Depression of the 1930’s there was a decline in the birth rate – which I think was the only one in the 1900’s.
What I cannot accept is the argument that this provides for the entire disparity in the 10 years of the study cited. Additionally, I agree with the point that has been made repeatedly that regardless of whether or not contraception has caused the rise in abortion, it can certainly not be said to have caused a decrease in the number of abortions
MaryRose, Spain is the “S” in the “PIGS” – Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, which have been underperforming, economically, in the European Community for a long time. Don’t know about Greece or Portugal, but I think the birth rate in Italy has dropped off a good bit, too.
As for contraception making for decreased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, do you really think those numbers would not go up, if there was no contraception?
Doug,
I believe, actually, that contraception has increased the number of unwanted pregnancies. I have heard all too many times the argument, “We don’t really know how it happened. We were [on the pill/using condoms/otherwise contracepting].” I believe that trying to separate sex from babies does exactly what contraception is supposedly preventing. If only because it sends the widespread message that babies are a burden to be avoided rather than a blessing to be accepted (even when it’s unexpected).
As for the comment about Spain’s economy, my point was that regardless of the economic failure, I don’t see abortion rising to that extent strictly due to financial concerns of expecting parents.
Doug,
I agree with you that having contraceptives available likely DOES keep the number of unwanted pregnancies in check..So long as you admit to the remainder of the status quo.
Given that, for 40 years, we’ve been telling kids and everyone else that sex is fun and has no consequences, of course unwanted pregnancies will skyrocket if contraceptives are abandoned.
That’s why I suggested that “comprehensive sex education” needs to be genuinely comprehensive. The overall problem remains the same: Society has been suckered into a culture of death in which chastity and abstinence–dare I say “self control”?–have been all but abandoned.
If you leave abstinence and chastity as mere side notes, to be mentioned per law, but not offered as a life challenge, of course people, kids especially, won’t pay any attention.
If we truly want to see the number of unwanted pregnancies drop, we’re going to have to tell kids and everyone else the WHOLE story, not merely the part that the “sexual identity” crowd likes the most.
So you know, I don’t believe we’ve ever truthfully done that in this nation. Much of the sex revolution came about in no small part because the Victorian society of the late 1800’s didn’t understand human sexuality–both it’s virtue and vice–all that much better than did the ’60’s “revolutionaries”.
John,
I can’t speak for sex ed in the US, but the program I received in Canada NEVER said that ‘safe’ sex was 100% safe. Aside from learning how to properly use a condom, we were also given a list of failure rates for various types of contraception (perfect and typical use), and abstinence as the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy and STDs was stressed multiple times.
It was also stressed that it was okay to say ‘no’, that you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t feel ready for it, and that people who respect you don’t pressure you into doing things you don’t want to do. There was also a bit about the meaning of consent, and when people cannot legally consent to sex (aka it’s not okay to take advantage of drunk people). Personally, I found it empowering, since it was never ‘this is your best option’ but ‘here’s your choices, here’s what you should know about them’.
That sound comprehensive enough?
“And come on, Bobby, my old friend – yes, going from 5.5 to 11.5 out of 1000 is indeed a doubling, even a little more than that, but it’s still only talking about 6 women in 1000, and economic effects, etc. can and do make more difference than that.”
.
Wow, someone is not familiar with looking at population statistics. “only talking about 6 women in 1000” That is a pretty high number. According to the CIA world factbook the birthrate in Spain is 10.91/1000 population or roughly 5.5 births per thousand women annually. Qualifiers matter. Numbers per thousand can’t be considered “low” out of context. 6 in 1000 catching colds per year is low. 6 in 1000 having abortions (while the country is aging on average) is very high.
“Given that, for 40 years, we’ve been telling kids and everyone else that sex is fun and has no consequences, of course unwanted pregnancies will skyrocket if contraceptives are abandoned.”
.
The problem is that this is a baseless assertion. In every society in the world sex was pretty confined to within marriage until quite recently. Assuming humans and society evolve, they don’t do it that fast. The notion that people on average will not protect themselves from negative consequences is not supported by any evidence. Sure there are outliers, but on average when there is no artificial contraception, women especially abstain either by choice or because their families prohibit sexual access to unmarried female family members. Don’t we all know this?
Hey Doug. Nice to see you again.
“And come on, Bobby, my old friend – yes, going from 5.5 to 11.5 out of 1000 is indeed a doubling, even a little more than that, but it’s still only talking about 6 women in 1000, and economic effects, etc. can and do make more difference than that.”
I just saw this, but I don’t know what it is in response to…?
Abstinence anyone?
Judging by the discussion here, a bunch of us pro-lifers need to do a good deal more catechizing and praying. Let’s keep in touch with these things via blogs like Ms. Stanek’s and others’, of course, but I don’t see the other side giving an inch anytime soon.
Jayn, your sex ed sounds very alike to that in America. Regrettably, I don’t have time–or space–to explain what “comprehensive” would really encompass, but I assure you, schools give kids a pretty raw deal in that department.
hippie, I’m thinking you dramatically underestimate sexual desire. It’s a common thing.
Take care everyone.
“hippie, I’m thinking you dramatically underestimate sexual desire.”
Not.
Look at the data. How exactly did those women in the past so successfully avoid pregnancy, huh? I am guessing abstinence till marriage after which they had plenty of kids. All the data support it as does the commentary from the past.
*claps for hippie*
Seriously, I absolutely love your posts :-D
It’s not the contraception that is to blame it’s the risky and vicarious environment that most people choose to place themselves in
January 5, 2011 at 11:03 am
(Bobby): I just saw this, but I don’t know what it is in response to…?
Bobby, sorry about that – I had this thread confused with another one, I think…. You posted about probability somewhere, and I was dog-tired when I posted to you, above.
Given that, for 40 years, we’ve been telling kids and everyone else that sex is fun and has no consequences, of course unwanted pregnancies will skyrocket if contraceptives are abandoned.
That’s why I suggested that “comprehensive sex education” needs to be genuinely comprehensive. The overall problem remains the same: Society has been suckered into a culture of death in which chastity and abstinence–dare I say “self control”?–have been all but abandoned.
John, I was in High School (Ohio, public school) from 1973 to 1977, and we really did not hear that – the “sex is fun and has no consequences.” We had one semester of “Health Class” and they got into sex a little bit, but it was fairly neutral about stuff, pretty rational though not all that in-depth as I remember.
Our teacher was also the football coach, and he told us straight out that the only way to be 100% safe from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases was not to have sex at all.
Doug,
I didn’t mean that the schools used those precise words; I meant that this reflects the overall depth of the discussion related to contraceptives, sexuality, and abortion. I attended a Catholic high school from 89-93 and heard essentially the same as you, from essentially the same source. I think we got about the same result.
Nobody really listened.
If we wish to see sex education become genuinely comprehensive and effective, we’ll need to insist upon material that delves much more deeply into the spiritual, emotional, and moral arenas. We’ll need to admit that boys and girls are quite different, spiritually, emotionally, etc. We’ll need to acknowledge the role that religious faith plays.
..Which is why we likely won’t see sex education become useful very soon, I think. Too many political, economic, and social “interests” have a vested agenda in making certain we don’t concern ourselves in these ways.
(Doug): “yes, going from 5.5 to 11.5 out of 1000 is indeed a doubling, even a little more than that, but it’s still only talking about 6 women in 1000, and economic effects, etc. can and do make more difference than that.”
.
(Hippie): Wow, someone is not familiar with looking at population statistics. “only talking about 6 women in 1000? That is a pretty high number. According to the CIA world factbook the birthrate in Spain is 10.91/1000 population or roughly 5.5 births per thousand women annually. Qualifiers matter. Numbers per thousand can’t be considered “low” out of context. 6 in 1000 catching colds per year is low. 6 in 1000 having abortions (while the country is aging on average) is very high.
Grrr…. Hi Hippie. : )
For Pete’s sake – I understand about the context and that we’re looking at 1000 woman “parcels” here.
Here’s what I thought – remembering some statistics for women in the US, roughly half of unplanned pregnancies were ended via abortion. I realize that Spain will differ from US statistics, but I doubt it’s enough to negate my point – it’s a western European country where society is not all that different.
The economy being bad can be a powerful influence. For US women, “inadequate finances” was given as one of two top reasons for having an abortion, tied with not being ready for the responsibility. 21% of women said that.
Spain is heavily Catholic – in checking I see that 70% of them call themselves Catholic (although 63% say they never go to any religious service). Given that, I expected Spain’s abortion rate to be lower than the US’s, and indeed it is. Last figure I remember for the US is that in 2002, 21 of every 1000 women aged 15 to 44 had an abortion. I don’t think the US rate has changed all that much since then.
So for Spain to have a rate of 11.5 is entirely in line with all the above – well less than the US rate but understandable due to the Catholic influence. What is really low is the “old” figure of 5.5 per 1000. Given the economic pain that’s been going on, for Spain to have a rate that’s still only 55% of the US rate is not that high at all.
If the original rate had been 1 in 1000, we could be saying 1050% increase, and some of us would probably be putting in many exclamation points afterward…. If it had been the same as in the US, then only a 29% rise. And in all cases here, we are still only talking about 6 in 1000 women, and the economy alone can easily make that difference.
If we go with the US rate of 21 per 1000, and if it’s 21% of women who are having abortions due to bad finances, that would be around 4.4 women per 1000. Okay, so if 6 additional women in Spain are doing it due to a bad economy, that didn’t seem all that far out of line to me.
The current birth rate in the US has been changing a good bit, due at least in part to the “bad economy,” for most age groups. I’m pretty gloomy on the US economy, and expect the trends to continue.
In what other matter do we tell our children to have self control, don’t do it or to wait BUT if you can’t use protection??
I don’t tell my kids not to drink but if they just can’t stop themselves there is a six pack on the counter. Don’t smoke but if you have no self control I bought a carton of smokes. Light up!
Sorry Doug. I will not entrust my children’s very lives to a piece of latex.
I do so wish in high school I had learned fetal development in detail and also seen a video of an abortion. Graphic images of torn babies would have been enough for me.
I don’t tell my kids not to drink but if they just can’t stop themselves there is a six pack on the counter. Don’t smoke but if you have no self control I bought a carton of smokes. Light up!
Carla, I think most of us would tell their kids not to drink, but still would prefer they call us for a ride home if they got drunk at a friend’s house.
You’re certainly free to tell your kids not to have sex. And whether you do or you don’t, there is still a chance that they will, and in that case it’s better to use the condom than not.
Doug, Doug, Doug,
Our conversations about sex are a tad more involved than that. My eldest has known that sex is best saved for marriage. It is better for him and his spouse if they save themselves for each other. He picked out a purity ring for his birthday last year and is proud to be the only one in middle school that wears one. Even though everyday during school he heard, “Who is the lucky boy?”
He knows that our love encompasses the truth and that we have his best interests at heart. He trusts us.
My husband and I both had sex very young and well you know how that worked out for me.
God and my husband and I desire so much better for our children.
PS And yes every child in this household has seen the graphic photos of what abortion does to a growing child, we have scads of books on puberty, birth control and hormones and no question asked by them is left unanswered.
And you basically reiterated what I just said.
“It is best to wait but if you can’t, use a condom.”
Hardly saves my children from a potential case of HPV or a broken heart, Doug.
Doug,
Seems to me that you’re making at least two assumptions:
1. They’re ultimately going to have sex anyway, so why not protect them?
2. Lots of parents won’t tell their kids about sex, so we need to do so in school.
Why?
I have long wondered why anyone thought these assumptions had to be made. Do kids have parents with legal authority? Or not?
Perhaps we should change our idea of sex education? Rather than the school presenting material to the kids directly..have the schools contact the PARENTS, gather them as a group or a few groups, then offer them help with talking with their kids about the birds and the bees, but reminding the parents that this is, indeed, the PARENTS job, NOT the schools?
I can hear the clamor now: But what about those kids whose parents won’t do that? These kids are going to get hurt!
My answer: What makes you think they aren’t already?
Schools can’t be parents. The more we try to force them to fill a parenting role, the more we’ll continue to have trouble.
John, Love the idea of schools educating the parents in this subject! Unfortunately, a lot of people just won’t show for that kind of thing, but at least it can help.
And I totally agree with you re: kids already being hurt by schools’ sex ed programs. Quite frankly, though, I’m of the mindset that if my kids are going to have extramarital relations, condoms aren’t going to be a boon.
The idea that folks can’t abstain is silly.
.
Anyone know a priest or a student at Harvard or MIT?
.
Student surveys reveal that a very significant fraction of bright college students haven’t had sex.
.
“By the age of 19, 80% of US males and 75% of women have lost their virginity, and 87% of college students have had sex. … only 56% of Princeton undergraduates have had intercourse. At Harvard 59% of the undergraduates are non-virgins, and at MIT, only a slight majority, 51%, have had intercourse. Further, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex.
.
“The student surveys at MIT and Wellesley also compared virginity by academic major. The chart for Wellesley displayed below shows that 0% of studio art majors were virgins, but 72% of biology majors were virgins, and 83% of biochem and math majors were virgins! Similarly, at MIT 20% of ‘humanities’ majors were virgins, but 73% of biology majors.”
.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
I’ll have you know I was a virgin as a humanities major…
The scare quotes are a bit much.
1. They’re ultimately going to have sex anyway, so why not protect them?
2. Lots of parents won’t tell their kids about sex, so we need to do so in school.
Why?
I have long wondered why anyone thought these assumptions had to be made. Do kids have parents with legal authority? Or not?
John, on an individual basis, not all kids will have sex, obviously. Yet for kids as a whole, many certainly will. It’s better to have contraception, condoms, etc., than not to. For better or worse, we’re in the here and now, and there is no “turning back the clock,” etc.
I have to laugh about your apt comments about schools and parents. My wife teaches High School, and yes – schools cannot make up for lack of parental involvement. There are many times when my wife will relate a situation, and I feel like beating the parent or parents with a baseball bat for stupidity, laziness, lack of caring, etc.
Yet sometimes the school (or possibly some other group) will be sort of a parent by default. My wife’s kids are very, very heavily disadvantaged, terrible home life – parents are in jail, parents are dead, brother’s on drugs and pulled a knife at dinner last night…. All real examples, there.
Or it’s that Dad is gone and Mom works two jobs trying to make ends meet, and there is very little time left for the kids.
At Harvard 59% of the undergraduates are non-virgins, and at MIT, only a slight majority, 51%, have had intercourse. Further, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex.
Hippie, there are reasons for that.
The ones going to Harvard will become lawyers or politicians, so they are already practicing their lying.
The ones going to MIT are geeks and nerds, and even try as they might, they just ain’t gettin’ any.
: P
“Carla, I think most of us would tell their kids not to drink, but still would prefer they call us for a ride home if they got drunk at a friend’s house.”
W-W-W-What?!! I thought all the pro-aborts hated parental consent. Can’t you just call a judge and get a ride home from him so as not to disappoint mom and dad? lol!
“The ones going to MIT are geeks and nerds, and even try as they might, they just ain’t gettin’ any.”
.
So not true. They are some fine specimens. They just have high standards and self respect and respect for others. Such qualities used to be admired not derided. We live in an age so depraved that decency draws sneers and jeers. Disgusting.
MIT Baseball team photo. Yum.
http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-basebl/TeamPhotos/TeamPhotos
So not true. They are some fine specimens. They just have high standards and self respect and respect for others. Such qualities used to be admired not derided. We live in an age so depraved that decency draws sneers and jeers. Disgusting.
WOOO!!! TELL IT, HIPPY!!!!
MIT Men’s Swim Team
Yummy Yummy
http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N6/graphics/speedo_run.html
MIT Men’s Swim Team
Yummy Yummy
:D Well, Hippie, not a bad-looking bunch, there, to be sure. I do think there are a couple nerds in there, nevertheless, but as a group those guys are probably in the 51% that are getting some.
“but as a group those guys are probably in the 51% that are getting some.”
.
What is your point?
.
All attractive people are of low character?
.
All smart folks are ugly or undesirable?
.
Bizarro.
.
Do you think the same of women? If she is cute, she is easy?
.
Do you believe that?
.
Where do you get these ideas? From your mother? father? TV? Where?
Oh please. It was good-natured joking on my part.
My brother-in-law is an MIT graduate, and they’re good at joking about themselves.
Doug,
If I may say so, your comments provide outstanding reasons for why, if I should marry, I intend to do my utmost to ensure that we either home-school or find a good, orthodox, Catholic school somewhere. In all seriousness, we may need to consider moving to make that happen.
I had thought some 15 years ago that surely the American populace would ultimately rebel against arrogant, militant secularism and all the intellectual baloney that comes with it. For what it’s worth, it’s always possible that it might still happen. I’ll be very interested in seeing what comes about from the newly sworn Congress. Will the Republican Party, with strong Tea Party influence, do something worthwhile for a change? Or will they merely become yet another Congress to bicker endlessly over taxes and economics, but leave social issues for the other side to dominate?
I do hope it’ll be the former….
Two comments on those notes, John.1) These sorts of issues are EXACTLY the reason why my husband and I are seriously considering what I once thought insanity-homeschooling! Very seriously considering it, actually.2) Did you see Boehner’s opening remarks to Congress recently? Absolutely moving, wonderful speech. I hope he doesn’t drink the political water too much, because he seems incredibly promising!
‘Morning, MaryRose,
Beings I work in the evenings ’til late and sleep during the day, I haven’t caught much of any goings-on live. However, I’ve read several articles and heard some news about what has gone on. I discovered there’s a daily news brief at RealCatholic TV too, so I heard about Speaker Boehner’s comments.
This might sound slightly pessimistic, but I’m waiting to see what they actually DO, really. I had thought back in ’96 that we stood a chance of seeing something happen, but that..fell apart. I DO hope that Speaker Boehner and the Tea Partiers can marshall themselves to get things done though.
I had thought some 15 years ago that surely the American populace would ultimately rebel against arrogant, militant secularism and all the intellectual baloney that comes with it. For what it’s worth, it’s always possible that it might still happen. I’ll be very interested in seeing what comes about from the newly sworn Congress. Will the Republican Party, with strong Tea Party influence, do something worthwhile for a change? Or will they merely become yet another Congress to bicker endlessly over taxes and economics, but leave social issues for the other side to dominate?
John, I’m not religious, per se, and strongly think that keeping church and state well-separated is a good thing. I do hear you about choosing a school for your kids (if and when you have them) though – it’s a big deal. At times my wife thinks of changing schools just so the strife will be less.
I’m 51 years old, and we don’t have any kids. 21 nieces and nephews though, and with some exposure to all my wife’s “kids” at school we’re still in touch with what it’s like growing up now. When I was in High School, nobody even had calculators, so times have certainly changed. Honestly, times were simpler, then. Not “better in every way,” but if anything I’d say that many kids and adults alike now suffer from various types of “overload.”
It will be interesting to see where the Tea Party goes. I doubt that much will change, for now. In the longer term, I see the US in decline, and whereas since World War II we’ve become used to things getting “better and better,” we are now faced with not only a “reversion to the mean,” but some really tough times as the federal debts come due. We’ve borrowed heavily into the future, and I see no way around the average American’s standard of living going down.
If anything I expect things to get bad enough that the two-party system will lose influence, and we may have a “strongman” step forward. I doubt he would promise to keep everybody happy, but he’ll definitely say that changes will be made. Might be better, might be much, much worse.
Good Afternoon, Doug,
I’ve heard statements along these lines many times. Suffice to say, I don’t agree, not even remotely. I think people have been persuaded that, so long as we aren’t conducting obvious religious ceremonies, we aren’t praying in any formally recognized manner, and we aren’t enacting law by quoting one sacred book or another, that Church and State have been separated.
Whatever the Supreme Court may declare, I’ve long felt this to be a serious error. Values, religious or not, address the very core of who we are as individuals, and as a society. Whether we like it or not, the health or illness of society at large will be profoundly influenced by what we acknowledge in public. ..And what we don’t.
I think it possible that the nation could decline, yes. I also think that we could pull ourselves back together again and actually follow the Constitution to the core. Don’t forget, this nation came about originally because about 33% of the people here became fed up with England and took action, ultimately forcing the British government to mind it’s own business. A bloody path, yes, but bloodshed isn’t always guaranteed. I tend to think this nation capable of enacting fundamental change without shedding blood. Granted, it’s not as likely when much of the citizenry are moderately to mostly indifferent.
This does not mean impossible.
If people would be serious about discerning what they truly believe, based on faith or other values, then would be bothered to engage in rigorous, but civil debate and genuinely honor the whole idea of mutual respect (again, not quite likely, but still not impossible, even now), there’s a chance that moral values could be allowed to take hold again. Without violence.
Here’s praying and hoping.
John, I’d say that economic times are going to be, by far, the biggest driver of the changes that are coming.
You’re right about the people wanting out from under King George’s influence. Yet people came to the “new world” in order to get religious freedom, or to get out from under the influence of religion. Lots of people were mad at the Anglican Church, or wanted to “purify” it – we call them the Puritans. (They were mighty intolerant of others, but you’ll have that, sometimes.)
Good Morning, Doug,
To be more precise, SOME of the original settlers, those we call the Pilgrims, WERE interested in escaping from the influence of the ANGLICAN Church. Don’t forget though, at least one of the colonies was founded by a Catholic to explicitly acknowledge Catholic faith. That happened well before the Revolution too.
When the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, and amended it, they intended for churches to be protected from assault and control by the federal government. They weren’t intended to be told to keep their mouths shut while the secular elites ran everything.
I don’t think any one of us can say for sure what Congress will do next. I think it’s encouraging, though, that they’re looking at repealing Obama’s healthcare monster. The sooner the better. Then perhaps we can find some real solutions…..
When I was in graduate school in 1984 or 1984 I did a little statistical study about the impact of birth control programs. After controlling for inflation which was high during the time period I studied between 1975 and 1982 the amount of federal and state government money spent on birth control programs in New York State more than doubled in real dollars. However, dureing the same time period the teen pregnancy rate increased, the out of wedlock pregnancy rate increased, the abortion rate increased and the pregnancy rate for women over 40 increased (in those days it was safe to assume that if a woman got pregnant over the age of 40 it was an unplanned pregnancy). This was during a time when the cultural climate, at least in the media was becoming more conservative. i agree that at least in this country the problem is not the lack of availability of birth control but the false sense of security it provides and the lack of motivation to use it consistently and properly.
Our pro every life group has posted a response to this blog post & the study it discusses in our own blog.