Mary -

The overall abortion rate in '92 was about 26% and in 07' it is down to about 19%.

So to claim that your reasons are the best - I do not see the evidence. Might we just say - 'D - all the above'.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 10:41 AM

The decline in abortion also coincides with the advent of pre-natal scanning, which seems a more sensible explanation. Given that the study doesn't seem to take into account the most widely held explanation for an abortion rate drop, I have a hard time buying it's conclusion.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 4, 2008 11:29 AM

The biggest correlations to abortion rates are poverty and war. Every year that poverty rates have increased abortions have increased (and vice versa). Every year we have been at war abortions increase.

I think it is time that the two sides stop fighting and come together to reduce abortions in any way possible. After all, we have been fighting for 35 years and abortions have only increased. 7 of the 9 supreme court justices were chosen by Pro-Life presidents and no difference has occurred. Even if they do overturn Roe vs. Wade it makes it a state by state issue and most likely will not reduce abortions.

The answer is working together across party lines to help poverty, create programs for women, make the adoption process easier, and many other areas, so that women are not put in that difficult position where they can make a bad choice as much.

Once we reduce abortions dramatically, then I think the debate about outlawing it will be much more realistic.

Besides all this, the top ten developed countries with the lowest abortion rates all have it safe and legal, while the places with the highest rates are countries that have outlawed it. The reason is that these countries have good education, adoption, support for women in crisis, and very low poverty rates.

Let's work together and not debate this for another 35 years while abortions skyrocket even further. Heated rhetoric on both sides is only making the problem worse!

Posted by: Jeff from PA | September 4, 2008 12:13 PM

Here we have an example of a both/and situation versus an either/or one. A better social safety net probably would reduce the number of abortions. Outlawing abortion would probably also reduce them. (What? You're telling me that outlawing something actually makes people WANT to do the very thing?)

Now, the only argument I've heard against outlawing abortion that makes sense is the pragmatic one. The prohibition of alcohol back in the early 20th century in the US failed horribly, mainly because there *was not* a consensus among the people that everyone should quit drinking for good. So underground drinking establishments flourished. Likewise, there currently is *not* anywhere near a consensus on outlawing abortion. The same or similar problem probably will occur if we do outlaw it at this point.

To all those who are "pro-choice." If there is really *nothing* wrong with abortions, then why the drive to make them "rare?" If there is really nothing wrong with them, then why and how can one argue that sex-selective abortions are wrong, beyond a simple preference of one sex to another? The victims of sex-selective abortion are predominantly female. How can one support keeping a practice legal and be a "feminist," when the victims are females themselves?

Posted by: Ngchen | September 4, 2008 12:23 PM

Ngchen - I am pro-life at heart, but do not think it is practical legislatively for at least a decade (probably much longer) for many different reasons and I have never heard a Pro-Life candidate address any of them. If I heard them address them, I think I would consider their position a bit more fully - but honestly, I think that most conservative politicians (not all) merely use the words to get and do not really have a plan for ending abortion (possibly explaining why 7 of the 9 supreme court justices were put in place by "pro-life" candidates:

Here are my major concerns (I have more, but here are a few):

A.) Backing up courts in all fifty states for at least 1 year and in many states many years because abortion becomes a state-by-state issue. The courts will be even more full after they begin arresting doctors and / or mothers

B.) It would cause large amounts of doctors to relocate and since the far majority of doctors are pro-choice states that ban abortion would have severe health care problems.

C.) Our orphanages and Foster homes are currently severely overcrowded, so we would need to build a huge infrastructure to house the tens to hundreds of thousands of babies that would be abandoned

D.) We would need to find out how the states that outlaw abortions are going to police it, and since in most states police forces are already stretched thin, so how we are going to get the extra forces to deal with this

E.) Since we already have the highest incarceration rates of any civilized country (over 2 million people in jail) how we will expand our jails even further to arrest mothers and doctors.

F.) How to deal with miscarriages. If someone falls down stairs, gets punched in the stomach, etc. how will we determine if it was purposefully done?

G.) How to deal with underground abortions. In countries that have outlawed abortions, nearly 76 percent of them occur anyways, how will we crack down on this?

H.) Once we determine how and who to incarcerate, we will need to determine a cut-off: Does the morning after pill constitute abortion? Does Birth control? Will both of them be outlawed as well?

I.) And many, many other problems.

So, while at heart I am pro-life (though I would suggest life begins around 14-30 days as mentioned in a few places in the old Testament and is why most Jewish people are pro-choice), I think that legislation is not the answer and that the highest "Pro-life" politicians just use it to get votes and then hand our tax dollars to oil companies. So, we need to find a way to work together rather than fight about it for another 35 years while they increase!

Posted by: Jeff from PA | September 4, 2008 3:27 PM

Kevin S: "The decline in abortion also coincides with the advent of pre-natal scanning, which seems a more sensible explanation. Given that the study doesn't seem to take into account the most widely held explanation for an abortion rate drop, I have a hard time buying its conclusion."

I've never heard that explanation given, but if the correlation is true, then I agree it should have been considered. However, scanning is a part of comprehensive prenatal care, which also requires state social spending (Medicaid) if it is to be given to low-income mothers as well as those with insurance. Most likely those states that spend on prenatal care for low-income women have a lower abortion rate.

Also, don't forget that the conclusion was that "increased welfare payments and less Medicaid funding for abortions could lower the current abortion rate by 37 percent." Do you have a hard time buying the second part of the conclusion, or the first, or both?

Posted by: I and I | September 4, 2008 4:03 PM

Ngchen,

I don't believe that getting liposuction is immoral. However, it is an unnatural quick fix that is potentially dangerous & can cause long-term physical repercussions. Not to mention the possibility that there could be an underlying emotional or mental issue that led to the need for the surgery that may go untreated. Still, there are plenty of people with a ligitimate medical need for such a procedure, so I see no point in making it illegal.

The same goes for abortion. It's not exactly a risk-free procedure, and some people aren't psychologically equipped to deal with the consequences of their actions. There are plenty of dangers inherent in the process, which is reason enough to want there to be as few abortions as possible. But that's still no reason to go handing yet another freedom over to the government, and forcing even more Americans into prison over what many would consider to be a victimless crime.

I'm not a woman, but as for your feminist question - a person can be pro-choice without being pro-eugenics. There's a big difference between getting an abortion because the mother was raped and getting one because the fetus is female, doesn't have the right eye color, etc.

Posted by: Thelemite | September 4, 2008 4:29 PM

To rescind a woman's right to choose would only affect the poor in this nation. The rich and those who can spare the money will always have access to abortion - just simply get on a plane to Europe and get the operation, no questions asked.

Secondly, the Republicans are very fond of saying they are the party that speaks out against government interference in our lives. To take away the power to make this most private decision is the ultimate in government interference! It is tantamount to Rape by Legislation. Rape is all about power and control, and it seems to me that those who use this issue to gain political power are all about power and control over women. They want the "long arm of the law" to extend into the most private areas of a woman's body! It's akin to the Chinese government taking control of women's bodies by forcing them to have abortions, except in America, it would be forced pregnancies. That's what they had under the dictator in Romania not too many years ago.

I also need to speak in regards to the procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion." They proclaimed that no one's life was ever saved by it. I beg to differ as I know a woman whose life was saved by it. She went to the hospital expecting to have a beautiful new baby, but instead ended up on the brink of death when the baby became inextricably lodged and doctors were left with no choice but to perform the procedure. She and her husband were devastated to lose the baby, but relieved that her life was saved. With the new law, doctors' hands are tied and they would have to leave her to die on the operating table. I certainly don't wish this on anyone, but I guarantee that if Jenna Bush were in this predicament, she would get the procedure with no repercussions. To pass such a draconian law that doesn't even account for saving the mother's life is an atrocity.

Posted by: Suzy | September 4, 2008 4:39 PM

I do not see the evidence.-big guy

Go to the link- read the study

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am pro life/pro choice. I will share this study with many of my evangelical pastors and pro-life folks in our church. So now, to repeat the challenge from prior threads- how much are the republicans willing to pay to save 370,000 lives? Now, it's time to put up or shut up. How about we abolish the standing armies (founding fathers will back me up here) and use that money for family support programs.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 4, 2008 7:06 PM

One thing about making things illegal is that if there is an ongoing market for that service, suppliers in that market have more power in setting prices. The war on drugs is a good example.

Commentators on the history of abortion in Australia have pointed out that when it was prohibited, those who supplied the service on a ‘commercial’ basis were making a considerable amount of money just like the illegal drug industry is today. This was then used in part to corrupt the law enforcement / justice system as well as politicos to prevent interference in business. Pity about the fairly high level of death or long term medical problems in clents. Pity about negating the encouragement of a just egalitarian law abiding society. This activity spills over into all areas of organised crime. What about the current housing market disaster?

If we restrict the access to abortion it will encourage these activities yet again.
Time to get hard headed about analysing why there are so many abortions. Sure we could just redefine the start of life to accommodate this. We have seen the discussions before, with the reductionist arguments dominating the argument. Popper had comments about reductionism in Science which could be extrapolated into this debate. I won’t go there at this time.

However, just as managing weeds, insects and diseases in crops, the name of the game is integrated management – like wise for this problem. Dropping the doctrinaire positions, looking at what works and then putting in place the resources to make it happen. Just as farmers using RoundUp Ready GMO’s are finding that relying on a single ‘one size fits all’ solution does not work. Major weeds are adapting to the herbicide Roundup and so now partly forgotten methods must be used.

The trouble with multi factorial solutions is that they do entail some thought to develop, and piecemeal implementation often makes the problem worse.

Just a simple ban on such things with out cutting off demand, is just going make money for those who do not respect the laws imposed on them, and this weakens the social contract which keeps society going.

We got rid of spittoons as a response to TB & other health issues, and made that activity socially unacceptable. After that you do not need to enforce any laws, we do it ourselves.

Posted by: JohnH | September 4, 2008 11:13 PM

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 4, 2008 7:06 PM

I know that study and believe that the evidence is a little thin. There are many other factors that play into the issue that are not addressed.

That is why I say 'D - all the above.'

Blessings to all!
.

Posted by: big guy | September 4, 2008 11:36 PM

Do we want to be able to pat ourselves on the back for not having abortion legal, or do we want there to be fewer abortions? If the former, then by all means we can continue to bicker about it and try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. If the latter, why not look at what policies actually work (not just which ones we think SHOULD work--but ones that have reduced abortion rates in other countries), and figure out how to apply them in the U.S. And it seems that in countries with low social safety nets but laws against abortion, abortion rates are still sky-high (and women are dying from unsafe practices, as well as often being arrested for even trying to make a pregnancy go away). On the other hand, Europe with its wide availability of contraception and legal abortion, and a much more inclusive social programs, has only a fraction of the American abortion rate.

For these reasons and because abortion is in fact a religious issue for some (people's convictions about when life begins vary widely), abortion should be legal. And because it *is* an invasive medical procedure, contraception and education should be spread to help people not get pregnant in the first place.

Do we want to feel morally superior because abortion is illegal, or do we want to reduce abortion and make life better for women (whether they have children or don't have children)?

Posted by: Nenya | September 5, 2008 1:57 AM

Simply go back to the sit back, don't work and we'll send you a check approach alone will not work. It didn't work and led to welfare reform (multiple times, trying to fix the unfixable leads to that).

Perhaps, making abortion illegal while also raising assistance would actually make abortion a thing of the past. Your focus on only reducing abortion while preserving the claimed right to abort neglects the fact that the choice is not always premised on economic reasons. For the middle and wealthier classes, more welfare means nothing in the effort to prevent abortion as birth control. I know, the argument would be the well-off will go to where it is legal, some other states or countries. If so, well, barring a federal ban, then like a split country where some states had legal slavery 160 years ago, we will have states participating in a great evil, of their own accord.

Posted by: Harold | September 5, 2008 12:33 PM

My problem with the conservatives and their 'vote for us because of abortion' is that there does not look like any of their supreme court judges will be retiring within the next four years.
Therefore, how can their party taking the white house make a difference.
That's just smoke and mirrors!!
I happen to listen to McCain, Palin and Mrs. McCain speak on their own stance on abortion and all three held vast differences. Senator McCain,passing the buck as both parties always do on the crucial issue, believes that 'it should be left up to each state.'
If that's the case,then why would his being elected make any difference.
More smoke and mirros!!

Posted by: Lowell E. Browning | September 6, 2008 10:56 AM

Perhaps the main reason for the decline in abortions since 2000 is the availability of RU-486. Use of the so called, "abortion pill" is not included in abortion statistics.

My question is, are we willing to sacrifice our lives, our money, and our love to adopt babies and care for their mothers? Is the church going to actually do what Jesus told us to do and care for the widow, the orphan, the hungy, the naked, the prisoner...? If not, then we should not prevent our government from attempting to do so if only to hold together the fabric of the society. Our government is designed to represent our interests. It often does so poorly, but unless we represent ourselves by sacrifically giving and loving, it may be our only alternative.

Peace.

Posted by: dlowen | September 8, 2008 9:46 AM