Catholic Wolf in Secular Sheep’s Clothing

Heh.. regarding those risks, no, my wife is not willing to accept the risks. She's a very practical woman.

Well the RH Bill could go further if it is meant to be truly informative. Why not include legislation to make warnings about the carcinogenic effects of OCs more explicit, like you'd have with cigarette packs stating "smoking causes cancer"? Or legislation to make sure that health workers are clear about those risks before prescribing OCs? What about the detrimental effects of OCs on the implantation of the embryo? Or the known failure rates of condoms particular for first-time users? Will that information be widely made available?

On the other side of the coin, just how balanced with the sex education be? You're saying that the beauty of the bill is that it will be informative, leaving it up to couples to make decisions. I wonder in what light modern NFP methods will be portrayed in the literature? Because in western countries, as in the pro-RH comments in these forums, the comments belie a presupposition of contempt for those methods. This is in spite of the fact that the modern methods are comparable in effectiveness to the artificial ones.

About sports, I can't bring myself to compare muscle sprains, even broken bones, to cancer, because the latter can be fatal, and very expensive and painful to treat. Likewise STDs, some of which cause infertility, and some are, again, potentially fatal.

Now about insults and putdowns.. 😛

<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-130842488" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(130842488)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" onclick="IDC.ui.fb_wrapper(130842488)" href="javascript: void(null)" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(130842488)">Close Message Whoa there, please don't compare OCPs to cigarettes. I don't think you can compare the two in any way.

I've already listed the benefits of OCP's. I don't think I need to write them down again. Just because you think they are not worth it, does not mean everybody else does too. Besides, the risk is very small, especially compared to the benefits they offer.

NFP is part of sex education. The problem is, NFP requires strict compliance, and even then, it sometimes fails. Considering the fact that most people frequently fail follow doctor's orders on things like "don't smoke, eat less, exercise more, finish this schedule of medicine, etc", what more something as powerful an urge as sex? Remember, NFP is what we've been preaching for the past few decades. Look where it got us.

About sports: Sports causing injuries is VERY common, compared to OCPs causing cancer, which is quite rare.

Odd.. your post is full of html code..

Anyway, no cigarettes are certainly more dangerous, but whether it is cancer of the lungs or cancer of the breast, it will still kill you. Perhaps the chances are smaller, but I think the data is still coming in. What is already there is already scary when you put them all together: risk of breast cancer AND uterus AND risk of thrombosis AND heart attacks AND long-term infertility. Now I will admit that I do ignore certain risks myself. No one can keep me away from lechon, lechon kawali, roast chicken, deep fried bangus belly.. Yes, they can kill me too, but.. having seen someone slowly die of cancer.. I can probably stomach the pills they prescribe to control cholesterol, then go on a diet from that moment on. But chemotherapy.. then experiencing the spread of the cancer all over your body.. Perhaps one can say that the risk is small, but the stake is very high. I've been injured before, but I can bounce back in weeks or months.

Funny you should mention the strict compliance required in NFP. Most people don't realize that this is also required with artificial methods, except for sterilization of course. Condoms can fail up to 20% for people who can't even follow the simple instructions of using them, and there are a lot of them because they are teens.

Also about NFP. I have to say that the Church has actually NOT been preaching NFP enough. Filipinos have this vague idea about calendars and rhythms, but that's not modern NFP. Sympto-Thermal and Creighton models have been around for years; the Billings Ovulation Method has been around since the 70s. Yeah, it's harder to use than the pill, but all it takes is education. Of course education is not cheap, but that's exactly where this has to focus on.

Of course, these are definitely good things, but I'm not sure if these can be considered worth the risks. Yes, sex is very important in marriage. As I like pointing out, the Catholic view of sex is that it is a renewal of the marital vows, in a way. But are these worth at least some risks, e.g., exposing the wife to increased risk of cancer.

To point it out again (and again), modern NFP methods are viable alternatives. NFP does not mean abstinence most of the time. In fact for most couples, NFP would only mean periodic abstinence of a few days each cycle, whereas almost three weeks are available for normal sexual relations. And it has the benefit of being chemical-free, expense free, and the husband is just as involved in the responsibility of following the plan. I am truly annoyed with the idea of a husband who would demand sex whenever he feels like it regardless of what the wife feels about it, simply because they are contracepting. I'm not saying that you are like this, and certainly it can happen even when the couple uses NFP, but the idea of NFP is that both husband and wife take the responsibility of following her cycles seriously. I am sure it's also annoying if the wife practices such disregard for her husband's moods, but being a man, I am not very able to put myself in that situation. 😛

But seriously, my point is that the deliberation in NFP is also a benefit, because it encourages joint effort and thoughtfulness/consideration.

Again, you are speaking only from personal experience. Any scientists worth his/her salt will tell you that "the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data". Personal experience is not universal. If you can resist the urge, then good for you. But that's not the case for the rest of us.

Yes, NFP methods are viable alternatives. I don't think anybody is denying that. It is a big part of sex education. Once again, you single out the husband being the one to demand sex. Women also want sex, and she is just as liable to break the NFP rule.

//I am truly annoyed with the idea of a husband who would demand sex whenever he feels like it regardless of what the wife feels about it, simply because they are contracepting.//

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are trying to imply that it is only the husband who demands sex. And did you ever consider the logical possibility that women are most horny when they are ovulating? Now if the wife feels hot and wet because she is at the peak of her fertility cycle, should her craving for sex be denied for the sake of sticking to NFP? And in case you're going to say that it's not being denied by only delayed, that is wrong because she won't be having the same craving when she is no longer ovulating, when she is cold and dry, hence you deprive her of sex when she is most open to it and you deny her the sexual release at the time when she is longing for it the most.

I think i mentioned, there or in another post, that yes, wives/women certainly do have sexual appetites as well. But I also said that I can analyze the perspective of a man more because I am a husband.

"I am sure it's also annoying if the wife practices such disregard for her husband's moods, but being a man, I am not very able to put myself in that situation."

And yes, I know about being horny and ovulation. But we're not mindless beasts, and we're not immature. We weight benefits vs risks and we can make sound decisions on that basis. Not always, of course, but that's the ideal for us rational human beings, isn't it, that we can exercise our reason and control our passions when it is necessary to do so. Not everything is simply permitted simply because it is wanted badly. I understand that contraception appears to be the clear solution, so that you can have what you want and not have to worry about consequences, but that's what is commonly wrong in the world today. That notion of instant gratification that hits us in our relationships, work, politics, families, finances, etc.

How many husbands would tell their wives this: "Honey, kung okey lang sa yo, mag-pill ka na lang. Maliit lang naman ang risk ng cancer, di ba? Love naman kita eh." Yikes. Apart from the shudder due to being corny, that just sounds .. wrong. Now, of course, cancer does not apply to condoms. I have not yet seen any credible claim that they are linked myself. The problem with condoms plays out differently, but they are there, and I think I mentioned them previously already.

//…we can exercise our reason and control our passions when it is necessary to do so. Not everything is simply permitted simply because it is wanted badly…The problem with condoms plays out differently, but they are there, and I think I mentioned them previously already.//

Is it necessary to control the passions of two consenting adults – and lawfully married at that – when they can just use a condom to enjoy sex while the wife is horny and ovulating and avoid an unwanted pregnancy? And what exactly is it that does that not permit this sexual gratification between husband and wife? As Fr. Ranhilio Aquino said in one of his articles, "What non-sectarian, philosophically tenable answer can be given the following question — What is there about artificial contraception that makes it morally objectionable? Is it the moral teaching of the Church that couples that can have children ought to have children? If it is, what would the premises of such an argument be? Where are the p’s and the q’s and the logical operators in between them? What I have long been batting for is honest-to-goodness work by our Catholic professors of philosophy and theology to come up with discourse in the public sphere that will be convincing on the unacceptability of artificial contraception, and if we cannot come up with any such argument, then let us humbly admit that our opposition is sectarian in nature and credal in origin."

NFP is live giving kids loaded guns and telling them to NOT SHOOT when there will be a probability of them shooting. Your only recourse in such a scenario is to HOPE AND PRAY that they not shoot.

Hoo-haa

Funny. Garrick Bercero had just been reprimanding me for thinking that human beings are mindless beasts that need leashing (I'm paraphrasing). There seems to be a slight discordance here. We're all for education because we know that this is at the root of the problem, so that at least suggests the possibility of teaching people to learn and behave according to what they have learned. On one hand, you say that NFP is highly unlikely to work because kids will not control themselves. On the other hand, Garrick says that contraceptive promotion will not cause an increase in marital infidelity because people can control themselves.

Which one is it?? 🙂

The interesting thing about artificial birth control is that it won't work as intended either unless people do learn and do behave accordingly. Well we know that, among contraceptives, only the condom has any prayer against STDs from HIV, HPV, etc. Even condoms cannot protect so well against HPV (skin to skin contact). Sex with multiple partners (simultaneous or not) is a known factor in HIV prevalence in some African epidemic situations. See, even if you give them condoms, if they don't curtail their appetites, they'll still be dealing with higher than usual HIV infection risks. Or, to give you another situation, in America where more than 25% of teens have some form of STD. That's plenty scary, no? Even if they do not engage in acts with multiple partners, that is still an abnormally high level of risk.

So, whether you agree with me about NFP or not, we can say together that we NEED our kids to THINK, and to control themselves.

My point was that using children as a deterrent for infidelity is a disgusting proposition that I have heard way too many times from conservatives. If the only reason your spouse isn't cheating on you is because they're afraid of siring a child, your marriage has serious problems. Way to blow out of proportion my comment that people are capable of self-determination. You presented a scenario where people would just go sleep around because they can't impregnate and you twist my words to imply that every single person is capable of restraint. There is a wide range between the two extremes where most people lie.

You did say this: "If condoms and contraceptives are license for sex outside marriage then you think so little of humanity thinking that children must be used as deterrents against infidelity. Whatever happened to staying faithful to one's partner out of love? You view humans as unleashed beasts—always in heat and ready to hump anything on two legs."

Hence, my take is that you were reprimanding me for thinking that humans are mindless beasts that need leashing. My interpretation of that is that human beings are not mindless beasts. Does that mean that every single person is capable of restraint? The normal human being is indeed capable, but there are abnormal cases, e.g., people with some psychological disorder. Is this more palatable to you?

I also said in the recent post: "suggests the possibility of teaching people to learn and behave according to what they have learned." Which was what I was getting at: you can teach people, it's a question of what you teach them, no?

I also said "Garrick says that contraceptive promotion will not cause an increase in marital infidelity because people can control themselves. " If I had misrepresented you, then I apologize. But that was how I interpreted your response to me since you challenged me on the idea that humans are unleashed beasts. I do not think we are, and from my understanding of your own words, neither do you.

Perhaps if you can clarify?

That was mostly it. As animals that evolved a brain retaining more reptilian and instinctive properties, of course we are subject to a great deal of unconscious pressure. And yet, our brains have also allowed for conscious self-determination.

I agree that you can teach people not to fuck around. It's probably a good idea not to go sleep with just anyone. In the end, it's your life, it's their life, it's my life. Just don't burden society and don't be a dick as you enjoy your brief time on earth. Be a Christian to the best of your ability, if that's what you want. Hell, be a Satanist, if that's what you're into. We're all entitled to freedom of religion; that includes freedom from religion.

"It's probably not a good idea to sleep with just anyone." Understatement especially in HIV-epidemic countries! But in that situation, mind you, it's not just your life. Set aside for a moment that we actually care about fellow citizens of this world, just consider what sort of harm can go around from one segment of society that we might leave alone to harm themselves. HIV and other STDs get around. I personally know people who contracted STDs because their spouse slept a few times "with just anyone." Leave that troubled teenager alone with whatever he feeds his mind? Tomorrow he carries a gun to school and starts shooting people.

And I'm not saying that we need a totalitarian government to mandate everything that can and cannot happen inside one's own home. But what we need is education. Not rubber solutions (sorry, couldn't resist).

Funny how someone against contraceptives would mention STIs. We already know that we can't just expect all people to abstain, even though that's obviously the best way to prevent pregnancy and disease. Abstinence works, but so do condoms. The people you know with STIs have a medical problem, but their problems started way before that. They had an unfaithful spouse. The STI only made things worse but it's obvious that their marriages were already in ruins way before that.

Also, are you really going to argue that providing people access to information will make them homicidal psychopaths?

You paradoxically advocate education, which is a significant part of the RH bill and reproductive health initiatives in general. Education isn't indoctrination with sacred texts enforced by a magisterium. Options exist for people and they should know about them and not just what certain sectors of the religious establishment feel comfortable with.

Well, not exactly in ruins. Quite a setback though.

I never said that providing access to information causes homicidal tendencies. I was referring to the live and let die mentality, and that we should actually care about other members of society.

Actually you can find scientific literature on NFP without any mention of religion or theology.
http://www.contracept.org/symptothermal.php

Yeah, I know, it says that it requires long periods of abstinence — nine days or so. Oh the horror. 🙂

But back to the topic, these modern methods are firmly grounded in science/medicine. Proper use can be up to 99% effective. Obviously, improper use of any method is not going to pan out.

I mentioned this in a different reply in a more extensive manner but just so anyone else following the thread will see this, I don't mean to leave others to their business because I don't care about their well-being. I mean to leave them to their business because their having sex is a matter private to them and as long as their sexual activity involves only consenting parties, I don't see how it's anyone else's business. To that extent, I leave people to go about their days however they see fit. I view religion in the same way.

I also said somewhere else that I've studied the physiological basis of certain methods of non-artificial family planning that pertain to timing sexual acts depending on ovulation. I don't fault anyone for choosing those methods, that's their business. I personally don't find NFP appealing and, evolutionarily speaking, a woman is predisposed to intense sexual desire exactly at the time when you should not have sex to prevent pregnancy. I suppose it's a matter of taste that you'd want the lady both satisfied and not pregnant.

While I agree that using children as a deterrent for infidelity is disgusting, the fact is that for many people, if contraceptives were out of the equation, the possibility of siring a child out of wedlock was a deterrent to fooling around. We parents would tell our kids not to fool around before they have gotten steady jobs because they're not ready to be parents. Couples decide the spacing of births and the number of children to have on the basis of the responsibilities they take on for each child that they have.

But you're right, in an ideal scenario, people would not need deterrents for infidelity at all. Love would be enough. They would simply not think about cheating for love of their spouses. But it's not a perfect world, and fear of risks and consequences are a natural part of how we make decisions. Yes, people lie somewhere between the two extremes. Some succumb, others don't. And they form their decisions based on several factors, including the risk of siring out of wedlock.

It's not a perfect world so it's okay to use children as a weapon of fear? Look, you've already conceded that using children is disgusting and at the very least not ideal. Why should we continue promoting this ignorant principle just so we can meddle in other people's private lives?

I think there is a fundamental difference between teaching people to (1) fear the begetting of children and (2) fear the consequences of begetting children when they are not ready. Children themselves are not the weapon of fear but rather the awareness of what it entails to have children and, if one is too young to handle the responsibility, to be rightly worried about the burdens involved.

If you approach this problem by eliminating the risk factor, i.e., removing the possibility of begetting children, then an additional or other question arises: is the means used to remove that risk factor a moral one? You probably don't care about the morality of the means because you don't want to use any standard of morality based on a religion that you do not share. So I'll pose a different question to you: are the consequences of the means used acceptable? To this question, I would suggest these points to consider: (1) what harm does it constitute to the persons involved? (2) what harm does it constitute to the society at large?

I propose that the following can be seen as harmful consequences:

(1) The great majority of oral contraceptives in use are carcinogenic to some degree and most women do not understand the amount of risk involved. Perhaps they were never told. Perhaps they did not understand what they were told. Whatever it is, women are using these things without understanding the risks. To a certain extent also, these risks are still being studied. But pharmaceuticals already know enough to warn women off the OC, particularly the combined estrogen-progestogen, if there is cancer in the family or if the women herself has it already. Now if the risk is only marginally increased for someone who does not have any genetic tendency to develop cancer, how does it affect that woman's children?

(2) I also propose that it can harm marital relationships because it becomes an incentive for the man to be less sensitive for the woman's preferences since the technology is already there. I am not saying that women have no sexual desires; of course they do. But nobody wants sex all the time, and the sexual appetites of men are normally higher.

(3) I propose that this method, mandated and supported by law, is harmful to our youth. Given that they are less inclined to think these consequences through, the contraceptive is a strong disincentive for restraint. We don't give our children wads of cash knowing that they will not be wise in using them. We don't get them started in alcohol or driving below a certain age either, because we know they will more likely abuse both privileges. License to use contraceptives will also be license for them to have sex at very young ages, and we also know that they will be less likely to exercise that privilege wisely. The type of risk behavior that leads to greater HIV prevalence is likely to be what we will see among the youth. The sort of sense of immortality that the youth have, coupled with the behavioral disinhibition that researchers have seen in STD studies, makes for a rather bad mix. But once you embrace an artificial contraceptive strategy, there's little reason for you to talk to the youth about responsibility and restraint. There's also little reason to talk to them about respecting love and committed relationships. The whole point of throwing contraceptives at the problem is the principle that people cannot be expected to take responsibility for their actions so we simply contain the damage. I know I am being idealistic, but I can't help but view that as a very bleak assessment of humanity.

(4) I also propose that it can harm society if the mindset turns this way: do whatever one likes, contain the damage. It's only sex, it's all about passion and fulfillment of desires and satisfaction. There is this disconnect between the sexual act and procreation/being parents.

Garrick, I don't think the the point is so we can meddle in the private lives of other people. I hope that the point is that we want to steer everyone away from harm because we actually care about one another.

Consider also the sex ed components of the RH Bill as it stands: parents will informed about what the curriculum will be, but there doesn't seem to be anything in that bill that gives parents the final say about what their children learn. Wouldn't that be meddling too?

"The DepEd, CHED, DSWD, TESDA, and DOH shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children."

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between using children as weapons and informing people that children may be sired by irresponsible sexual activity. But what you advocated, as it appeared to me, was the former. If you don't want to be faithful to your spouse, 1, you're an asshole and your spouse should leave you ASAP, and 2, don't bring a child into the equation. There are ways to prevent that, first is always abstinence, but if you can't keep your pants on, it is much better that you use contraception. You may not believe in lesser evils but they are very much real.

Is it okay to cheat on your spouse even if you don't sire a child? Compared to cheating on your spouse and siring a child, it is a much better situation—to an excessive degree. Forcing a child to suffer the life of a bastard, that's repulsive. Unlike you, I find nothing intrinsically evil with contraceptives and its direct consequence of preventing the meeting of egg and sperm to make it to an unjustifiable method. Contraception, in this case, prevents the suffering of a child and of its mother, though it does not address the initial problem of unfaithfulness nor does it promote unfaithfulness. Again, if the only thing stopping you from cheating on your spouse is the possibility of having a child, for the sake of your spouse who has to be around a reprehensible person as yourself, you should seriously consider leaving and getting a divorce (another solution proscribed by the Church).

I contest that the great majority of oral contraceptives are carcinogenic especially since there isn't just one kind. The other commenters have addressed this much better than I have. But, since I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to see some independent studies you've read confirming drugs that have been in the market for over 30 years cause cancer. And if you are indeed correct, then proper reproductive health education will reflect this empirical fact.

Thousands of women already suffer in perpetual pregnancy because of abusive spouses. Not only are women being raped within marriage, children have to suffer living in that kind of family. Contraception can be used by women as a defense against such a state, for themselves and for the children who'll have to live with such a father. Also, spouses should leave abusive spouses rather than suffer being a living masturbatory device—a solution that is proscribed by the Church, something I've already mentioned.

If you believe that the only thing preventing kids from having sex is the prospect of pregnancy then you are a bit naive, to say the least. If you believe that the only thing preventing kids from imbibing alcohol is the law, then I say the same thing. There is a problem at the root here within the more instinctive parts of the developing brain that will not be solved by prohibition and using pregnancy as a weapon. The Church should be well aware that prohibition only breeds forbidden fruit mentality, as is readily exemplified by its own clergy. We have to study the motivations of the adolescent mind at the level of the brain. While our scientists work on that, let's save mothers from dying and let's save children from having to live as bastards and the offspring of shotgun weddings. While there are certainly problems with underage sex, they are minuscule through the lens of dead mothers and unwanted children. Yes, we are trying to control damage but the Church and conservatives want the damage to blow up and leave people to suffer because of its repressive views about sex.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with disconnecting sex from procreation. If it's between two (or more 😉 consenting persons, that's their business. Get your rocks off but don't bring a child into the matter. This issue is at the crux of the debate and it is what, I think, is greatly behind the Church's livid opposition to the bill.

I'll channel what Stephen Fry once said. Sex is like food. It's pleasurable and we don't always enjoy it for its evolutionary purpose. It has its dark side and it can be mysterious and dangerous. There is an extent to which you can partake of it that is healthy and a level at which it is not. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese. And that, in sexual terms, is the Catholic Church, in a nutshell.

I hope you do not confuse my social libertarianism with insensitivity to the plight of others. If I have appeared that way that then I have failed to bring my main point and central motivation across. People are entitled to enjoy their bodies because we don't just have bodies. We are bodies. We are the only ones who will ever be inside our own heads and we are the only ones who will ever truly understand what it's like to be our individual selves. That is why I believe that people should be free to enjoy their life free from the dictates of religion, government, or social stature. I think people should have access to the information that I have access to and have access to the drugs that I have access to, which is only the case because I was lucky enough to be born to a middle class family capable of putting me through school.

On a final note, I do think that parents should have a say regarding what their kids are taught, but I also believe that it is child abuse to willfully withhold information from and indoctrinate children with the 'one true path.'

Haven't had much time to get into this again, Garrick, but here's what I have so far on my claim that "the great majority of oral contraceptives are carcinogenic." As you say, there isn't just one kind. My understanding is that there are two: the combined estrogen-progestogen and the progestogen-only pill.

I have this from the National Cancer Institute (US):

"The most commonly prescribed OC contains two man-made versions of natural female hormones (estrogen and progesterone) that are similar to the hormones the ovaries normally produce."

<a href="http://(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#ref4)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#ref4)

I believe I also saw the same mention in the Ortho pharmaceutical's website, but I am not sure. In any case, and I would clarify that I do object to the RH bill as it stands, a particular critique I have for it is that any such legislation has the opportunity to mandate that the risks of OCs should be made very clear by healthcare providers to patients. Add to this that it should be made clear as well in any sex ed curriculum — and of course, I have problems with how the bills is describing this mandatory curriculum.javascript:%20postComment(1);

Well, the statistics you showed say that OCPs reduce some types of cancer at best and increase some types of cancer risk for certain age groups at worst. But, this isn't really the side of the debate that interests me because it is addressed by proper sex education. The risk factors involved with contraceptive drugs are part of proper health education, as is the same for any kind of drug. And, besides, for those who are somehow able to procure contraceptive pills now, there are those who certainly are at a disadvantage regarding the risks of the pills, if any, without a proper information program in place. So, even if OCPs caused cancer, I don't get why it would be an argument against the RH Bill.

I'd really like to know what you think about the other points I've raised, however, especially on the points where the freedom of choice of the poor are impinged due to their inability to even have access to the contraceptives and education proposed by the bill. This is on the heels of certain local state units that unilaterally decided to proscribe contraceptives. I'd also like to know what you think about Catholic moral doctrine being legislated for the people who don't necessarily agree with it, even those who call themselves Catholics.

I had just finished reading "Unintended Pregnancy: Worldwide Levels,
Trends, and Outcomes" by Susheela Singh, Gilda Sedgh, and Rubina Hussain, Studies in Family Planning, Volume 41, Issue 4 (published online: 10 DEC 2010). The data is surprising:

In most developed regions of the world in 2008, there were 90 pregnancies per 1000 women out of which 42 were unintended. For example, in North America, there were 102 pregnancies per 1000 women, of which 48 were unintended. In Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), 117 pregnancies per 1000 women, of which 44 were unintended. Such high rates of unintended pregnancies despite the promotion, wide availability and use of contraceptives. BTW that constitutes little change from 1995, where the figures were 59 out of 108 for most developed countries, 48 out of 102 in North America, and 45 out of 134 in Oceania.

(The most developed countries in the study included North America, Japan, Australia, Europe, and New Zealand.)

I know that RH bill advocates will disagree with me on the conclusions, so it is best if you do some googling and in-depth reading of these studies to form your own.

"that constitutes little change from 1995". How can you make this conclusion? 59 (per thousand women) unintended pregnancies in 1995 declined to 42 in 2008, or a 29% decline. Little change compared to what?

Compared to intended pregnancy. I meant the ratio between intended and unintended pregnancies. A 44% rate of unintended pregnancy in Europe, or even 37% in Oceania, still sounds too high to me if we assume that the region has aggressive legislation for something similar to the RH bill.

As compared to what, NFP-only policies?

Those have already proven not to work, as I've been trying to tell you more than once: http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail…

This is an indication that it has an effect:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/16…

It isn't perfect, of course, but what is?

While the study is valid, take not that it was only conducted on a sample population size of 662, all of whom were African American students in 6-7th grade.

Kindly read the link I sent you – that was conducted on a much larger sample population, and studied the results of SEVERAL abstinence-only programs across the United States.

Now, can you really say that what you presented is the norm, and not an exception?

Let's do some cross-referencing then.

According to the abstract, the study was conducted to analyze the incidence of pregnancies for 2008, while assessing related trends since 1995.

One particular passage from the abstract grabbed my attention: While the rest of the countries in the study experienced an overall drop in their incidences of unintended pregnancies, North America's rates have not declined within the same time frame.

Assuming that this is for the time period of 2008, I can tell you what happened – and will reference plenty of links to validate my points:

Starting in 1996, the United States began allocating more federal funding to abstinence-only programs:
http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006/San…
http://law.onecle.com/texas/education/28.004.00.h…

With his re-election in 2004, former President George Bush also implemented a sizable chunk of the national budget to abstinence-only education, while clamping down in more comprehensive sex ed programs that promoted responsible contraceptive use alongside NFP:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-2…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

Bush's move was seen as a means of appealing to his religiously conservative backers and supporters.

Cross-referencing these facts with Guttmacher's report for the same time period, we find that the rates of abortions – which had steadily declined in the past few years – leveled off in 1997, smack dab at the same time at the aforementioned focus on abstinence-only policies:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortio…
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213452.p…

I don't disagree with the conclusions with the study, at least in the case of America.

I disagree with your interpretation of the data, in light of what I already know.

Jeff, this wouldn't happen to be your blog, would it? http://onebread.blogspot.com/2011/02/harm-and-mor…

Yes it is. I was wondering if someone was going to be looking for me over the net at some point. I'm not thrilled, mind you. I think debates like these should be restricted on the basis of data, not the persons. But it's a free world so do what you want with it. My other blog is jeffersontan.wordpress.com (Tinker Blog).

[I think debates like these should be restricted on the basis of data, not the persons. ]

As do I, but your blog does give me an idea of how your mind works. You may not agree, but I also think that the debate cans also partly be based on the person, specifically in their ability to express their opinion, and their ability to present data.

Well what grabbed me in the study was the ratio between unintended and intended rates of pregnancy. Europe still has (in 2008) 44% of all pregnancies being unplanned.Oceania is still at 37%. I live in Australia and contraceptives are widely available. This is almost 40 years after the Pill?

I thought that the US was a lost cause for this study because of their notorious abstinence only programs. There are reports linking the abstinence only education to the decrease in abortions and the delays in onset of sexual activity for teens, but there are probably more that state the opposite.

BTW I don't think I even cited abortion in my first post about this study.

Kindly look at your own statement, an at the scope of the study.

The report explicitly indicated that the data for 2008 is being compared to relevant as far back as 1995. Within this range, we can see that Europe's rates may be high, but within the 12-year time span there was a large (42 percent) decline in unintended pregnancies in the region, while Australia (Oceania's) was already low to begin with compared with the rest of the world, indicating that the effects of whatever its RH programs are, they have already long been felt.

As for "the pill" you're going to have to be more specific – the study didn't focus on any particular ones, while the sort of contraceptives in use for the past few years are a very different animal from those forty years ago.

Perhaps you can find a study for that? 😉

Regarding the different sort of contraceptives used 40 years ago, I haven't considered that. I'll go look.

[BTW I don't think I even cited abortion in my first post about this study.]

Actually, there is a link between the two. A very distressing one. And I already posted this in my earlier reply – I don't know if you just need stronger glasses, or you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortio…

Now if you want a local report saying the same thing:
http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives

We've already provided the data you've asked for. So please – read them before claiming that no such data exists, or that such matters are uncertain. You can't expect us to hold your hand forever, laddie.

May I ask how you got your copy?

I have download access to many electronic libraries because I'm a university academic.

Jeffersontan, you said "RH bill advocates will disagree with me on the conclusions". In fact, the report authors disagree with the conclusions you are trying to sell (that contraceptives do little to reduce unintended pregnancies). Here are what the authors actually said from the report:
"The rate of unintended pregnancy worldwide has declined by 20 percent, from 69 to 55 per 1,000 women, between 1995 and 2008 (shown in Table 2). The decline
was greater in the developed world, where the unintended pregnancy rate fell by 29 percent (from 59 to 42); in the developing world it declined by slightly less than
20 percent, from 71 to 57 per 1,000 women." …
"In the developed world, the decline in the pregnancy rate was comprised mostly of a decline in unintended pregnancies (see Table 2), and this decrease occurred
most dramatically in Eastern Europe, where a sharp rise in contraceptive use since the early 1990s is credited for a dramatic fall in abortion rates (Westoff 2005)." …
"According to recent estimates, if all of the unmet demand for effective contraception in the developing world were satisfied (that is, if all nonusers and all of those
who are using traditional methods began to use modern methods), 54 million unintended pregnancies would be averted annually, including 22 million unplanned births, 25 million induced abortions, and 7 million miscarriages (Singh et al. 2009)."

Full report available here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explor…

*Reads full report*

Hmm, do take a look at page 6 of the report, first paragraph to the left:

"The proportion of all pregnancies that are unintended
is highest in the Latin America and Caribbean region (58
percent); 38 percent (22 ÷ 58) of unintended pregnancies
in that region end in abortion. This finding might reflect
a combination of the widespread desire for small families
and, despite high levels of contraceptive use, continued
constraints on couples’ ability to practice contraception
correctly and continuously."

FYI, the Catholic church has had a very strong influence in Latin American policies in general, as exemplified by incidents like this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,188…

From the article:

"In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy. While equally devout neighbors Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have taken steps to give women more of a say in the matter of terminating pregnancies, Brazilian public opinion supports the status quo, and the country's Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to reject a modest attempt at decriminalizing abortion. The advances that have taken place are mostly local initiatives carried out almost surreptitiously, such as the move by São Paulo states to offer the morning-after pill and heavily discounted contraceptive pills at state-run pharmacies.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did make a halfhearted attempt to spur a national debate last year, calling abortion a public-health issue — even as he declared himself steadfastly against it. But with the Church quick to stifle such talk and the general public not sufficiently engaged to demand action, the debate never took off. "

jefferson, it seems to me that the very problems you claim contraceptive use are causing are in fact caused by the Catholic Church's "Pro-Life" stance.

All you seem to have proven at this point is what I already know about mist apologists – that you don't have any qualms about distorting facts to suit your faith's agenda.

Twin-Skies, the whole thrust of the study he presented is opposite the point he was trying to make, namely denying the usefulness of contraceptives. Do you have harsher words than "distorting facts"? 😀

@arm

Hmm, I'll get back to you on that. Jong's been challenging me to use less expletives, and more creative insults.

Sorry, hahaha. Here's to more creative insults then.

Well I do hope you restrain yourself. If I ever use insults of any kind, please be sure to let me know and I will apologize. It doesn't help discussions like these.

We're a pretty thick-skinned bunch here – a nasty word or two isn't going to hurt us. And quite frankly, calling us anything like horny, blasphemous, or evil is considered a compliment 😀

As for name-calling, well I better explain how it works here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

False Positives:

"Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact.

Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn't automatically make it an ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot – not the other way round."

If I wanted distort the facts, then I wouldn't have told you where the paper was, would I? 😉

Actually what I was aiming for was "why so many unintended pregnancies still?" The decline might sound impressive (20%) worldwide, but the ratio between unplanned and planned pregnancies remains high. And I know that the US had an abstinence only program funded by the government, but more on that later in my reply to TwinSkies' post. But consider that "North America" in that paper includes Canada. I know, not a lot of people there in comparison, but still, it has to be said.

But look: in Europe, 2008, the unintended pregnancies are still at 44% out of all pregnancies. In Oceania, 37%. These countries widely promote and put government funds into sex ed and contraceptive programs. BTW let me be clear: I do not dispute that contraceptives when used actually work most of the time. The contentions I have in the RH bill debate are (1) risk compensation can increase risky activities that increase the actual number of failures (not the rate of failure), (2) contraceptive side effects including cancer are not widely publicized, (3) a contraceptive policy ushers in a rise in abortion as a contraceptive method, (4) a contraceptive culture ushers in a diminished appreciation for life. I'm sure someone will take me up on those points later so I won't write about them at this reply. But I wanted to be clear about my "agenda".

BTW it would be more interesting to look at the data country-by-country, but the paper doesn't provide it.

[But look: in Europe, 2008, the unintended pregnancies are still at 44% out of all pregnancies. In Oceania, 37%. These countries widely promote and put government funds into sex ed and contraceptive programs.]

And it works. For fuck's sake, read your own bloody document, page 4 to 5:

"The rate of unintended pregnancy worldwide has
declined by 20 percent, from 69 to 55 per 1,000 women,
between 1995 and 2008 (shown in Table 2). The decline
was greater in the developed world, where the unin-
tended pregnancy rate fell by 29 percent (from 59 to 42);
in the developing world it declined by slightly less than
20 percent, from 71 to 57 per 1,000 women. The unintend-
ed pregnancy rate in the developing world is about 36
percent higher (57 versus 42) than that of the developed
world, as of 2008 (see Figure 1). The highest observed
intended and unintended pregnancy rates are found in
Africa (136 and 86 respectively), and the lowest rates are
found in Europe (49 and 38). Intended pregnancy rates
are higher than unintended pregnancy rates in all geo-
graphic regions except Latin America."

The table in page 5 further indicates that compared to 1995' figures, Europe's 2008 score is indicative of a 42 percent drop in the number of unintended pregnancies happening.

In Oceania's case, it's a non-issue given that their rates are already among the lowest in the study.

As for your four points:

1) If you're referring to the risk of more happening sex between unmarried couples with the implementation of an RH Bill, you're going to have to link us to an actual study that links both.

IMHO though, it's really none of our business as to what people do behind their bedrooms, or what sort of thing turns them on. Furthermore, that's not really the RH Bill's problem – it'd be like saying we shouldn't have driving schools because we have illegal drag races.

2) Actually, they are. I've been waving the bloody studies in your face for the past few days. You have eyes – use them for FSM's sake.
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/breastcancer/a/b…

3) In short-term studies, that's true. But as RH programs are given time to develop, they do contribute to a decline in abortions.
http://www.psrh.org/pubs/journals/2504499.pdf

It's like a vaccine inoculation – you're going to feel like hell first, but it gets much better soon after.

4) But at what point does empowering women, and ensuring that they can safely prepare a pregnancy, become a "diminshment" of the value of life?

You know what diminishes life's value? Intentionally preventing people from making informed choices with their lives.

And while I agree that it would be nice to see the data per country, I have already provided you with more than enough data on the case of America's stagnated decrease in unintended pregnancies.

And while you may prefer not to see it, the fact is that religion had plenty to figure in stonewalling any meaningful attempts at reproductive health awareness in their country.

I didn't say it doesn't work. I said "why so many unintended pregnancies still?" That's a period of 13 years between 95 and 08.

About Oceania, that's something that struck me this morning: perhaps it is not possible to eliminate unintended pregnancies up to a certain point, so perhaps that is the answer to my question. Even with an aggressive campaign for contraception, and government subsidy for it, there's a limit to how much of unwanted pregnancies can be reduced by. Forgive me for being naive, I honestly thought that a 37% unwanted pregnancy rate (for Oceania in 2008) is still too high.

BTW what's FSM?

Very apt analogy with the driving schools and drag races. But I would point out that I didn't say to eliminate sex ed completely. The RH bill has good intentions and my own objections to it, and I think that is also the Church objection, is the promotion of and subsidy for artificial birth control methods. Yes, I know that, in paper, the bill will also cover NFP, but I would be very surprised if NFP is given even 10% of the amount of attention given to artificial methods.

The link between something like the RH bill and extra-marital affairs, I'll have to find you a link.

Regarding breast cancer and OCs, yes, I know that there are mixed results. There are those who see no link, little link, or a strong link <a href="http://(http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/81/10/1290.abstract” target=”_blank”>(http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/81/10/1290.abstract for example). The point is that there is a likelihood of causality based on the research of some. It only means that more research is needed, not that there is link at all.

I am not arguing against empowering women. I'm all for education, but not artificial birth control methods. Why does the bill not include legislation to make sure that women will be made aware of all the risks involved? Or about the effectiveness of all methods? I'm not saying that the percentages are given in the bill, but the legislation should require that the risks and effectiveness ratings are given by health care professionals before prescribing them.

Yes, I know that teachers in the Catholic Church (bishops, catechists) have not been aggressive at telling people to stop having babies, but then the Pill didn't come around until fairly recently. When it did, after some study, Pope Paul VI did promulgate his teaching on the subject, and he does say that parents should consider all factors in choosing how many children to have and when. But I know, even then, pastors were not uniformly in line with teaching that aspect of the teaching. Chalk that up to poor dissemination perhaps — just as a great majority of pastors in western countries chose to teach the opposite of Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae. It is also a fact that the rhythm/calendar method is ineffective, but that the modern NFP methods, Sympto-Thermal and Creighton for example, are comparable to artificial birth control methods. From where I'm standing, efforts to teach couples about these modern methods has been lax in many countries, including in the Philippines. Why? Lack of resources, I'm guessing. Some places that did put the resources to good use saw some good results:
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/ethiopia/ss_eth_plan…

Of course, that does not protect from STD, but on the subject of family planning for a couple, it bears some consideration. And I never saw that kind of initiative in the Philippines, which is a shame.

[I am not arguing against empowering women. I'm all for education, but not artificial birth control methods. Why does the bill not include legislation to make sure that women will be made aware of all the risks involved? Or about the effectiveness of all methods?]

May I suggest reading Section 13 of said legislation.
http://www.pngoc.org/Download%20Section/HB%2096%2…

If anybody's come across a more updated copy, please post it as well

[I am not arguing against empowering women. I'm all for education, but not artificial birth control methods. Why does the bill not include legislation to make sure that women will be made aware of all the risks involved? Or about the effectiveness of all methods?]

May I suggest reading Section 13 of said legislation.
http://www.pngoc.org/Download%20Section/HB%2096%2…

If anybody's come across a more updated copy, please post it as well

jefferson, to be clear – we have nothing against the RH program teaching people NFP methods as well, especially if they're proven to be effective.

The problem is that the Catholic Church and its supporters would want to teach it EXCLUSIVELY, while striking off any mention of other family planning methods. I've already cited the case of the US' attempt to implement such a system, and how it ended disastrously.

Shouldn't it only be proper we learn from their mistake?

[Forgive me for being naive, I honestly thought that a 37% unwanted pregnancy rate (for Oceania in 2008) is still too high. ]

Take note: It's 37 percent of a sample population of less than a million women – the smallest size of the all the countries studied. You have to remember to put it into proper context here.

As for the high rates of unintended pregnancies despite the contraception, I suggest you try looking at it from this angle:

The study itself reports that the biggest reason for the drop of the unintended pregnancies – and by relation, abortions – is because of each country's implementation of family planning programs.

So while the figures remain high, it could have been much worse.

You know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

I mentioned the doubling effect because any harm coming from risk compensation with STD and condoms, for example, affects more than one person. I was comparing it to the example you gave about cyclists being reckless due to a sense of security deriving from the use of a helmet. In that case, the harm comes only to that one cyclist. Although as I said, applied to dangerous driving due to seatbelts, there is also a compounding effect if there are passengers.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I don't see the data concerning the sexual practices of 60 years ago being comparable to today. For example, the historical data in the infection rate of HIV and other STDs seems to show an upward trend peeking around the late 90s. Similar trends in unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. Likewise, the age at which people start becoming sexually active. If you have data to show that sexual activities two, three generations ago were as high as they are now, I'd be truly interested in reading it.

AIDS was only discovered in 1981. Being a new disease at the time, of course you'll see an upward trend as both awareness and methods of detection improve.

I can't really give you any data with regards to statistics of sexual practices back then. But like I said, people will always have sex. It's one of our most primal urges. They just didn't publicize it as much back then. In fact, one can argue that the very repression of it makes people want it even more,

Sorry, but that's hardly convincing. Yes, I agree that sexual appetite is part of how our bodies/minds work. There are ancient texts that talk about abortion too, even 2000 years ago among the earliest Christian writings. But I still do not see the evidence that the level of sexual activity in the past was as high as it is now. Even with relatively recent improvements in data gathering and reporting/correlation, there just no evidence to say that things have not changed much. That's the whole point why we call the sexual revolution what it is. It was a radical change, and contraceptives impacted that tremendously. Fear is a powerful emotion, and it isn't all that bad if you consider how we are wired to avoid or work against what we fear, e.g., physical harm, pain, poverty. Fear also kept people from fooling around to much before the days of widely promoted and widely used contraceptives. Now you might say that such fear is bad, because it keeps people from sating their appetites. I would respond by saying that there is far more to us and to our lives than such appetites, especially if we're talking about something outside of marriage.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I don't think we'll ever really see any sort of data on the sexual practices of people back then. All I know is that sex is sex is sex, and that people will have it regardless of whether they know the consequences or not. Fear might be powerful, but the urge to procreate is a lot more powerful than that, especially given the human propensity to choose immediate satisfaction over long term gain.

I agree there is far more to us than just sating our sexual appetites. I seriously hope you don't think I'm advocating for wanton sex in the streets.

And you've also shown one more fundamental difference between us: You think sex outside of marriage is bad. I disagree. And that, I bet, is a significant part of your motivation to oppose the RH Bill.