Does contraception cause or avoid abortion?

[lavendersparkle]

Leaving aside the issue of whether some forms of contraception have post-fertilisation effects, there is a debate about whether contraception makes people more or less likely to have abortions.

I think the arguments go something like this. Anti-contraception pro-lifers* claim that contraception encourages people to be in denial about the connection between sex and pregnancy. This means that people are more likely to have sex in situations where they definitely don't want to get pregnant and if they do get pregnant, they're more likely to view it as a 'mistake' which should be 'corrected' by abortion. This may seem far fetched, but there is evidence from other areas of life that sometimes actions to improve the safety are outweighed by an increase in risk taking. I don't wear a cycle helmet, in part because there is some evidence that they don't improve your overall safety as drivers drive more dangerously around cyclists wearing helmets because they aren't viewed as as vulnerable.

The pro-contraceptive argument is that, even if people are more likely to have an abortion if they get pregnant, the decrease in the number of unplanned pregnancies when people use contraception are so high that they reduce the number of abortions overall.

So, I think this needs to be looked at empirically. I think being a social scientists can help one make more sense of the correlation and causation. One thing said by anti-contraception advocates is that a large proportion of the women who have abortions were using contraception whereas very few were practising NFP, FAM or LAM. I don't think that this correlation results in a causation. Most people who practice NFP are devout Roman Catholics and they'd be pretty unlikely to have an abortion. So in this case, rather than the use of contraception causing abortion it's more that the lack of contraceptive use and the lack of abortion are both caused by the Roman Catholicism.

A pro-contraception argument is that among developed countries with legal abortion, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are the ones where contraception is most easily available and sex education is most comprehensive, such as the Netherlands. A contrasting argument is that abortion rates have risen in England and the US, even as contraceptive availability has increased.

Thinking about this I'm drawn toward a tentative conclusion. I think that ceteris paribus, more access to contraception reduces the number of abortions, because it dramatically reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies. However, I wonder whether the availability of convenient contraception has led to changes in cultural attitudes to sex and children, which in turn makes people more likely to have abortion because they have more sex and are less willing to accept unplanned children.

*This ignores other arguments against contraception just that they cause more abortions.
**This ignores wider reproductive justice issues.

Comments

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

However, I wonder whether the availability of convenient contraception has led to changes in cultural attitudes to sex and children, which in turn makes people more likely to have abortion because they have more sex and are less willing to accept unplanned children.

Given the problems e.g. the Victorians had with foundlings, the fact that historical societies have had by our standards an absurd birth rate (either Julian the Apostate or Justinian complained about problems Constantinople had with a falling birth rate - comfortably more than a dozen), the risible effectiveness of abstenance only sex education, and many other factors, I think that the answer is that this simply isn't relevant.

And while I'm at it, I'd be fascinated by a cite for:
One thing said by anti-contraception advocates is that a large proportion of the women who have abortions were using contraception whereas very few were practising NFP, FAM or LAM.

The best evidence I have indicates that a low abortion rate goes hand in hand with use of contraception, and that “The evidence is strong and growing that empowering women with the means to decide for themselves when to become pregnant and how many children to have significantly lowers unintended pregnancy rates and thereby reduces the need for abortion,” whereas "abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted"

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

The statement about a low proportion of women who used NFP having abortions, referred to women who had access to contraception but chose to use NFP to space births, living in developed countries where abortion is legal. I think the actual statistic was from the US. This seems very likely to me as, I would imagine, the proportion of women using NFP (not just not using articificial contraception) who are also opposed to abortion is very high. Whilst NFP or FAM can be a good option for couples for a variety of reasons, and has a certain following among feminist hippies, it's still pretty much the preserve of devout Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Once again I'm going to ask for a cite and some actual figures.

And then I'm going to point out that there's a massive sample bias and confirmation bias between the groups using such methods and the general population.

And then I'm going to point out that they are actually forms of modern contraception anyway - and that there is only a small subset of the population for which they are practical.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

That's what I said in my post. I don't think it's that using NFP or FAM makes you less likely to have an abortion, it's that using NFP and not having an abortion are both caused by adhering to religions which are opposed to abortion and artificial contraception. You could call that sampling bias or just good old "correlation doesn't equal causation".

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

Also, teaching women FAM and providing them with the equipment required, should be regarded as "empowering women with the means to decide for themselves when to become pregnant" as it is a reasonably effective way of avoiding conception.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Agreed. It is an effective form of contraception for those with the dedication to treat it as such, the will to keep to it, and the luck to have nothing untoward happen that renders it irrelevant.

As such I consider the advocation of it an inherent purity test - only the pure are going to keep to those rules and, far more than other forms of contraception, there is the implication that if someone using it then gets pregnant, that's their own silly fault.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

It is an effective form of contraception for those with the dedication to treat it as such, the will to keep to it, and the luck to have nothing untoward happen that renders it irrelevant.

You could say pretty much exactly the same thing about progesterone only pills, which require just as much effort and dedication to use correctly. This does not mean that either FAM or POPs, or condoms for that matter, are "purity tests". They both have advantages and disadvantages and are suitable for different people. Catholics are much more likely to use FAM than other methods because it's the only method in line with their churches teaching, but there are other people who use it FAM because it is a good method for them (particularly women who have adverse side effects from hormone based contraception and dislike suing barrier methods).

There is an interesting discussion to be had about why FAM isn't more widely none about and used. There's a lot of disinformation about the method and I think this has a lot to do with our attitudes to female reproductive systems, sexual behaviour and pharmaceutical companies. I can't imagine many of the 'powers that be' wanting to tell teenagers that a woman is only actually physically capable of becoming pregnant about one day a month.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

You could say pretty much exactly the same thing about progesterone only pills, which require just as much effort and dedication to use correctly.

Really? Can you find any people actively pressuring people not to follow the guidance on progesterone pills? (Arguably the Roman Catholic Church...) Because there are depressingly many men who will pressure women not to refuse sex, but will be more than happy for the pill.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Slight amendment: the advocation of it in preference to other methods. I in no means wish to restrict people from using it if that;s what they want to use.

[naath.livejournal.com]

It is indeed a fairly good method, if done right (which obviously teaching would help with).

I wouldn't do it personally though. I think it requires too much co-operation on the part of men, and I don't trust them.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

I do take your point, though, that it's very easy to underestimate the amount of sexual activity, abortions and infanticide in earlier periods.