The President, The Pope, and The Elephant in the Room

The President, The Pope, and The Elephant in the Room
by Motte Brown on 07/14/2009 at 11:05 AM

Last Friday, President Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican and promised to "try to reduce abortions in [America]." I'm not buying it. Unless, of course, he means he's going to try to reduce abortions in America by making it much more accessible. And according to this article from The Weekly Standard, making abortion more accessible is something President Obama has a passion for.

In his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order overturning the Reagan-era Mexico City regulations, which had prohibited American foreign aid from going to organizations that finance overseas abortions. Just a few weeks later, the Gallup organization revealed that the executive order was the single most unpopular action taken by the president during his honeymoon period. At a time when American families had experienced an average 25 percent decline in their net worth, it would appear that increasing the net worth of foreign abortionists was not high on their to-do list.

The article goes on to highlight legislation before Congress that would make abortion a "health benefit" for every American. But given recent polls showing a more pro-life America, why would Obama seek the extreme? The Standard says it's because he's a true believer in abortion.

Why is Obama pushing ahead with such a radical abortion agenda? Since there's no way to accuse him of doing it out of poll-driven opportunism, sincere conviction becomes the most plausible motive. Sometimes the simplest, most straightforward answer makes the most sense. A president who once said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby if she made a mistake is deeply committed to making free and easy access to abortion an inescapable element of American culture.

One of the problems with making abortion more accessible is that it actually increases the number of abortions. Go figure. So when President Obama promised to try to reduce abortions, it's sort of like promising someone you're meeting you'll try to be on time knowing you probably won't.

Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:54 AM on Jul 14:

:::President Larijani, with sarcasm mode set to ON, takes the podium, addressing the General Session of the United Nations:::

Ladies and gentlemen, we have many serious humanitarian issues, the resolution of which are absolutely critical toward developing a more peaceful world that respects human rights and protects fundamental human dignity.
Chief among these matters is the pervasive issue of child trafficking. We have entire regions of the world that serve as hubs for child trade, in which children--from toddlers to teenagers--are sold as slave laborers and even sex slaves.

These regions include the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and even Europe.

Toward that end, we must work constructively to help reduce the occurrences of child trafficking.

At the same time, rather than support well-intentioned efforts aimed at criminalizing the practice, we must in fact help make children more available for the difficult work that exists in these most troubled regions of the world.

While I find the practices abhorrent and reprehensible--they are death penalty offenses in the Bible--we must take special care not to impose a narrow set of dogmatic standards on the world. We must, in fact, be respectful of the cultural demands and economic hardships faced by all peoples.

For that reason, I am committing $1 billion in discretionary spending, toward the training and development of the labor trade. This will help reform the child labor industry, and help keep children safer, while respecting the cultural and economic demands of other countries.

We will also work toward further empowerment of the United Nations, as their workers--demonstrated by their fine work in Congo--are aware of the magnitude of the problem.

This battle may take decades, but we must avoid knee-jerk reactions that can only divide and never unite.

Through tolerance and empowerment of the child labor industry, we can effect positive change through the message of hope.

Thank you, and let us all unite in the spirit of good will.

:::President Larijani turns sarcasm mode OFF, and returns to his regular business at the Oval Office...:::

2. farmer Tom said the following at 12:00 PM on Jul 14:

I wonder (well not really) if Obama understands what most of his liberal leftist "friends" think about abortion?

One of the justices currently on the Supreme Court referring to abortion,

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth
and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

Undesirables

Seems the justice was reading from the play book of another prominent woman from a few decades earlier.

The Negro Project

And they are getting their wish, go to youtube and watch the video which claims that more than 1500 black babies are aborted every day.

So the president is committed to carrying out the policies and ideas of Margaret Sanger, does that make him a race hater? Or does he just believe that "most" black people are "human weeds", that he's an exception? Remember, he's got some white blood in him as well, so maybe he thinks he's special.

3. Megan said the following at 12:37 PM on Jul 14:

I wonder when someone (other than FOX News and the usual conservative pundits) will stand up and call this dude out on his lies. Bald-Faced Lies.

America has become rather Godless, and the fact that this man was elected is proof. I'm saddened EVERY DAY at the thought of the direction of our country and pray daily.

The best thing to do is for Christians to be a prayer force.

Can I ask a question of everyone here at Boundless and their commenters: Can we all pray for this country every day? Every morning, night, or every moment that one remembers to pray? I say a little prayer for this country intermittedly throughout the day. I challenge all of us and our friends, family, and coworkers to do the same.

4. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:52 PM on Jul 14:

Farmer Tom: You have a good point there.

The Grand Dragon of the KKK would be hard-pressed to find a more effective plan to wage war against minorities (blacks in particular), than the abortion holocaust.

And yet the Presidents most ardently supportive of this agenda--Clinton and Obama--are highly-regarded by the very communities who are being destroyed by said agenda.

5. JB said the following at 2:34 PM on Jul 14:

It distresses me when Boundless takes this position (and this is not the first post to do so). Obama is made out to be a hypocrite, when it is obvious that, if you take his positions as sincerely held, these kinds of policies and positions necessarily result.

Obama clearly believes that abortion is generally undesirable but not an absolute wrong. Therefore, all other things being equal, policies should be enacted which minimize the number of abortions. However, Obama also believes that abortion is a choice which a woman makes about her body, and, therefore, it is unjust to restrict her access to abortion either due to legal prohibition or practical lack of resources. The tension here is between justice and expediency. Obama isn't a hypocrite, he simply believes that justice requires that women be free to make a choice which he believes to be unfortunate.

6. JB said the following at 2:54 PM on Jul 14:

Farmer Tom and Amir,

I don't think conservatives get much ground with this racism argument. Besides that fact that the rightness or wrongness of a thing does not depend on the opinions of its advocates (or else driving a Ford would make you a Nazi), you get stuck in a logical trap. The pro-choice movement is centered around the issue of women's free choice and coercion around the issue of abortion, in either direction, is clearly rejected. So, you're stuck arguing something like, "Black people choose to have abortions more frequently than white people. This is bad for black people. Black people need to be protected from themselves by not being able to make bad choices!"

You won't convince many people that the pro-choice position is the racist one that way.

7. Jim H said the following at 3:12 PM on Jul 14:

JB,
If abortion is not absolutely wrong, then why is it "generally undersireable?" After all, if abortion is just a "choice" that women make with their body as you say, then why place any restrictions on it at all?

8. Jethro said the following at 3:21 PM on Jul 14:

Why then do conservatives so vehemently oppose social welfare programs and health care programs that support pregnant mothers and make abortion less likely?

Does your committment to 'conservative principles' outweigh your committment to the unborn? Sure seems like it sometimes...

9. Adam said the following at 3:29 PM on Jul 14:

It is possible that Obama doesn't want any abortions to occur. I know - it seems crazy, but hear me out.

A more accurate communication of the view might be that the country needs to dramatically reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. If every pregnancy is intended, it will cut down abortion to close to zero.

However Obama seems to also firmly believe that abortion is legal and should be accessible as other medical procedures are.

Looking back at the campaign and his decisions up to this point, it appears that Obama is being very consistent.

10. JB said the following at 3:46 PM on Jul 14:

Jim H,

I think there are a few ways one could arrive at that position, though I don't know that Obama has made clear his thinking. For example, one could argue that relative not becoming pregnant in the first place abortion is expensive, emotionally distressing, and involves some medical risks.

11. Jim H said the following at 4:36 PM on Jul 14:

JB,
Thanks for your response. I am against abortion, but I do want to understand the thinking of the other side.

And one more question - why is abortion emotionally distressing if there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it?

12. Sara said the following at 4:48 PM on Jul 14:

I am a woman, and I am an adoptee. In my opinion, the idea that my birthmother had the option of terminating my life really bothers me. That is the main reason I have always felt that the rights of the embryo/fetus are important. Pregnancy, even unintended pregnancy, does not have to ruin someone's life... yet our society views it as such a horrible thing.

13. rushncap said the following at 5:33 PM on Jul 14:

Well, he IS trying to reduce the number of abortions. Chief in that approach is better, more comprehensive sex education, as well as easier access to things like the morning-after pill (Plan B). Let's face simple facts: teenagers will have sex. Attempting to prevent that would require laws which are clearly unconstitutional. Having sex leads to pregnancies, unless contraceptives are used, and used correctly. So it's really pick your poison. You either choose an epidemic of out-of-wedlock children, easy / cheap access to contraceptives and knowledge of how to use them, or abortions. The problem is that conservatives are against all of the above, which, while adorably optimistic, is incredibly naive.

14. Trisha said the following at 5:42 PM on Jul 14:

The only way to fight abortion with pro-abortion people in the white house & other forms of government is to fight it at the grass-roots level. I have involved in the pro-life movement in the Aurora, IL area for over a year now....PP came here when we don't want them here. Today I heard we finally have the parental notavation (sp) law in IL....that means IN and surrounding states can't send minors here to have an abortion anymore without parental notavation! Amen!

15. Trisha said the following at 5:49 PM on Jul 14:

If the number of abortions seems low it's probably because of the economy. Abortions cost $$$$ and maybe they are low because no one can afford to have one....it would be hard to raise money to have one because I don't know to many people who would give someone $ to kill their unborn baby!

16. Mike said the following at 6:10 PM on Jul 14:

Adam (#9) wrote:

Very true. But Mr. Obama is either a very poor student of human behavior, or a starry-eyed dreamer. Or both.

The basic problem is, making abortion more accessible and making welfare and health care for "unintended" pregnancies more available will only increase the number of unintended pregnancies. It's simple behavioral psychology: Those behaviors that are rewarded will be repeated.

In this case, the behavior is having sex. If you remove the consequences (i.e. having to take responsibility for getting pregnant out of wedlock), then guess what? You'll get more people having sex outside of marriage, especially because abortion and "free" health care are available as backstops, as documented by John Lott. When more people have sex, well, more people get pregnant "unintentionally".

When you protect people from the consequences of their actions, they see no need to stop their behavior. Why this is such a surprise to people is beyond me...

17. BDB said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 14:

Megan (#3) wrote:

>>Can I ask a question of everyone here at Boundless and their commenters: Can we all pray for this country every day?<<

We definitely need to do more of that.

You know, there was a time when people like Bill Bright were encouraging us all to Fast and Pray for revival in America.

Some of the people who I've ment who are praying most fervently for America...are immigrants. The thing is, they're praying in Korean and other languages - languages the ACLU doesn't speak, so they don't get messed with.

I'm stunned by how on fire immigrants are at sharing the Gospel with their native-born neighbors. One of the strongest leaders of our Children's Ministry is the son of missionaries - from Ghana. West African Christians are coming to America to spread the Gospel!

I pray that Pro-Life Americans realized that their prayers for more faithful workers were answered by God bringing those Christians to America from elsewhere. There's a TON in the Bible about how we should treat strangers among us - even better that we should be encouraging MORE Christians to immigrate to the U.S.

I'm now firmly convinced that these immigrants, who are not timid about sharing the Gospel, are the ones that will turn the country around through revival.

18. Chris said the following at 7:09 PM on Jul 14:

I propose a law analogous to Godwin's:

In any discussion on abortion on Boundlessline.org, the probability of someone mentioning racism approaches 1 as the discussion proceeds.

Let's call it farmer Tom's law. I would assume the analogous corollary would also apply.

19. faye said the following at 7:10 PM on Jul 14:

JB... I'd like to believe, along with you, that Obama does not desire abortions for the women of America. However, his stance is clear on the unborn is sadly clear. One cannot simply ride the fence on this issue... I get on one side or the other. Obama made his decision, and it has been an "absolute" for us all. I do not see mercy in his policy.

20. AJ said the following at 7:16 PM on Jul 14:

To Jethro #8: Many (probably most) crisis pregnancy centers are Christian/religious based and supported. Conservatives can want to help pregnant mothers just as much as a nanny-state liberal, they just think individual people offering help and love is better than the cold arm of the government.

21. farmer Tom said the following at 7:59 PM on Jul 14:

#6 JB,

Frankly, I don't understand your point.

I'm saying that there was and is a philosophical idea which taught that the systematic elimination of the offspring of black "human weeds", (Margret Sanger's words not mine), was good for the society. That at least one of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court believed that philosophy. That those people who accept Darwinian/Malthusian philosophies, which teach survival of the fittest, single out black people as an inferior race, inferior to "the Master race", and have attempted through government policy to eliminate the offspring of black people.

You want to talk about choice, while ignoring the fact that there is an intention targeting of blacks and their offspring by the advocates of abortion.

Why is that an invalid argument?

Do most black people in America know that Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist-eugenicist? Do they know that they have been intentionally targeted by that organization in an attempt to reduce the number of black children born in this country? Do you think it just might change their attitude about abortion if they knew these facts?

If it would change their opinion, isn't it then a valid argument?

See, you seem to believe that choice starts after someone is already with child. Those of us who believe in Biblical principle believe that choice happens before that.

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman,"

The possibility of a child being formed is the natural result of the sex act between a man and a woman. To avoid that possibility the Biblical pattern is to "avoid fornication". That is a choice one makes long before the sperm ever has a chance to fertilize the egg.

I'm pro-choice, I want the mother and father to choose the life of the child over their own personal wants and desires.

And reminding those persons of color, that someone who hates them, wants them to choose the death of the child, does in fact make an excellent argument against the abortion culture.

Let me illustrate, what if I started an organization which advocated the elimination of all people with the tag JB. Now I can sent all the motions in place for that to occur, then die at some point, and the system I've set up can go on without me. Now what if one of the things I set up would reward people financially if they would eliminate JB's?? You know like JB's elimination clinics? (You don't think Planned Parenthood eliminates babies out of the goodness of your heart do you?) They make big money off of the abortion business. So as long as their is someone out there willing to make money off of eliminating JB's, the practice will continue, right? What if we then write eliminating JB's into law as a protected procedure, and we get the government to pay for the elimination of JB's. Would it matter that I was no longer around, wouldn't JB's born long after my death be in danger of being eliminated, even though I was not around to champion the cause. Now what if we also tried to link the elimination of JB's with some personal freedom, like say choice. It's ok to eliminate JB's if you want to, it's a personal choice. JB's don't matter, your personal choice is all that matters. You can choose to eliminate JB's simply out of convenience. It's just a personal decision between you and the JB's elimination clinic?

Have a nice day JB.

22. Ben said the following at 8:05 PM on Jul 14:

Jethro: Just to let you know - I am one conservative who strongly supports programs to help pregnant women. My mother has worked at a Pregnancy Care Center, I have donated money to Pregnancy Care groups, and I pray for them. I also know that there are many conservatives who strongly support adoption programs and help for women who are pregnant and considering abortion.

Maybe that looks like a bit of a disconnect, however, because I don't believe government programs are a good solution to the problem, so I do oppose those. I believe private Christian solutions are doing a much better job of helping women and children than government programs that are legalizing and subsidizing the murder of the unborn.

Hopefully this gives a bit more perspective in response to your question...

23. Keith said the following at 8:55 PM on Jul 14:

Obama may not be our hope for ending abortion, but neither was Bush or the Republicans.

It is time we give up on politicans to solve the abortion tragedy. With or without them, we need to take the lead by mentoring young people, opening our homes to unwanted children, counselling those facing unexpected pregnancy, providing financial and emotional support, and praying every day.

It is not for us to judge Obama; God will do that. But we will be judged for what we failed to do.

24. Kit said the following at 9:06 PM on Jul 14:

#13------Thank you. Well said.

25. JB said the following at 9:39 PM on Jul 14:

Jim H,

I imagine there are all kinds of reasons some women find abortion to be emotionally distressing. One reason, I would suppose, would be that people are often distressed by invasive medical procedures even if they believe that undergoing the procedure itself is a good decision. A good many people are emotionally distressed by the idea of a colonoscopy, but very few view it as morally questionable. Additionally, abortion is stigmatized in our society both by people who condemn it on moral grounds and by people who associate it with a set of class or behavioral stereotypes.

And, to be sure, there are plenty of women who are morally conflicted about the procedure itself. About a third of women who get abortions in the US identify as Catholic. Of course, the fact that some people who get abortions find themselves ethically torn doesn't make abortion wrong any more than a guilty Jehovah's Witness makes blood transfusion wrong.

26. JB said the following at 10:05 PM on Jul 14:

Farmer Tom,

I'm not certain I follow your argument, but I think you're making an unwarranted logical leap. The fact that Margaret Sanger advocated eugenics (and she was far from being an extremist at the time when she was advocating that position, cf. Woodrow Wilson, the American Medical Association, and 30 state governments) and also founded the American Birth Control League nearly 90 years ago does not constitute proof or even evidence that Planned Parenthood desires the extinction of black Americans. The two issues, access to abortion and eugenics, are completely separate in contemporary discourse.

Your attempt to re-link the two using the comments of Justice Ginsburg doesn't hold water if you read the interview you cite as evidence. Ginsburg noted that she was surprised by the ruling, which she did not make, that Medicare did not have to provide funding for abortion because she had believed that there would be more support on the Supreme Court for abortions which would reduce the social burden of children born into poverty. She found that this perspective was not one held by the SC justices. She offers this comment as an example of how she misjudged the politics of abortion, not as an advocacy of eugenics or abortion as a means of social engineering.

The simple fact is that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers simply provide a service to women. They don't coerce anyone into having an abortion. I think you're imagining a conspiracy where none exists.

One a different note, I'm not sure where this idea comes from that Planned Parenthood is motivated by greed. Who are these people getting rich off of abortions? I can assure you that no one in medical school sits around thinking, "Well, I could do dermatology, but the real money is in abortions!"

27. Phoebe said the following at 11:18 PM on Jul 14:

Bravo, Amir. That was a good piece of satire.

28. obewan said the following at 1:20 AM on Jul 15:

Don't get me wrong, I am all for Christian "crisis pregnancy centers", and I support the one in my town. However, at the same time, I am a realist who realizes that there are limits to how much help is offered in REALITY by these organizations.

Most only offer mostly counseling, and focus on an attempt to prevent abortions through said counseling. A few offer limited health care.

Now I have to ask, if a few Christians were asked to ante up and help with total comphrehensive health care for all poor unwed mothers, would they pay up? Or, is the government in a better position to share the burden across a broder base of taxpayers?

29. JuliaH said the following at 8:38 AM on Jul 15:

Unfortunately, the US seems to be headed for a Canadian-style medical system. This means that you will not be allowed to use private medicare, and that all abortions will be free of charge while some cancer treatments/drugs currently available in the US will not covered.

30. Jim H said the following at 9:34 AM on Jul 15:

People can hand wring about support or lack of support for unwed mothers until the cows come home, but those arguments are irrelevant to the fundamental question: "is abortion fundamentally wrong?"

We can all agree that pre-meditated murder is fundamentally wrong and the Bible makes no “extenuating circumstance” provisions for murderers who had unhappy childhoods or grew up poor.

31. NathanaelN said the following at 9:57 AM on Jul 15:

JB,

The abortion industry makes an absolute fortune. There is so much money in abortion. Planned Parenthood reported a total revenue of over 1 billion dollars for the 2006-2007 period.

In many healthcare related industries, there can exist a sizable overhead due to regulation intended to protect the patient.

"There has been testimony in the House and Senate, where I have heard there is not regulation on the abortion clinics in the state. In the nine clinics, we've heard testimony that abortion clinics are not as regulated as veterinary clinics or tattoo parlors. We need to find a balance between good regulations and women's health. I think it's important to make sure the nine (abortion) facilities are capable of handling emergencies; to not regulate would be a disservice to protecting women's health.

Indiana, Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield IDS News, Multiple bills address abortion in Indiana Senate, House, 2/22/2005"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032802.html
http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=80

32. Jim H said the following at 10:30 AM on Jul 15:

JB #26,
It's one thing to sit back and say you don't think abortion is morally wrong but have you actually observed one? Many people hide the horrors of abortion behind ephemistic language such as "product of conception," "fetus," etc and never get out and see what they're supporting.

I have no respect for anyone who supports abortion who has never experienced or observed one because they don't have a first hand experiential knowledge of what an abortion is and how the baby is literally torn apart.

If you support abortion - back up your words with action and go observe one so you have a full understanding of what you support.

33. JB said the following at 8:03 PM on Jul 15:

NathanaelN,

An organization which has a large amount of revenue isn't necessarily motivated by greed. First, revenues aren't profits. Second, organizational profits can very well be directed to providing more services. I simply don't see who exactly is supposedly getting rich from abortion.

34. JB said the following at 8:20 PM on Jul 15:

Jim H,

I have observed a number of first trimester dilation and curettage abortions. The products of conception, contrary to what you might believe, are a red mass of undifferentiated tissue. I found the procedure uncomfortable to watch at first, but no more so than any other gynecological procedure. The experience didn't change my opinion of abortion.

35. Kit said the following at 8:22 PM on Jul 15:

Farmer Tom,
I know we always go head to head on this board...:-)...but Planned Parenthood is not an evil place. I go there for all of my gynocological exams and also for my birth control. I go there SOLELY because it offers a sliding scale, and until recently when I switched over to my hubby's military insurance, was the only place I could afford these things (now of course I just go on base). The same pill that costs $15/month at PP for me would have been, through my job's insurance, over $40/month. That's a BIG difference whne your full time job was paying under $29 a year.

They are not racist. They may have been founded by one, but, if you read your history, Abe Lincoln didn't care about slavery, either. (True! Do some research--at the library, not online, you'll find it in Lincoln's OWN LETTERS.) The majority of the population served by the PPs in my area serves all races and offers the same services to all women. They do not treat me differently and I have never seen them treat anyone poorly.

And they do not just 'do abortions' to 'do abortions.' They are willing and able to do counseling and such. The sad but realistic truth is that if a woman REALLY wants to have one, no amount of education about other options is going to stop her. Presidential policies won't either. Remember prohibition? It will only drive them underground, costing the taxpayer more in the long run because of expensive and dangerous botched jobs. It used to happen all the time and it would again.

36. Jim H said the following at 9:37 AM on Jul 16:

JB,
So this to you was is a "red mass of undifferentiated tissue?"

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/fetus/ig/First-Trimester-US-Gallery/3D-Ultrasound---11-Weeks.htm

I'll give you credit as an abortion supporter for actually observing them which means you are not an "armchair" coward hiding behind euphemistic language and waxing poetic (and robotically) about a "woman's right to choose", but in my opinion it takes a pretty cold person to see clearly human life destroyed with no feeling of sorrow or remorse.

37. Lia said the following at 10:31 AM on Jul 16:

You're forgetting that Obama has more policies than just "a radical abortion bill." Promoting comprehensive sex-ed, and going through with healthcare reform will probably have the net effect of reducing abortions, because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and better health care for moms and babies. Use your logic, people!

38. Motte said the following at 11:06 AM on Jul 16:

Use the facts Lia.

Unintended pregnancies went through the roof when they introduced comprehensive sex education in the 80s. The rate only started going down when they began abstinence programs in the 90s.

Guess what Obama does. He decreases abstinence funding and increases money to the largest abortion provider in the world, Planned Parenthood.

Further, you're ignoring the state data proving that the more liberal the abortion policy is, the higher the abortion rate.

39. Jason said the following at 12:08 PM on Jul 16:

Motte,
The study I know of has posited that federally funded abstinence has been a wash...no statistical difference between those participating and a control group:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

Where are you getting your facts from? I'm curious if there are any other contradictory studies out there.

40. Kit said the following at 1:23 PM on Jul 16:

Abstinence funding does nothing to help abortion (TIME: March 2009). That's why Obama is decreasing funding. There were no difference in stats over the last few years.

Why not fund education programs instead?

41. Lia said the following at 2:55 PM on Jul 16:

*blinks* Federally sponsored abstinence-only programs are extremely recent-- certainly they were not introduced across the board in the 1990s, unless you're talking the very, very late 1990's. At any rate, before the federal funding of abstinence-only programs, there weren't enough in place for them to have a statistically significant effect on teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy, unwanted or not, has been on the decline since 1991, except for these past few years, when it's been rising. I wonder if there could be any correlation between federally-funded abstinence programs and teenage pregnancy?

And, yes, of course in states where the abortion laws are more liberal, there'll be more abortions taking place. This hardly merits mention. If one state has really conservative abortion policies, then women who want abortions will go to a neighboring state with more liberal laws to get one, which, of course, will inflate the number of abortions.

42. IMO said the following at 3:20 PM on Jul 16:

"If one state has really conservative abortion policies, then women who want abortions will go to a neighboring state with more liberal laws to get one."

Is there a fact/statistic to back your statement?

43. Ted Slater said the following at 3:25 PM on Jul 16:

Jason (#39) -- I took a look at that study, and found it to be very convincing. The thing is, it does have some methodological problems which likely have affected the findings.

For an assessment of various studies on abstinence education, I recommend this article. It addresses numerous studies, including the Mathematica Study you referenced. They introduce their report with the following paragraph:

"Opponents of abstinence education contend that these programs fail to influence teen sexual behav ior. At this stage, the available evidence supports neither this assessment nor the wholesale dismissal of authentic abstinence education programs."

And then follow pages and pages of reviews....

44. Motte Brown said the following at 3:39 PM on Jul 16:

Lia:

Don't blink. You might miss something.

Abstinence programs like Best Friends began showing up in public schools in the late 80s.

And the theory that women crossing state lines drives up the abortion rates only proves my point -- women will have more abortions in places where there are looser abortion laws.

45. Lia said the following at 4:10 PM on Jul 16:

Motte, while, yes I'm sure that abstinence programs existed beforehand, I'm not entirely convinced that they existed in large enough numbers until relatively recently to have any effect on the statistics.

I also don't understand why you're so doggedly defending a statement that seems to be irrelevant to me. Yes, if more women are eligible to get abortions, then more women will. It has very little to do with anything but eligibility. As far as statements go, it's a given. It does not necessarily follow that if abortion laws in the US become more liberal, when coupled with other policy changes, that the number of abortions will rise. If pregnant mothers feel that they are able to adequately care for their babies, which may include having access to state-sponsored health care and welfare, then they're less likely to abort. If teenage girls and women have the resources they need to take care of their sexual and reproductive health, including access to and information about contraception, then they're less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

Also, IMO, I'd always taken that statement as fact because I know of women who've gone to states neighboring their home states to have abortions. My knowledge of it is almost entirely anecdotal, though.

46. JB said the following at 7:04 PM on Jul 16:

Jim H,

Keep in mind that at 8 weeks, an embryo is about 4 cm long. I'm just telling you, if you've never observed an abortion, that the products of conception look like a mass of tissue, not like an ultasound image of an embryo. And, of course, I don't think I did observe the destruction of a human life, so there was no call for sorrow or remorse. For what it's worth, I did feel compassion for the women involved.

47. Motte Brown said the following at 7:26 PM on Jul 16:

Lia:

Again, you are misinformed. The overwhelming majority of abortions are chosen out of convenience. Period. That's why the same states with the more liberal health care and welfare policies along with the more liberal abortion policy have the highest abortion rates.

And yes, more abortions are the result from more liberal abortion policy.

From the blog I link in my OP:

"The other simple fact is that pro-choice policies and regulations do not reduce the number of abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the legal abortion rate per 1000 women, aged 15-44, decreased 13.6% from 1996 to 2005 (22.4 to 19.4). Only 9 states have seen their abortion rate (measuring occurences of abortions in the state) increase since 1996, and only one state has seen its rate increase since 1987. That state is Maryland, which has had FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) type legislation on the books since 1991. Maryland's abortion rate increased from 27.6 in 1987 to 31.5 in 2005."

48. IMO said the following at 8:39 PM on Jul 16:

"the products of conception look like a mass of tissue [at 8 weeks]"

Not when you take a closer look:

http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/images/8-week-unborn-baby.jpg

http://patterico.com/images/8weeks.jpg

or you can just google it yourself..

So now you can't be ignorant of what that 8-week old "mass of tissues" actually is.

49. Lia said the following at 9:33 PM on Jul 16:

There is little to no effective difference between choosing an abortion because you can't "afford" to have a baby for any one of a number of reasons, and choosing an abortion out of convenience. We do not live in a culture that makes things particularly easy for moms of babies and small children-- healthcare and childcare are ridiculously expensive, and it's hard for a woman to have a family and a job outside the home, too.

I guess the difference comes about here-- liberal abortion laws do not create any additional demand for abortions, but simply supply abortions to meet an already existing high demand. I don't know how you can argue any other way, because abortions have a high elasticity of demand in some ways-- even when they're illegal or expensive, women still manage to have them, and limiting the legal supply of them does nothing to decrease the demand for them (or the illegal supply of them, for that matter.)

50. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:26 AM on Jul 17:

Hey, I'm in my forties and I'm still "a mass of tissue!"

And a secular mass, too!

51. Jim H said the following at 8:46 AM on Jul 17:

JB,
If that 8-week mass of tissue isn't human enough for you (thanks IMO for that link), at what point during the pregnancy does the "mass of tissue" become a person entitled to legal protection? Is it 9 weeks, is it 10 weeks, is it 15 weeks, it is at the moment of birth?

52. Motte Brown said the following at 10:48 AM on Jul 17:

Lia:

I disagree. Liberal abortion policy enables men and women to make irresponsible decisions about sex. I believe good, godly laws precipitate more responsible decisions, even decisions about having sex outside of marriage. And this is really, really, really easy to prove. Just compare the abortion rate before Roe v. Wade to after.

Also, the Allen Guttmacher Institute just released the results of research that proves the link between liberal abortion policy and increased abortion rates. Here's a summary of the result from Michael J. New at National Review:

The Guttmacher Institute recently released a literature review about the effects of restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion. Overall, the results indicate that there is a very strong consensus among both public-health researchers and economists that public funding restrictions lower abortion rates. The Guttmacher literature review contains citations to 20 academic studies documenting this. These studies analyze data from a range of sources including surveys and aggregate data from the federal, state, and local level. Conversely, Guttmacher identifies only about four studies which show that the effects of public-funding restrictions are inconclusive.
The evidence presented about the effectiveness of public funding restrictions is very persuasive. A 1999 study by Cook et al. analyzed North Carolina’s provisions for public funding of abortions. North Carolina is unique because instead of funding abortions for low-income women through Medicaid, they did so through a separate state fund which periodically ran out of money. When funds were unavailable, the authors found a consistent increase in the birth rate and a decrease in the abortion rate. Furthermore, these trends were more pronounced among blacks. Another Guttmacher study found that the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was more than twice as high in those states that publicly funded abortion through Medicaid.

53. JB said the following at 4:34 PM on Jul 17:

Louise,

Your body is a mass of tissue. Whether that's what *you* are is a different question entirely. :-)

Jim H,

I'd say some time between viability (23ish weeks) and birth (inclusive). What would you say? Do you think a fertilized egg is as much a person as you are?

54. Lia said the following at 7:26 PM on Jul 17:

Motte, it's not that conservative abortion laws mean that people will make godly decisions, it's that the element of choice is removed almost entirely. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy in a state where abortion is illegal or heavily discouraged can choose to have a back-alley abortion that exposes her to several risks, or she can choose to have her child, but her choices are really limited. It doesn't remove her desire to abort at all, nor does it make her morally a better person.

55. Jim H said the following at 11:23 AM on Jul 20:

JB.
Yes, I believe personhood begins at conception. Personhood in my view is what we are, not what we are capable or incapable of doing (i.e viability outside the womb).

56. JB said the following at 3:23 PM on Jul 20:

Jim H,

Okay, let's say you're visiting an in vitro fertilization clinic one afternoon when a fire breaks out. You realize that you can either (a) save a petri dish from the lab containing 10 zygotes or (b) save two toddlers from the employee daycare area. If you choose A, the toddlers will surely die, and vice versa.

So which do you pick? Honestly, would you even hesitate? I think a lot of people *say* they believe personhood begins at conception but virtually no one really *believes* it, push come to shove.

57. IMO said the following at 5:55 PM on Jul 20:

lol on #56 ...Sophia's Choice much?

58. Jim H said the following at 9:35 AM on Jul 21:

JB.
First let's change the scenario to a choice between 5 children and 10 adults. Would my choice to save 5 children mean the adults were less human and not entitled to legal protection? Let's say we're on a sinking ship and there's only room in the lifeboats for women and children - does that mean the men who are left to die are not human and worthy of legal protection?

To answer your question directly, I would save the toddlers beccause of the deep bond of love with their family that strengthens after birth. But if the scenario were changed yet again, I would not fault the mother of the fertilzed eggs for saving her unborn children over the toddlers.

59. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:29 AM on Jul 21:

Lia says:

Motte, it's not that conservative abortion laws mean that people will make godly decisions, it's that the element of choice is removed almost entirely. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy in a state where abortion is illegal or heavily discouraged can choose to have a back-alley abortion that exposes her to several risks, or she can choose to have her child, but her choices are really limited. It doesn't remove her desire to abort at all, nor does it make her morally a better person.

:::turning sarcasm mode to ON:::

Lia, it's not that laws against child trafficking mean that people will make godly decisions, it's that the element of choice is removed almost entirely. A person with the desire to earn a profit, living in a state where child trafficking is illegal or heavily discouraged, can choose to engage in the practice in the underworld, which exposes him--and the child--to further risks, or he can choose not to employ child labor at all. But his choices are really limited. It doesn't remove his desire to employ child labor, nor does it make him a better person.

:::turning sarcasm mode to OFF:::

Seriously, Lia, laws against anything--to include rape and child trafficking--will not make a person godly; they are, however, reflective of what that society has chosen to tolerate.

Fact is, we could frame anything--from rape to child trafficking and even post-natal infanticide--in terms of "limiting a person's choices". Laws against any of those offenses will not make a person godly, or even more moral.

A person inclined to rape will still be inclined toward it, irrespective of its legal status. Laws prohibiting the act, however, will increase the risk of offenses.

The same is true of abortion. A woman who chooses to abort is choosing to pay a hitman to kill her child.

If that hitman kills her in the process, then that shows that she died while acting as a party to her own child's murder.

Just as I have no sympathy for the murderer who gets blown away by the armed homeowner, I have no sympathy for the woman who dies while trying to kill her child in utero.

It's long past time that we cut the niceties and started calling actions for what they are.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post