Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on LinkedIn Connect on YouTube

Plan B Word Games for Teens

May 2, AD 2013 83 Comments

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday (April 30) that it approved the availability of the Plan B One-Step emergency contraception pill without a prescription for teenage girls as young as 15. As expected, there are articles repeating talking points that explain how Plan B works.

The new talking points say:

  • “While the drug causes changes to the lining of the uterus, it does not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg.”
  • “The drug will not work if a woman is already pregnant. Emergency contraception will not cause an abortion.”

Beware, this new claim is not based on any new scientific evidence or proof.

It is only a change in words. At first the FDA and the manufacturers both admitted that Plan B could act to cause chemically-induced abortion. They don’t use that wording, but they admitted that the drug worked in part by thinning the lining of the uterus so that if the drug failed to stop ovulation, and if the egg became fertilized, the embryo would die because it could not implant. That is a chemically-induced abortion.

Because they do not want the controversy about whether the pill causes chemically-induced abortions, they changed the talking points.

Want proof?

The opinion that seems to be the longest held is that the Plan B pills probably reduce the incidence of fertilized eggs that do not implant (2006). Some say there is no proof that implantation is inhibited, but they concede that in theory it could be (still in 2012).

Established forms of emergency contraception, such as the Yuzpe regimen which uses large doses of both estrogen and progestin and the copper-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) are long known to inhibit implantation.

Less is known about newer forms, such as Plan B (progestogen only) and Ella (ulipristal acetate, a chemical cousin of mifepristone). The Plan B manufacturer also still claims that it shouldn’t affect or terminate an existing pregnancy. The Ella manufacturer claims that it may also work by preventing attachment to the uterus.

But recently researchers changed the conclusion without citing any new testing. They say Plan B and Ella both do not ever interfere with implantation even though Plan B contains 50 times (30 micrograms every day vs. 1,500 micrograms in two doses) the synthetic hormone that the progestogen-only mini-pill contains which is known to thin the lining of the uterus and stop implantation, and Ella uses a chemical that behaves as the known abortifacient mifepristone. One researcher even said that both pills have absolutely no effect after ovulation.

They went full-circle from Plan B prevents implantation to it absolutely does not ever.

  1. Plan B prevents implantation.
  2. Plan B probably prevents implantation
  3. Plan B shouldn’t prevent implantation
  4. Plan B absolutely does not ever prevent implantation.

What’s the motivation? Are we to believe they really care whether embryos die or not? Or is it that they want the debate to be over?

There’s more.

In March 2012 the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO) released a definitive statement on the mechanism of the Plan B pill. They said that it does not prevent implantation. But where’s the data? What changed? Why are some scientists saying there’s no proof and others claiming they absolutely know how the pill works? Now they will claim ‘scientific consensus’ when clearly there is not.

In addition, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have all redefined pregnancy as beginning with implantation which allows drug companies to declare that no drug that prevents implantation is abortifacient – circumventing the real question about human life.

Why did they do this if the science is settled and Plan B absolutely does not prevent implantation? What is their real motivation?

Well, if it were a sincere desire to protect teen girls, surely they’d offer them something more than pills and word games. Right?

Subscribe by Email:
Hello, and thank you for reading. My name is Stacy Trasancos. I am a wife, mother of seven, and joyful convert to Catholicism. I write from my tiny office in a 100-year-old restored Adirondack mountain lodge that overlooks a small spring-fed lake. Read more about me here. Find me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, or contact me by email. God bless you!
  • Andre

    Stacy,

    “They went full-circle from Plan B prevents implantation to it absolutely does not ever.”

    Sorry, can you clarify where/when they say “Plan B prevents implantation”?

    I was under the impression that much of the difficulty determining whether The Pill or Plan B prevented implantation was the inability to know what the “natural” failure rate of implantation was.

  • Stacy Trasancos

    That was the original FDA label, that it worked in three ways like other forms of this contraception by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation. It’s discussed in the link I provided: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/15/155110476/how-the-morning-after-pill-works

    • Andre

      Thanks Stacy.

      I’m not sure they can claim “Plan B absolutely does not ever prevent implantation”, at least not as an absolute, but I’m not sure why you’re asking “But where’s the data? What changed?” when they cite the studies they’re drawing their conclusions from.

      • Stacy Trasancos

        Those studies are not even remotely conclusive. I’ve read them. All they show is that they cannot prove the pills do inhibit implantation (as the one researcher said), but they don’t prove that they absolutely do not ever, which is a reasonable question since the very same drug in the mini-pill does work that way in 50X smaller dosages taken daily.

        • Andre

          Stacy,

          “Those studies are not even remotely conclusive. I’ve read them.”

          None of the ten studies re: implantation listed here were remotely conclusive?: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/health/contraception/ICEC_FIGO_MoA_Statement_March_2012.pdf

          • Stacy Trasancos

            No, do you want a summary? I don’t include that in the article because it would be long and, probably, boring. I do check sources though.

            In the first two, they gave the pill to women before and after ovulation. The only women who got pregnant were the ones in the latter group. That doesn’t prove anything.

            In the next five cited, they measured markers in the endometrium before and after ovulation, three studies showed no change for the specific marker they studied, two studies did. Inconclusive.

            One study was done in a petri dish to see if an embryo would attach in an endometrial environment. They did, but again, that doesn’t answer the question definitively because they don’t know how close the simulated environment is to the natural one which varies in women.

            The last two are animal studies. They estimated how many should get pregnant if implantation was not inhibited and the numbers matched, but that’s highly subjective and again inconclusive.

            I’m going from memory, but you should be able to at least check abstracts.

          • Andre

            Stacy,

            I guess I’m curious as to what the natural rate of implantation is? How much change did the studies reporting change show?

      • Bruce

        What she is asking, is why the results of the studies have not changed, but the conclusions have. As a scientist, I find that troubling. Am I missing something?

  • Stacy Trasancos

    Andre,

    “I was under the impression that much of the difficulty determining whether The Pill or Plan B prevented implantation was the inability to know what the “natural” failure rate of implantation was.”

    That’s true. As long as this pill acts like other contraceptive pills in the two other ways, there’s no reason to believe it doesn’t act like other pills in the third way though.

    I’ve stated my position on that before. Demanding that they find the answer would be to demand that they do tests that could knowingly end human life. They don’t need to do anymore tests, they just need to be honest about the data they have. They are not absolutely sure.

    As far as opposing these pills, even if they never, ever caused the death of an embryo, they are still bad for women, especially teens, because they lead them to have sex with men who don’t love them or want to marry them and raise a family together. They turn teens into objects for sex. They also put them at risk for STD’s and they also help a rapist hide his crime.

    • Longshanks

      What if a rape victim doesn’t want to carry his evidence?

      • Stacy Trasancos

        Work to stop rape, not kill children so it can continue in the dark.

      • Bruce

        Did you have input or a vote as to how you were conceived?

    • Andre

      Stacy,

      “They also help a rapist hide his crime”

      I thought women couldn’t get pregnant from legitimate rapes? This is particularly ridiculous in the context of what’s good for women. Birthcontrol is now bad because it makes it harder to tell when rapes occur? That’s a new one. As if there were no such thing as DNA testing and testimony to expose rapists. I would think the culture of slut-shamming alone does far more to help hide the crimes of rapists than The Pill.

      • Stacy Trasancos

        Emergency contraception would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him.

        This is fundamental to any form of contraception. It turns a woman into an object for sex, not a person for commitment and love. I would never tell my daughters to use contraception so men can depersonalize them and use their bodies. The shame belongs on the people who push that on teens.

        • Longshanks

          “Emergency contraception would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him.”

          How does contraception “hide” the rape? If a girl is raped, and she goes to the authorities and is subjected to rape kit analysis and given a contraceptive pill, how is the crime hidden? Doe she have to carry the rapist’s child to term to achieve justice?

          Is he then obligated to provide alimony? Does he get weekend visitation rights? What if the child is female, does he get partial custody of a future potential victim?

          • Stacy Trasancos

            Do you realize how few women report rape? Do you realize that pregnancy does not occur every time? Have you heard of fathers and boyfriends who take the victim to get abortions against their will? Have you heard how abortion clinics help the rapist hide the crime too and send the victim right back into his hands?

            You make it sound like it’s easy or something to report rape. It’s inexpressibly humiliating. And your flippant suggestion that a rapist should get to rape his own child is disgusting. Please give the victims more respect than that.

        • Longshanks

          “Do you realize how few women report rape?”
          I am not an expert, no. However, this certainly is an awful infographic http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rape-a-lack-of-conviction/ .

          “And your flippant suggestion that a rapist should get to rape his own child is disgusting.”

          I am sorry that you find my analysis of your logic flippant, it was not meant to be. I would like to know what indignities you are prepared to force on a rape victim in order for implantation not to be circumvented, as forcing the victim to carry and deliver a child born of rape does not make the possibilities I outlined inconceivable. Please save your disgust for your examination of conscience.

          “Have you heard of fathers and boyfriends who take the victim to get abortions against their will? Have you heard how abortion clinics help the rapist hide the crime too and send the victim right back into his hands?”

          Yes, and this is also an awful injustice. I’ve also heard of women being murdered because of the stain their rape has brought to the family’s honor. Do we want to go through a list of all the ways men have mistreated women, we could, and it is a worthwhile task. However, it is beside the point. If a girl gets raped, and she goes to the authorities, the option for Plan B is one that helps her, not the reverse. Of course rapists should be punished, why should the girl?

          “You make it sound like it’s easy or something to report rape. It’s inexpressibly humiliating.”

          I don’t think my comments express the opinion you foisting on them here. I certainly do not mean to lessen the incredible anguish that must be resultant.

          “Please give the victims more respect than that.”

          You mean like the respect to decide what happens to, and within, their own bodies? You mean like the respect to NOT accuse them of aiding and abetting past and future rapists by preventing/ending the pregnancies resulting from monstrous abuse?

          Sure thing, I’ll accord victims the respect of NOT BLAMING THEM.

          “Do you realize that pregnancy does not occur every time?”

          Now who’s being flippant?

          • Stacy Trasancos

            You will never solve violence with more violence.

            I am on the same level as a rapist because I object to contraception? Is that what you said?

            Wow. You have lost perspective.

          • Longshanks

            “I am on the same level as a rapist because I object to contraception? Is that what you said?”

            I was going to point out on this chart, (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/) jumping to conclusions, ad hominem, straw man and affirming the consequent, but those are all more charitable than “lie.”

            Shaming rape victims into avoiding medication to relieve suffering doesn’t make you a rapist. A bad person, maybe, misguided, certainly…a rapist? Quote for me where I said that.

          • Andre

            Stacy,

            “Wow. You have lost perspective.”

            You’ve been arguing that women are often too ashamed to report rape, yet wish to shame them into bearing the child of the rapist, lest the rapist go unpunished. Is that what you said?

          • Stacy Trasancos

            You both need to qualify your accusations of shame. I’ve said women shouldn’t be reduced to objects. Contraception objectifies a woman.

            And you call that “forcing indignities” on victims.

            You call that “shaming” women?

            How do you get there? You are the men here (supposedly, I don’t know anything about LS). How is it that you think you know more about women and rape than this mother of five daughters does?

            I’ll leave you with that. I’m out of time on the internet today. I do take these issues, especially with young women and teens, VERY seriously, and there’s only so much I can tolerate from men who use such offensive language to accuse a me or any woman of “forcing” women when all I’m doing is standing up for them. We’re talking about emergency contraception for 15 year olds!

            Don’t you think it’s well within the realm of possibility that I’m more the authority on this subject than you? I know a thing or two about women and girls. ;-) Might not hurt you to listen instead of emote.

          • Andre

            Stacy,

            “You both need to qualify your accusations of shame.”

            Sure thing, you said: “Emergency contraception would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him.” I know it’s always risky business to employ the ‘so what you’re really saying’ thing, but here it seems like you’re saying that women who take EC are hiding rape and enabling rapists.

            “I’ve said women shouldn’t be reduced to objects. Contraception objectifies a woman.

            And you call that “forcing indignities” on victims.

            You call that “shaming” women?”

            Yes. Telling women that they degrade themselves and enable rapists by using contraception seems like shaming women. Nothing about contraception keeps people from loving each other or respecting each other. I mean, nothing other than religion telling them that.

            “How do you get there? You are the men here (supposedly, I don’t know anything about LS). How is it that you think you know more about women and rape than this mother of five daughters does?”

            What a wonderful example of appealing to emotion, from a woman who’s views on contraception are derived from the teachings of (supposed) virgin men.

            “Don’t you think it’s well within the realm of possibility that I’m more the authority on this subject than you? I know a thing or two about women and girls. Might not hurt you to listen instead of emote.”

            Followed by the appeal to authority.

            “We’re talking about emergency contraception for 15 year olds!”

            Actually, in these specific instances, I believe we were responding to your claims that contraception turned people into nymphos and enabled rapists. I know that’s not as fun (or easy) as ‘but, what about the children?’.

        • Andre

          Stacy,

          “Emergency contraception would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him.”

          Yes, I imagine that the possibility that the victim wont get pregnant plays a significant factor in a man deciding whether or not to sexually assault a woman. Which is weird, because most experts say that rape is about power, not sex.

          “This is fundamental to any form of contraception. It turns a woman into an object for sex, not a person for commitment and love.”

          That’s quite sexist of you, why can’t it turn men into an object for sex? I’m pretty sure that, among other things, one’s emotional maturity has much more to do with how one views a romantic partner than the possibility that a child might result from sex. Either that, or all those old and/or infertile folks are a bunch of objectifying pervs.

  • Andre

    Stacy,

    “They don’t need to do anymore tests, they just need to be honest about the data they have. They are not absolutely sure.”

    At the same time, it seems like the newer studies show that the most that mechanism might do is lower the rate of implantation. If there’s already a significant natural rate of non-implantation (which I seem to recall being relatively high), arguing the non-conclusiveness of the least influential mechanism doesn’t strike me as particularly convincing in this case.

    “they are still bad for women, especially teens, because they lead them to have sex with men who don’t love them or want to marry them and raise a family together. They turn teens into objects for sex. They also put them at risk for STD’s and they also help a rapist hide his crime.”

    I think it’s silly to argue that birth control leads to promiscuity in women or men, and reminds me not just a little of some arguments fundamentalist Islam has for repressing it’s women. Also, virtually everything that you said there can be applied to condoms, the only difference is that now these women won’t be as reliant on the man to be responsible.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      “I think it’s silly to argue that birth control leads to promiscuity in women or men…”

      Defend that then.

      Why?

      Would you say the same of diet pills? Let children eat the junk food, and just teach them how to use diet pills? How to vomit when they eat too much if it’s an emergency?

      • Andre

        Stacy,

        ““I think it’s silly to argue that birth control leads to promiscuity in women or men…”

        Defend that then.”

        This is a fun strategy: throw unsupported claims against the wall, and whatever the opposition doesn’t refute is what “sticks”. Since we’re not backing anything up, I’ll say that we live in a country where men and women of all ages routinely avoid contraception while engaging in special hugs, as the evidence of unplanned pregnancies will attest to.

        “Would you say the same of diet pills? Let children eat the junk food, and just teach them how to use diet pills? How to vomit when they eat too much if it’s an emergency?”

        I wonder if the availability of diet pills is what’s really causing the obesity epidemic in this country. Thanks for opening my eyes.

        • Stacy Trasancos

          I just asked you to defend your reasoning.

          Risk compensation is a proven outcome with contraception. People think they are “protected” and they engage in the activity more because of that. Look it up.

          “I wonder if the availability of diet pills is what’s really causing the obesity epidemic in this country. Thanks for opening my eyes.”

          Follow that thought. What is causing the obesity epidemic? Is it something that pills will fix or is it something that self-control will fix?

          • Andre

            Stacy,

            “Risk compensation is a proven outcome with contraception. People think they are “protected” and they engage in the activity more because of that.”

            Do you feel safer in you car with a seat-belt and air-bags? Protected even? Does this sense of protection make you more likely to drive like a maniac? You’re arguing that contraception makes people more promiscuous.

            pro·mis·cu·ous (pr-msky-s)
            adj.
            1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
            2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
            3. Casual; random.
            4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused

            As you can see, merely having sex (or having more of it) does not = promiscuous. Men and women might well have more sex because of contraception (or feel safer having the same amount of sex they’d otherwise have), but I don’t think that the availability of contraception increases promiscuity.

          • Michael

            Not to interrupt an interesting discussion but is the Church’s opposition to HPV vaccinations a similar valid fear that it will lead to promiscuity in women (and men as the vaccine is now being recommended for boys).

            We have a bishop here in Canada (Bishop Henry of Calgary) who refuses the vaccine in Catholic schools because he feels it would lead to promiscuity. I wonder if a HIV vaccine is every available if he would oppose it as well, and for the same reason.

      • Longshanks

        Maybe it’s okay to induce vomiting in a child if a stranger, or an overly “friendly” uncle, or their own father grabs them, take a handful of food, and shoves it into their unwilling throats.

    • James

      “I think it’s silly to argue that birth control leads to promiscuity in women or men…”

      Wow, that’s naive.

      I know there is a lot I wouldn’t have done if contraception (including condoms) hadn’t been available.

      Here is one woman’s story about how being on birth control (which she started for medical reasons) made it easier for her to choose to have sex. And yes, because she didn’t think sex was that big a deal because of the birth control, she did lower her standards for sexual partners.

      http://www.messywife.com/2012/01/birth-control-for-teens.html

      She certainly didn’t feel liberated using the Pill for medical treatment or as birth control.

      • Andre

        James,

        Your two-person sample size makes for a less than convincing argument for the notion that access to contraception turns the otherwise chaste into nymphos.

        • James

          Clearly, you have misunderstood the argument.

          You seem to be confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause. The proximate cause is closest to the effect, while the ultimate cause is a bit deeper.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation

          Contraception is not a proximate cause of promiscuity. The Pill does not turn chaste women into nymphos. In fact, it biochemically does the opposite. (Which can be a BIG problem when you are married.)

          But it can be an ultimate cause of promiscuity. For the woman in the article, being on contraception (even without the intent of needing it for birth control) caused her to think about sex as no big deal. When she thought about sex as no big deal, she lowered her standards for sex partners.

          Contraception caused her to be more promiscuous than she would have otherwise been.

          This is not to say there aren’t virgins on the Pill or nymphos who don’t use contraception, but by making sex less of a “big deal”, contraception makes it easier to say “yes” to sex.

          You say a sample size of two is small, so let’s up the sample size: Are people generally more promiscuous or less promiscuous since the invention and widespread use of reliable contraception, such as the Pill and the IUD? (c. 1960)

          • Andre

            James,

            “Clearly, you have misunderstood the argument.”

            Clearly, as you’re about to demonstrate.

            “You seem to be confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause. The proximate cause is closest to the effect, while the ultimate cause is a bit deeper.”

            Off to a good start.

            “Contraception is not a proximate cause of promiscuity. The Pill does not turn chaste women into nymphos. In fact, it biochemically does the opposite. (Which can be a BIG problem when you are married.)”

            No problems yet!

            “But it can be an ultimate cause of promiscuity. For the woman in the article, being on contraception (even without the intent of needing it for birth control) caused her to think about sex as no big deal. When she thought about sex as no big deal, she lowered her standards for sex partners.”

            We can keep going backwards down the causation chain too. What caused her to think that the possibility of getting pregnant was the only reason sex was a “big deal”?

            “You say a sample size of two is small, so let’s up the sample size: Are people generally more promiscuous or less promiscuous since the invention and widespread use of reliable contraception, such as the Pill and the IUD? (c. 1960)”

            Just to be clear, you’d like to up the sample size from 2 to “people”, and then figure out if they’re more/less promiscuous since 1960s, and if that change is ultimately due to contraception. I can’t wait for your findings.

  • Pingback: Contraception: A Psychological Prostitution : Catholic Stand

  • Pingback: Jason Collins - Big Pulpit

  • AnneG

    Hi, Stacy, I’ve been looking for some information regarding potential long term effects on users of Plan B and such. Looks like there are very few available studies. I suspect the dangers are much great than sited, particularly for frequent users. I noticed boards of women who use it any time they have sex because they don’t want to take pills as it is not natural, putting chemicals into their bodies! And, now we are going to make it available with no supervision to 15 year olds. This is nuts.
    Btw, y’all, I know these men have vested interests in sex with partners to whom they are not married, but, yes, contraceptives do increase promiscuity. It is obvious, and should be even to the obtuse.

    • Andre

      AnneG,

      “I noticed boards of women who use it any time they have sex because they don’t want to take pills as it in not natural, putting chemicals into their bodies!”

      Yes, I’m sure there are many “boards of women” not taking BC because it’s unnatural, but then turning around and putting the same chemicals into their bodies.

      “I know these men have vested interests in sex with partners to whom they are not married.”

      Again, my total lack of surprise that you know things without evidence.

      “Yes, contraceptives do increase promiscuity.”

      Can you explain to me how contraceptives turn otherwise chaste individuals into lustful ones? Is the fear of pregnancy really all that’s holding people back from the swinger lifestyle? It should be easy to explain, give it a shot.

      • michael

        Alas for some people it might but that’s because their morality has not grown beyond the threat and reward level. It’s akin to when many religious people ask me (an atheist) what keeps me moral without a God to tell me what to do and the reward of heaven or the threat of hell to keep me from a life of wanton hedonism. To which I answer my morals and my bank account.:->

      • BHG

        Why not take a look at the well researched and documented book Adam and Eve After the Pill. You might find it illuminating.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Anne,

      I can’t find anything really except this: http://www.drugs.com/sfx/plan-b-side-effects.html

      Levonorgestrel is the drug used in the “mini-pill” in 50X lower daily doses, so that’s probably where they got the info.

      You’re right, women put the same chemicals in their bodies with any synthetic hormone contraception pill.

      • AnneG

        Thanks, Stacy, I’m really concerned that, like the other examples I mentioned, these high school girls are going to use a potent, dangerous hormone whenever convenient. There are going to be repercussions from this.

  • Micaela

    Stacy,

    Thanks for taking the time to write this. I’m not sure about Andre and Longshanks. They seem smart, for trolls. :) Never the less, their logic is circular and their posts are distracting. I’m simply writing to say thank you for speaking up for young women and children.

    In case of rape, pro-lifers arguments are twisted and misunderstood. Life begins at conception. Therefore, any abortion is yet another act of violence, not a solution. We (the vast majority of us) have no wish to shame women who undergo the indescribable abomination of rape. We honestly believe that abortion will hurt her more. Ideally I’d like to see pro-choicers and pro-lifers work together to find ways to help rape victims in a real and lasting way. Counseling, pregnancy help, adoption assistance… all of these are performed at crisis pregnancy centers throughout the U.S. At abortion clinics, you get a pill. While I know of no studies that specifically focus on abortions after rape, incidences of alcoholism, depression, and suicide are higher among post-abortive women. A short-term fix can have long-term consequences.

    • Andre

      “Never the less, their logic is circular”

      Care to illustrate?

      • mdozer2

        “You’ve been arguing that women are often too ashamed to report rape, yet wish to shame them into bearing the child of the rapist, lest the rapist go unpunished.”

        “Thanks for opening my eyes.”

        Are you trying to shame Stacy into believing your arguments? Why are you frustrated?

        “Nothing about contraception keeps people from loving each other or respecting each other.”

        I don’t think you are the expert on love. I don’t see that witnessed by your comments here.

        “I don’t think that the availability of contraception increases promiscuity.”

        Please demonstrate this claim. How many more abortions and how many more children are being conceived out of wed-lock since contraceptives were “more widely distributed” ca. 1968?

        • Andre

          “I don’t think you are the expert on love. I don’t see that witnessed by your comments here.”

          I mean, how do you know I don’t have a PhD in love?

          “I don’t think that the availability of contraception increases promiscuity.”

          Please demonstrate this claim. How many more abortions and how many more children are being conceived out of wed-lock since contraceptives were “more widely distributed” ca. 1968?”

          I don’t think you’re familiar with the concept of ‘burden of proof’. Stacy is saying contraception causes promiscuity, that’s hers to demonstrate.

    • Longshanks

      Which posts have distracted you away from which topic?

      Circular logic is a term for a specific mode of argumentation, I’d be happy to know which posts you, or anyone else, think argue in a circular fashion.

      As for being a troll, well. You seem pretty smart yourself, for being an anti-semite. *winky face*

  • Proteios1

    This type of “research” isn’t new. It kept the tobacco companies in business for over a century. Tey had government protection for a time until getting thrown under the bus. Consider the misguided nature of the contraception/abortion industry. From Gosnell to falsified research this is going to get interesting…the problem is we have to wait a hundred years.

  • Matthew

    Andre,

    You said:

    “Do you feel safer in you car with a seat-belt and air-bags? Protected even? Does this sense of protection make you more likely to drive like a maniac? You’re arguing that contraception makes people more promiscuous.”

    We mutually agree that seat belts in fact increase the chances of survival in a car accident. You question, though, a conclusion from the premise “we feel safer in a car with seat belts / air bags” that would indicate this would cause riskier driving behavior. In fact, studies have indicated that is exactly the case. Here is an example:

    “What he found was that contrary to conventional wisdom, mandating the use of seat belts in 18 countries resulted in either no change or actually a net increase in road accident deaths.
    How can that be? Adams’ interpretation of the data rests on the notion of risk compensation, the idea that individuals tend to adjust their behavior in response to what they perceive as changes in the level of risk.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html#ixzz2SBs2KhHA
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

    So, in this instance, seat belts worn during an accident result in less percentages of fatalities versus accidents. However, the total number of accidents overall increases dramatically because of risk compensation. Thus, yes, the feeling of false security causes some to engage in behavior that otherwise may have been avoided.

    The article goes on to use an analogy of a trapeze artist with a net or a rock climber with safety gear to illustrate how decisions on the trapeze swing or rock face change dramatically without fear of death or dramatic injury.

    So, your assertion that contraception doesn’t lead to changed behavior in regards to sexual practices in the face of nearly half of children being born out of wedlock, widespread STDs, average # of sexual partners, etc. doesn’t seem credulous and makes one wonder if you’re posing these questions in good faith or simply to be combative.

    The point of Stacy’s article is that the reasonable conclusion based on the studies is that at times the MAP would in fact prevent implantation when it otherwise would have occurred. The MAP would be the direct cause of that human life not being allowed the chance to develop in the womb of the mother. Thus, the labeling of the MAP are word games and the evolution of the claims about what the MAP does or does not do isn’t supported by the evidence.

    The other themes about objectification of women, etc. are not religious arguments per se, but propositions about the reality and goodness of our human nature properly utilized.

    Peace to all.

    • Andre

      Matthew,

      Sorry for the delay, but Stanley Cup Playoffs. Anyhow…

      “We mutually agree that seat belts in fact increase the chances of survival in a car accident. You question, though, a conclusion from the premise “we feel safer in a car with seat belts / air bags” that would indicate this would cause riskier driving behavior. In fact, studies have indicated that is exactly the case.”

      From my brief scanning of Adams’ work, I see him arguing against mandatory seatbelt laws because they interfere with adults making risk assessments for themselves, and instead rely on others to tell them how to behave safely. He’s not arguing against seatbelts, he’s arguing against mandating their use.

      From his work, ‘The Failure of Seat Belt Legislation’(http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf):

      “The seat belt law offends my individualist sensibilities; I see it as an unwarranted intrusion of state power into a realm that ought to remain the preserve of the individual. By shifting the burden of risk from those who are most powerful and best protected on to those who are weakest and most vulnerable, it offends my egalitarian instincts.”

      Throughout, he makes it clear that it’s the negative effect of the compulsory nature of these laws on personal responsibility and risk-taking that’s the problem. Not that seatbelts are available.

      “http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

      So, in this instance, seat belts worn during an accident result in less percentages of fatalities versus accidents. However, the total number of accidents overall increases dramatically because of risk compensation.”

      I saw no mention of the number of accidents increasing, could you cite this for me?

      “So, your assertion that contraception doesn’t lead to changed behavior in regards to sexual practices”

      I allowed that contraception can lead to more sex, but I was clear about not seeing how it could cause promiscuity, which isn’t the same thing.

      “in the face of nearly half of children being born out of wedlock, widespread STDs, average # of sexual partners, etc.”

      That’s a lot to lay at the foot of contraception, and I would be interested to see you demonstrate causality.

      “makes one wonder if you’re posing these questions in good faith or simply to be combative.”

      I’d ask why you think it’s not possible to be combative in good faith, but, you know…

  • Jose Calzadilla

    FYI. Great discussion on Plan B in 5 parts at: http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/when-in-doubt-choose-life/

    The discussion is back and forth and does further justice to this issue from both scientific/medical and moral grounds.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Thank you for this, Jose. I know Allison, she’s one of my heroes.

  • http://www.littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com Leila

    Stacy, you have the patience of a saint. Seriously.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      No, I just went outside and lit a fire for a hot dog roast. Burning rotten wood calms my nerves. LOL.

  • Sharon

    While I do worry about statutory rapists using Plan B as a way to hide their crimes, what I am most concerned about, because I am afraid it will be very, very common, is teenage girls telling each other that they don’t have to be all that concerned about being on the Pill because they can just keep a stash of Plan B pills on hand. Where are the studies that show the long-term effects of such high doses of hormones or other chemicals on a young girl’s body? What if she takes Plan B four of five, or more times a year? I remember when they started selling vaginal yeast infection treatments over the counter. Advertising at the time said that you should see your doctor if this was the first time you thought you had a yeast infection, so that you could be properly diagnosed and advised on the use of the product. Yet is there even one ad that advises young girls of the same for a much more serious medical process? I have read that women with seizure disorders should not use Plan B. How many 15 year old girls have read the same? Anyone care to guess how many 15 year old girls will read the small-print literature that will hopefully come with Plan B? It’s an easy one to guess. How many 15 year old girls have any idea that high levels of hormones can harm them? What is the increased risk of breast cancer for someone who uses Plan B once, let alone several times? This situation is obviously not in the best interests of young girls. It is in the best interest of the organizations and businesses that will profit from selling Plan B to young girls with no concern whatsoever for the true health and well-being of the girl. This President at least is consistent on that point. This man is either unable to understand the consequences of what he supports, or he simply knows who he works for, and delivers what is expected of him. Or maybe it’s both.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Sharon,

      “… keep a stash of Plan B pills on hand”

      Exactly.

  • Elizabeth

    Dear Stacy, I am a devout Catholic and sympathetic to your POV. However, I think your “trolls” kind of do have you on the ropes. This is a public health issue affecting millions of non-Catholics who do not acknowledge the burden of proof that you mention. For most people, the fact that you can still get pregnant after using Plan B closes the book on that one. I do appreciate your mistrust of the pharmaceutical companies, but when you shoot down all the scientific studies that have been done, you seem to be saying that it can never be proved that these drugs will not cause a failure of implantation. That is kind of getting into mystical, anti-science territory. Which is fine! for a THEOLOGICAL argument against these nasty drugs.

    I am adamantly against Plan B being sold over-the-counter (and somewhat surprised that the Obama administration truly seems to be, as well). But there are so many other public health angles to approach this from–not least the simple one that if these girls are sexually active they need to be seeing a gynecologist anyway. I question the value of making it about “there is an infinitesimal chance that these girls could be unknowingly committing murder.” I think it could be really useful to do an examination of how OTC Plan B could affect the rates at which rape is reported.

    • Michael

      You may find there is common ground on this. I’m a non believer but am uncomfortable with 15 year olds being able to obtain a drug like this without seeing a doctor. That said a reasonable public policy needs to be created that respects the plurality of society. I believe it was Cardinal Spelman of New York who in the 60′s was asked if he wanted the government to keep contraceptives illegal and he answered that he didn’t need the government to enforce Catholic morality. As history has shown with regards to contraception he perhaps he was naive, but perhaps he should have rather said that he “shouldn’t” need the government to enforce Catholic morality.

      But we have to also get over the punishment approach to morality in setting public policy. We had it here in Canada where a Catholic bishop denounced HPV vaccines because he wanted the fear of contracting cancer to keep young women from having sex. The fact that they could be perfectly monogamous and contract HPV from a adulterous husband was worth the risk of reducing the fear of death from sex. That’s not a healthy approach in more ways than one.

      I trust that this isn’t viewed as a troll comment.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Elizabeth,

      Thank you! I realize that a lot, if not most, people do not view human life through Catholic eyes. You are right about that. And I do tend to stick to single issues at times, though I try to remember the bigger picture too.

      For me, the sticking issue with the science here is that it is a problem for many people if the drug causes abortions of even early embryos. If the pharmaceutical companies really thought no one cared, they wouldn’t be trying to prove (or word game their way out of it) that the pills are not abortifacient.

      I’d like them to at least admit that they don’t know and stop trying to lie to the public. And I don’t see that as a purely speculative theological issue at all. It is about the science. I shoot down the studies because they are over-stating their claims, intentionally misleading people, and that is using science for an agenda, not respecting where science leads you on a search for truth.

      I was surprised by Sibelius and Obama’s opposition too. I’m glad.

      I totally agree with you about coming at this from other social angles, and I started to do that too, but it was too much for one article. Plan B has been promoted as something would reduce the abortion rate too, so I’ll see what I can dig up about those two issues. Thanks for the suggestion.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Michael,

      Not a troll comment at all.

      I appreciate what you said. My husband says the same thing, pretty much. We can’t make everything that is immoral illegal.

      Yet our laws need to be based on justice, which means we have to consider moral arguments.

      I’m just pointing that out because that is precisely what gives me such difficulty with politics. It’s not an easy question to resolve, but it is good to discuss these things and find clarity and common ground, as you said.

  • Mjeck
  • JIm

    I think it is time that parents educate themselves, and their children on the virtue of chastity. There are PLENTY of great resources available to do this. Jason and Christalina Evert are just one example.

    Also, Dr. Hilgers from the Pope Paul IV Institute has a great book for the layperson, called The NaPro Tecnology Revolution.
    This book is pretty thorough in explaining just how damaging contraception is.

    Come on, men! Do your part!

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Jim, you have a good point. Raising kids in a family lays the foundation for teaching them about chastity because they understand why it is important to reproduce within a family.

  • Rob B.

    On the topic of rape, I really wish our leaders would address this from the point of view of justice. Our society does not believe in punishing children for the crimes of the father, so to kill a child conceived by rape is injustice in the highest extreme. This is not to say that it will be easy for the victim of rape; on the contrary it will be incredibly difficult psychologically to bear this child and she should receive as much support as possible (psychological and otherwise). But the rapist’s horrible sin and crime (and it is a sin and crime, O my trolling friends) cannot justify a sin on the part of the victim.

    • Stacy Trasancos

      Well said Rob. Thank you.

  • Andre

    I would like to point out the irony of people calling others “trolls”, while not engaging in any debate, and opting instead for personal attacks.

  • Stacy Trasancos

    Andre,

    Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Edward Green?

    He was, at the time, a Senior Research Scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Devoted his life to studying what reduces risky sexual behavior.

    This is an indication of what I meant yesterday by “risk compensation.” He addresses the seat belt analogy and adds a few more.

    “The potential for risk compensation highlights the need for a renewed prioritisation and coordination of approaches to change sexual behaviour.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1397752/

    This paper also addressed it:

    “This increase in seat belt use was then paralleled with condom use since the rise of HIV, with 3 ways in which a large increase in condom use could fail to affect transmission: 1) it appeals to risk-averse individuals who contribute little to epidemic transmission; 2) increased use of condom increases the number of transmission caused by condom failure; and 3) the increased use of condoms reflect the change in the decision of individuals from one partner to maintaining higher rates of partners and reliance on condoms. This paper, in conclusion, emphasizes the need for program development and implementation in response to this sexual behavior, particularly among developing countries.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10665571

    • Andre

      Stacy,

      I’m unfamiliar with this gentleman’s research, though I understand the point about ‘risk compensation’. I think what’s important to note is that these studies don’t advocate not using condoms to fight the spread of HIV. They warn against only using one approach, and/or telling people it’s a cure-all. They advocate using every tool at your disposal, while emphasizing the need to educate people as to what the risks really are.

  • Stacy Trasancos

    Also, regarding your repeated (and repeated, and repeated) use of the word “promiscuity” I would like to point out that you are the only one who used it, not me.

    I said that giving women/teens birth control leads them to have sex with uncommitted partners, which is not good for them because it turns the women into sex objects. I wouldn’t tell a teen that BC will make you promiscuous, but I would explain to her why she should hold herself in dignity and avoid such actions.

    Which do you think is the better message to a teen?

    Don’t have sex, but here’s birth control in case you do.

    You are worth waiting for and committing to, so don’t sell yourself short.

    Or if neither…then what would you tell a teen girl?

    • Andre

      Stacy,

      “Also, regarding your repeated (and repeated, and repeated) use of the word “promiscuity” I would like to point out that you are the only one who used it, not me.”

      You’re correct that I was the first to use the term “promiscuity” to characterize your statement that contraception “lead[s] [women] to have sex with men who don’t love them or want to marry them and raise a family together.”

      In my defense, I’d like to point out that instead of objecting to that characterization, you asked me to defend my reasoning that “it’s silly to argue that birth control leads to promiscuity in women or men”, not my use of terminology. I may have incorrectly assumed that was your view. If you think I’ve misrepresented your view by using that term, I apologize, retract it, and will refrain from holding you to it. I will say that there are many others in these comments who are saying exactly that, and that saying contraception/BC -> promiscuity is a fairly common accusation from the Catholic / religious conservative communities.

      “I said that giving women/teens birth control leads them to have sex with uncommitted partners, which is not good for them because it turns the women into sex objects. I wouldn’t tell a teen that BC will make you promiscuous, but I would explain to her why she should hold herself in dignity and avoid such actions.”

      I still think that, at the end of the day, you’ve failed to show the causality between contraception and [whatever you'd like to call it instead of promiscuity]. Though you and others are free to repeat this claim (and repeat, and repeat).

      “Which do you think is the better message to a teen?Don’t have sex, but here’s birth control in case you do. You are worth waiting for and committing to, so don’t sell yourself short. Or if neither…then what would you tell a teen girl?”

      I don’t think I haven’t been qualifying my arguments in terms of age, but if I had to give a brief version of how I’d give my hypothetical teen “the talk”, I’m sure I’d mention how important it is to wait until they’ve found somebody that loves and respects them for more than just your body/looks/etc., that they should never feel pressured (by society, friends, partner) to have sex, that it’s ok (sometimes/often better) to wait, what the risks are, and how to be safe and responsible about it should they ultimately decide to have sex.

      • Stacy Trasancos

        Andre,

        No problem, I just wanted to clarify that I don’t use that word. I’ve talked to enough teens to know that words like that just shut down communication. You have to use words that explain, not label.

        Here’s how I’ve put most often:

        It doesn’t make sense to a teen to say, “Be responsible and don’t have sex, but in case you aren’t responsible, use birth control, and use it responsibly.”

        It’s very confusing, I remember being confused by that message. To a teen it sounds like, “Use birth control, you’re going to have sex anyway, but at least I told you not to.”

        “I’d mention how important it is to wait until they’ve found somebody that loves and respects them for more than just your body/looks/etc., that they should never feel pressured (by society, friends, partner) to have sex, that it’s ok (sometimes/often better) to wait, what the risks are, and how to be safe and responsible about it should they ultimately decide to have sex.”

        Thanks. I figured as much. We mostly agree, but I wouldn’t in any way suggest that having sex as a teen was a decision to be made, but a choice to adhere to in the most serious way. I know teens can go off and do it anyway, but I think a parent needs to be that firm rock of truth so that if the teen makes bad choices, the teen is not one bit confused that the choice is indeed bad (as in, can really, really hurt you and others) and he/she knows where to turn for answers. Telling them that it’s up to them is not fair. Teens need parents, not buddies.

        • Andre

          Stacy,

          “Thanks. I figured as much. We mostly agree”

          Now, how did I manage that without having been a mother of 4? :)

          “but I wouldn’t in any way suggest that having sex as a teen was a decision to be made, but a choice to adhere to in the most serious way.”

          Not really sure I understand this.

          “I think a parent needs to be that firm rock of truth so that if the teen makes bad choices, the teen is not one bit confused that the choice is indeed bad (as in, can really, really hurt you and others) and he/she knows where to turn for answers.”

          Sure, but for me that involves not labeling sex as “bad” by default, and instead trying to give them as honest and complete an understanding of what’s involved. I know we probably both think that’s what we’d be doing, but I don’t agree that all sex (or positions) not sanctioned by the Church is sinful. I think there’s also a danger in trying to seem like you’re some infallible source of truth in your child’s life. Sooner or later, your kid is going to realize that you can be wrong (sometimes dramatically), and then all your black and white truth and answers are suspect.

          “Telling them that it’s up to them is not fair.”

          Who else would I tell them it was up to? Me? I think you’re overestimating the effects of “because I told you so”. If the decision ultimately rests with the teen, how is acknowledging that fact unfair?

          • Stacy Trasancos

            Andre,

            I have much life experience here, the ups and the downs, the what-to-say’s and the what-not-to-say’s. You don’t like me to appeal to that, so you’ll just have to take my word for it or not. I don’t think I could have been any clearer. You’re either exaggerating on purpose or you really don’t get it? I can’t say.

            At any rate, have a good weekend.

          • Andre

            Stacy,

            I’m not sure which part of what you said you think I was exaggerating. If you’re referring to:

            S: “but I wouldn’t in any way suggest that having sex as a teen was a decision to be made, but a choice to adhere to in the most serious way.”

            A: “Not really sure I understand this.”

            What I meant was that I didn’t understand how “a decision to be made” was different from “a choice to adhere to”. Hope that helps.

            You have a good weekend too.

  • Longshanks

    “Might not hurt you to listen instead of emote.”

    I doubt very much whether anyone pays more careful attention to what exactly it is you’re saying.

    “You both need to qualify your accusations of shame. I’ve said women shouldn’t be reduced to objects. Contraception objectifies a woman.
    And you call that “forcing indignities” on victims. You call that “shaming” women? How do you get there?”

    You want me to listen, you want me to explain how I came to the conclusion that you’re shaming girls? Then listen. Read the words you put down.

    You: “these pills, even if they never, ever caused the death of an embryo….help a rapist hide his crime.”
    Me: “What if a rape victim doesn’t want to carry his evidence?”
    You: “Work to stop rape, not kill children so it can continue in the dark.” (Nonsensical given the premise of this line of q&a)
    Me: “How does contraception “hide” the rape? If a girl is raped, and she goes to the authorities and is subjected to rape kit analysis and given a contraceptive pill, how is the crime hidden?” (Followed by several other questions, but this is the central point. What is the basis for your claim that a victim taking a non-abortifacient pill ‘hiding’ the rape in this situation?)
    You: —
    Me: —- (I covered that particular exchange above in detail, suffice it to say that you threw out accusations and insults with no basis, none of which you revise or even mention again, despite being provided answers)
    You: “You will never solve violence with more violence.” (A nonsense statement, devoid of fact. As a side note, I don’t believe you believe this, I take this as an emotional response to being challenged, not an actual position.)
    “I am on the same level as a rapist because I object to contraception? Is that what you said?” (No, I did not. You can tell by reading everything I said, and noticing that what you just asked if I said is not among the things I said.)
    Me: “Quote for me where I said that.” (You did not.)

    You then went on to play the “I’m a woman so I know better” card, stupid men, even hypothetical men (“You are the men here (supposedly, I don’t know anything about LS)”) should butt out. First of all, my gender is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The truth about these matters does not depend on my genetalia, or yours, or the number of children you have had.

    Incidentally, how would you like hypothetical males to deal with the fact that you claim that your double x chromosome gives you primacy in discussing this topic in exactly the same way that all the pro-choice females I know state that they have primacy of choice because of their gender?

    Either way it’s a red herring, the gender of debaters is unimportant, your gametes don’t confer exclusive rights to taking these issues seriously. If you don’t like debate from people who disagree, what business do you have operating a public blog which supposedly encourages dialogue, while in actuality encouraging the ridicule of strong dissent?

    “We’re talking about emergency contraception for 15 year olds!”

    My dear, whatever left you in doubt that anyone thought otherwise?

    • Longshanks

      I apologize, I was mentally composing faster than I could type and left out a definitive conclusion to the first half of that post.

      “You both need to qualify your accusations of shame. I’ve said women shouldn’t be reduced to objects. Contraception objectifies a woman.

      And you call that “forcing indignities” on victims.”

      Telling women that they aren’t to be reduced to objects is clearly not forcing any indignities on them. Telling a child rape victim who does not wish to bear the child of her violator, and takes a pill which prevents that potential child’s conception, telling her that she’s helping him “hide his crime” is an abomination.

      Telling her that refusing to be his vessel by taking the pill “would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him” is a statement which, if it were ever attributed to me, would induce deep, deep shame.

  • Magdalene

    And how about the incredible increase in STDs that comes with promoting promiscuous sex among children?

    The goal is death. Sterilization is a bonus.

    All of this is anti-life. You and I are alive. One of my best friends was conceived in rape by the way. She is beautiful, talented, smart and the married mother to 4 children. Would you ‘in the case of rape’ folks really deny Lisa her life?

  • Andre

    Magdalene,

    “And how about the incredible increase in STDs that comes with promoting promiscuous sex among children?”

    I didn’t realize they’d switched up the public school sex-ed curriculum, from vomit inducing pics of warts, to advocating serial teen sex. I’ll tell you I was much more terrified of sex as a result of the public school sex-ed class than the abstinence only version I had in Catholic school.

    Anyways, the real answer to all of this is simply better education

  • Matthew

    Andre,
    I’ll start here:

    Andre: “I’d ask why you think it’s not possible to be combative in good faith, but, you know…”

    I suppose it is possible, but not necessary. Why would you expect someone to grant you good faith when a brusque and combative tone wouldn’t seem to indicate such? That’s not an effective way to win friends and influence people in any scenario.

    Andre: I allowed that contraception can lead to more sex, but I was clear about not seeing how it could cause promiscuity, which isn’t the same thing.

    I see that you and Stacy already hashed this particular comment out. I’d offer the below excerpt from Mary Eberstadt’s introduction to her book “Adam and Eve after the Pill” I suppose as a response. I would concur with her that it would be hard to fathom the advent of the sexual revolution without modern contraceptives.

    Mary says: “The technological revolution of modern contraception has in turn fueled the equally widely noted “sexual revolution” — defined here and elsewhere as the ongoing destigmatization of all varieties of nonmarital sexual activity, accompanied by a sharp rise in such sexual activity, in diverse societies around the world (most notably, in the most advanced). And though professional nitpickers can and do quibble about the exact nature of the connection between the two epochal events, the overall cause and effect is plain enough. It may be possible to imagine the Pill being invented without the sexual revolution that followed, but imagining the sexual revolution without the Pill and other modern contraceptives simply cannot be done.”
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0233.htm

    As a GenXer, I grew up in this reality as the new normal where I and most of my peers were in sexually active relationships with the person we “loved” at the moment. Of course that generally meant we were usually engaging with only that person right up until the “love” died and we moved onto the next partner. There was a total disconnect between the act and any sense of permanence and certainly no expectation of a child as a result. So, yes, laying many of our societal ills at the feet of modern contraception and its consequent decoupling of sex from possible procreation may seem “like a lot to lay” at the foot of contraception, but it seems rather obvious. Contraceptives didn’t cause those ills directly, but they enabled the behavior that led to the consequences. I know my own personal sexual choices and that of my peers would’ve been vastly different without contraception. Wouldn’t yours if you’ve been down that path?

    While I may have avoided those choices out of fear of pregnancy, the reality is that it would’ve been pointing me in a direction of authentic love where I wouldn’t have been objectifying my girlfriend(s) / fiancé / wife.

    Peace to you, Andre.

    • Andre

      Matthew,

      “Why would you expect someone to grant you good faith when a brusque and combative tone wouldn’t seem to indicate such? That’s not an effective way to win friends and influence people in any scenario.”

      In your defense, you were commenting on an interaction I was having with somebody else. It’s quite understandable that you might be unaware of my and Stacy’s past conversations, and that we sometimes get irritated with each other. Basically, this is a long way of saying: I wouldn’t feel bad about not knowing what you’re talking about in this case.

      “I would concur with her that it would be hard to fathom the advent of the sexual revolution without modern contraceptives.”

      Yes, removing elements of a definition sometimes has the effect of making it difficult to fathom the definition without said elements.

      “Mary says: “The technological revolution of modern contraception has in turn fueled the equally widely noted “sexual revolution” — defined here and elsewhere as the ongoing destigmatization of all varieties of nonmarital sexual activity, accompanied by a sharp rise in such sexual activity, in diverse societies around the world (most notably, in the most advanced). And though professional nitpickers can and do quibble about the exact nature of the connection between the two epochal events, the overall cause and effect is plain enough.”

      I don’t dispute that contraception magnified the sexual revolution, but I don’t think you can show it was the cause of the destigmatization to begin with, and I don’t think I’m being a “nitpicker” by pointing this out.

  • Matthew

    Longshanks,

    You said: “Telling her that refusing to be his vessel by taking the pill “would hide rape, and to the extent that a rapist knows that, you only enable him” is a statement which, if it were ever attributed to me, would induce deep, deep shame.”

    I don’t read that as Stacy advocating those words to the victim. Clearly, telling a victim post rape that she is enabling her attacker would be cruel. Instead, I believe her words as stated “to the extent” it would further empower / encourage a rapist as there is one less deterrent, then that is something to consider as well. Rape is always and everywhere wrong.

    Again, the basic principle is that all life is sacred and dignified. Not one of us chose to be be born. The point here is that if the MAP is taken at a point where ovulation and possible fertilization has occurred, then it is a real possibility that human life will be ended as a result of taking the MAP. The contention is that committing violence to the unborn doesn’t aid the victim. I realize that is difficult to see, but that is the point.

  • Sharon

    Just throwing in a comment. The Obama administration at the HHS level has stated its opposition to the sale of Plan B over the counter to girls younger than 17. A judge overturns that policy, stating that there should not be any age restrictions on the sale of Plan B. The FDA then announces that Plan B will be sold to girls 15 and over, while the administration appeals the “all ages” decision. Then yesterday, Obama, in an apparent break from Sebelius’s stand, says in Mexico that the FDA’s decision to lower the availability to age 15 is based on “solid scientific evidence.” What? Why does no one ever call this guy on statements like that? I would love to know what his “solid scientific evidence” is for giving 15 year olds Plan B. And not surprisingly, there is push back from his friends in the so-called reproductive health field, who have the bizarre nerve to pretend that a girl under the age of 15 can be considered a woman. For instance: “‘We are profoundly disappointed. This appeal takes away the promise of all women having timely access to emergency contraception,’ Susannah Baruch, Interim President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said in a statement late Wednesday.” (AP article dated today). “All women” my foot. A 12 year old is not a woman. An 11 year old is not a woman. Even a 15 year old is not psychologically a woman. We seem to be sliding faster and faster into a world where nothing makes sense.

  • Pingback: micro jobs