The Deafening Silence

It's been a week since The Lancet published the comprehensive Guttmacher Institute study which found that bans on abortion fail to reduce abortion rates. The researchers of the study also discovered that countries where abortion is legal (and the emphasis is on prevention rather than prosecution) experience the most dramatic declines in abortion.

Such news should undoubtedly give pro-lifers reason for pause. What with the endless railing about the immorality of abortion, and now it turns out their way of thinking does nothing to actually reduce abortions. It's only fair to give them a minute to collect themselves. Perhaps some careful (re)consideration is in order.

But there has been nothing but silence from the "anti-abortion" movement. There have been no press releases admitting the (now scientifically proven) error of their ways. Nor have we heard that anti-abortion groups are excited to discover that at least there is an approach that succeeds in reducing the need for abortion. (Doesn't that deserve a 'hallelujah' from the religious right?) Instead, the "anti-abortion" movement is silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts.

I came across a blog about the Guttmacher study on a site called Mirror of Justice (it's "dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory"). It was posted the day the report was released and was written by Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University. He wrote,

"Here's my question. If this study were true, and if it were the case that making abortion illegal would most likely only drive it underground, without having much effect on its actual incidence but making it far more dangerous for women to have an abortion, would that be a reason to rethink the Church's teachings, not on the morality of abortion, but on the tight connection between abortion's (im)morality and its legality? I've tried to get this conversation off the ground a few times at MOJ, but I feel like we often get side-tracked onto the question of abortion's morality or into the empirical question whether studies like this one are actually correct."

Pro-lifers clearly delight in discussing the morality abortion -- all merrily participating in the forced march to the same answer -- but when the discussion turns to prevention they're flat out of ideas. Those who can't do, preach. I wrote to Professor Penalver this morning inquiring about the responses he's so far received on this anti-abortion friendly site. He emailed back promptly to report his "disappointment" over "the general lack of a response." And so the silence increases in volume.

Now, to be fair, some spokespeople have spun. These few brave enough to go public with a reaction to this devastating study are engaged in this strategy: kill the messenger.

Randall O'Bannon, saddled with the oxymoronic title "director of education and research" at National Right to Life, said, "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data." No doubt Mr. O'Bannon understands how Lancet editors let the researchers' agenda trump their science. After O'Bannon is done questioning the validity of studies published by one of the world's renowned scientific journals he can explain why 5 of 15 "fact sheets" on his organization's website offer no citations and 6 of the remaining 10 use the Guttmacher Institute, the very organization he claims has an "agenda", as a source. (Apparently a source can be both trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on the reader's agenda!)

You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates. The fact that the only reaction that has come from the pro-life establishment is one of disbelief, cynicism and silence indicates that's not the case. Indeed, as we've known for a while, this whole ugly conflict isn't really even about abortion. For the anti-abortionists, the goal is to re-introduce the preventable consequences to sex as a way to scare people into abstinence. If that isn't the point, then why aren't National Right to Life staffers on a plane right now heading to the Netherlands to learn how that country managed to achieve the lowest abortion rates on earth? (Because it's free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and a universal acceptance of sex for pleasure that did it. All solutions they appear to oppose more than abortion.)

It's worth offering up a comparison. What if a whole movement devoted to curing cancer insisted on only supporting techniques shown time and again to fail? What if they supported the ones that result in the highest cancer rates? Would it even be considered an anti-cancer movement? It's time to clean up the semantics: Is it possible that the "anti-abortion" is really a pro-abortion movement in disguise? (That disguise being obstinacy.)

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[tbone99]

The anti- abortion crowd not only is against sex -these are the same people which did away with welfare for single moms and kids even for moms attending classes for better employment opportunities,and the same crowd that votes against government funded healthcare for children.Althought they can't stand welfare they don't want to vote for government subsidized daycare.They not only hate sex they seem to hate children that aren't born white and middle class or better.

[Tellmethetruth]

Both sides of the aborton issue lie.

1) People for abortion lie. They want everyone to ignore the needs of a pregnant woman and act as if the pregancy never occurred. Total denial of reality resulting in no after care for a woman who has had an abortion, for treatment of depression, PTSD from sexual violence, etc.
2) People for aborton lie. They ignore the fact that unwanted pregnacy results from unwanted sex, often the result of rape, incest, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and rather than challenge perpretators of such crimes, cowardly hide behind aborton and a result to report such crimes rather than do anything about it.
3) People for abortion lie. Abortons happen because women's rights are ignored namely the rights of women to be protected against sexual violence.
4) People for aborton lie. Every woman I know who ever had an aborton has regretted it 20, 30, and 50 years later. Aborton is another form of violence committed against women along with what ever sexual violence caused the pregnancy.
5) People for aborton lie. It's not about women's rights it's about men's rights to have unaccounted for and irresponsible sex at the detriment of women and children, and aborton conveniently covers this hidden male agenda to the detrimment of women and children.
6) People for aborton lie. Aborton is a form of population control aimed at the poor and non-white minorities. Note all the aborton clinics are located in African American neighborhoods. History will remember this.

1) People against aborton lie. People against aborton lie. They refuse to acknowledge to lack of family support (including grandparents and the father of the child) leaving a woman with the choice of self-defense to choose between her life and the life of the unborn child.
2) People against aborton lie. Part of the anti-abortion crowd is motivated by a hate woman agenda rather than a pro-baby agenda motivated by a pro-male agenda of escaping accountability.
3) People against abortion lie. They refuse to acknowledge and stop the sexual violence against women and children.

[Pdubya]

lumpers, all of you.

I'm a splitter.

[LindaJay]

Excellent post, and supports what I've long suspected: the anti-abortion crowd is really anti-sex. But they can't come right out and say that or they wouldn't get any support. Just another case of the loony radical right saying one thing and meaning another.

[RickO]

The main problem with the right-to-life crowd its that they believe in things for which there is zero evidence (existence of god) but refuse to believe in things based solely on evidence, like statistics. You can't argue with people like this.

[syllepsis]

'Evidence' for something is actually a reason to disbelieve, for this crowd.
It is as if they took Tertullian's maxim, "I believe it because it is impossible," and applied it to literally everything.
This is why studies in the Lancet are futile. If these people had their way, there would be no Lancet, no science, nothing but a precipitious rise in deaths due to botched abortions...

[gettysburg]

This has nothing to do with saving lives but everything to do with possessing the righteousness indignation to be able to tell someone else how to live their life. How can a group who want limited government to the point of frothing at the mouth at the prospect of giving up their gas guzzling SUV possibly think it's okay to tell a woman what to to with her body? Isn't this hypocritical. Again.

[Pdubya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH1qN4kAsMk

[wordvarc]

This study highlights the fallacy of punishment. Education and reward are the basis of any true prevention. Use of force and punishment strengthens any behavior addressed.

Thats why the hollow GOP war mongering, prison building, and "tough on crime" policies have been so devastating to our country and our economy.
.

[Pdubya]

So true. I am pro-choice, but I do not believe that a Federal mandate by the Supreme Courts are the relative or constitutional way to support any abortion issue. It is not representative government. Ron Paul has been criticized for his record on abortion, but further research reveals it is simply his position on the constitutionality of it. That is why he is also against the war on drugs (enforcement, Fed mandate), against capital punishment, against Fed Gun control, for further personal and property rights (voted agains the "Patriot" act), etc. He has further stated that he'd support reciprocity between states on their abortion stances (that means abortion too).

If we collectively want to change the constitution, then we need to collectively write OUR representatives at the State level and get it done.

Take responsibility and action for your dreams, desires, and objections. That is the only way they will be yours.

blue dog dem for ron paul

[mouselion]

It appears to be about moral postulation and not results. This is a prime reason for church-goers to heed Christ's teaching to not be like the self-righteous, pious Saducee-types.

Brings to mind a description I read once of Falwell's church of inviting gay and lesbians to meet with the congregation, but not allowing them to eat the Wednesday-night supper with them, because the congregation didn't "eat with sinners".

Modern fundamentalist, evangelical Christian churches espouse doctrine which do not actually reflect what I see as a more "literal" interpretation of Jesus' teachings, despite their claim of monopoly of "literalness".

[Purple Girl]

No One is Pro Abortion (it's Pro choice). It is a obvious as the nose on our faces- these folks want every prgnancy to result in a live birth, then they don't give a sh*t. they're not out to reduce unwanted pregnacies- their out to be sure one particular child is delivered. If logic prevailed we'd be discussing the Vasectomy laws( MOST effective birth control method). And yet by these laws they deny their own faith and the omnipotency of their god.Oh ye of little faith. If logic prevailed the Religious Right would be handing out condoms on every corner around the world. But it is not logic - it is fanatism and delusions that guides their way. When reasonable answers have been ruled out, you must consider the absurd. the religious right are sociopaths.

[Mormondude]

"No One is Pro Abortion (it's Pro choice)."

Then explain why the "pro-choice" movement consistently opposes waiting periods and counseling.

Are they worried that if some women get more information about other options, and have some time to think about it they MIGHT reconsider, and choose not to get an abortion? Wouldn't that be horrible?

[ihavenobias]

Top players in the anti-abortion movement have publicly said that overturning Roe V Wade may not be possible, and that chipping away at abortion rights until it basically adds up to banning abortion is a more realistic goal.

So in *that* context, yes, it *does* make sense to fight against limiting abortion rights, because the end-game is clear.

Otherwise you'd have a point (but you don't).

[coolmaiden]

The reason waiting periods are opposed by the pro-choice movement is that it is redundant. Making the decision to have an abortion is difficult and emotional. Most women have already weighed their options. A waiting period elongates this agonizing time.
People who are pro-choice are not opposed to counseling. We are the main supporters of Planned Parenthood, whose primary job is teaching and prevention. Those of us in health care know that prevention is far superior to treatment.

[maddogbitesback]

Mormondude- my favourite. Mormondude what about if men get more information and realize there are options such as masturbation or homosexual sex. They can think about it and MAYBE reconsider having sex with a woman and choose to not have sex without birth control or have sex with another man or an old woman. Just a thought.

[elkabong]

They can't afford to reduce the number of aborthions:

Republican politicians are loathe to give up one of the three issues they have left.

Christianists are loathe to give up the sanctimony.

[Pdubya]

The fundamental religious right has ransacked our constitution, arguably more so than the liberal left in their push towards socialist entitlement state and its ramifications.

The battle is irrelevant. Why the battle is happening is relevant. It is because the collective sane, intelligent, secular, religious, non-sexist, moderate, temperate, conservative and liberal populace hasn't gotten off of their collective asses and used our constitution properly to pass legislation through our States, for our States, and for our people. Should we want a constitutional ammendment, we need to go through our States, again. The radical right and left have usurped the process many times, and if not, have had the fervor to out-pace the lazy, silent, and disenfranchised.

There are many who agree that abortion is pro-choice, capital punishment is wrong (that is contradictive). There are many who believe abortion is wrong, but are for capital punishment (that is contradictive). Further, many are against abortion and captial punishment. Many are fine with abortion and capital punishment. None of them make sense, logically, because they are belief systems.

I personally am pro-choice. I am not a woman, so I do not know. But, I do not believe our Federal Government is the place for mandates on any kind of enforcement on body, property, or other forms of personal liberty. I am against capital punishment (but have some hard-lined ideas on capital and violent crimes). I am for the legalization of drugs, but hard-lined on its distribution to minors.

The point is this: How can a Federal mandate address all of the conundrums of belief systems? It can't. And that is why the constitution allows for representative government at the State level to address the populace's beliefs and desires.

Any strict interpretation of belief systems at the Federal level is fascism.

[Pdubya]

Wikepedia - "Capital Punishment in the United States is officially sanctioned by 38 of the 50 states, as well as by the federal government and the military. The overwhelming majority of executions are performed by the states; the federal government maintains the legal power to use capital punishment but does so relatively infrequently. Each state practicing capital punishment has different laws with huge diversities regarding its methods and crimes which qualify; no state may execute someone for a crime committed before the age of 18. The state of Texas has performed more executions than any other states since the resumption of the death penalty in 1976; prior to that date, Virginia had led the nation."

cont -

We need to look at what States are addressing the key social issues facing us today: healthcare and drugs and civil liberties. San Fran, CA has their own healthcare. Several States have varying laws on the usage of marijuana (and witness the conflicting FED interventions on State rights). Several States have laudible discovery laws that have saved innocent people from the death penalty.
Look to these States as models on how to change the laws that represent us, by us. Look to New Hampshire for Live Free or Die.

Look amnogst your peers. Most all carry very liberal views, republicans and democrats alike. Simply because, liberal is liberty, and the vast majority of us want that. It is the fringe that will usurp our systems in place and replace them with either fascism or socialism over time...come by design, attrition, or mistake. Either is a slippery slope to unstable (and volatile, historically speaking) shifts in fascism, socialism, communism, theism, totalitarism, imperialism, etc.

That we have this fine framework, called the U.S. Constitution enables us, as citizens, to impart fear to our government. What we have now is fear from our government, because we have feared taking hold of it as best we can.

[ReverendBob]

That the fundies are not accepting that illegalizing abortion does not reduce abortions exposes their true agenda.

Many fundies are more focused on the "go forth and multiply and subdue the earth... theology, which is why they like oil companies, Dick Cheney and neoconservative theocracy generally. The abortion issue was simply an easy way to get the dumb ones riled up about something.

[crossja]

okay, so if life is defined as a mass of cells (which, by the way, that's what we are) which cannot exist on its own, then what makes a life of value?

I mean, the Nazis called the "extermination" of the Jews the "Final Solution," but did it solve anything.

It's not as though calling an elephant a horse makes the elephant a horse.

Just because scientists say an unborn child is merely a mass of cells, does not negate its humanity.

[Lcubed]

Crossja,

You missed the point.
"Pro-Life" policies lead to a HIGHER number of abortions. Pro-choice policies lead to LOWER numbers of abortions.

If you are "against" abortion, why aren't you supporting the policies that lead to FEWER of them?!

[Mormondude]

I think that abstinence programs work for SOME people. And contraceptive based programs probably work better for SOME people. Why impose one single program on everyone?

If you want to offer either or both programs, why not let parents have some input? Why not let parents decide which program is offered to their kids? Why must the nanny government come in and impose one brand of anti-abortion program on everyone, or restrict the options available to only those patterned after one philosophy. As long as government is going to journey out into the morality business, they should be working with parents, not against them.

[Pdubya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH1qN4kAsMk

that is why it should be a states' right issue, as defined in the constitution....same goes with the "war" on drugs, capital punishment, privacy, gun control, healthcare, etc.

federal mandates always disenfranchise someone and are ultimately fascist results.

[HermioneGranger]

Then again, the Nazis had the toughest anti-abortion laws in the history of mankind. German Women who had an abortion would get the death penalty.

[SomeOtherDude]

Actually, Saint Thomas Aquinas, considered by many Roman Catholics to be the Catholic church's greatest theologian, belived that it was just a mass of cells though he didn't put it quite like that. He belived that the soul entered the body when the child began to move in the womb, i.e., in the third trimester. You should take the time to read up on your religion before you force it upon the rest of us through unconstitutional laws.

[maddogbitesback]

crossya - scientists do not determine whether a mass of cells is human or not. Scientists saying a bunch of atoms linked to-gether in a certain way doesn't make it life. I suggest you get a black pencil and a white one. Start with the black and gradually mix in white until finally you are using nothing but white. When does the black become white? Tell me. Ask a scientist if you want. Just define the point at which black is white.

[crossja]

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

"I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

-Dr. Ron Paul

AND if you can't agree with that....

"As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

And that's a true conservative. We can't all be lumped together. The two-party system is broken.

[Lcubed]

In order to be "pro-life" one has to work hard to remain completely ignorant about the consequences of the "pro-life" policies (higher unintended pregnancies, higher abortion rates, more women dying).

It's sad that Ron Paul, despite his medical background, chooses to ignore the scientific evidence about "pro-life" and pro-choice policies.

[Mormondude]

How many unborn children have been killed in the last 30 years? How many women's lives have been saved as a consequence?

I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but if you want to argue that pro-choice policies are worthwhile, don't you think it deserves consideration?

Let's assume that for every 10,000 abortions, one woman's life was saved. Is one woman's life worth the lives of 10,000 unborn children?

The reality is that pro-choicers never consider such things, because the unborn have ZERO value to them. Therefore, even if you have to slaughter a billion of them to save one woman's life you come out ahead.

[Pdubya]

If you gave it some rational thought, you'd see that despite his personal convinctions on abortion, he would still support reciprocity between States on their abortion stance. He's against federal mandates of any kind, and his personal convinctions have been misconstrued as a trampling on our rights. How daft a view to hold, given he is also against capital punishment, war on drugs, gun control, enhanding civil liberties. The caveat is that it should be constitutional, through the States, by the people, and if we want an ammendment to the constitution we thus have to use the same process.

Wake up all. The only perceived civil right that you socialist liberals wouldn't be protected by is his conviction to not have me pay for it, unless I VOTED TO DO SO. Same goes for you.

blue dog dem for ron paul

[Pdubya]

no one knows better! that is why is is such a constitutionalist and states' rights supporter....has even said he'd support reciprocity between states no matter what they're legislation came up with. Thats you and me, not the Fed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH1qN4kAsMk

[ihavenobias]

How about the sad fact that most unwanted babies would end up living in poverty, often filled with drugs, physical and mental abuse (including molestation) and eventually gangs, death or prison?

This is often the case regardless of if an unfit (emotionally and financially) parent (or parents) keeps a child or the child is put into the awful American foster care system.

And don't talk about adoption. Minority women have the most abortions in this country and you aren't going to convince me that there are long lines of 'eager parents' just waiting to adopt minority children (I wish there was but that's just not the reality of the situation).

PS---This is where someone jumps in to rattle off an exception or two about someone born into squalor that rose above and had a wonderful life, or about a friend of theirs who adopted a few non-white children, etc.

But those things are just that, *exceptions*, in that they are exceptionally rare.

Sure, the child doesn't have a choice between life and no life, but he/she also doesn't have a choice between a decent life or horrible one.

For the record I'm pro-life. That is, Pro *quality* life.

[Mormondude]

An unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equal an unwanted baby. The UK link below says that 80% of women with an unplanned pregnancy don't actually regret getting pregnant after all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3515400.stm

I think this must terrify the pro-choice crowd. To think that someone could go from not wanting to be pregnant to embracing a new life must make their blood run cold...

No wonder they oppose waiting periods and counseling. They want these pregnancies terminated quickly before people can reconsider.

[maddogbitesback]

If Ron Paul cared two cents for human life he would be interested in population control. Without it billions will die of disease, hunger, heat and cold and so on. Is there a point at which Ron Paul thinks enough is enough - fifty billion - one hundred billion - a trillion? Is there a limit? Is there a limit to the suffering to women who must bear twenty or more children and give them food? Is there a limit to the number of children who will have to live in garbage dumps looking for scaps. Is there? Ron Paul is antihuman.

[ResidentChimp]

I'm sure the liberals will accept the Lancet's propaganda. It fits right in with their narrative. The sad fact is that we kill 1000 geniuses every year and if there were anything we could do to reduce that number, it would be a good thing. Even Hillary supports that idea.

[Lcubed]

Um, the liberals are the ones who use the best evidence to solve problesms and are actually supporting the policies that lead to a reduction in abortions, a reduction of unintended pregnancies.

It's really amzaing how conservatives call legitimate science "propaganda" and when they don't like what the evidence shows-make up their own stuff.

It turns out, Residentchimp, that there are objective standards in science used to determine the strength of evidence and credibility. These standards (adhered to by legitimate medical scientists and journals like the Lancet) are the same no matter what the subject or the outcome. Contrary to what conservatives think, you aren't allowed to change the standards based on whether you like the results!

[Mormondude]

Hey, let's do both. Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, AND ban abortions. That should have the maximal effect. Nobody here has suggested that outlawing abortion actually INCREASES the number of abortions. And logic and reason would suggest that the number of abortions would actually drop.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Pdubya]

its pure moronic thinking that life is measurable while in the womb. as a biologist, life begins when the sperm hits the egg and turns into a blastosphere. some say at birth.

this middle ground in roe vs. wade will always produce a misdirected amount of abortions.

it's a states' right issue, and reciprocity could be given between states, regardless of the legislations (thats our legislative vote, not a Fed mandate). Same goes with capital punishment, right to privacy, healthcare, gun control, and legalization of drugs.

wake up America, and put your government back where it should be: In Your Hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH1qN4kAsMk

[maddogbitesback]

ResidentChimp - had you been aborted you wouldn't have been one of those 1000 geniuses. In fact so many geniuses are born in China the loss of tens of thousands doesn't make any difference. Hundreds of thousands of geniuses never get to go to school. And a lot of them are in the United States. The American ones get to go to school but the education system is so bad and the surrounding culture so destructive they never get to do anything with their genius. Take care of the geniuses who are born and then think about the geniuses who might have been born. Also the mentally handicapped, those condemned to a terrible death from agenetic disease and so on.

[kalapa]

There is deafening silence from the anti-abortionists because the point of making it illegal is NOT about reducing abortion per se. Its about punishing women who have the audacity to have sex without expecting "bad consequences". Its about putting the fear of sex back into women. Its about controlling women's bodies.

[crossja]

It's about valuing life.

[Lcubed]

Now *that's* funny!!!!

If pro-lifers "value life" why aren't they supporting the policies that lead to fewer abortions????

Why don't they care enough about the issue to educate themselves about the evidence about what policies do? (Sure, it's hard work to read the legitimate research in legitimate medical journals--but if you care about the consequences, you can put in a little effort)

As Christina Page said, why aren't they on a plane to the Netherlands right now to *learn* about how they achieved the lowest abortion rates of any industrialized nation???

WHy aren't they supporting health care for children, prenatal care, welfare, safe schools, decent work wages...all the things that help potential parents feel that they *can* provide foe a child????

I'm sorry crossja, until pro-lifers start doing those things, they shouldn't be allowed to claim that they "value life".

[olivine]

Are you kidding? We don't value life! Look what is going on around the world to life in the oceans, life in the (what is left of them) jungles,life of other species...life that is genetically- almost exactly but not quite- like humans(chimpanzees and gorillas clearly communicate via sign language to us that they have feelings and emotions-but who cares- they are not a homo sapian cluster of cells floating around in a uturus).And, it is so obvious that we don't care about existing human life, either.

[HermioneGranger]

Its not. Its about controlling women. The same fundamentalists who oppose abortion also oppose the pill, the morning-after-pill, condoms, sex education, interracial sex and they also discriminate against unwed mothers and gay couples who adopt children.

They also only oppose abortion of white babies. While abortion was still illegal in the U.S., Native American were forced to sterilizations and abortions. Black slave babies could be killed like cattle.

[maddogbitesback]

It is about valuing what you think is right doe a woman and not what the woman thinks is right. Women have lives other than having babies. Do you think nuns and priests don't value life. They abstain from sex (supposedly) and don't create life. It seems very abnormal to me. How about homosexuals - don't they value life? Is that why they are "sinners' and not allowed to adopt a child nobody wants?

[Bub]

I think it's an alignment of two separate groups:

One is puritan fundies who don't want you to have fun.

The other's are Catholic fundamentalist who are more interested in authoritarianism (it's okay to get drunk).

In regard to the Catholic thing, their is the point in an above post which says that the Catholic church used to define life at quickening. As I state below, so did old English Common Law. Roe v. Wade is roughly the same thing.

The problem for conservative Catholics is a revulsion of democracy.

Why? For over 1000 years it was the church's job of conferring legitimacy/moral authority upon the head of states through-out Europe. In exchange, the head of states conferred prestige, privilege and indirect power upon the church's bishops.

Democracy gave the job of conferring legitimacy of rulers to the people. The Bishops power, prestige, privilege, tanked.

Conservative catholics then, just resent Democracy. Its a by product of protestantism.

Abortion provides them the pretext to undermine the sovereignty of the individual. If they can achieve the over throw of the individual under this pretext, then they can use it as a precedent for overthrowing other aspects of democratic individual soveriegnty until democracy is no more in effect and the bishops are back in the driver's seat.

Consider: protestant/puritans are willing to make exceptions for rape or incest - that is, they will allow abortion so long as the women didn't enjoy it.

Catholics are against abortion no matter how the fetus was conceived. Their position is more intellectually consistent but its because they have a different goal: Authoritarianism. Catholic fascism is called Falangism.

Consider how Catholics defend sex abusing priests. Why do they defend these morally repugnant men? Because they at least accept the authority figure of the church. Times being what they are, the church can't afford to lose or not protect anyone who stands with them on authoritarianism.

I realize that its a fine distinction, but I think its an important one. Protestant fundamentalist have aligned with Catholic fundamentalist, but they are still different creatures.

[Mormondude]

Showing a correlation is not demonstrating causation. And it is extremely difficult if not impossible to disentangle the legality or illegality of abortion from other relevant issues like societal attitudes toward sex.

Regardless, the way you have framed this debate is very skewed.

We all want to reduce the number of murders in this country, but that doesn't mean we should legalize murder. We all want to reduce the number of rapes in this country, but that doesn't mean we should legalize rape.

Abortion is ultimately both a moral issue as well as a civil rights issue. And in both those cases, the seemingly most 'effective' or 'pragmatic' solution is often so offensive to common human decency that it's not even entertained.

How about Jena? The most 'effective' solution to reduce racial tensions in the schools there might be to segregate them. So, does that mean we should turn our backs on decades of civil rights progress? The end justifies the means, right? Wrong.

The ends don't justify the means. And our efforts to reduce the number of abortions should be based on a sound moral foundation.

[Bub]

This is simplistic thinking.

There's a reason why Christ commanded his followers to separate religion from civics, as did the constitution and the founding generation: they are separate things. Sound morals doesn't always make for sound civics. That which is immoral, for reasons of efficacy, cannot always be made illegal (also see Thomas Aquinas, or, see prohibition [where the prohibition of a vice served only to spawn even greater vices]).

For a moral or mental simpleton, it's not always easy to understand. Its the whiplash effect of the law of unintended consequences. Christ didn't try to explain it, because it's too complex. He just commanded it.

Don't take my word for it, take the founding fathers, take Thomas Aquinas', take Christ's. Just except what Jesus said and be done with it. It always amazes me that so called followers won't heed this very simple and excessively sound commandment.

Then I remember, their's is another agenda.

Just remember, it was politics inside of an organized religious hierarchy that saw to it that Christ was whipped, tripped, and crucified. He had his reasons for wanting to keep religion separate from politics, and void of organized hierarchy. Those that don't heed this have their own agenda, by my reckoning, and it something completely unchristian.

[Mormondude]

On the contrary, our vice laws reduce unintended consequences.

In areas of the country that have legalized gambling or prostitution, petty crime also rises right along with it. It's part of the culture associated with those behaviors. That's part of the reason we still have morality laws in most of the country.

[Lcubed]

Sorry Mormondude,

Maximizing contraceptive use leading to lower abortions rates has been demonstrated time and again. On personal scale and on populations scales. THere is only so long that the conservatives can claim that this is a "coincidence".

The moral foundation of the pro-choice stance is to protect the health and well-being of women and families. Responsible parents who care about raising children well need to delay and space pregnancies in order to maximize the care, attention, and resources that they can provide for each child they bring into the world. COntraception helps them protect the long-term health of their families. When contraception fails, families will turn to abortion to protect their ability to take care of the children they have--whether it is dangerous or not. Moms dying is really bad for families. SO, if you care about the health and well-being of families: contraception improves the health of families and reduces the need for abortion. Legal safe abortion keeps moms from dying.

Contraception affects the NUMBER of abortions. Legality of abortion affects the NUMBER of mothers who die.


If you care about reducing abortions and preventing mothers from dying, this should be a no-brainer for a moral person. If you rely on mothers dying or increasing abortion rates to justify your conservative point of view, then, that would explain the immorality of the pro-life movement.

[Mormondude]

This article is primarily about abortion bans, not contraception.

Given your stated moral foundation, do you think that husbands and fathers have anything of value to add to the discussion? You talk about the well-being of the child and the family, but apparently you don't think that fathers or husbands matter in that discussion. Clearly, fathers and husbands have no say in whether or not an abortion occurs. So, the father of the child and the child itself are both subjected to one woman's whims.

Abortion isn't about the good of the child. EVERY child is better off alive than dead. I'm stunned that you could actually infer such an argument. I would rather be raised poorly than murdered, thank you very much.

And perhaps one of the most troubling things I have seen is the backlash against waiting periods and counseling programs. Every woman should benefit from getting accurate information about all the options available to her, and from having time to reflect on such a momentus decision. The only reason to oppose such measures is to try to capitalize on misinformation and hasty decisions. The only explanation is that those opposing waiting periods and counseling are actually pro-abortion, and not just pro-choice.

Ultimately, the truth is that SOME mechanisms work for one group of people and OTHER mechanisms work for another group. I find it almost incredible that the left would attack abstinence based programs simply because they are "too moral", even though the entire issue is about personal and social morality.

The pro-choicers bristle at the idea of someone imposing a morality based program on them, but at the same time fight to impose their own brand of morality on the whole society (recreational sex among teens is good, etc). I don't think any one brand of awareness program works for everyone. There is no cookie cutter solution. But we should support solutions that have a moral foundation, rather than attack them simply because they have a moral foundation.

[ScienceLady]

You, or any law, will NEVER make me carry a baby to term that I don't want. You will NEVER control my body. NEVER EVER. The only question is, will there be a safe place for me to go.
Do not impose your religious morals on me. Evidence, reason and conscience are my guides to live a moral and humanistic life - without dogma.
Do not SWIFTBOAT the science you don't agree with.

[Lelu]

Mormondude, I'd like to know what you think the incentive to lie about this would be? Pro-choicers just love to kill babies so much that they would falsify research (or skew it as you say)? I am pro-choice but if the evidence showed that making abortions illegal and preventing people from using contraceptives/birth control and teaching abstinence was leading to reduced unwanted pregnancies and abortions I would want abortions to be illegal because I truly care about people. That is not the reality though. Sorry.

[smike]

Here is the problem for the pro-life crowd here. If you base your argument on God and morality, God has just given you a sign. He has given you the facts, rolled up nicely in Machiavellian black and white. God has shown you what the current reality is. Why would he not?

Now, do you really value life?

[Bub]

And if they believe in Christ, he gave them a commandment: don't mix civics and religion. Then there's the bloody history of religious wars, which nicely disappeared here in the United States when the founding father's finally did what Jesus' first commanded - separate religion from civics. also there's the business about politics inside of a religious hierarchical organization (if you read between the lines Christ was against politics, hierarchy and organized religion) that had Christ whippid, tripped and crucified.

What's driving these people is something out side of Religion.