Birth Control

I was just wondering how many Pro-Life people are against hormonal birth control. If Roe v Wade was overturned and abortion was made not legal, would you also want birth control to be made not legal? Would you want emergency contraception made not legal, as well.

I think the discovery of contraception was a major advancement in women's health, education, economics, opportunities, and sexual satisfaction. I think it improved all aspects of the lives of people in the U.S., and will continue to do so long in to the future.

 

I really really want Roe v Wade overturned so the legislature can argue it out.

Does hormonal birth control cause abortions?

What if there is a 1% chance that hormonal birth control aborts a fertilized egg?

Does that mean hormonal birth control should be illegal if abortion is illegal?

Do Pro-Life people genuinely even want to debate in the US congress whether or not a fertilized egg should be protected?

90% of Americans DO NOT want their birth control taken away.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170789/n...irth control&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

 

I agree (contraception is a positive change).

Since there is a possibility that hormonal birth control can kill a fertilized egg, those who really believe person-hood begins at conception would consider that murder. I am pro-choice myself, because I believe person-hood begins when the mind is activated (at birth).

 

Well, thank you for your response! My first one!!

So I won't argue too much with you that the mind isn't exactly "activated" at birth or any of those details....although I find it pretty disturbing. lol

But, thanks for the response!!

Birth control is a wonderful invention. Plenty of people seem to not appreciate it enough for several reasons. It definitely changes things up quite a lot...the dynamic relationships between males and females. It enables girls to go to college. They aren't "stuck" with the first guy they experiment with sexually because of unintentional pregnancy. They can dump him when they discover that he's actually a jerk, and luckily there isn't a child involved. I always become very confused when I hear about people who would want to deny young women the access to a method of birth control that will nearly guarantee that they can navigate thru their early adulthood ...to grow, learn and experience the complexities life, love and happiness... all without fear of unwanted pregnancy. Aren't things complicated enough without adding a child?

 

I am in favour of all contraceptives .. however, contraceptives that rely on people not making mistakes are not the way forward, one only has to look at the figures for perfect usage against typical usage to see that human error is one of the biggest reasons contraceptives fail. IMHO contraceptives such as IUD's, hormonal implants and the new (as yet not regulated) VasGel should be available free at source to anyone who wants them (VasGel after regulation of course). They cause relatively few side effects, are long lasting and are not subject to human error .. they also happen to be some of the most expensive, the reason for that is due to the big pharmaceutical companies not wanting them to become the normal usage contraceptive for the majority of people, they make less money from a long term solution than they do from a short term solution (condoms, daily pill etc) .. hence one of the reasons those big companies have refused to fund VasGel research and instead funded the male pill.

One of the common issues pro-lifer people (and others have) is the potential for tax payers money to be used for contraceptives, even though to some extent it already is. There is this assertion that funding contraceptives such as IUD's etc will be very expensive, where as funding condoms isn't, the reality is that in the long term that assertion is false .. purely for the cost of the condoms over the same period that an IUD last is greater than the cost of the IUD, of course to calculate this one has to make some educated assumptions, such as using the average number for the number of times the average USA person has sex per year, the average cost of a condom and the average lifespan of an IUD.

The average person in the US has sex 103 times per year - http://www.mensfitness.com/women/sex-tips/average-american-has-sex-exactly-many-times-year
The average cost for a 12-pack of condoms is $10.99 (single condom = $0.92) - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/condom-facts-things/story?id=12869404
The cost of an IUD for patients not covered by insurance ranges from $210 to $800, so an average of $505 (including pelvic exam) - http://health.costhelper.com/iud.html
The average life span of an IUD (copper) is 12 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUD_with_copper

So doing the calculations.
103 (sex - assumed condom is used every time) x 0.92 (condom) x 12 (same lifespan as IUD) = $1,137.12
compared to the average $505 for the IUD .. so a saving to the tax payer of $632.12 over 12 years

and this doesn't even include the cost of welfare for an unwanted birth.

Factor in the typical usage failure rate
IUD (Copper) - 0.8%
Condom - 18%
Source - https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehea...edpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

and it really is a no-brainer that long lasting, lower typical usage failure rate contraceptives should be free at source to everyone .. doing so would have a dramatic reduction on unplanned pregnancies and as such a reduction in abortions.

I'd also add in comprehensive age appropriate sex education in schools, and no requirement for parental permission for contraceptives to be issued by a doctor or trained medical personal.

 

It is reasonable to expect that the brain (and nervous system) would gradually increase in function through gestation, so it is not surprising that some electrical activity would be observed during gestation. However, the clues that pro-life advocates use to claim 20-24 weeks as the magic number for experiencing pain are not conclusive.
Example:
Electroencephalographic activity is normally asynchronous between the hemispheres and mostly discontinuous at less than 27 weeks’ PCA becoming mostly continuous around 34 weeks’ PCA.
Example:
In preterm neonates, the earliest EEG pattern representing wakefulness appears around 30 weeks’ PCA. However, wakefulness alone is insufficient to establish consciousness, as unconscious patients in a persistent vegetative state may also have wakeful EEGs.
Example:
Furthermore, flexion withdrawal from tactile stimuli is a noncortical spinal reflex exhibited by infants with anencephaly and by individuals in a persistent vegetative state who lack cortical function.
Example:
Facial movements may not necessarily be cortically controlled. One study found no difference in facial activity during heel lancing of neonates with and without significant cortical injury, suggesting that facial activity even around 32 weeks’ PCA may not represent conscious perception of pain.

What is it about this report that suggests to you that the mind of the fetus is active (in a sense that would imply person-hood or moral significance) before birth?

Even without a cerebrum, the primitive brain stem is capable of reflex actions (like withdrawing from a pressure sensation). My grandparents used to keep chickens and I can confirm that chickens can do some amazing things even after being decapitated. Terri Schiavo's brain stem provided enough realistic reflexes to convince many observers that her mind was still active (long after her cerebrum had degraded beyond the capacity to think about what was going on).

Inside the womb, the blood supply provides sedatives that keep the mind inactive in those last 4-6 weeks. The oxygen level in the fetal blood stream is abnormally low (again, keeping the mind inactive). At the moment of birth, the umbilical cord is cut (eliminating the sedatives) and the newborn begins using its lungs (increasing the oxygen level). At that moment, the brain has what it needs to activate and first become aware of these experiences. When the brain is aware of the sensory input, it can begin incorporating that experience into a framework that becomes part of a person (i.e. the beginning of person-hood).
Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

 

Makes you wonder why Repubs are so bent on shutting down clinics where women , especially lower income women, can get safe , accessible, affordable birth control.

 

Best I can tell, Pro-Life people tend to oppose birth control for a couple of reasons:

They think it encourages sexual behavior, which is NOT true.
They feel they condone murder because hormonal birth control causes a fertilized egg to be aborted (and abortion is murder).

The state does have an interest in protecting the unborn. The interest is NOT from conception. The vast majority of people agree with this. 4 in 5 women use hormonal birth control.

Roe v Wade in a nutshell:
91.6% abortions occur less than 13 weeks - no real state interest, hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, abortion medication
7.1% abortions occur 14 to 19 weeks - state interest, regulated with exception for the health of the mother and undue burden
1.3% abortions occur greater than 20 weeks - state interest, fully regulated with exception for the health of the mother

Would it not stand to reason that if federal abortion law was legislated today, it would likely look similar to current abortion law?

But more importantly, would improving access to birth control decrease abortion procedures?

 

20 to 24 weeks is viability, not the experience of pain or consciousness

The state has no interest in protecting the unconscious or sedated?

 

Yes, improving access to safe reliable birth control would reduce abortions...but remember, women are under no obligation to use BC and should always have the option of abortion.

 

Agreed, but the crux of the whole debate is how late is too late to choose that option...

Most states and people agree third trimester (1.3%) is too late to choose an abortion unless for serious medical reasons.

Studies and surveys indicate most women who have second trimester abortions (7.1%) admit they would have preferred the abortion to have occurred earlier...

Simply inducing a menstrual cycle only a few weeks in to gestation (91.6%) is much more palatable to everyone...

So, how late is too late to choose abortion as birth control?

 

Viability, 23 weeks, the law.


....and I think that's a good ,if unnecessary, compromise(no mentally/physically healthy women ask for abortions after that).

You:""Studies and surveys indicate most women who have second trimester abortions (7.1%) admit they would have preferred the abortion to have occurred earlier""

Yes, they probably do and removing clinics where they can get safe, affordable, accessible abortions makes them wait longer.

 

Depends on the state. Texas is 20 weeks.

 

I am against the govt. banning it at any stage. It is for doctors, not the govt, to practice medicine. Fortunately, my country agrees and it's not illegal at all here.

 

Some people claim the fetus can feel pain at 20-24 weeks as well (even earlier if they claim the presence of sensory nerves counts as "able to feel pain").

It makes a difference (to me, at least) whether that unconscious or sedated organism has started accumulating experience or not. If a zygote/embryo/fetus dies (as some 40% do with NO intervention) they never started to accumulate experience, so they could not possibly begin "being" a person in any meaningful way. From the moment a newborn's mind is active, it begins experiencing life and accumulating that experience. It begins to create its own thread of person-hood. It will not understand what it is experiencing at birth, but it is building a foundation for understanding life. If that person has to have surgery a year later, it already has a year of accumulated experiences that would be lost if we did not protect it. That is why a person in a comatose state is different from a fetus which has not yet started that thread of person-hood.

 

I cannot speak for the prolifers but I know the vast majority of pro choice people are pro contraception as the only real viable alternative for reducing abortion

 

Would federal abortion law look similar to current abortion law? Probably (but only to appease those who accept the bumper-sticker logic promoted by pro-life advocates). Pro-life websites would have us believe we need abortion laws to keep women from flocking to the abortion clinics, but if you do some research you will find Canada has NO laws prohibiting abortion and their abortion rates have been lower than those in the US. In my opinion, women who do not want a child will continue to seek the abortion as soon as possible (it is less expensive and less disruptive). If abortion laws were abolished in the US, I predict that women who want an abortion will get them earlier (because there are no pro-life legislators trying to interfere with the process) and the number of mid-term abortions will go down dramatically. The late-term abortions would probably remain stable because these are generally women who WANTED a child (thus the failure to seek an abortion early) but they need an abortion because of medical or genetic issues. If a woman discovers at 30 weeks that she is carrying a Zika baby, do you really think the government should have the right to force her to continue the pregnancy?

Would improving access to birth control decrease abortion procedures? I think so (but remember, I am pro-choice). I, too, am curious to see how the pro-life group answers your questions.

 

no you don't. I live in a state where abortion is illegal. I work in an area where, due to the mothers ill health we sometimes have to abort. All involved run the risk of jail despite the fact there is a "health and safety" clause in the legislation. I very very much doubt you would be convicted but charges could be laid if someone were to become passionate about making a point

In every country where abortion laws do not have a health and safety clause maternal deaths skyrocket

as for aborting a fertilised egg - hormonal contraception merely prevents implantation - something that occurs naturally up to 50% of the time

 

Conversely abortion is technically illegal here and in many states of Australia but the surgical procedure for abortion, which is the same as that for partial miscarriage is funded by the commonwealth So we know that the actual procedure is done as often as it is the USA despite the legislation

Why? Because of the health and safety clause. Only the woman and her medical officer have the right to determine what constitutes an acceptable risk

 

Most of those studies for late term abortion apply to those before 20 weeks The further along the pregnancy is the less likely abortion is to occur if the foetus is healthy and viable. I those tragic circumstances where the foetus is not viable or would suffer unduly then few would condemn late term abortion

 

Yes indeed. There are lots of reasons why women wait. There is often tremendous social taboo, and almost no support for any woman who might want an abortion, fear of what their more conservative parents might think, etc etc.

If there was less taboo, more education, and more support, then abortions would likely be earlier rather than later.

I'm eager to hear from a few Pro-Life people. I'm in southern Missouri, home of John Ashcroft. All I get locally is "abortion is wrong". It's extremely taboo to even discuss. Abortion is murder, and an extremely emotional issue.

 

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily agree because the state has an interest in protecting the unborn. How does your country deal with negligence causing miscarriage?

 

I’m gettin’ what you’re sayin’ about “person” but...

The state has an interest in protecting the unborn. What would you recommend the penalty be for angry boyfriend who punches his girlfriend in the stomach, ultimately causing miscarriage? Or a drunk driver causing an accident where the pregnant mother is injured and causes miscarriage? The fetus shouldn’t have some protections?

It doesn’t matter what they feel or not feel, or whether there is consciousness or not, or whether there are experiences or not. I think it is very unclear what a baby is aware of for quite a while after its birth. Consciousness with experience, along with “meaningful”, is that the threshhold?

Viability means “likelihood”. Viability doesn’t have anything to do with pain, experience, or consciousness.