Abortion Rate Decline Slows as Use of Contraceptives Drops

[Frodo]

Use of Contraception Drops, Slowing Decline of Abortion Rate

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: May 5, 2006

Contraception use has declined strikingly over the last decade, particularly among poor women, making them more likely to get pregnant unintentionally and to have abortions, according to a report released yesterday by the Guttmacher Institute.

The decline appears to have slowed the reduction in the national abortion rate that began in the mid-1980's.

"This is turning back the clock on all the gains women have made in recent decades," Sharon L. Camp, the president of the institute, said.

Among sexually active women who were not trying to get pregnant, the percentage of those not using contraception increased to 11 percent from 7 percent from 1994 to 2001, the latest data available, according to numbers Guttmacher analyzed from the National Survey of Family Growth, a federal study.

The rise was more striking among women living below the poverty line: 14 percent were not using contraception in 2001, up from 8 percent in 1994. Better-off women — those who earned more than twice the poverty rate — were also less likely to use contraception: 10 percent did not use any in 2001, up from 7 percent in 1994.

The number of white women not using contraception increased to 9 percent from 7 percent; Hispanic women not using it increased to 12 percent from 9 percent; and black women not using it increased to 15 percent from 10 percent.

The rate of unintended pregnancies, which had declined 18 percent from the early 1980's to the mid-1990's, has leveled off since about 1994. That reflects a diverging trend: among poor women, the rate rose 29 percent, but among better-off women, it declined 20 percent.

The rate of unintended births — unintended pregnancies carried to term — rose by 44 percent among poor women from 1994 to 2001, but declined by 8 percent for wealthier women.

[afleitch]

Thats why the use of contraceptives have to be actively supported in order to help reduce the rate of abortion. Studies show that the wider the avaliability of contraceptives, preferably free, the lower the abortion rate amongst teenagers in particular.

[A18]

Who cares what stupid people do?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Who cares what stupid people do?

^^^^^^^

[opebo]

Who cares what stupid people do?

^^^^^^^

You poor nincompoops, what do you think the study of politics is about?

[Gabu]

Personally, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the government promoting or even providing contraceptives, for this very reason: that a condom is considerably cheaper than monthly welfare payments to someone who was the product of an unwanted pregnancy, and it will lead to less abortions, which pro-lifers (allegedly) want to see.

[Nym90]

Personally, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the government promoting or even providing contraceptives, for this very reason: that a condom is considerably cheaper than monthly welfare payments to someone who was the product of an unwanted pregnancy, and it will lead to less abortions, which pro-lifers (allegedly) want to see.

^^^^^^^

Not to mention increased crime caused by more people being born into poverty. Abstinence is clearly the best method of birth control, but I think that we need to be realistic about things as well, and it is not in our best interest to allow this problem to get any worse than it already is.

[Keystone Phil]

Not to mention increased crime caused by more people being born into poverty.

It's very distasteful to say "A plus side to abortion is that crime rates aren't as high as they would be if abortion was criminalized." I hate when Pro Choicers (such as Flyers) throw around that point.

[Nym90]

Not to mention increased crime caused by more people being born into poverty.

It's very distasteful to say "A plus side to abortion is that crime rates aren't as high as they would be if abortion was criminalized." I hate when Pro Choicers (such as Flyers) throw around that point.

I was referring to contraception, not abortion.

I agree that's a horrible way to look at abortion, though it is true.

[Keystone Phil]

I agree that's a horrible way to look at abortion, though it is true.

And that disgusting comment makes as much sense as using the Bill Bennett line from last years concerning aborting black babies and, as Bennett said, it is "morally reprehensible."

[Gabu]

Not to mention increased crime caused by more people being born into poverty.

It's very distasteful to say "A plus side to abortion is that crime rates aren't as high as they would be if abortion was criminalized." I hate when Pro Choicers (such as Flyers) throw around that point.

As Nym said, it is also true of contraception, which does not involve anything reprehensible (I hope...) to pro-lifers.

[TomC]

Who cares what stupid people do?

^^^^^^^

You poor nincompoops, what do you think the study of politics is about?

Heh Heh. Good one! I agree.

[Keystone Phil]

As Nym said, it is also true of contraception, which does not involve anything reprehensible (I hope...) to pro-lifers.

There is obviously a question of morality when it comes to contraception, though, Gabu and I hate people think it's crazy when people point it out. Contraception is frequently seen as the perfect tool for enabling people to "do it" whenever they please, not thinking about the act. As someone who sees sex as more than just an act, I do question the morality of contraception use and I hope that that's not looked down upon as "nutty" because of a disagreement.

[Gabu]

There is obviously a question of morality when it comes to contraception, though, Gabu and I hate people think it's crazy when people point it out. Contraception is frequently seen as the perfect tool for enabling people to "do it" whenever they please, not thinking about the act. As someone who sees sex as more than just an act, I do question the morality of contraception use and I hope that that's not looked down upon as "nutty" because of a disagreement.

Is there not also a question of morality with regards to unwanted pregnancies and the resulting increased reliance on welfare and/or criminal activities that often come from those who came from unwanted pregnancies?  It seems to me that bringing someone unwanted into a very poor household where the person is likely to live an unhappy life is a little worse than two people who think that one-night stands are okay.

[Keystone Phil]

Is there not also a question of morality with regards to unwanted pregnancies and the resulting increased reliance on welfare and/or criminal activities that often come from those who came from unwanted pregnancies?

Yes. The question becomes if you don't want a pregnancy, don't put yourself in the situation. I am tired hearing people say, "Just turn to this" to make sure you're not pregnant.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we just have a different view of the morality on this issue. I agree that bringing someone into a very poor household when it shouldn't happen is a bad situation and that is why suggesting that people not put themselves in that situation by abstaining should be done more often. I'm tired of being looked down upon as some loon for suggesting that people abstain from sex instead of constantly turning to contraception and using their partner as a sexual tool.

[Nym90]

It's not loony at all to suggest that people abstain. Obviously this is the single most effective form of not only birth control, but also STD prevention, the only one that is 100 percent guaranteed to work.

Clearly there are many other potential negative effects of sex, as well, such as emotional issues, and the potential cheapening of it which makes it harder to form longer lasting emotional ties with an eventual life partner. Different people are more or less able to deal with this aspect of it, but it's important to recognize that it does exist.

However, I think that one must also be realistic. The message of "just say no" is not going to work for most people, and refusing to even mention contraception as a possibility is thus going to lead to more unwanted pregnancies than would occur if it were mentioned.

The most important thing is for people to be perfectly honest with each other when it comes to sex; don't hold anything back. Be honest about what your feelings are about it and what your expectations are. As long as both people do this, I feel any choices that are made about sex are morally acceptable. It's a private matter and the key is honesty from all parties.

[Gabu]

Yes. The question becomes if you don't want a pregnancy, don't put yourself in the situation. I am tired hearing people say, "Just turn to this" to make sure you're not pregnant.

But this has been tried.  Abstinence-only stuff and a lack of available contraceptives does not reduce the number of people having sex by a great deal.  Any decrease that does occur is more than offset by an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies.  It seems to me that there are an awful lot of things where it's simple to say "well, just don't do it".  Heck, world peace would be perfectly attainable if it were as easy to just say "don't do it".

I agree that bringing someone into a very poor household when it shouldn't happen is a bad situation and that is why suggesting that people not put themselves in that situation by abstaining should be done more often.

Look, all I'm saying is that, unless society as a whole fundamentally decides to change human nature, you essentially have a binary choice between educating and providing contraceptives and having unwanted pregnancies and all the bad that comes with them, and what I'm asking is just a simple question: which would you prefer?  You can't cut down on both at the same time.

I'm tired of being looked down upon as some loon for suggesting that people abstain from sex instead of constantly turning to contraception and using their partner as a sexual tool.

Who is saying any of that?  I'm not.  If I form that opinion, I'll let you know.

[Keystone Phil]

But this has been tried.  Abstinence-only stuff and a lack of available contraceptives does not reduce the number of people having sex by a great deal.  Any decrease that does occur is more than offset by an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies.  It seems to me that there are an awful lot of things where it's simple to say "well, just don't do it".  Heck, world peace would be perfectly attainable if it were as easy to just say "don't do it".

Well, it might not work in most cases but that doesn't mean we should rally behind contraception. It is clearly the lesser of two evils (yes, contraception can be seen as an evil in my eyes when totally abused) but I won't promote the one when it can be easily misused.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See my above comment. I don't like the "You can't do both" argument. Yes, abstaining from sex instead of totally abusing contraception or getting an abortion is realistic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your argument is clearly saying that. So casually promoting the use of contraception means you see this as merely as issue of stopping unwanted pregnancies and from where I stand that's not the only issue here.

[Keystone Phil]

refusing to even mention contraception as a possibility is thus going to lead to more unwanted pregnancies than would occur if it were mentioned.

And isn't it unwise to refuse to mention abstaining from sex? We've reached a point where whenever such an idea is mentioned the response is usually laughter and mocking and labeling ("Oh, what a prudish idea!") of those who suggest it.

[Nym90]

refusing to even mention contraception as a possibility is thus going to lead to more unwanted pregnancies than would occur if it were mentioned.

And isn't it unwise to refuse to mention abstaining from sex? We've reached a point where whenever such an idea is mentioned the response is usually laughter and mocking and labeling ("Oh, what a prudish idea!") of those who suggest it.

Yes, both should be mentioned.

[Inverted Things]

It's not loony at all to suggest that people abstain. Obviously this is the single most effective form of not only birth control, but also STD prevention, the only one that is 100 percent guaranteed to work.

Not true. It's entirely possible to get STDs without having sex: blood transfusions, uncleaned needles, etc. It's also entirely possible to get pregnant without having sex: artificial insemination, an accident while fooling around, etc.

The only solution is to separate the males and females.

[Nym90]

It's not loony at all to suggest that people abstain. Obviously this is the single most effective form of not only birth control, but also STD prevention, the only one that is 100 percent guaranteed to work.

Not true. It's entirely possible to get STDs without having sex: blood transfusions, uncleaned needles, etc. It's also entirely possible to get pregnant without having sex: artificial insemination, an accident while fooling around, etc.

The only solution is to separate the males and females.

Well, this is technically true. I should have said 99.99 percent rather than 100 percent.

[Gabu]

Well, it might not work in most cases but that doesn't mean we should rally behind contraception. It is clearly the lesser of two evils (yes, contraception can be seen as an evil in my eyes when totally abused) but I won't promote the one when it can be easily misused.

When have I stated we should "rally behind contraception"?  All I'm saying is that the choice is between providing contraception and having increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies.  Should we tell the kids, "oh yeah, sure, go ahead and have sex until the cows come home, no problem"?  Of course not.  I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with giving kids some sense of moral guidelines about sex and attempting to get them to abstain and to value sexual intercourse.  All I'm saying is that I feel that providing contraceptives is preferable to having people have unprotected sex and get unwanted pregnancies.  You're trying to push my position a lot further away than yours than it actually is.

See my above comment. I don't like the "You can't do both" argument. Yes, abstaining from sex instead of totally abusing contraception or getting an abortion is realistic.

It's realistic for individuals to do so, sure.  I as an individual can certainly choose not to have sex.  That's obvious.  But to expect everyone to follow suit is, simply put, unrealistic.  I don't know how to sugarcoat this comment.  Saying that it's a possibility does not exactly imply that everyone will do it if you tell them to.

Your argument is clearly saying that. So casually promoting the use of contraception means you see this as merely as issue of stopping unwanted pregnancies and from where I stand that's not the only issue here.

Since when does my disagreeing with your stance mean that I think your stance is "loony" or that I "look down upon" you?  I see perfectly where you're coming from in your advocacy of abstinence.  I just disagree with it.