The New York Times:
During his lecture, Archbishop Dolan criticized people who postponed conception with “chemicals and latex,” calling them part of the “culture of death.”
The Economist:
There is a large body of evidence that shows contraception use has helped women avoid unintended pregnancies, which in turn has led to lower abortion rates, healthier babies, stronger marriages and improved social and economic conditions for women.For example, Charles Westoff of Princeton University found that as central Asian and eastern European countries embraced the use of modern contraception their abortion rates substantially declined. Closer to home, a study by a group of doctors published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the decline in pregnancy rates amongst American teens “appears to be following the patterns observed in other developed countries, where improved contraceptive use has been the primary determinant of declining rates.” (Teen pregnancy is now at a 30-year low, thanks in large part to increased contraception use. Studies have also shown that greater availability of contraception doesn’t lead to an increase in sexual activity.) Another study in California found that the state’s family-planning programme, which provided contraception to nearly 1m women in 2007, averted about 300,000 unintended pregnancies, over 100,000 abortions, and 38,000 miscarriages.
Other studies show that proper birth spacing, for which contraception is an effective tool, leads to better perinatal outcomes. You probably don’t need a study to tell you that unintended pregnancies put a strain on parental relationships, but there is one. Apart from contraception’s value in family planning, it also offers direct benefits for women’s health. Studies have shown that hormonal methods of contraception are useful in the treatment of menstrual disorders, while oral contraceptives reduce a woman’s risk of developing certain forms of cancer.
Yes, yes, I know the current controversy is not (strictly speaking) about the rights and wrongs of contraception per se, but it’s handy to have such a succinct reminder of where the Dolans of this world stand on this issue. One wonders whether the 99 percent of American women who have at some time relied upon contraception agree that they are indeed part of the culture of death.
“Charles Westoff of Princeton University found that as central Asian and eastern European countries embraced the use of modern contraception their abortion rates substantially declined”
The anonymous writer for The Economist automatically loses by first citing eastern Europe and central Asia… those societies are absolutely disgusting in how trivial they treat abortion as if it is a contraception in itself.
While the use of contraceptives would be an improvement in those post communist societies, in the United States for every abortion prevented by contraceptives another abortion was brought about by how mass access to contraceptives changed people’s general morals.
I guess I have to own up to being a part of the culture of death. So do my mother, my sisters, my sister-in-law, my cousins, my aunt, every woman friend I’ve ever had…There are quite a few of us.
Tyler Cowen links to a study indicating that even when the expense of being part of “the culture of death” goes up, women will pay it:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/the-price-elasticity-of-contraception.html
True conservatives should support contraception more than anyone else. Anything which leads to fewer unwanted births and pregancies (and abortions, duh!) would put less of a strain on the economy and lead to less demand for social welfare programs, e.g. less ammo for liberals on a spending spree. However, thanks to the melding of religious belief (specifically Catholicism in the US and Europe) with conservative belief has led to this mess: anti-democratic religious ideals wrapped up nice and neatly as a debate on government mandates.
Does “The Church” ever get social engineering right? The Vatican decided centuries ago that priests should be celibate — not to focus on their worship, but because paying pensions to wives was found to be too costly to the gilded city-state.
“When mandatory celibacy was imposed in 1139, it was because of financial factors, as opposed to reasons of faith.” http://bit.ly/zQClMD
My argument is: How costly is it to the church to have an army of sexually frustrated humans (yes, human males)? Costly in both turning off potential future converts, and costly in the millions of civil suit settlements. Maybe there’s no link between pedophilia and and a clerical celibacy policy…
Andrew:
You accurately quote the N.Y. Times, but
is misleading. He didn’t call them anything, directly. What he said was:
http://communio.stblogs.org/Dolan%20Law%20and%20the%20Gospel%20of%20Life%202012.pdf
A distinction without a difference, perhaps, but he needs no help in sounding over-the-top.
Eric, have you noticed that the number of fatherless children has soared as contraception has become more and more available?
Richard, could you imagine how worse it possibly would be without contraception? And, as far as condoms, how worse the HIV/AIDS epidemic would be? Of course, both of us could talk on about what the country would be like if contraceptives weren’t as widely available, backed by little more than anecdotal evidence, until we get carpal tunnel. Regardless, I am not convinced that limiting the access (in any way) to contracetives would have favorable results for anyone in the long run. Remember, there are biological AND economical (as I had pointed out) implications with this.