17
Sep
06

Morning After Pill Leads to More Abortions

One of the big arguments for the “morning after” pill was that it would cut down on the number of abortions.

Well, guess what. Just the opposite is happening.

From the article:

Abortion rates among women, aged 15 to 44, lept from 11 per thousand in 1984 to 17.8 per thousand in 2004, even though the morning-after pill has been available over the counter from chemists since 2001, Professor Anna Glasier said in the British Medical Journal Friday.

Now, just to be certain, here’s another source which uses data from 2001-2004 (silly AFP):

So the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, has made no significant impact on abortion rates. People who pushed for this thing to be OTC argued that easy access to emergency contraceptive would decrease abortions dramatically.

Well, they’re wrong. Now how can it be possible that allowing for even more contraceptive means more abortions?

It comes down to sex. Biologically, sex is the process by which our species propagates. Our species is different than most as the female ovulates about 12 times a year, on average, from ages 12-40, or sometime thereabouts. So our biology is rigged to reproduce 12 times a year.

Men, working on their biological nature, are horny basically from age 13-100. The reason being is that men have to spread their seed quickly, as they are the hunters and they are often eaten by sabre-toothed tigers. Well, we were. But as our society progressed, our biology did not. In evolutionary terms, we are pretty much the same as we were 100,000 years ago. There are important differences, but reproduction is still pretty much the same.

In the 1950s, we discover the pill. Sex is revolutionized. And then revolutionized again when the era of “free love” surfaces in the 60s. Sex becomes commonplace and recreational rather than reproductive. Societally sex has changed, but biologically it hasn’t. Even with the miracle of “the pill”, pregnancy rates begin to rise.

The comes Roe vs. Wade. It is now possible for the pregnancy to be terminated.

Interesting terms are used here, because something did die. The reproductive view of sex died at that moment. Recreational sex was given the trump card. And the glorification of sex (which is completely natural and enjoyable) was the norm.

Then the Reagan revolution came about. Baby Boomers vs. Their Parents. Conservatism vs. Liberalism. People fought abortion. Slowly the idea of abortion became abhorrent. Even Hillary Clinton doesn’t like abortions now. But the idea of “liberation” abortions gave was too much for the liberal side of the aisle to give up. Abortions are “regrettable”. Maybe they could come up with something better?

Enter Emergency Contraception. It’s contraception! Not abortion! It’s like the $25 condom. It’s the ultimate out. Sex is safe.

But it’s not. All it does is encourage more and more sex. Sex leads to pregnancy. And if there is no emergency contraception, the only other out is abortion. So, logically, abortion rates had to increase becuase the social perception that leads to abortion was not changed.

The only way to significantly reduce the amount of abortions is to shift the focus of sex away from recreational sex to reproductive sex. Unfortunately, the genie’s been let out of that bottle, and it’s going to be very difficult getting him back in.


8 Responses to “Morning After Pill Leads to More Abortions”


  1. 1 suckonthis
    June 15, 2009 at 2:56 am

    Hang on, let’s get this right:

    You’re saying that the morning-after pill caused abortion rates to increase by 0.68% over twenty years, despite only being available for the last three of those years?

    It fits a pro-life, anti-contraception agenda to compare the rise in availability of contraception to the rise in number of abortions, but there are many far more significant reasons why abortion rates are going up in the UK, social, financial and educational reasons.

    Did you know, for instance, that the available budgets for family planning and contraception education were cut by 10% between 2001 and 2004? I could correlate that budget cut with the 0.4% increase in abortions that occurred during that period, and say the reason we’re having more abortions is that people aren’t being taught about contraception enough.

    It’s funny, you see, because whereas you won’t find a single person lobbying against the association of sex with reproduction, you’ll find thousands upon thousands who lobby against contraception education. So who’s doing the most damage?

    • 2 docattheautopsy
      June 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm

      “You’re saying that the morning-after pill caused abortion rates to increase by 0.68% over twenty years, despite only being available for the last three of those years?”

      You’re being statisically dishonest. The rate increased from 11/1000 to 17.8/1000, which is an increase of 61.8% to the rate. Look at the number. It increased by over half. If the increase in the rate was 0.68% the number of abortions would increase to 11.07%.

  2. 3 Matt R.
    June 16, 2009 at 9:29 am

    There is one big problem with contraception education. It’s not anyone’s job to teach kids about that except their parents. True, there’s a lot of moms and dads who are not qualified to teach about any kind of responsible behavior, let alone sex. But that does not abrogate their responsibility.

    Handing things over to school districts does not necessarily solve the problem. Look how many fat kids get A’s in PE.

    And yes, availability DOES effect frequency of use. Obviously! If fast food was not everywhere, how much would we eat? If divorce were not so easy, how many Hollywood movie stars would be casually getting married?

  3. 4 suckonthis
    June 17, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    If human biology has a place to be taught in school (and you won’t find a responsible educator who believes it hasn’t) then there’s no reason why reproduction shouldn’t be taught as well. And since STDs are a practical and engaging way to teach people about virology, then it necessarily follows that it makes sense to bring in information about contraception.

    Yeah, sure, parents have a responsibility to teach their kids about it too, but it’s silly to suggest that it has no place in school.

    Take a look at this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1716232

    “The overall pregnancy risk index declined 38%, with 86% of the decline attributable to improved contraceptive use.”

    “The decline in US adolescent pregnancy rates appears to be following the patterns observed in other developed countries, where improved contraceptive use has been the primary determinant of declining rates.”

    I find that getting factual information from reputable scientific sources generally provides far more compelling conclusions than comparisons with fast food and Hollywood stars.

  4. 5 Matt R
    June 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    So we agree availibility coincides with frequency of use. I’m glad you spent your life surfing the net to prove a fact I already said was obvious. Bravo.

    But your “segway” method of deciding what schools should teach is fallacious. (Hey, kids know that we know what a Cowper’s gland is, let’s talk abut ‘doin’ it.”) The difference is degree. Teaching biology is a long way from teaching about sex. In case you did not know, sex is more complicated.

    If sex were just biology, what would happen to the sit-coms? Poetry? Literature? Sex necessarily involves social mores, judgements and values. Again. The parent’s pervue. Why are you so bent on taking a parent’s rights away?

    Would you let a stranger (certified or no)teach your kids about starting a family? Not only that, but teaching it to 30 kids at a time? Every parent knows their kid is different and there are some classmates you don’t want in their math class, let alone sex ed.
    Batch sex ed? Or is one-on-one conseling better?

    Parent’s trump school district’s re:kid’s values. That’s the “reason why you shouldn’t.”

    One can, or cannot, use STD’s to talk about virology. One can use the swine flu. Guess which one was more engaging this year?

  5. 6 suckonthis
    June 18, 2009 at 2:41 am

    Since far more people have caught AIDS and other STDs this year than have caught Swine flu, I’d say that STDs are more engaging. I don’t think that temporary news hysteria is a particularly good basis to judge what we should or shouldn’t teach kids about.

    And yeah, availability of contraception coincides with frequency of contraception use – the more available condoms are, the more people will use them when they have sex – that doesn’t prove that contraception causes people to have sex far more often.

    And teaching people about contraception can be done in a biology class in a very efficient and effective way. Just as the mechanics of human reproducion can be taught in biology in a very effective and efficient way. I’ve seen it happen. It wasn’t difficult. No-one died. No-one sued the school.

    Yeah, I’d let a stranger teach my kids about starting a family. If that stranger was a qualified teacher. Why not? Why should they only hear my side of the story on that subject? I want my kids to be intellectually independent, and the best way to achieve that is to have them learn about stuff from a variety of different sources. Crucially, biology teachers understand far more about contraception and human reproduction than I do, so why not have my kids get access to the best available information? Of COURSE I want my kids to learn about contraception and reproduction from someone with a biology degree. Why wouldn’t I?

    Do you honestly think that kids learn about sex JUST from their parents? Like you say, they learn about sex from sitcoms, from poetry, from literature, from their older siblings, from their peers, from finding discarded porno mags, from all sorts of different places. It’s not a matter of taking a parent’s rights away – but if a parent really wants to be the ONLY ONE teaching their kids about sex, then I’m afraid their only option is to home-school their kids and prevent them from having any friends, watching any TV, or reading any books.

    Honestly, people need to stop treating education like it’s a dangerous thing.

  6. 7 Matt R.
    June 19, 2009 at 8:09 am

    Swine flu “hysteria?” Right. The kids wanted to know about swine flu, get, avoid it, etc. STD’s is old news. Not to discount AIDs but my point is that one can talk about virus’ w/o STD’s.

    Contraception doesn’t lead to more sex? So, I guess you’d posit single women had just as much sex before The Pill took away the consequences.
    It seems logocal to me that people always do thing more often when there aren’t more consequences.

    Otherwise, I think we are miscommunicating over the points of teaching sex. You mean reproduction. I mean the that and values.

    And yeah, as a parent, I am constantly struggling to limit my kid’s exposure to Madison Avenue and everyone else who tries to poison my kid’s mind. We wouldn’t dream of locking his/her kid in a tower but that doesn’t we should shrug and say “oh well” either.

  7. 8 suckonthis
    June 20, 2009 at 11:29 am

    STDs are old news? Really? Since when? Strange, I thought they were a massively more significant and serious threat to kids than swine flu. We must be looking at different figures here. Can I see your evidence?

    As for the contraception argument, I’d ask what you have against single women having sex?

    And why does it always have to be extremes? Having a qualified biologist give kids information about contraception and sexuality does not constitute shrugging and saying “oh well”.

    If you prevent your kid from being exposed to different points of view about life, sex and whatever else instead of allowing the kid to decide for itself what it thinks is right, you’re just gonna end up with a dumb kid. You can’t protect your kid from information, all you can do is teach it how to understand it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).

Categories

Archives

World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 129,292 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: