There were probably enough ideas to inspire several more blog posts, but for now I had one particular question:
Is it more important to talk about what people are doing or what people could do?
Many pro-lifers (including me) point out that if you can't handle a pregnancy in your life right now, you could refrain from intercourse. And many pro-choicers scoff in response, because we all know most people aren't refraining from intercourse.
Similarly, anti-contraception folks point out that women are getting pregnant while using contraception.* But contraception proponents insist the abortion rate could drop because women could use contraception correctly and consistently.
The common assumption (however questionable) is that pro-lifers tend to be anti-contraception and pro-choicers tend to be contraception proponents. So I think it's kind of funny that these groups focus on what could be happening in one case and what is happening in another.
To answer my own question, I'd say we must talk about both what people are doing and what they could do. How else can we figure out how to help people get beyond the "are" to the "could"?
----
*According to Guttmacher, 48% of unintended pregnancies involve women who use contraception (5% from women who consistently and correctly use contraception, 43% from women who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Many pro-lifers (including me) point out that if you can't handle a pregnancy in your life right now, you could refrain from intercourse. And many pro-choicers scoff in response, because we all know most people aren't refraining from intercourse."
ReplyDeleteIn this case, pro-choicers are stating the reality of the situation whereas pro-lifers are pining for a reality that has and never will exist. I'd be fascinated if anyone could find a time in history where people only had sex when they wanted to get pregnant and at no other time. Based on the near constant existence of bastard children, shotgun weddings, and abandoned babies throughout history, I'd say such a time has never existed and furthermore never will.
"Similarly, anti-contraception folks point out that women are getting pregnant while using contraception.* But contraception proponents insist the abortion rate could drop because women could use contraception correctly and consistently."
First off, the pro-contraception folks already get a point for this scenario because most women using contraception correctly aren't getting pregnant. Then we have the women who aren't using contraception correctly and getting pregnant, but this situation is easily rectified with better sexual education. The United States has the worst sexual education in the industrialized West, and we also have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. That's not a coincidence.
Furthermore, the same people who fight against contraception usually fight against comprehensive sex education, and then they turn around and observe how many women are getting pregnant despite using contraception (largely because said women are using it improperly). Well gee, I wonder why.
"I'd be fascinated if anyone could find a time in history where people only had sex when they wanted to get pregnant and at no other time."
DeleteThere's a distinction between *wanting* to get pregnant and *being able to handle* being pregnant. You could not want a pregnancy but still be able to afford it financially and emotionally, if that makes sense.
But I do take your point. I think the ideal but more realistic counterpart to straight-up abstinence would be for people who don't want pregnancies to consistently and correctly use contraception *and* to refrain from traditional intercourse during the days when the woman is fertile.
"First off, the pro-contraception folks already get a point for this scenario because most women using contraception correctly aren't getting pregnant."
They get a point for saying the abortion rate would *drop*. Some of them, though, say the abortion issue would be *resolved*. I think it's clear that wouldn't happen. As an aside, this is why I reject the idea that we must either choose to increase education/access to contraception or choose to try to legally restrict abortion. I'm for both.
"Furthermore, the same people who fight against contraception usually fight against comprehensive sex education, and then they turn around and observe how many women are getting pregnant despite using contraception (largely because said women are using it improperly). "
This is a good point. I can understand people being more resistant to the idea of their teenage children having sex than to the idea of sex in general. I can also understand that people with certain religious beliefs see no need for comprehensive sex ed for people following those religious tenets. But even with those concerns, I don't really understand how threatened people feel by comprehensive sex ed.
To be frank, I wouldn't want my teenage kids having sex either. But I don't think I would be concerned if they had comprehensive sex ed, because I would expect their sexual choices to be based on their morality and logic which will (hopefully) be strongly influenced by my own. ...You know what? This is getting long enough I almost want to write another blog post about it.