If you feel statistics are necessary, then please provide them.

I look forward to seeing what you can produce to show that there were more unplanned pregnancies in 1965 than there were last year.

Blake,

Where are your statistics? How can you compare the number of unplanned pregnancies before and after the introduction of the pill when you present no numbers at all?

Reverse that. (Ooops).

Unintended pregnancies became more common, not more uncommon, after the introduction of effective birth control.

If contraceptives prevented unintended pregnancy, then it would be the reverse: the high numbers would be prior to the year of the Pill’s introduction, and there would be a sharp drop in the number of pregnancies after the introduction of the Pill.

But that’s not what happened, is it?

Actually, the overall rate of unintended pregnancies (and abortions) has been going down for decades

The total number of unintended pregnancies in any year prior to the introduction of the Pill is higher than the total number of unintended pregnancies in any year subsequent to the introduction of the Pill.

So it’s not real clear what you think you’ve proven, other than that there are other variables at play – a point that supports my point more than it does yours, since your argument is the one that relies on the ridiculous idea that somehow “increasing ease of access to birth control equals reducing the number of unintended pregnancies”.

Of course not. What is at issue is tampering with an entirely natural process in such a way that human intellect is subtracted from the act. This is consistent with the triumph of the will, by which no appetite goes unslaked, but not with the proper subordination of the will to right reason.

Actually, the overall rate of unintended pregnancies (and abortions) has been going down for decades. Teen pregnancy is at approximately a 40-year-low. It is true that the rate of out-of-wedlock births has been increasing for some time, but that is not the same as unintended pregnancies. This is a worldwide trend, not just something happening in the United States.

The number of unintended pregnancies can be described as a ratio: a percentage of the total number of sex acts.

What we have seen is that the total percentage of unwanted births has decreased “per sex act”, but the total number of sex acts has grown to the point where it is almost out of control.

I would be interested in seeing the statistics for this. What is your source for the total number of sex acts? Who compiles these statistics?

The number of people having sex irresponsibly is not a fixed number. It is a variable.

Birth control was supposed to eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead, we see more, not fewer, unintended pregnancies.

The number of unintended pregnancies can be described as a ratio: a percentage of the total number of sex acts.

What we have seen is that the total percentage of unwanted births has decreased “per sex act”, but the total number of sex acts has grown to the point where it is almost out of control.

But since it is a widely observed act that subsidizing a behavior tends to encourage the behavior, is it really logical for us to assume that the sudden increase in sex acts is “out of control”? There is no logic justifying this assumption – there is only wishful thinking, on the part of those of you who want us to accept promiscuity as not only desirable but inevitable.

Logic leads to the conclusion that birth control does lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, but subsidizing birth control offsets (more than offsets) the advantages of birth control – by promoting irresponsible sex.

Logically, birth control should remain legal – but should be unsubsidized, because there is no way to subsidize birth control that does not promote irresponsible sex (and another, related but not identical factor as well contributes to the problem: the act of taking responsibility for providing contraceptives shifts responsibility for unwanted pregnancies away from the people with the bodies, and toward the people providing the birth control).

They are trying to change the definition of health away from a bodily integrity definition, toward a definition that describes health (sometimes called “wellness” or “well-being”) as a condition.

Anything that contributes to this condition thus qualifies as “health”.

Notice that there is nothing – literally nothing on this Earth – that does not affect your “well-being”. Under the new definition, any and every aspect of one’s life (including choices, control issues, morality, values, and lifestyle) is covered by the new definition of “caring for” one’s “health”.

I appreciate what you are saying, but it seems to me to fall into the category of “if men were angels.” If everyone obeyed the teachings of the Catholic Church, there would be no sexually transmitted diseases (or very few), no unwanted pregnancies, no crimes, no need for locks on doors, no terrorism, and so on. But people are not angels, never were, and never will be. And, of course, there are also fine, sincere, knowledgeable people who simply don’t believe the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I want to have sex but I do not want the consequences. I want to have a family but I do not want the obligations that normally come with accepting the commitment of a family. I want to be treated like a male except when it is more advantageous to be treated like a female. I want to smoke recreational marijuana, but the state owes it to me to keep my health in good shape.