Hardcore opponents of contraception just love incendiary language. They repeatedly equate artificial family planning methods with killing babies or the extermination of millions of unborn children, toying around with the conscience of contraceptive users. Babies are cute and cuddly. Who would support treating them like vermin? Well, current medical evidence say that not practicing proper birth spacing leads to more infant deaths. So in the spirit of tit for tat, tell this to the moral crusaders: your obstruction of contraceptive choices kills real babies.
Thirty seven international experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed several studies in 2005 and, in the usual objective and non-fiery style of scientists, made the following recommendation:
Individuals and couples should consider health risks and benefits along with other circumstances such as their age, fecundity, fertility aspirations, access to health services, child-rearing support, social and economic circumstances, and personal preferences in making choices for the timing of the next pregnancy. … After a live birth, the recommended interval before attempting the next pregnancy is at least 24 months in order to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal and infant outcomes.
What are the adverse outcomes associated with birth spacing of less than two years? Infants 0–12 months old face increased risk of death. If women and couples are assisted in having the most effective method of contraception that suits them—a core content of reproductive health bills in Congress—infant deaths will be reduced. Simply put: family planning saves babies.
One of the Millennium Development Goal targets is to lower the Philippines’ infant mortality rate (IMR) to 19 deaths per one thousand live births by 2015. The National Demographic and Health Survey of 2008 showed that those with previous birth intervals of three years have already met this target with a measured IMR of 18, while those with intervals of less than two years have almost twice the death rate at 35.
Poor access to contraception kills infants. And these are deaths among real babies with bodies you can caress and faces you can touch, not the conjectured unimplanted fertilized eggs that anti-contraception advocates scream about. The WHO has firmly stated in 2006 that hormonal contraceptives and IUDs “cannot be labelled as abortifacients,” that doing so “contradict both WHO’s evidence-based international standards on the mechanisms of action and the drug and device labelling in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.”
Around 52,000 babies were estimated to have died in the Philippines in 2008. If Humanae Vitae was made into law, and if the Catholic Church fails to shift millions of couples to its approved natural family planning methods, how many more babies would die? I think anti-contraception advocates should appraise the evidence and do the math. Then perhaps they would reexamine their conscience and their moral compass, and at the very least drop the incendiary language.
[…] the use of all types of contraceptives because they say that they are abortifacient, even if in 2006, the World Health Organization itself already said otherwise. So to whom are we going to listen to? To men wearing white robes and silly hats or to medical […]
[…] say that they are abortifacient, even if in 2006, the World Health Organization itself already said otherwise. So to whom are we going to listen to? To men wearing white robes and silly hats or to medical […]
[…] Killing Babies […]
[…] Killing Babies […]
[…] Killing Babies […]
[IMHO, the RH Bill isn't pro-women enough as contraceptives seem to be the recommended palliative to the machismo culture women are subject to. The result isn't defending their rights but simply preventing unwanted pregnancies — two very different issues.]
Well I disagree. The way I see it, educating women on their options empowers them to have children on THEIR terms. If there's anybody here being Machismo, it's the RCC for their insistence on forcing women to endure a pregnancy regardless of their situation.
[For the record, even if the Pope says it's OK to use condoms, I maintain my concurrence with the current studies on why condoms fail, which is mainly socio-cultural. http://www.tempi.it/007320-liberal-academic-edwar…. ]
If you're referring to Edward Green, he's already stated that he doesn't agree with the Pope on all counts, and that he still recommends condoms as part of an AIDs prevention programs, as they will work in certain situations. :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert…
I personally don't have any problems with the abstinence part of the ABCs of AIDs prevention – my point of contention is when people simply want to eliminate the C part because of their so-called "morality"
[Can anyone lead me to an empirical study of comparative results of natural vs. artificial methods? All I get so far are opinions & anecdotes. ]
I have a couple of links in my previous article:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2009/10/17/on-the…
IMHO, the RH Bill isn't pro-women enough as contraceptives seem to be the recommended palliative to the machismo culture women are subject to. The result isn't defending their rights but simply preventing unwanted pregnancies — two very different issues. For the record, even if the Pope says it's OK to use condoms, I maintain my concurrence with the current studies on why condoms fail, which is mainly socio-cultural. http://www.tempi.it/007320-liberal-academic-edwar…
Can anyone lead me to an empirical study of comparative results of natural vs. artificial methods? All I get so far are opinions & anecdotes.
From a Cochrane systematic review:
"The comparative efficacy of fertility awareness-based methods of contraception remains unknown. Despite intensive training and ongoing support, most participants in these trials discontinued prematurely. Contraceptive methods should be properly evaluated, preferably in randomized controlled trials, before adoption and dissemination."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysre…
[RH Bill isn't pro-women enough… The result isn't defending their rights but simply preventing unwanted pregnancies]
The RH bill contains polices, programs and funding for, among others, midwives for skilled attendance, emergency obstetric care, maternal death review, family planning, benefits for serious and life-threatening RH conditions, RH and sexuality education. You have suggestions on more programs to add?
Spot on as usual K1 🙂
If I may just add my two cents:
[I think anti-contraception advocates should appraise the evidence and do the math. Then perhaps they would reexamine their conscience and their moral compass, and at the very least drop the incendiary language.]
Kenneth, hardcore Anti-Choice advocates DO have have access to the research.
The problem is that they will – and have consistently done so – twist its data to make it look likes it serves their cause while ignoring the other details of the research that are contrary to their mindset.
They have examined the evidence, and they have done the math quite frankly, but the difference is that they fucking lie, and that's why I treat most of them with venomous contempt bordering on rage.
And speaking of data, I've already covered how ineffective and abstinence-only program will be, and the rising amount of opposition from the scientific community regarding its validity as a family planning program:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2009/10/17/on-the…
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2007/04…
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/1/gpr120106…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27teen.html?…
[they fucking lie]
Yes they do. I have no problem adding that to the moral failings they should reexamine. 🙂 Slim chance but, moderates on their side should perhaps convince their advocates to stop using incendiary language. Loonies with guns have used such language to morally justify murdering doctors providing abortion and contraception in the US.
Also Twin-skies, very much appreciate the comments but just as a note, Arm wrote this piece and not me 🙂
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tania Arpa. Tania Arpa said: RT @ffreethinkers: NewPost: Killing Babies http://j.mp/g1P3cO rhbill […]