Legal restriction of abortion doesn't change the rate

[Cruentus]

Don, I know that facts and reason aren't any match for smug self satisfaction and self righteousness, but really. Reading a simple history book once in a while shouldn't be too difficult. I know you're offended by some of this, but it's quite simply true. You won't be convinced by anything I say. You've made it clear that you are going to believe what you want, and that's that. But because you ask...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/berkowitz.php?articleid=6326
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/03/AR2005050301499.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/127799.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200507/ai_n14685219
http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintolafa.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/07/23/feldman/index.html

Now, as to just a few of the others...

The Opium Wars, involvement by the Church in the Klan and lynchings, the rights of women prior to the twentieth century, the mass murders of Jews, the Albigensians, the Waldenses, Protestants, Catholics, non-Christians and Orothodox by the Church? Those are all matters of simple undeniable fact. Women not owning property separate from their husbands, voting and the rest? The prevalence of prostitution in pre-20th century America? The demographic transition? The Church's role in all of these? If you can't crack a book, at least learn how to do a simple web search. These are all, every one of them, so completely parts of the public record that denying them is insane.

The Religious Right is against sexuality other than strictly prescribed within marriage and is hostile to contraception and women's rights? Listen to your own Ayatollahs like Dobson, Schlafly, Randall Terry, Robertson and Coulter. They say it every single day. Heck, look at who your Beloved Leader, the Commander Guy, the Decider is picking for to head up family planning, Susan Orr. Look at the record of his women's health commissioner.

Things aren't true because you like them. They aren't false because you find them offensive. They aren't idiocy because they wipe the self satisfied smirk off your face and challenge you.

What sort of evidence do you need?

Sorry, that's a stupid question.

There isn't any standard of proof that would satisfy you. Facts aren't facts if they make you uncomfortable, so there's no point throwing the pearls out for the swine.

Holy ****ing crap, Tellner! Dude, seriously (I am asking just as another MT member) take it to the great debate or PM or something. Your's and Don's personal disagreements don't really have much to do with the topic.

 

[MJS]

Come on guys, lets keep it civil and on track.

Thanks.

 

[michaeledward]

An interesting observation was made by Cristian Page over at the Huffington Post; the silence from the pro-life crowd toward the actual evidence presented by this study.

The information comes to us from the 'Guttmacher Institute'. This study provided, with scientific evidence backing it up, the factual evidence that making abortion illegal does not affect the rates of terminations.

Yet, the goal of the pro-life crowd remains making abortion illegal.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the pro-life crowd to search for methods and tactics that actually reduce the number of terminations taking place?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-deafening-silence_b_68950.html

 

[Ray]

I've been meaning to look up some details from a public TV speech given by "some guy" who did a study...yes, I know "some guy" and "a study" just sounds like "some stuff"...but I haven't had time to get the details.

And these are "generalized" statements of what he said - It surely doesn't apply to all women and so forth, just trying to get the gist of it across (because I can't seem to keep my mouth shut)

He put forth the idea that women who would have had abortions when it was illegal would have had them when it was legal.

Women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal would have been less likely to have unprotected unmarried sex. Those women (not those exact individuals, but that category of women today) are more likely to have unprotected unmarried sex with the thought that an abortion would work as a "back-up" plan. But those women, if they do get pregnant, are less likely to actually have an abortion and less likely to put their child up for adoption, hence the increase in single mothers.

I thought it was an interesting argument. And it kind of plays into the topic that whether legal or illegal there are women who will have an abortion. And goes to the point that there are some people who will do an act regardless of the legality of it---and if the outlawed act is viewed as something "little" by society (like drinking during prohibition) then the law will be violated all the time; versus if the outlawed act is viewed as "big" (like murder) then it will be violated less frequently.

 

[michaeledward]

I think, Ray, the most interesting word in your post is ...

.... He ....

The whole line of reasoning sounds like some wishful thinking a guy dreamed up.

The study at the Guttmacher Institute tells us that the rate of pregnancy termination does not change based on the legality/illegality of aborting an pregnancy. This result informs us that behavior is consistant regardless of the law.

If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.

 

[Ray]

The study at the Guttmacher Institute tells us that the rate of pregnancy termination does not change based on the legality/illegality of aborting an pregnancy. This result informs us that behavior is consistant regardless of the law.

Did you feel the need to say the same thing I said in different words?

If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.

If you wish to, go for it. Me and my significant other aren't going to have one and I'm too busy to change the wolrd.

 

[tellner]

The Guttmacher Institute also came out with a study over a decade ago that showed a pretty conclusive link between comprehensive sex education - including contraception - and both lower pregnancy rates and a later age of first intercourse. Despite what the "pro life" movement says ignorance is not strength.

 

[Cryozombie]

Yet, the goal of the pro-life crowd remains making abortion illegal.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the pro-life crowd to search for methods and tactics that actually reduce the number of terminations taking place?

No, because once you make somthing illegal it goes away. Didn't you know that? Gun control stopped gun crime. Drugs are illegal so there is no drug problem. And once you make abortion Illegal, they wont happen any more.

Yes. That was all sarcasm.

 

[Cryozombie]

If we wish to lower the number of terminations, we can look to nations with lower terminations (Netherlands, Belgium, Finland); they provide comprehensive sex education and easily available or free birth control.

Not to mention educating people and making them understand that the Day After Pill is NOT an "abortion in a bottle"

 

[tellner]

That kind of goes against what they want. A number or the more prominent groups say in their literature that Plan B, Ru-486, birth control pills and Norplant are all abortifacients. I've been inside a couple of the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers". They all gave out literature saying that birth control (they didn't specify) didn't work, caused abortion, and did terrible things to women.

 

[michaeledward]

Did you feel the need to say the same thing I said in different words?
If you wish to, go for it. Me and my significant other aren't going to have one and I'm too busy to change the wolrd.

It didn't occur to me that we were saying the same thing.

I thought you said that 'some women will not break the law'.

I thought I said that 'the same number of women have abortions, regardless of the law'

Those things do not seem equal to me.

But, maybe that's not what you said.

 

[Ray]

It didn't occur to me that we were saying the same thing.

I thought you said that 'some women will not break the law'.

I thought I said that 'the same number of women have abortions, regardless of the law'

Those things do not seem equal to me.

But, maybe that's not what you said.

When abortion was illegal there were women who would avoid unwanted pregnancy and avoid having to have an abortion. The equivalent women in this group today may become unintentionally pregnant, believing that they can take care of it with an abortion, find out that they are not willing to have a legal abortion and thus become unwed mothers.

I'm talking about a group of women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal and are not willing to have abortions when it become legal.

The propostion put forth is that some of the increase in single moms comes from the group of women who will not have legal abortions. In the past, they would have avoided the pregnancy.

So I am agreeing (stipulating without reading the study) that the number of abortions, legal and illegal, would have remained the same. But some other choices may have changed relative to preventing pregnancy or not.

 

[michaeledward]

When abortion was illegal there were women who would avoid unwanted pregnancy and avoid having to have an abortion. The equivalent women in this group today may become unintentionally pregnant, believing that they can take care of it with an abortion, find out that they are not willing to have a legal abortion and thus become unwed mothers.

I'm talking about a group of women who wouldn't have had abortions when it was illegal and are not willing to have abortions when it become legal.

The propostion put forth is that some of the increase in single moms comes from the group of women who will not have legal abortions. In the past, they would have avoided the pregnancy.

So I am agreeing (stipulating without reading the study) that the number of abortions, legal and illegal, would have remained the same. But some other choices may have changed relative to preventing pregnancy or not.

Ray, I'm stuck on the first sentence.

"avoid unwanted pregnancy"

I just don't get how those words fit together. The verb being 'avoid' the adjective being 'unwanted'. I'm just wondering about those women who deliberately seek out those unwanted pregnancies.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe it's because I don't have a womb.

 

[Kacey]

Ray, I'm stuck on the first sentence.

"avoid unwanted pregnancy"

I just don't get how those words fit together. The verb being 'avoid' the adjective being 'unwanted'. I'm just wondering about those women who deliberately seek out those unwanted pregnancies.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

Avoid = take precautions to prevent. Knowing that one must break the law to deal with an unwanted occurrence (in this case, pregnancy) can cause one to take precautions to prevent needing to break the law. Knowing that an option exists that is legal (regardless of one's moral opinion of the action) can create a greater willingness to take preventable risks.

Maybe it's because I don't have a womb.

Could be... might not be; it's hard to say.

 

[michaeledward]

Kacey, if that supposition were true, then the desire to stay within the law should have a noticable impact on the number of terminations when viewed from legal status of terminating a pregnancy. I thought the study showed us the legal status of abortion has no impact on the number of abortions performed.

Can both of these ideas be true simultaneously?

A - illegal terminations will lead to higher birth rates
B - illegal terminations have no impact on the number of abortions

Now, there are a couple of logic steps left out of this diagram. But, if I understand what you and Ray are saying,
1 - the legal status of abortion will generate a lower frequency of contraceptive use,
2 - which will in turn lead to a higher frequency of pregnancy,
3 - which should result in either a) more live births or b) more terminations.

As I understand it, these are the only two natural outcomes of a conception; a live birth or a terminated pregnancy. (For the sake of discussion, and with lack of evidence, I am willing to leave aside the natural aborted pregnancy or miscarriage).

If we are to assume that 100% of unwanted conceptions will lead to either a live birth or an abortion, then the sum of those two outcomes must equal 100%.

A + B = 100%

shesulsa informs us, through the scientific study held by the Guttmacher Institute that 'B' (the number of terminations) does not change based on the legal status of the procedure. So let's say that number is 25% (you can choose any number you wish).

A + 25% = 100%

It appears that Ray and you are arguing that 'A' would increase if the proceedure is illegal. I just don't see the way that this is possible. If 'B' is fixed at 25%, and the total is fixed at 100%, 'A' can not be altered; it is fixed in this example at 75% (of unwanted pregnancies will lead to live birth).



As I understand it, 90% of the sexually active women in this country use some form of birth control. This group has 50% of the terminations performed in our country. This means that the birth control method either failed or was not practiced faithfully. A tragic consequence.

But, it also means that 50% of the terminations in our country are coming from the 10% of sexually active women who do not have a consistant form of birth control.

If a society wanted to decrease the number of terminations, where is the "low hanging fruit"? If we addressed our energy to those in the 10% group, we could have a bigger impact on the number of terminations than if we attempted to influence the 90%.

So, why do we, through our government, promote 'abstinence only' sex education?

 

[Kacey]

I am not attempting to "argue" anything; I am simply giving my interpretation of Ray's statement.

For myself, as I have said before, there are instances in which I consider abortion to be a reasonable option: rape, incest, to preserve the health of the mother, to terminate a non-viable fetus, things of that nature. I find the use of abortion as a replacement for contraception to be morally repugnant BUT that is my opinion, based on my moral and ethical training, as impacted by my upbringing and culture; those whose cultural and familial upbringing are different will, perforce, have different opinions.

 

[michaeledward]

The word "argue" is defined as 'to give reasons for or against something'. Providing your interpretation of Ray's statement is to put forth an arguement, intended or otherwise.

And, if abortion is a poor choice for birth control, then it follows that steps should be taken to get birth control into the 10% of sexually active, fertile women who do not have a predetermined method of contraception. For it is this small subset of women who account for half of the terminations in our country. Proper education of, and easy access to, the various forms of contraception available should be paramount in efforts to reduce that which you describe as 'morally repugnant'.

Half of the women who have abortions are using contraceptives. Do you find their actions morally repugnant?

 

[Cruentus]

Question: Does anyone disagree with the notion that people have to be responsible for themselves, and that women need to be (and are perfectly capable of being) responsible for themselves, and since the baby ends up in her body, it behoves women to ensure that proper precautions (ie. preventative measures) are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

I'm confused, because I got this negative rep (unsigned of course):

a woman doesn't get pregnant alone - why is it her fault? Is a man incapable of wrapping his own penis???

Of course men need to be responsible too. But at the end of the day, the last line of defense is the woman. It is in HER body that the kid will grow inside, making her more responsible and with more power by default. Meaning that she can decide to get an abortion regardless of what the father says, and it is her body so she needs to be responsible to ensure that doesn't have to happen.

Is that a correct assessment, or am I somehow flawed in my thinking?

Furthermore, is there a lack of available birth control in this country that I am missing? I am not seeing the problem as a lack of available birth control. Sure, the pill isn't free. But Condoms are inexpensive and readily available. I see the problem as lack of education, and lack of personal responsibilty on the part of both young men and women.

Really, in a world where everyone wants to blame something else for their actions, I see that education needs to be on taking responsibility for yourself, not just sex ed.

But maybe I am wrong in my thinking... :idunno:

 

[Ray]

Providing your interpretation of Ray's statement is to put forth an arguement, intended or otherwise.

Half of the women who have abortions are using contraceptives. Do you find their actions morally repugnant?

Yikes, I'm being interpreted.

As for "avoiding unwanted pregnancies" If you've ever been young and in a heated tempting situation you may realize that some of our rational behaviors go out the window. Certainly there are many situations we people get ourselves into when passion, drugs, peer pressure, and a host of things creep into our otherwise thinking rational brain.

Today there are more options for avoiding pregnancies. It is also less stigmatizing for a woman to bear and keep her child; and abortion is legal. Single women and their children comprise the largest segment of poor Americans; on the one hand we must help the poor; on the other we must do what we can to keep people from becoming poor.

 

[elder999]

Don't know if anybody quite got it this way, but the simple fact is that abortion rates have been in steady decline for the last 7 years-also according to the study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Overall, the U.S. abortion rate fell 19.3 percent between 1973 and 2000. One in five pregnancies end in abortion. In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States, down slightly from 1.36 million in 1996. The drop was seen in every state.

Renee Chelian, executive director of the Northland Family Planning abortion business in the Detroit area, attributes the decline to better use of contraception.

"The week after New Year's, we probably saw 50 women" who wanted the morning-after pill, she said.

However, Ed Rivet, legislative director of Right to Life of Michigan, said younger generations appear to have less interest in abortion and cites other factors for the decline.

"The trend for the last half-decade we're seeing in the state is that the rate among younger women is declining, and rates among 30 and older has been increasing," he said.

Seen on this pro-life website

Naturally, pro-lifers attribute this to ultrasound, more women not having abortions because they see their fetus, and increased restrictions in several states, while pro-choicers attribute it to increased education and use of contraceptives to prevent STDs among young people.