returntothestars:

by-grace-of-god:

Note the sources of the above quotes.

Contraception is not the answer. We deserve better.

Why We Want More than Birth Control

Boy howdy. This response ended up taking many more hours of research than I had expected. I had hoped to be able to google these quotes, show how they had been taken out of context, and be done with it. Turns out that running down the sources of most of these quotes is harder than you would expect it to be, what with online libraries and whathaveyou. Why? Two reasons: The first is that a simple Google search of the quotes will only get you a cornucopia of pro-ignorance articles (and commenters on pro-choice articles) all parroting the exact same list of 18 karat quote-nuggets. The second reason is that these quotes are old.

image

The most recent was made about 18 years ago. The oldest, 61 years ago. Let that sink in. Think about how the demographics of contraceptive users have changed, and how they’ll continue to change (in the US) with the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Think about the advances that have been made in contraceptive technology since the days of computers that look like this:

image

My girlfriend uses her smartphone to remind her to take her pill. How many women could do that in 1996? But, for the benefit of argument, let’s temporarily assume that the quotes in the original post can all be taken at face value and that at various times several doctors, who were respected sex-educators and advocates of contraceptives, stated that contraceptive use led to higher rates of abortion. In this case, my response is…

 THEY WERE WRONG

image

The evidence that increased contraceptive use leads to lower rates of abortion is overwhelming:

“Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly”

- 2003 study  

“The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15– 44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable

exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000….

…The economic recession that was occurring in 2008 may have made it harder for poor women to access contraceptive services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies. Alternately, when confronted with an unintended pregnancy, poor women who might have felt equipped to support a child, or another child, when not in the midst of a recession may have decided that they were unable to do so during a time of economic turmoil.”

- 2008 Study

A new study by investigators at Washington University reports that providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduces unplanned pregnancies and cuts abortion rates by a range of 62 to 78 percent compared to the national rate.”

- 2012 study

“Our simulations are performed using FamilyScape 2.0, a microsimulation model of family formation. We simulate both increases in contraceptive use among non-contraceptors and improvements in the consistency and effectiveness of contraceptive use among existing contraceptors. Our results show that changes in either margin of behavior are likely to produce sizeable effects. For example, we find that, if 25 percent of non-contracepting unmarried women under the age of 30 were to begin using contraception, abortion and nonmarital birth rates among unmarried women in this age group would fall by about 25 percent and about 13 percent, respectively.”

- 2013 Study

There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2011, the latest year for which figures were available, according a paper published Monday from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank. That is down 13 percent from 2008 and a little higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The study did not examine the reasons for the drop. But the authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms. They also noted the economy as a contributing factor, because people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times. But they did not credit the recent wave of state laws restricting access to abortion, because most of those took effect in 2011 or later.

- 2014 study

And those are just a few of the sources I found by Googling “abortion rates contraception.” I guess all the pro-ignoramuses reblogging this post couldn’t be bothered.I should be able to stop this post right here. The claim that contraceptives lead to more abortions is demonstrably wrong, regardless of who made it. But, I set out to analyse these quotes one by one. So, returning to the world of reality, in which I am highly skeptical of the original post’s sources, we will delve into decades long-since passed and try to work out why, if at all, these things were said.

The Kinsey Quote

This is the oldest of the bunch; spoken in 1955 and published three years later, after Kinsey’s death. This is indeed an accurate quotation from a conference sponsored by Planned Parenthood. This Google Book entry is the closest thing to an online version of the original publication I was able to find, but it only lets you see a few sentences at a time. It does, however, confirm  this longer version of the quote, taken from the pro-ignorance article which seems to have originated this list of quotes:

“At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives. I don’t think it is entirely carelessness. As I pointed out before, you don’t do anything putting on your clothes, or going to bed, or drinking, or eating with absolute regularity. And I think it is just too much to hope that we can ever have any contraceptive practice, outside of temporary sterilization, which is going to prevent this occasional slip that accounts for a high proportion of undesired pregnancies and abortions, especially among those of the upper socioeconomic levels.”

Note that Kinsey specifically bemoans the “absolute regularity” needed for contraceptives. Remember that 2014 study that attributed the recent drop in abortion rates to improved contraceptive technologies that don’t require a daily pill? (Scroll up if you don’t.) I would love to have access to a full digital version of the conference’s write-up. While more recent data renders one man’s 60-year-old opinion moot, I am still curious to see what the wider context of Kinsey’s statements was. “But it seems so straightforward what he meant; More contraceptives = more abortions,” you object. Well, as you are about see, a lone piece of information can appear to mean something very different when deprived of its context.

The Guttmacher Institute Study

Note that the original post does not quote the Guttmacher Institute study (And hey, this one is only 18 years old!) but merely pulls a single statistic out of it. This one I was able to find in its entirety, and it turned out to be a textbook case of fact-mining. You see, the cited figure is 100% true. Out of a sample of almost ten-thousand women who had abortions, 58% were using contraceptives at the time. Case close. Contraceptives suck 5evar. Right? Wrong. You see, deprived of its context, the lone figure becomes a lie.

image

Lets pretend for a moment that I don’t have access to the full text of this study; I only have the lone fact from it the pro-ignoramus wanted me to see (58% of the women who had abortions were using contraceptives). I can still prove it’s bullshit just with armchair reasoning.

image

Consider that the sample set is made only of women who had abortions, rather than a random sampling of women using contraceptives. Now consider that if I asked you to find a group of women who were likely to be using contraceptives, you’d be damn smart to look for women who recently had abortions, since the obviously don’t want to be having a baby right now. While the quote-miners are likely trying to imply that the 58% overlap is proof of contraceptive failure rates or that contraceptive use leads to abortions, the only real reason for the correlation is the common third factor among the two groups; NOT WANTING TO BE PREGNANT.

If lots of people are using contraceptives, which have a small but present failure rate, it stands to reason that most of the people getting abortions; didn’t want kids, tried using contraceptive, but were the unlikely few that experience contraceptive failure.

Let’s say a birth control method X has a failure rate of 1%. A doctor sees 1,000 women who want abortions. 500 of them say they were using method X when they got pregnant. A pro-ignoramus (correctly) concludes  ”50% of the women who had abortions were on contraceptive X.” What they fail to mention is the 49,500 other women (the 99%) that never got pregnant in the first place because of method X.

Not convinced by my armchair reasoning?

image

Let’s look at some excerpts from the exact same study the original post quoted:

“The patterns of contraceptive use among abortion patients may or may not mirror the use patterns of all women at risk of unintended pregnancy. Each contraceptive method entails a different probability of becoming pregnant, and women’s method choice often differs by their socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Consequently, users of each method may differ in their likelihood of carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term or of having an abortion.”

“According to the 1988 NSFG, 90% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method and 10% are not. The abortion indices for current users and nonusers are therefore 0.6 and 4.3, respectively, indicating that women using any method are only about 15% as likely to have an abortion as are women using no method. In other words, even though contraceptive use is often imperfect, it reduces the probability of having an abortion by about 85%.

Gee, I wonder why they didn’t quote that last line.

The Judith Burty Quote

Honestly, I hit a brick wall with this one. The quote is supposedly from a 1981 edition of ‘The Scotsman’ newspaper, but strangely, The Scotsman’s archives don’t have any articles more recent than 1950, and their main website has nothing older than 2000. I couldn’t find much out about Judith Bury either. Googling her just brings up lots of pro-ignoramuses copy-pasting these same quotes. As with the Kinsey quote, more recent research renders the point moot, and (especially given my findings with the previous statement) I would be very interested to see the full context of the quote,

The Malcolm Potts Quote

So what year did Dr. Malcolm Potts predict that there would be a rise in abortion rates as people “turned to contraception”? 1973. Yes, this is really some cutting-edge material here. Again I cannot find the original source for this quote. The pro-life article that seems to be the originator of this list of “quotes” (see what I did there?) gives the following citation:

Malcolm Potts, M.D., Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in 1973.

Quoted in Andrew Scholberg, “The Abortionists and Planned Parenthood: Familiar Bedfellows.” International Review of Natural Family Planning, Winter 1980, page 298.

Yes, their source is literally, “Some 34-year-old anti-choice propaganda said that he said that.

image

Well, since I can’t find the full context of “Dr. Pott’s” quote, lets see what the real Dr. Potts has to say on the matter. Here’s a quote from a paper he co-wrote in 1990:

“If more funds were available to expand counselling services and increase the use of newer, more effective methods such as subdermal implants, abortion rates could be lowered. Thus, all those who are disturbed by the tens of millions of abortions that take place each year must work together to help bring about a significant reduction in that number by advocating a considerable increase in investment in family planning services and in support for contraceptive research. Without such a change, it is possible that more legal and illegal abortions will be induced in the 1990s than in any previous decade. Whatever happens with funding, universal access to safe abortion could undoubtedly save the lives of a million or more women in the 1990s.”

You can check out more of his more recent research into family planning in developing countries here. Regardless of what Dr. Potts said or didn’t say in 1973, or in 1990, abortion rates are now at their lowest since 1973. The authors of the study that found that specifically credit the development of new kinds of birth control. You know, the ones that weren’t around during the decades these quotes seem to be from.

“Sex Education: A Teacher’s Guide” quote

Ok, last quote from the original post. Who wants to guess what decade it’s from? Let’s see, the quote is from a sex education book put out by the Canadian government in….1973! (Why does that year keep coming up?) Unfortunately there aren’t any online copies of this ancient tome floating around, the department that published the book hasn’t even existed for twenty years, and I’m not paying $50 to buy a used copy to debunk some anti-sex douche-canoes on the internet. So, I’ll have to supply some other Canadian (2012) statistics:

“In Canada, the teen birth and abortion rate is 27.0/1,000 women between the ages of 15-19 versus 61.2/1,000 in the United States.The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States. Put another way, the teen birth and abortion rate is more than 50% higher in the United States versus Canada and the abortion rate is about 25% higher in the Unites States. Canadian women also have something else. They have access to health care and sex education is widely taught in the schools. Laws, cost, and indignities don’t reduce abortion, knowledge and contraception do.”

Furthermore, the quote’s claim that “abortion is the most widely used birth-control method in the world” is patently absurd, and a well known abortion myth. Contraceptive use is increasing, while rates of both contraceptive failure and abortion are decreasing. Consider:

In 2010, publicly funded contraceptive services helped women prevent 2.2 million unintended pregnancies; 1.1 million of these would have resulted in unplanned births and 760,000 in abortions. Without publicly funded contraceptive services, the rate of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would all be 66% higher; the rates for teens would be 73% higher. The number of unintended pregnancies averted by public funding was 15% higher in 2010 than in 2006, even though the number of clients served fell 5% during that period. This is partially because more family planning clients currently use highly effective contraceptives, such as long-acting reversible methods, than previously. More importantly, women who are unable to obtain public services are more likely now than in 2006 to be using either no contraceptive method or a less effective one, probably because of the recession.”

- Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010

In conclusion, (and as we already know) if the pro-ignorance movement had any interest in actually preventing abortions hey would advocate for better sex education (not ‘abstinence only’), better ease-of-access to contraceptives, less restrictive abortion laws, and welfare programs that make it easier for women to afford to keep their children. These things have been proven to reduce abortion rates. Restricting abortions and discouraging contraceptives increase the frequency of abortions. But of course, the pro-ignorance movement actually has very little interest in preventing abortions. “It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex.

by-grace-of-god, I’d like to think the studies I’ve linked here will change your mind about contraceptives, but they probably won’t.

(via fandomsandfeminism)




luckydreaming:

my anaconda don’t…

image

my anaconda don’t…

image

My anaconda dont’ want none unless you got buns hun

image

(Source: batfag, via artchoface)




Daenerys Targaryen meme + (2/7) quotes ► "I am not your little princess."

(via mysearchforself)




garnetquyen:

This movie is so fun and colorful! I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would, the music is spot on. And I really like the relationship between Groot and Rocket, he’s like a proud papa raccoon ahahaha 8’))))))

(via lotuseaterdragora)




(Source: kpfun, via abalidoth)




xdress-official:

Who remembers this seductive little angel?

#tbt #throwbackthursday #angel #pvc #xdress




fishingboatproceeds:

I don’t really understand how that is a question up for discussion on television news. I mean, even putting aside the gajillion ways that white people are privileged by, for instance, being able to think that whiteness is “normal,” studying world history from Eurocentric perspectives,  and etc etc:

- White people are less likely to be arrested for the same crime than black people, and black people serve longer (much longer!) sentences than white people.

- Marijuana use is similar among black and white populations in the U.S., but young African Americans are more than THREE TIMES more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession or use than white Americans. 

- Racial bias in hiring in the U.S. is well-documented and persistent.

- African American students are far more likely to be punished in schools, even though they are not much more likely to break school rules than their white peers.

- Even after accounting for reasons like education disparity, geographical distribution, and occupation, there is a persistent wage gap: White people make are paid more than African Americans due to racial discrimination. 

- White people in the U.S. on average have lower mortgage rates than African Americans.

White privilege is a fact of every facet of American life. I realize I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but this is not a political issue or a subject for debate. It is well-documented and irrefutable.

(Source: twitter.com)




professorfangirl:

prokopetz:

This is the one time of year that I love wasps.

Not because the wasps themselves get any nicer. They’re horrid little creatures year round. No, it’s because I have a couple of big apple trees out back, and late August, early September is when the apples start ripening.

Now, if you don’t harvest your own fruit, there are two things you need to know about apples.

The first thing you need to know about apples is that, when apples get ripe, they tend to fall from the tree at the slightest breeze.

I often work late at the office; by the time I get home, there are piles of apples scattered everywhere - and sure enough, the wasps are out in force, gorging themselves on the fruit. When I go to clean up the windfallen apples, the wasps naturally do the “rawr, I’ma fuck you up!” routine for which wasps are known.

The second thing you need to know about apples is that they ferment very rapidly in the late August heat.

So: the wasps try to come at me, but they’re too drunk to fly. They get about an inch off the ground, then faceplant directly into the turf, flip over onto their backs, and lay there, legs twitching in the air as they try in vain to find something to sting.

Perhaps I’m a man of simple pleasures, but I bust up laughing every. single. time.

Fucking wasps.

I tried to reblog this with a witty tag, but Tumblr took it as serious advice:

image

itsacorgan I will want drunken wasp stories from you kay?

(via rooks-and-ravens)




Anonymous asked:
can you explain why "straight passing privilege" isnt a thing? bc i thought that it was but i'm ready for you to explain to me why i'm wrong. here's what i thought: two straight people can be in a relationship and safely go out in public without being harassed, whereas two gay people cannot, so the straight people have privilege. if a bisexual man is in a relationship with a woman, he can safely go out in public, but if he's with a man, he cannot, so he sometimes has privilege.

bi-privilege:

okay here we go.

first, as an anon just pointed out, that idea of straight passing privilege is inherently cissexist. it assumes society can accurately gauge the genders of people in a relationship, which is just not true.

second, straight passing privilege implies that bisexuals in m/f relationships are as safe as heterosexuals in m/f relationships, which is patently untrue. take for example the fact that about 60% of bi women experience intimate partner abuse, and 90% of them report only being abused by their male partners. i’m doing some quick math here, but that makes bi women about 4 or 5 times more likely to be abused by their male significant others—boyfriends, husbands, whatever—than straight women. the privilege dynamics for bisexuals in m/f relationships are completely different from those of straight people in m/f relationships.

third, the idea of straight passing privilege when discussed primarily or exclusively in how it affects bisexuals and other multisexuals pretty much ignores how heteronormativity works. people don’t just assume someone is straight when they’re in a m/f relationship. regardless of your sexual orientation, the vast majority of people are going to assume you’re straight all the time unless you are doing something specifically coded as being romantic or sexual with someone of the same gender (or someone who is assumed to be the same gender) at that exact moment. still in the closet? straight. went out to grab dinner with someone of a different gender than you? straight. hanging out with your friends? straight. stepped out of the house to get milk? straight.

this goes even further for bi and lesbian women—if you are doing something romantic/sexual with another woman and there is literally any way society can construe it as being either (a) a sign of your deep platonic affection for one another or (b) an exhibition for the male gaze, you’re still assumed to be straight. like i could go to a party right now and have a hard core make out session with my best female friend (who is also bisexual, btw), and people who didn’t know us would probably still assume we were straight. dat heteronormativity. the point of this being that if straight passing privilege were a thing, it would apply to gay and lesbian people too. the only reason we only ever talk about straight passing privilege in terms of bisexuals is biphobia, plain and simple.

fourth, privilege is itself not as simple as ‘can you go out in public without being harassed’. if that were the case, we would be talking about how straight cis girls who prefer to dress in ways perceived to be masculine don’t have privilege because people are more likely to assume they’re lesbians. which is, like, what? it makes no sense. privilege, and likewise oppression, manifest themselves in many ways beyond outright harassment. it’s why bisexuals, regardless of their relationship status and whether or not they’re out, are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, suicidality, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. than are straight people. being in a m/f relationship doesn’t suddenly make us comfortable to talk about our sexual orientation (in fact, it often makes us more  uncomfortable), or suddenly see our sexuality represented in mainstream pop culture. if you check out any straight privilege checklist, i think you’ll find that the vast majority of things listed do not apply to bisexuals even if they are currently in a m/f relationship. that’s just how it is.

so in conclusion, straight passing privilege is based on the idea that bisexuals in m/f relationships are ‘basically straight’ and it doesn’t work like that at all.




Reblog this if you’d hang out with your Tumblr friends if you ever met them in real life.

ianinkblog:

More like:

image

Remember the time we all did hang out at Dash Con and it was GLORIOUS?

(Source: derpysunshine, via timetravelinginformantsandmerc)




"

Don’t ever feel bad for making a decision that upsets other people. You are not responsible for their happiness. You are responsible for your happiness.


"

-  

Isaiah Henkel (via weareallgettingby)

(Source: onlinecounsellingcollege, via rainbowrenee)




fightingforwhales:

cae-herondale:

fightingforwhales:

cae-herondale:

keiko25:

I’m Standing proud and tall

I will stand with the place I’ve loved since I was a child, no matter what anyone else says

So…you’re never going to be open-minded about a complex issue and you’re choosing to remain willfully ignorant of facts?

That’s what you’re saying?

No. I’m standing up for what I belive in. I believe that whales should not be taken out of the wild. The ones in captivity however should remain in captivity because they are too dependent on humans. I know that never would have happened if they haven’t been captured in the first place. But it did happen so you know what, don’t go attacking me because of what I believe in. I’m not attacking you for believing the whales should be let go. I’m not even saying you’re wrong. You anticaps need to realize not everyone who doesn’t agree with you is close minded or even evil, as I have been called. So next time you judge me for standing with the place that introduced me to these wonderful animals and created the dream career I want someday, get my side of the story.
Don’t be rude. You don’t have to hate on every single procap in the world because let me tell you, there aren’t enough hours in the day to deal with hate or send it…
Bye

There’s a difference between standing up for what you believe in and mindlessly supporting a faulted institution due to childhood feelings.

Never called you evil. Never said you were a bad person. The phrase you used insinuates you’re not interested in listening to anybody else’s thoughts apart from your own.

I also have lovely childhood memories of Seaworld. 

But those memories are not an excuse to stay ignorant.  Ignorance is never justifiable. 

Also, no one is talking about dumping Seaworld’s whales in the ocean and saying “see ya suckers!”.  They are talking about seapens where they would be taught to catch fish… and if they never learn, humans would continue to feed them.  They would still be worked with by trainers but in ways that teach their natural behavior not in circus shows.  They will still have the human interactions they may be dependent on, but they will also have the chance to relearn how to be whales without human interference.  They will also not be forced to breed ie perpetuate the cycle of more captive whales. 

(Source: shamufan323)




hisnamewasbeanni:

dethbysquirl:

weresquirrel:

transiences:andywooo:animeasuka:wafflesforstephanie:yosb:

welcome to harvard: linguistics 101

Is this reality?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

yo the word fucking is actually really interesting because it’s one of american english’s only infixes

YES THIS IS ACTUALLY REALLY COOL MY AP ENGLISH TEACHER WENT ON A 5-MINUTE RANT ABOUT “FUCK” AND HOW IT’S THE ONLY WORD YOU CAN INSERT INTO OTHER WORDS 

I JUST HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS ABOUT THE WORD “FUCK” OKAY

This is actually really cool because technically “fuck” can’t even be an infix, as it’s a meaningful free morpheme and those can’t be used as grammatical morphemes (also in English infixes only exist in fossilized form) but the use of “fuck” for inflectional word formation is actually fascinating

As I see it, the more and more frequent use of a word as a suffix implies that it’s undergoing semantic bleaching

Soon, possibly not during our generation’s or our children’s or grandchildren’s lifespan, the word “fuck” may eventually lose its meaning and become a grammatical intensifying suffix or possibly the only actual inflix in the English language

and if you don’t think that’s at least kinda cool then I feel sorry for you son because linguistics is an amazing field of study and gdi I love the English language

Reblogging again for the commentary from the wonderful weresquirrel

Linguistically fucking fascinating!

(via blueraysunshine)




mediamattersforamerica:

Disgusting: Now NRA News is praising the white vigilante patrols that shot black New Orleans flood victims following Hurricane Katrina. 

What really happened:

Facing an influx of refugees, the residents of Algiers Point could have pulled together food, water and medical supplies for the flood victims. Instead, a group of white residents, convinced that crime would arrive with the human exodus, sought to seal off the area, blocking the roads in and out of the neighborhood by dragging lumber and downed trees into the streets. They stockpiled handguns, assault rifles, shotguns and at least one Uzi and began patrolling the streets in pickup trucks and SUVs. The newly formed militia, a loose band of about fifteen to thirty residents, most of them men, all of them white, was looking for thieves, outlaws or, as one member put it, anyone who simply “didn’t belong.”

According to The Nation, during this time ”at least eleven people were shot. In each case the targets were African-American men, while the shooters, it appears, were all white.”

Donnell Herrington was one of these victims:

It was September 1, 2005, some three days after Hurricane Katrina crashed into New Orleans, and somebody had just blasted Herrington, who is African-American, with a shotgun. “I just hit the ground. I didn’t even know what happened,” recalls Herrington, a burly 32-year-old with a soft drawl … Herrington says he hadn’t even seen the men or their weapons before the shooting began. As Alexander and Collins fled, Herrington ran in the opposite direction, his hand pressed to the bleeding wound on his throat. Behind him, he says, the gunmen yelled, “Get him! Get that n****!”

The attack occurred in Algiers Point. The Point, as locals call it, is a neighborhood within a neighborhood, a small cluster of ornate, immaculately maintained 150-year-old houses within the larger Algiers district. A nationally recognized historic area, Algiers Point is largely white, while the rest of Algiers is predominantly black. It’s a “white enclave” whose residents have “a kind of siege mentality,” says Tulane University historian Lance Hill, noting that some white New Orleanians “think of themselves as an oppressed minority.” 

(via everythingsbetterwithbisexuals)




I’m becoming concerned that missmartian23 may need a corn intervention….




theme by silencePRESS