In light of recent events, I will open an old wound...

[Defiant]

As I noted it took 4 years for abortions post RvW to reach the high end of the pre RvW estimates. That makes no sense if the pre RvW numbers were that high.

Isn't it possible that the numbers in the immediate wake of RvW were inaccurate, as there needed time to establish a comprehensive system of accounting? (Though I'll admit, 4 years seems like a long time for that to happen)

[Effidian]

Sorry, Josh, I don't buy your explanation for the discrepancy between the high end of the abortion estimates pre RvW vs. those of the immediate subsequent years. As I noted it took 4 years for abortions post RvW to reach the high end of the pre RvW estimates. That makes no sense if the pre RvW numbers were that high. Most of the US lives in urban areas, or within a few hours drive of any urban area. Do you really expect me to believe that half a million people still choose to go to back alley abortionists or unlicensed abortionists (even if they were doctors) when safe legal abortion was readily available? You might could explain 1973 for that reason, but you can't explain why it took so long to reach the 1.3MM level. Sorry, I don't buy what you're selling.

Then why don't the birth numbers show a significant drop?

And I'm not selling anything. I have never looked at it this closely, so I'm trying to have a discussion here so I can learn something.

FYI, I made no claim about AGI, I merely provided 2 sets of data for comparision purposes and so people can draw their own conclusions. Please do not attribute to me an assertion that I did not make. That said, everyone and every organization has a "bias" - that's life as humans. The point is to recognized bias exists and then determine if that bias influences a person's or organization's conclusions. Just because someone is biased does not mean that what they are saying is not true - that's a false assumption and means that we really couldn't believe anyone. That's a false argument alot of people make - which then makes it easy - they can discount automatically what someone else says, and then never have to deal with their arguments. I may fail sometimies, but I never try to do that myself.

You put in the comment about it being affiliated with Planned Parenthood, so if you weren't trying to say it was biased then I wasn't sure what the point of that was. I guess I read too much into it, I apologize.

Lastly, the question that you still don't answer. Let's assume that the range of 200k to 1.3MM is correct for pre RvW. That gives you an average of 750k/year. I know that you said you don't know alot about statistics, but wouldn't you have to say an increase from 750k to 1.3MM or 73% is a "significant" increase?

I don't think they mean those statistics that way. I think what they are saying is that estimates range from 200k to 1.2 million a year from different sources. Not that a single year had 200k and another year had 1.2 million. I don't think we have any idea of the actual numbers.

However, the birth numbers are not large enough that 750k new abortions would be hidden. That would show up signficantly post Roe v Wade, wouldn't it? In 1974 there were actually 23,000 more births than there were in 1973. In fact the way the birth numbers look, it seems like the higher end of the estimates is actually correct.

[Al]

Sorry but we are discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion.

I'd read the opening post in this thread again if I were you. In particular:

If [the reversal of Roe v Wade] were to occur...what exactly would happen?

Oh, please, let's not toss that red herring out, unless you want to get into all the times liberals failed to "adequately consider and plan for the consequences of their policy shifts".

Who says I would let liberals off the hook for their policy failures? If one were to bring up Head Start as a solution to deal with at risk kids I'd point out that it doesn't work. We still haven't even gotten that far though.

[Eightball]

Lastly, the question that you still don't answer. Let's assume that the range of 200k to 1.3MM is correct for pre RvW. That gives you an average of 750k/year. I know that you said you don't know alot about statistics, but wouldn't you have to say an increase from 750k to 1.3MM or 73% is a "significant" increase?

Considering 2/3 of states pre Roe v. Wade had statutes making abortions illegal, I'd say that's not so far off the expected increase.

[Effidian]

Maybe everyone is burnt out on this topic, but I came across some more information. I didn't get the entire study, it seems that you have to subscribe to something or other.

OBJECTIVES: This article examines the effect of abortion legalization on fertility rates in the United States.
METHODS: Fertility rates were compared over time between states that varied in the timing of abortion legalization.
RESULTS: States legalizing abortion experienced a 4% decline in fertility relative to states where the legal status of abortion was unchanged. The relative reductions in births to teens, women more than 35 years of age, non-White women, and unmarried women were considerably larger. If women did not travel between states to obtain an abortion, the estimated impact of abortion legalization on birth rates would be about 11%.
CONCLUSIONS: A complete recriminalization of abortion nationwide could result in 440,000 additional births per year. A reversal of the Roe v Wade decision leaving abortion legal in some states would substantially limit this impact because of the extent of travel between states.

I still don't know why the birth rates didn't drop in 1974. In 1973 that would have been 345,000 extra births. Because other states had already legalized it before 1973, I think that would mean that some portion of birth rate decline from the 60s to 1973 must be attributed to legalization of abortion. Maybe? But then why the birth rate just levels out in 1973 is a complete mystery. It still seems to indicate that the high end of the pre 1973 estimates of abortions are more accurate, especially since we didn't see a drop in birth rate.

So to stop this it would have to be made illegal (or very restrictive) nationwide (Hawaii and Alaska might not be all that important). I assume it would also depend on how easy it would be to get them in Canada if you were a U.S. citizen. (How easy is that?) If we could somehow stop all legal abortions, I think it is saying that we would end up with 440k more births and then I assume the remainder as illegal abortions (850k).

35% reduction in the number of abortions is pretty significant, as is the 10% increase in birth rate. If adoption goes back up to the peak level of 175k that would reduce the number by about 55k, so we'd end up with 385k kids. I don't know where they would end up (anyone have a study on that?).

Here is an AGI study on affects of abortion on adoption. It has some pretty interesting things in it. Adoptions dropped when abortion became legal (as you'd assume), but pretty much only nonrelative adoptions, relative adoptions remained the same. (Relative meaning someone related to the mother adopting the child.)

Anyway, 440k abortions is a lot and I can see why many would want to make it illegal. I have no idea how possible that is. I'm still interested in all the consequences related to making abortion illegal. I understand that those of you that are very much against abortion don't think that is as important as stopping abortion, but at least a few of us in this conversation do. I for one would never vote to make abortion illegal without us first attempting to do a better job of helping single mothers and current unwanted children, and with clear indication that the level of support would increase to cover the new births that were put in that basket by making it illegal.

On a positive note, it looks like if the trend in the decrease of abortions since 1983 continues we'll get down to the the same level as we would by making it illegal in about 10 years. (Of course this doesn't count what the level would be if we made it illegal today, but.... I'm trying to be positive.) The trends for the last 10 to 15 years in other developed contries is also decreasing. I suppose better contraception and more education is the cause of that.

And I'm still interested in discussing the following, if anyone else is.

Results: A total of 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2001 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.5% decrease from the 857,475 legal induced abortions reported by the same 49 reporting areas for 2000. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2001, compared with 245 reported for 2000. This represents a 0.4% increase in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2001, the same as for 2000. For both the 48 and 49 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1997--2001.

I didn't think it was true that abortions had increased under Bush, but this seems to say that it actually has (not volume, but percentage). I've heard this being attributed to the stop of abstinence plus education. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

[Grifman]

Lastly, the question that you still don't answer. Let's assume that the range of 200k to 1.3MM is correct for pre RvW. That gives you an average of 750k/year. I know that you said you don't know alot about statistics, but wouldn't you have to say an increase from 750k to 1.3MM or 73% is a "significant" increase?

I don't think they mean those statistics that way. I think what they are saying is that estimates range from 200k to 1.2 million a year from different sources. Not that a single year had 200k and another year had 1.2 million. I don't think we have any idea of the actual numbers.

My point is, since we don't know which is right, the 200k or the 1.2MM, then we have to take the average as a point estimate. You and/or others been saying we haven't seen a significant increase because you've been using the higher estimate. That's just not right, no more than if I insist the lowest estimate must be used. Given we don't know for sure, we're left with using the midpoint of the estimates. That's all I'm trying to say, not sure why that's hard to understand.

However, the birth numbers are not large enough that 750k new abortions would be hidden. That would show up signficantly post Roe v Wade, wouldn't it? In 1974 there were actually 23,000 more births than there were in 1973. In fact the way the birth numbers look, it seems like the higher end of the estimates is actually correct.

Lot of other stuff going on. Can you explain the drop from 1960 to 1973? Did an increase in illegal abortions do all that? You've got demographic changes, women entering into the workplace, etc. Kind of hard to pin down whatever was happening just on abortion.

[Grifman]

Sorry but we are discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion.

I'd read the opening post in this thread again if I were you.

If you were me you'd be doing alot of things differently

In particular:

If [the reversal of Roe v Wade] were to occur...what exactly would happen?

Point taken. Nevertheless, I found it confusing

Oh, please, let's not toss that red herring out, unless you want to get into all the times liberals failed to "adequately consider and plan for the consequences of their policy shifts".

Who says I would let liberals off the hook for their policy failures? If one were to bring up Head Start as a solution to deal with at risk kids I'd point out that it doesn't work. We still haven't even gotten that far though.

Since both sides have the problem as you readily admit, I found it rather pointless in noting conservatives have made this mistake before, as if it were exlusive to them. It's like noting the sky is blue - sure it is, but is there a point?

[Effidian]

...stuff...

I think you missed my last post.

[Al]

If you were me you'd be doing alot of things differently

Since both sides have the problem as you readily admit, I found it rather pointless in noting conservatives have made this mistake before, as if it were exlusive to them. It's like noting the sky is blue - sure it is, but is there a point?

First off, I bring up conservatives because they are the ones that want this policy. I bring up the current administrations mistakes because if it happens it’ll be because the current administration that will get things rolling. The onus of responsibility to deal with the unintended consequences is theirs.

The question came up, what would happen if abortion was banned? My response was that, unless preventive measures were taken crime would go up and I wondered if conservatives had any kind of plan to deal with this. I wasn’t surprised that conservatives didn’t but what I did (and do) find troubling is that conservatives would rather pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. What was even more surprising was that when conservatives were willing to even momentarily concede that the problem does exist that they still didn’t care.

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are. What’s more, from what I’ve read it seems that their attitude is indicative of social conservatives as a whole. What social conservatives don’t seem to realize is that their position on Roe v Wade is not in the majority so if they manage to push this through without dealing with the problem then they risk significant backlash when crime goes on the rise.

[geezer]

If you were me you'd be doing alot of things differently

Since both sides have the problem as you readily admit, I found it rather pointless in noting conservatives have made this mistake before, as if it were exlusive to them. It's like noting the sky is blue - sure it is, but is there a point?

First off, I bring up conservatives because they are the ones that want this policy. I bring up the current administrations mistakes because if it happens it’ll be because the current administration that will get things rolling. The onus of responsibility to deal with the unintended consequences is theirs.

The question came up, what would happen if abortion was banned? My response was that, unless preventive measures were taken crime would go up and I wondered if conservatives had any kind of plan to deal with this. I wasn’t surprised that conservatives didn’t but what I did (and do) find troubling is that conservatives would rather pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. What was even more surprising was that when conservatives were willing to even momentarily concede that the problem does exist that they still didn’t care.

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

err. I'm not sure it's fair to characterize them as "soft on crime" simply because they choose to prioritieze the reduction of one type of crime (in their eyes) even though it might lead to an increase in a related, but not as serious, type of crime.

[Mr. Fed]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

[Mr. Sparkle]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

Want to stop crime?

Abolish Law.

W00t! Problem solved. I'm a genius.

[Guy Incognito]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

Want to stop crime?

Abolish Law.

W00t! Problem solved. I'm a genius.

Sparkle for Prez!

[Al]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

Want to stop crime?

Abolish Law.

W00t! Problem solved. I'm a genius.

Sparkle for Prez!

Does this mean I get to be a consultant?

[Mr. Sparkle]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

Want to stop crime?

Abolish Law.

W00t! Problem solved. I'm a genius.

Sparkle for Prez!

Does this mean I get to be a consultant?

Nah, but you can be my Crime Czar.

I promise it will be really really easy. No experience necessary!

[Al]

While I never thought that I would write that staunch conservatives like Gwar21, Rowdy and Poleaxe are soft on crime and be serious it appears that at least when it comes to this issue they are.

This is almost Rovian in its breathtakingly shameless bullshititude.

Want to stop crime?

Abolish Law.

W00t! Problem solved. I'm a genius.

Sparkle for Prez!

Does this mean I get to be a consultant?

Nah, but you can be my Crime Czar.

I promise it will be really really easy. No experience necessary!

Goddamnit. I'm pretty sure I'm overqualified.

[Pyperkub]

People like to dismiss things like this as an 'appeal to emotion', or squirm around because it makes them uncomfortable and try to reduce it to an intellectual exercise, but this is an issue that CANNOT be reduced to an abstract concept. How can killing a living, feeling, human being NOT be an emotional concept? There are so many supposedly compassionate liberals on this forum, talking about the horrors of the war, the evils of capitalism and how it affects people - who then turn around and like to pretend that the millions of children who are dying before they've had a chance to draw their first breath are less important than a woman's 'right to choose'.

Heh. This looks like a good time to bust out with my screed on abortion. Thank bob Run archived this thing so I don't have to retype it:

Here is my thesis:

Unborn life is valued less by our society than born life.

Here is my proof:

Throughout history abortion has been practiced to protect the health of the mother and to save mothers from the consequences of rape and incest. This tells me that an unborn baby is "worth" less to us than a born baby.

Here is a question for the abortion is murder crowd (in this forum they are all men as far as I can tell, so my question will assume your male-ness): If you had to choose between your unborn baby's life and your wife's life in the delivery room (i.e., doctor says your wife will die if x is not done, performing x will save your wife's life, but x will kill the baby), what would you do? Assume that the question is as absolute as it sounds (if you do nothing, 100% chance baby lives, 100% chance wife dies; if you do x 100% wife lives, 100% chance baby dies). My guess is most of you would be helping your wife deal with the loss of your child and planning your next step and that you wouldn't be making funeral arrangements for
your wife.

Similarly, imagine your wife has been raped. She tells you she can't bear the thought of giving birth to the rapists child. She says she wants an abortion. Would you tell her no? That it is murder? (Actually, I'm assuming the response to this will be a little mixed, because I wouldn't be surprised if some of you believe that your wife would be against an abortion in that circumstance (and I'm not suggesting your are wrong), which would likely color your conclusion). I suspect most of you would not object to your wife performing an abortion in that instance. Also, I suspect that even those who wouldn't choose to take the abortion course of action in this context would say that it would not be immoral for someone to make this decision.
Why do I raise these examples? Because I think they utterly debunk the we shouldn't kill innocents arguments. In each case the child has done NOTHING wrong, nothing to deserve death. So why is society as a whole comfortable allowing abortion in these circumstances? Going back to my thesis, its because we value unborn life LESS than born life. Here the mother's physical and emotional health are considered paramount over the innocent unborn child's life.

So, in some circumstances we as a society are comfortable with giving parents the power of life and death over their unborn children. Here's the rub: Who gets to decide what circumstances? I think there can only be one sane answer, and that is it should be up to the mother to decide. Nobody on planet earth is more capable, more worthy, more righteous in making that decision than the woman who has conceived the child and will be responsible for carrying it to term. Here's where my blood starts to run absolutely ice cold. Some of you seem to think this is a decision the government should make. That the collective should make this decision for the individual. Why? Why on earth would you take this decision from the mother and hand it to the masses? Carrying or not carrying the child is such an utterly personal decision, I cannot imagine any moral society forcing a woman to do one or the other against her will.

People talk about responsibility, but I think that is an utterly bullshit argument. Last I checked we still performed bypass surgery on fat people, we still offer medical care to drunk drivers, and we still allow people to declare bankruptcy in the face of crushing debt that would likely ruin their lives forever and turn them into nothing more than indentured servants if you actually forced them to fully repay their debts. Each of these things have consequences (bypass surgery and car accident recovery hurt; bankruptcy screws your credit), but just because we mitigate the full weight of the consequences doesn't somehow sanction irresponsibility; rather it reflects a certain level of compassion in our society and an understanding that it is sometimes better to allow people to step out from
under the full weight of their mistakes.

I think in many instances abortion is an incredibly selfish decision. My pro-choice standpoint is not born out of any ignorance about whether a fetus is capable of suffering or not, I know that it is. But if as a society we know that unborn life is worth less than born life, and that in some instances it is okay to terminate unborn life in favor of the life of the mother (and by life I mean physical and emotional well-being). At that point the only responsible way for the society to conduct itself is to vest this awesome responsibility in the hands of the person most impacted by the decision: the mother.

Bump because I've always been touched by this argument by GuidoTKP!

[Alefroth]

If they were to try, maybe Americans would snap out of their stupor and start a revolution.

I can hope, right?