News

New study finds that contraceptive use increases abortion rates

6 Comments

Here’s the article from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Abortion advocates often promote contraception by claiming that as contraception use increases, the number of “unwanted” pregnancies and therefore abortions will decrease. But a new study out of Spain has found the exact opposite, suggesting that contraception actually increases abortion rates.

The authors, who published their findings in the January 2011 issue of the journal Contraception, conducted surveys of about 2,000 Spanish women aged 15 to 49 every two years from 1997 to 2007.  They found that over this period the number of women using contraceptives increased from 49.1% to 79.9%.

Yet they noted that in the same time frame the country’s abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49.

Mary also sent me this story from Life Site News about the morning after pill.

Excerpt:

A poll has shown that as many as one fifth of all young women in the UK have used the morning after pill (MAP) in the past year after “unprotected sex.”

A Co-Operative Pharmacy survey of 3000 people found that 20 percent of women aged 18 to 35 took the “emergency contraceptive” pill last year. The same group said they had typically used the drug, which only acts as a genuine contraceptive in some cases, when they had had sex after using drugs and/or alcohol.

The poll further found that up to 250,000 women had used the drug two or more times during the year. One in fifty 18-21 year-olds said they used the MAP as their normal form of contraception. One sixth of the women surveyed said they had contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

While a National Health Service spokesman warned that the MAP fails to protect women from sexually transmitted diseases, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has long warned that the medical community is simply not telling women what MAP really is, or what it does.

The morning after pill, a large dose of the same hormones used in contraceptive pills, can either prevent ovulation or prevent the implantation of an existing embryo in the uterine lining.

“Very few women will know precisely when they ovulate,” SPUC said, “so, if they take the morning-after pill, they will not know whether it has prevented conception or caused an abortion.”

Once upon a time, men were men, women were women, and they got along with each other using strict rules of courting under the watchful eyes of their parents. Then feminism came along, pushed primarily by female writers, scholars, lawyers and legislators. These feminists all agreed that marriage was bad, courting was bad, chivalry was bad, and chastity was bad – because they involved “unequal gender roles”. Men and women are identical in every way, they claimed, and women ought to be able to have recreational sex like men and not get pregnant, and focus on their careers like men and not feel the need for marriage and children. And here we are, thanks to feminism. (I mean third-wave feminism).

Related posts

6 thoughts on “New study finds that contraceptive use increases abortion rates”

  1. It is horrifying, of course, but I do wonder about the conclusion, “Contraceptive use increases abortion rates.” The data showed that contraceptive use increased and abortion rates increased, but it didn’t show cause and effect … that one caused the other. (For instance, it could equally be claimed “Increased abortion rates cause increased contraception use.”) This is always a problem for me when statistics “prove” things they don’t actually prove (like “cause and effect” in the studies about physical differences in homosexuals that were thought to cause it).

    I do wonder how many people are categorizing “Morning After Pill” as abortion, as, if it is effective, it is.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The point of the post is not to show cause and effect, but to show that the intended “happy-clappy” effect did not materialize when the policy was changed to match the self-congratulatory good intentions of the liberal elites.

      Like

      Reply

  2. Then feminism came along, pushed primarily by female writers, scholars, lawyers and legislators.

    Men should have pushed back. Hard. (But, of course, in light of essentially ‘consequence-free’ sex, that made it, err, much harder.)

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Men should have pushed back. Hard.”

      ECM: they did push back. It was called the “battle of the sexes.” The memory of it is quite vivid to me. What do you remember of those times?

      ON the topic of consequence-free sex, men are very unhappy now that women have claimed this freedom for themselves, but how do you think women liked it back in the days when the shoe was exclusively on the other foot? I also remember those times vividly. Certainly, everyone being a free sexual agent isn’t a great achievement for women or men, but what do you expect? If men really want a change here, they should stop trying to control women’s behavior and tend to their own. I see Wintery has taken that seriously in his vow of chastity. He is both tending to his own behavior while simultaneously trying to control women’s behavior, which seems like a somewhat perverse and difficult road to take, IMHO. But at least he foreswears the male behavior he (and most men) find so reprehensible when they encounter it in women.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment