Abortion as a Solution

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is not new, of course, but we have to keep up with the arguments:

When it comes to drawing lessons from this story, though, the agreement between liberals and conservatives ends. The right tends to emphasize what’s been lost, arguing that most Americans — especially the poor and working-class — would benefit from a stronger link between sex, marriage and procreation. The left argues that the revolution just hasn’t been completed yet: it’s the right-wing backlash against abortion, contraception and sex education that’s preventing downscale Americans from attaining the new upper-middle-class stability, and reaping its social and economic benefits.

This is one of the themes of “Red Families v. Blue Families,” a provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone. The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.

This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.

To Cahn and Carbone’s credit, their book is nuanced enough to complicate this liberal-friendly thesis. They acknowledge, for instance, that there are actually multiple “red family” models, from the Mormon West to the Sunbelt suburbs to the rural South.

More important, Cahn and Carbone also acknowledge one of the more polarizing aspects of the “blue family” model. Conservative states may have more teen births and more divorces, but liberal states have many more abortions.

Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah.

So it isn’t just contraception that delays childbearing in liberal states, and it isn’t just a foolish devotion to abstinence education that leads to teen births and hasty marriages in conservative America. It’s also a matter of how plausible an option abortion seems, both morally and practically, depending on who and where you are.

nytimes.com/2010/05/10/opinion/10douthat.html?ref=opinion

 

[Darnrarejob]

Let me get this straight. What the article is suggesting, is that abortion leads do greater family stability? Shot-gun weddings are more likely to end in divorce than normal weddings. One might argue that that’s proof that abstinence doesn’t work, but that’s only because in the “blue states” they’re less likely to shot-gun wed because they usually abort any unwanted pregnancies. Also, in the blue states, only the people that really want to get married (like Christians), get married and the rest just cohabitate. In the red states, they marry more often, so logically, they divorce more often as well.

 

[Ponyguy]

Our print media is too damned liberal! And anti-Christian, Anti-anythinggood!! And irresponsible!!

I served in the American military; therefore I signed a blank check payable to the American people for any amount up to, and including, my life. I’m sickened to see the nation that I helped pay for (with my blood and sweat) become as totally rotten as it has, to the very core.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Regards,
Ponyguy

 

[jilly4ski]

Is this book serious? I live in a blue state right now and as a place supporting stable marriage this is not it. Granted I live in a poor city and see the single parent families, rampant co-habitation, and divorce. I think half the politicians in this state are caught in some scandal of porn, cheating, or prostitution (exaggeration I know). I don’t know the abortion statistics in this area or state, but I would bet they are pretty high. Just like there are different models in the “red states” there are different models in “blue states.”
Being a married person with a child I would much rather be back in the midwest than here, for the family values that are promoted.

Just for the record there is one billboard in my city that is a pro-life billboard.
oh and there are commercials for a healthy relationships class for singles on the TV (with free child care)

 

[phil8888]

Kind of reminds me of that book freakonomics where they were saying with higher rates of abortion, crime rates go down because a lot of disadvantaged families have abortions and those are the family from which criminals come.

but the end does not justify the means. you can’t kill people to reduce the crime rate. we could find a minority that’s responsible for more crimes on average, and then kill them. crime might go down, but we would be committing a much greater crime.

It always sort of annoys me when the media portrays conservatism as based solely on religious convictions, and the further portrayal that religious convictions are totally arbitrary, and therefore for the liberal can be dismissed summarily, which is totally wrong.

don’t listen to them.

 

[plinko]

Kind of reminds me of that book freakonomics where they were saying with higher rates of abortion, crime rates go down because a lot of disadvantaged families have abortions and those are the family from which criminals come.

but the end does not justify the means. you can’t kill people to reduce the crime rate. we could find a minority that’s responsible for more crimes on average, and then kill them. crime might go down, but we would be committing a much greater crime.

It always sort of annoys me when the media portrays conservatism as based solely on religious convictions, and the further portrayal that religious convictions are totally arbitrary, and therefore for the liberal can be dismissed summarily, which is totally wrong.

don’t listen to them.

Playing the smart aleck here, so please don’t attack; I just want some clarification. You say it annoys you when the more liberal-minded media (because we know that not ALL media is liberal coughFOXNEWScough) portrays conservatism as based solely on religion, but to a degree, isn’t that right? We are against abortion because the Catholic church defines life as beginning at conception. What if we were a different religion that defined it differently? The whole argument against this book is the issue of abortions; take out the religious aspect of “when does a life begin” and the argument isn’t nearly as strong. So in that regard, I would say that it is fair for the liberal media to place conservatism hand-in-hand with religious conviction. Am I just missing something here?

 

[Jermosh]

Playing the smart aleck here, so please don’t attack; I just want some clarification. You say it annoys you when the more liberal-minded media (because we know that not ALL media is liberal coughFOXNEWScough) portrays conservatism as based solely on religion, but to a degree, isn’t that right? We are against abortion because the Catholic church defines life as beginning at conception. What if we were a different religion that defined it differently? The whole argument against this book is the issue of abortions; take out the religious aspect of “when does a life begin” and the argument isn’t nearly as strong. So in that regard, I would say that it is fair for the liberal media to place conservatism hand-in-hand with religious conviction. Am I just missing something here?

This is our fault, do we only believe because the Church says so? Many look at it like that, we need to move the Church out of the Pro-Life scheme and push it as a secular and social movement IMHO.

 

[jilly4ski]

Playing the smart aleck here, so please don’t attack; I just want some clarification. You say it annoys you when the more liberal-minded media (because we know that not ALL media is liberal coughFOXNEWScough) portrays conservatism as based solely on religion, but to a degree, isn’t that right? We are against abortion because the Catholic church defines life as beginning at conception. What if we were a different religion that defined it differently? The whole argument against this book is the issue of abortions; take out the religious aspect of “when does a life begin” and the argument isn’t nearly as strong. So in that regard, I would say that it is fair for the liberal media to place conservatism hand-in-hand with religious conviction. Am I just missing something here?

This is not correct, there is ample scientific evidence that life begins at conception. Since all my science books from elementary though college said this was so in relation to to plants and other animals, I would think this would be true for humans too. (and a relatively settled scientific fact if it is in text books not taught as a theory). There are also pro-life atheists and some other religions have no problem abortion. In fact many evangelicals (not all) have no problem with abortion. Sorry not trying to attack, I am just not sure I understand the argument.

 

[phil8888]

This is not correct, there is ample scientific evidence that life begins at conception. Since all my science books from elementary though college said this was so in relation to to plants and other animals, I would think this would be true for humans too. (and a relatively settled scientific fact if it is in text books not taught as a theory). There are also pro-life atheists and some other religions have no problem abortion. In fact many evangelicals (not all) have no problem with abortion. Sorry not trying to attack, I am just not sure I understand the argument.

This is pretty much what I would say as well. There are Catholic-specific doctrines, but this would fall under the category of natural law. One interesting thing I heard recently was people will say how to you know when people get a soul, how do you know for sure it’s at conception. Well, if you flip that around a bit, you could ask how do we know ANYONE has a soul. If not at conception, then when? If we declare ignorance on this issue, then we could justify abortion for another, including born people.

So Catholic doctrine teaches the sanctity of life from the beginning because that’s when it starts. If it was Catholic-only, then other religions wouldn’t teach it, but they do. So it’s not only because of our religion or arbitrary. The Church is reflecting the reality. Other laws which are Catholic-only, we do not try to impose on others. We wouldn’t say everyone has to go to Mass weekly or go to confession, even if they’re not Catholic, because that is a specific law to Catholics, however, abortion does not fall in that category.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The thing is that by the very fact that there is a very good chance that a child has a soul/is human at conception then abortion is manslaughter…you are eliminating a creature that could very possibly be human. Manslaughter.

 

[phil8888]

The thing is that by the very fact that there is a very good chance that a child has a soul/is human at conception then abortion is manslaughter…you are eliminating a creature that could very possibly be human. Manslaughter.

Marc Anthony, did you join Catholic Answers Forums 4 days ago and already have 156 postings?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

[Grins]

When I find something new, I obsess over it for a few days and then back off. Over time my post number will appear normal.

 

[shelby2014]

I’m getting pretty tired of the pro-abortion / contraception argument that abstinence is “just not practical.” Are we monkeys? Are our children dogs? When we go into heat we just can’t back off?

There have been abortions and birth control methods forever, but we haven’t had these problems. Why? Because in the past, you just didn’t get pregnant unless you were married! So if a girl wanted her name to remain unscathed, she said, “No, no, no, no.”

I’m sorry, but why is it “impossible” now if it wasn’t then? (there were unwed mothers but not nearly as many). Because now being an unwed mother is almost the norm, and if you don’t want anyone to know you were ever pregnant, you just get an abortion.

These people are the ones feeding this “must have it now” sex craze and then insulting the people who follow their advice by implying that they have no impulse control. Unbelievable.

 

[JimG]

Playing the smart aleck here, so please don’t attack; I just want some clarification. You say it annoys you when the more liberal-minded media (because we know that not ALL media is liberal coughFOXNEWScough) portrays conservatism as based solely on religion, but to a degree, isn’t that right? We are against abortion because the Catholic church defines life as beginning at conception. What if we were a different religion that defined it differently? The whole argument against this book is the issue of abortions; take out the religious aspect of “when does a life begin” and the argument isn’t nearly as strong. So in that regard, I would say that it is fair for the liberal media to place conservatism hand-in-hand with religious conviction. Am I just missing something here?

“We are against abortion because the Catholic church defines life as beginning at conception.”
Not at all. We are against abortion because biology demonstrates human beings have their beginning at conception. Abortion kills a human being. That’s why we’re against it. Atheists like Nat Hentoff oppose abortion for just this reason.

 

[St_Francis]

… the media portrays conservatism as based solely on religious convictions, and the further portrayal that religious convictions are totally arbitrary, and therefore for the liberal can be dismissed summarily, which is totally wrong.

Nicely put!

don’t listen to them.

 

[Jermosh]

I’m getting pretty tired of the pro-abortion / contraception argument that abstinence is “just not practical.” Are we monkeys? Are our children dogs? When we go into heat we just can’t back off?

There have been abortions and birth control methods forever, but we haven’t had these problems. Why? Because in the past, you just didn’t get pregnant unless you were married! So if a girl wanted her name to remain unscathed, she said, “No, no, no, no.”

I’m sorry, but why is it “impossible” now if it wasn’t then? (there were unwed mothers but not nearly as many). Because now being an unwed mother is almost the norm, and if you don’t want anyone to know you were ever pregnant, you just get an abortion.

These people are the ones feeding this “must have it now” sex craze and then insulting the people who follow their advice by implying that they have no impulse control. Unbelievable.

Err, while sex is far more visable today, it still happened in the past. Back then it was just hiddin, look up Sussana Cox for instance, or even the bible for that matter.

 

[shelby2014]

Err, while sex is far more visable today, it still happened in the past. Back then it was just hiddin, look up Sussana Cox for instance, or even the bible for that matter.

You did not understand what I was saying. I know it did happen, but the degree it happened was much much less. They say half of the teenage population these days is sexually active.

Or forget the past. I was trying to point out that abstinence is possible. Look at all the good Catholics who successfully abstain from sex until marriage. If they can do it, anyone can.