I used to think that the likes of the folks at Pandagon were being rather paranoid when they argued that the pro-life crowd was really & truly an anti-sex crowd. I (foolishly, perhaps) thought that, in fact, what everyone in the pro-life crowd really cared about was what was, in their view, the killing of babies. But now I see the ever-increasing number of wingnuts opposing the use of contraceptives more generally, when the data strongly indicates that such use demonstratively causes an actual, real-world drop in the number of abortions. It's hard to avoid thinking that this reveals that there may be more to Pandagonian theories of the existence of an anti-sex wing than I was originally willing to credit.

In short: you can oppose the use of birth control; or you can try to pursue a course of action that has the best chance of actually reducing the number of abortions; but you just can't do both. Worrying about this fictional "contraceptive mindset" seems to me to be just a way to avoid making this real-world choice.

Phil, than you for intimating, that, as a Christofacist wingnut, I hate sex. I'll go even further and raise you that, at the end of the day, I'm also a misogynist. Please don't tell my fiancee.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in stating my point, although it appears that you perceived it while dismissing it as fictional. The point of the post was not to affirm or refute the belief that artificial birth control actually decreases the number of abortions, or that we should attempt to somehow reduce abortions while attempting to reduce the use of artificial birth control.

My point addressed what a number men and women, much brighter than you and I, see as the final conclusion of a contraceptive mentality: namely, the difference between the decision to contracept and abort is one of degree. In the final conclusion man is the final arbiter of whether life should ensue from the conjugal act. The current Pontiff has affirmed as much, JP II's early Love and Responsibility gives a nice treatment of the issue, and Justice O'Connor's appraisal of the rationale is unambiguous in Casey.

My concern is the ramification of such clear, vociferous state support for such a mentality.

Pandagonites may on to something about the pro-choice crowd being anti contraceptive. I thought Seth's "contraceptive mentality" sounded like a buzz phrase, so I googled it. There are pages and pages (at least 10 at first glance) devoted to "contraceptive mentality".

According to Monsignor Vincent Foy of the American Life League, contraception is "the root cause of all other attacks on human life." It "shows a willingness to sacrifice life to lust, is a fuse that ignites a whole chain of evils destructive of a just society, from abortion to euthanasia."

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League sees, "... a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion. The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set. So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

That casts elements of the pro-life crowd in a very different light. My concern would be the ramifications of "state support for such a mentality."

I haven't seen you make any misogynistic posts here yet, so I haven't seen any reason to call you misogynistic. But, again: if you actually care about stopping the murder of babies, and not just stopping people having sex other than the kind you want them to have, then you need to support, not oppose, the distribution of condoms. (Preferably combined with real education about how they are to be used properly; about other forms of contraception; and so on.) To do otherwise is to reveal your fundamental motives as not really concerned with baby killing after all.

"My point addressed what a number men and women, much brighter than you and I..." Brighter than you, maybe. Their reasoning looks pretty darn stupid from here; and, indeed, from the perspectives of pretty much the entire public health community.

Let me also point out, though it should be really rather obvious, that if you don't think that an embryo is a person, then there's just no reason _not_ to treat the abortion of an embryo as an act of contraception. The whole "contraceptive mentality" idea is meant to put condoms on a slippery slope that ends with baby killing; but no one in this debate supports anything that they think of as baby killing. There's just no slippery slope here, because someone's views on when personhood starts is what will set their views on what is or isn't a legitimate way to avoid being a parent -- not the other way around.

I've heard JPII's theology of the body called many things, but "stupid"? Phil, even Ms Kissling comes up with better. Maybe you could elaborate, perhaps with less hubris?

I'm a non-Catholic pro-lifer and I do not see a problem with the use of birth control. (I understand the Vatican's reasoning on the issue; I simply do not accept it.) So, my reservations about the NYC condom distribution plan would be on a more practical level, not about the promotion of a contraceptive mindset. For instance, is this the most efficient use of tax dollars for the intended goal? And does the education which presumably accompanies the condom giveaways condone promiscuity, or does it point out that abstinence is the best and only 100% effective way to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy?

With regard to me being a anti-woman in addition to being anti-sex, according to Ms Marcotte over at Pandagon, I am guilty as charged: "The ideal world, I’ve realized, for anti-choicers would be one where every woman who copulates is forced to walk around some town square the morning after so they can pelt her with eggs" (07/17/06). Also consider, "In the anti-choice worldview, god himself is helpless before the evil powers of the fornicating female" (01/17/07).

John, before dismissing "contraceptive mentality" as a buzz word based on the results of a quick Google search, please consider John Paul's Familiaris consortio, which addresses the issue of a contraceptive mentality, using just such a phrase in the authorized English translation (although I must confess that a more direct translation from the Latin is "against conception belief" or "against conception outlook").

please consider John Paul's Familiaris consortio

Is there any hope that people will convey their point in plain and simple English, instead of trying to puff it up with fancy sounding Latin, as if God itself gave a rat's ass?

"I've heard JPII's theology of the body called many things, but "stupid"?" Nevertheless, it is stupid. (Eppur, si muove.) Look, I have tremendous respect for JPII's insight on many issues, like the evils of communism and the importance of social justice. But, like the Church on the whole, his thinking about psychology & human sexuality was quite literally stuck in the dark ages. I've already suggested, in my two prior comments, two major flaws with this line of thinking, and we can add to it the fact that the postulation of a aberrant "contraceptive mindset" for women wanting to control their own biological fate is in the same general intellectual ballpark as, say, drapetomania.

Eric: I think those are fair questions, though I suspect that the answer to the first is an easy 'yes' for a city that spends a whole heapload on AIDS each year; and the second is 'no, but I doubt there's any educational component at all'.

George: Keep in mind that Latin is still the official language of the Vatican. It may be old-fashioned (charmingly so, imho), but it's not 'puffing it up'.

Er, I meant "Greg", not "George". Sorry!

George: Keep in mind that Latin is still the official language of the Vatican. It may be old-fashioned (charmingly so, imho), but it's not 'puffing it up'.

It certainly is. It's a deliberate artifice, a device perpetuated for no other reason than to add an ersatz air of gravitas (oops, that's latin) to the church's authority.

I mean, what better way to keep the hoi polloi trembling than to tart up a bunch of theological buraucratese in a language that's been dead for two millennia?

What sounds better, what sounds more "important":

"Please consider John Paul's Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio"

or

"Did you read the Pope's opinion of what is, and is not, a good family? It's a bit turgid."

greg

Greg, I'm not sure what you would have me do - translate the readily recognized Latin title of the Exhortation into English, only to then give the official title in Latin in reference, or write the Curia and ask that it refrain from utilizing Latin? In my comment to John, I attempted to be as plain as possible: "Please consider X." And no, Latin is not dead. I invite you to join me and the hoi polli as we tremble in the pews for Mass at Holy Rosary, here in Indianapolis, at noon weekdays or 9:30 AM on Sunday morning. I'm sure that Fr. Magiera will throw in an ersatz air of gravitas for good measure.

Certo, si muove.

I suspect that the answer to [whether the condom giveaway is the most efficient use of tax dollars] is an easy 'yes' for a city that spends a whole heapload on AIDS each year...but I doubt there's any educational component at all'.

If there's no educational component, then what's the point? Are people neglecting to use condoms because they're too expensive? That does not seem likely to me.

It's not the expense so much as the having it when you're thinking about, er, using it. Humans, as a species, can be lousy advance planners.

Also, condoms aren't _so_ cheap when acquired from Duane Reade or wherever, that one wouldn't find cost a factor of at least some significance for someone without much income.

The handing out of the condoms WAS the "educational component." NYC now has a chain drug store on every corner, so it's not like condoms aren't easily obtainable and they are certainly not a mystery to anyone who has entered puberty in this city. The handout is a Bloomberg administration sponsored marketing campaign aimed at encouraging us to sexually behave like good citizens (don't spread HIV, STDs, or create unwanted pregnancies, thanks very much) and THAT's what Seth and the hysterical, hypocritical leaders of my Church oppose.

The material in the linked article (e.g., about STD clinics) seems to indicate that it really is more a matter of getting condoms to people to use, than it is one of telling people, 'hey, use condoms'.

John, please elaborate on how Egan and/or DiMarzio have been hypocritical in this matter. Specific events with links, articles, etc., would be appreciated.

Yes, the city IS trying to get condoms to the people who may need them the most (nail salons, who knew!?), but distributing 26 million official NYC condoms on the subway is probably the least efficient way to do that than I can think of. However, officials knew their gimmick would generate publicity, and that I think, was the point of the exercise: a little reminder to ALL potentially-at-risk NYers that it's in all our best interests for them to behave sexually responsibly.

Here's an idea that might be more effective, if the MTA and the Transit Workers Union would go along with it. Everybody rides the trains, why not have token booth clerks hand them out for free - one or two to a customer, and NOT during rush hour - to those who ask?

Seth,

Perhaps if I change a few words around in the Egan/DiMarzio statement you'll get my point:

"Our Church leaders fail to protect the moral tone of our community when they fail to report incidents of sexual abuse by members of the clergy to civil authorities and to encourage inappropriate sexual activity by failing to dismiss these abusers and moving them from location to location..."

"but distributing 26 million official NYC condoms on the subway..."

I don't think that's what they're doing, though; I suspect you are being confused by the use of the subway font on the wrapper.

phil wrote:

It's not the expense so much as the having it when you're thinking about, er, using it. Humans, as a species, can be lousy advance planners.

But I don't see how handing out free condoms at "health clinics, bars, restaurants, nail salons, nightclubs, and even prisons" is going to help irresponsible people to have one at hand when they need it. Best case scenario: there's a bowl of condoms at the nightclub where they find someone to "hook up" with; they still have to remember to pick one up before they leave. The impact seems marginal at best.

JohnS wrote:

and that I think, was the point of the exercise: a little reminder to ALL potentially-at-risk NYers that it's in all our best interests for them to behave sexually responsibly.

I think you're closer to the mark here. Developing an official "branded" NYC condom is clearly a sort of marketing campaign. Yet I doubt it's going to have much of an impact on the irresponsible clods who are having unprotected sex in the first place.

If I am correct about the above, generous distributions of free condoms begin to look less like a good public health strategy and more like condoning promiscuity by presenting an "everybody's doing it" sort of message.

John, I'm afraid I don't get your point. Please offer evidence, substantiated by something beyond personal perception, indicting Egan and/or D'Marzio as hypocrites.

philosopher

You're right. I stand corrected.

I still like my idea of handing them out at token booths, especially if the city decides to go with the subway theme on the packaging.

They could decide on say, using Milton Glazer's "Big Apple" icon. They could be distributed at NYC's numerous Green Markets, farmer's markets run by the Parks Department.

Seth,

I understand that it's part of the job description to critize the city of NY for Egan and DiMarzio to issue statements critical of the city for failing to "protect the moral tone of our community" by providing condoms in order to attempt to curb the further spread of HIV and STDs.

If they had perhaps shot their fat yaps off about the Church's many failures to "protect the moral tone of the community" with regards to the clergy sex abuse-scandals, I would have simply called them hysterical.

Seth

Yikes! I'm gonna have to fire my editor! The above should have read:

Seth,

I understand that it's part of the job description for Egan and DiMarzio to issue statements critical of the city for failing to "protect the moral tone of our community" by providing condoms in order to attempt to curb the further spread of HIV and STDs.

If they had perhaps shot their fat yaps off about the Church's many failures to "protect the moral tone of the community" with regards to the clergy sex abuse-scandals, I would have simply called them hysterical.

Eric, it's clearly an empirical public health question, and should be treated as such. Letting armchair moralizing about what 'message' it does or doesn't send is foolish, and it leads to stupid public policy decisions (like our underfunding of the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ravaged parts of the world, or not facilitating needle exchange programs).

A little scholar-googling on "free condoms" yields, e.g.:

"Condoms are so effective at preventing the spread of sexually transmitted disease that if they were consistently used, the spread of HIV would be a mere trickle rather than the deluge that it is. When used consistently, the 90–95% effectiveness of condoms3 exceeds that of many vaccines, including cholera (66%),4 influenza (70–90%),5 and varicella (70–90%).6 In an HIV epidemic that is wiping out entire generations in some countries, we should give first priority to ensuring that everyone who needs a condom has one.

"For condoms, as for any other consumer product, the higher the cost, the fewer people buy and use them. Condoms are so inexpensive that it is tempting to consider the cost nominal and the demand for condoms to be driven entirely by people's desire to avoid HIV or pregnancy. But we found that the difference in uptake between low-price condoms and free condoms is enormous. In Louisiana, we started a programme in 1993 that now distributes some 13 million free condoms annually through about 1900 retail outlets and publicly funded clinics. In the first 3 years, we found that the free distribution was followed by an increase in condom use from 40% to 54% by men and from 28% to 36% by women.7 During 1996–97, in response to potential budget shortfalls, we tried to recoup some of the programme's costs by selling subsidised condoms to the retail outlets and allowing them to resell them for US$0·25 each. Immediately after we introduced this small charge, the number of condoms distributed plummeted by 98% and condom use among people with two or more sexual partners fell from 77% to 64%.8 We abandoned the idea of subsidised condoms, reinstated the for-free distribution, and condom use rose again. The lesson: even in the world's richest country, the right price for condoms is zero.

"After that experience, it is hard to justify asking anyone in low-income countries besieged by AIDS to pay for condoms. No one reasonably expects that poliomyelitis will be eradicated by requiring individuals to pay for vaccines, or for waterborne diseases to be eliminated by charging for clean water. For communicable diseases, the entire community benefits when individuals follow prevention measures, such as vaccination or better hygiene. Because everyone benefits, we expect that the community as a whole should bear the cost.

"Last year the UN estimated that 6–9 billion condoms were being distributed, representing only about a third of the needed 24 billion.9 At $0·03 each the cost of these condoms would be about $720 million. That sum is a fraction of the estimated cost of treating the 40 million people currently living with HIV, and less than a quarter of the $3 billion annually US President George W Bush pledged to fight AIDS in Africa.

"Can we deliver these condoms to people who need them? Others have pointed out that if we can get cigarettes or soft drinks to all corners of the globe, surely it should be possible to cart along condoms as well. Condoms could be distributed at all retail outlets, with merchants offering free samples to anyone who comes to their shop.

"Condom social-marketing programmes around the world have focused on using normal wholesale and retail channels to sell subsidised condoms. To distribute condoms for free, these channels might have to be bypassed because middle-men have no incentive to pass the condoms down the line. The cost of this distribution is hard to estimate, but it too should be far less than the cost of HIV treatment. Although low-cost condom sales should be continued, the backbone and first priority of prevention programmes should be large-scale for-free distribution. It is the most appropriate response to a pandemic disease that is fatal and incurable, but easily preventable."

--Deborah Cohen and Thomas Farley, comment in Lancet 364, July 2004, pp. 13 - 14. (The quick cut-and-paste here loses their footnotes.)

Anyhow, there's more where that came from.

Eric, it's clearly an empirical public health question, and should be treated as such.

I generally agree with that, and as you'll note my concern over the message presented by NYC's condom promotion was dependent on my scepticism that it would actually get sexually active people who weren't using condoms to use them. If the findings in Louisiana are just as true in NYC, then I'd say the NYC plan is a good idea. (However, the 40% condom usage rate in Louisiana in 1993 suggests to me there was a significant problem of ignorance, not just of availability.)

In any case, I still think there must be a strong educational component to anti-HIV programs, and that education should stress that abstinence is the best and only 100% effective way to prevent HIV, other diseases, and pregnancy. I doubt any public health researcher would disagree that reducing the number of sexual partners a person has in their lifetime is a good idea.

"I still think there must be a strong educational component to anti-HIV programs"

Let's not commit the fallacy of division here, though -- there should, I agree, be an educational component somewhere in the totality of anti-HIV programming, but there's no reason at all to think it needs to be in every single part of an agency's anti-HIV programming. If you start with this

and then poke around at some other HIV-related materials on that site, e.g.,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ah/aha1.shtml
then you'd see that it is indeed (and rather unsurprisingly) part of what's going on here. The abstinence message is there, but is it the focus of these materials? No, but it would be ridiculous for it to be such for materials aimed at adults.