Archives for 2009

Abortions pose a risk for future babies. This is one of the risks of abortion that is unknown and (I think) uncontested.  

As an aside, from what I can tell, this Canadian study is not in the Canadian press. Is it just me, or do we get study after study after study on issues small and large–in particular when the researchers are Canadian? Just not when the A word comes into play.

Just because abortion is also a moral issue and sometimes a political issue don’t mean it isn’t also a medical one. Buck up medical reporters! Take a deep breath and at least ask some questions about stuff like this.

_______________________

Andrea adds this link, which says the study is “thorough and well-conducted” and “supported by a body of research.” This from a thoroughly pro-abortion source: see the part about how “[t]he most important message is not that this should be used in any way to prevent women having a termination of pregnancy…” OK, we get it. No women should EVER be denied access. But a refusal to report these sorts of findings amounts to denying women legitimate information.

At the risk of sounding like a crusty old goat (again), isn’t this a high price to pay for sterile sex? We’re talking about teenagers, here, not adult women.

When it comes to birth control, it’s widely believed that the lower the hormone dose, the better. But according to a new study, pills with lower levels of estrogen may interfere with the bone development of teenagers. Dr. Jan Stepan of Charles University in Prague found that teens who took low-dose pills experienced lower levels of bone growth and bone density compared with those who took higher-dose pills. The reason, says Stepan, is that lower levels of estrogen suppress the body’s release of the hormone but does not fully replace it.

I dislike stuff like that, because to me behaviour is something one controls using one’s will power. Saying something unfavourable is “caused” by one’s genes is a great way to excuse bad impulse control, and my inner Calvinist wants to tear her hair out in frustration. Not everything is as scientific as some people believe.

The fact that children raised in homes without a dad have sex earlier is down to their genes, say US researchers.

The study tested for genetic influences as well as factors such as poverty, educational opportunities and religion.

The more genes the children shared, the more similar their ages of first intercourse regardless of whether they had an absent father or not.

________________________

Rebecca adds: I think there’s something to this (and I also think that having a genetic predisposition to something – drinking, anger, unacceptable paraphilias – doesn’t give you a blank cheque to indulge, although it does mean you deserve extra credit for being disciplined.)  J. Philippe Rushton, not by any means uncontroversial but not automatically wrong on that account, points out that animals and their reproductive strategies fall along a continuum, with frequency of reproduction increasing as the amount of effort put into parenting decreases. Humans, horses and elephants are at one end of the extreme; the vast majority of their pregnancies are singletons, gestational periods are long, and offspring require sustained and expensive care before they are autonomous. Rabbits and mice are at the other end for mammals, having large litters few of whom need to make it to adulthood for the genes to be passed on, and shorter gestational periods. Non-mammals trend even more strongly towards frequent reproduction and low investment parenting; think of the number of tadpoles produced by one pair of frogs.

Rushton suggests that humans show variation on this continuum by group. We would expect that a high frequency, low involvement approach would manifest biologically in greater frequencies of multiple births, slightly shorter gestation, and earlier sexual maturity. He gets people smoking out their ears by grouping different races along this continuum. But we can dispense with that dimension entirely and still consider a genetic connection here. It’s notable, though, that minorities with conservative social values and largely intact families seem to suffer vastly less from “racism” than other groups with particularly high out of wedlock births and their accompanying ills; if racism were indeed the causal factor, it’s puzzling that it harms some “non-whites” so much more than others.

Another, less inflammatory, approach is the “cads vs dads” theory. This holds that men in particular can ensure that their genes are passed on in one of two ways: by having relatively few children and focusing extensively on their nurturing to adulthood (dad), or by fathering multiple children and relying on the odds that some of them will make it to adulthood even with his dissipated involvement and resources (cad). What I would find really fascinating would be a look at whether sexual maturity comes earlier to children raised without fathers, since this is more a result of nature than first sexual activity which, being largely behavioural in a way that physical puberty isn’t, is a product of nurture.

A long piece on the harsh, cold reality of gender selection in India – especially in wealthier areas. Chilling.

Indian women of any class rarely make decisions about their reproductive choices themselves: Husbands and in-laws are usually intimately involved.

At a south Delhi abortion clinic this week, for example, five of six patients booked for appointments had been accompanied by their mothers-in-law. The clinic director, who did not wish to be quoted by name because of the sensitive nature of the subject, noted the large sign – which must, by law, be posted – saying sex determination was illegal and not offered there. Five of the 200 patients she sees each month are well into their second trimester, when fetal gender can be confirmed, and claim to already have daughters. She turns them away, fearing sex-based termination is their primary motive.

“But others lie, and how can we check? They say they have sons already, and came because of contraceptive failure, and that entitles them to abortion … and there is nothing I can do about that,” she adds.

He has been extraordinarily courageous in his fight against cancer. He will be missed.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpmILPAcRQo]

“What this world needs is a little wonder,” so says the ringmaster of The Butterfly Circus.

It’s a movie under the theme of hope in a short film competition. (It says you need to log in to view, which I wanted to do, but before logging in, the movie started to play.)

I liked it, but I can’t tell you why, because it would spoil the ending.

______________________

Brigitte would like to warn you: Make sure you grab your kleenex before hitting play, OK? What a beautiful little film.

______________________

Andrea adds: I should add it’s a short film, just 20 minutes. And yes, I cried too, but wasn’t sure if I was just being overly emotional. Very moving.

I’m always interested in discussions of the intersection of the two. Here’s one, in case you are interested in such matters too:

What we have in two cases being deal with at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is a case of the state trying to tell a church and a religious organization what to do and that is scary. One case involves the rights tribunal examining whether a Roman Catholic bishop should be forced to reinstate a gay man as an altar server, the other a non-Catholic trying to get tribunal to rule that a Catholic school cannot favour Catholic teachers in its hiring. Both should be thrown out, neither should have even been looked at.

From today’s Globe and Mail:

Contraception is a cheaper means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, The Daily Telegraph reports, according to research by the London School of Economics. “Every £4 [$7] spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 [$34] would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, according to researchers. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concluded that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.”

Just wondering: How do they estimate that number of unintended pregnancies? Do they go around asking pregnant women how they feel about things? Do they just pick a number at random?

_________________________

Tanya’s mind reels: What about the greenhouse gasses emitted during the production of these “family planning” methods? Oh, and the effects of their subsequent “disposal.” Did you know that 100% natural latex is completely biodegradable? But that nearly all condoms are not made of 100% natural latex, but contain synthetics? Furthermore, one of the main causes of yeast infections among women is condom and/or spermicide use. Clotrimazole, which is the leading treatment for yeast infections, is associated with major environmental risks. Oh, I could go on and on…