Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[edwest2]

Your analogy is flawed. The difference is that 99.9% of the population agrees that theft and rape are wrong. There is no such concensus on abortion.

First of all, there has been a change in what the public thinks about abortion…

gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Second, “sexual freedom” is an abuse of one’s own body. One in five people in the United States are walking around with an STD. It is also slavery to sin and immorality.

If someone considers themselves smart and educated and in control of their faculties, how hard can it be to control your own body? I’m not talking about cases where sex is forced but about those convenience abortions where a life is reduced to a blob of tissue.

Respect life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

Plan B after a rape is different from an abortion that takes place several days later, weeks, or months later. The reason being, it takes TIME to conceive. If we didn’t already have proof that it takes several hours, I wouldn’t feel this way about plan B after rape. Knowing that it takes several hours to conceive, I believe that taking plan B in the case of rape, immediately after the event, is worth the risk because the primary intent is to PREVENT conception.

The Church wants there to be a “reasonable certainty” that ovulation was not occurring at the time of the rape. And that is not that hard to determine, even without the test. Hmmm, what date is it today? And when did my last period start? Most of the time, the test wouldn’t even be necessary. But if a rape victim is right there at the time of ovulation, then the test can be made and if it is negative, there is no problem with her taking the Plan B.

Now, you seem to think that a woman who has just been raped will be able to get to the Plan B meds in such a short amount of time that the issue of ovulation is moot, but that is not the case. I have been to a *completely empty *ER and had to wait for a long time just to begin to be seen (temp, bp, and all that). And ERs are very rarely completely empty. Within 2 or 3 hours of the rape, a woman could become pregnant, easily, and that’s a best-case scenario of her going immediately to the ER, and being seen in a rather short amount of time for an ER. The more likely scenario is that she will not be able to get to the ER within a very short amount of time, that she will not be seen within a very short amount of time, and that it *will *be hours before she gets the Plan B meds.

The fact that the Church allows plan B in the case of rape (despite their requirement of testing to make sure ovulation hasn’t occured) is proof they agree that women who are victims of rape have the right to attempt to prevent the pregnancy that the invading sperm is attempting to cause.

Exactly. The Church says that a victim of rape can act to prevent conception; however, and this is where I see you as disagreeing, the Church says that a victim can**not **run the risk of killing a conceived unborn child.

I realize they, as the Church, and as the influencing body of morality, choose to err on the side of caution, however, knowing what I know, I can’t agree.

I gathered that. You are saying that it is all right to run the risk of killing a just-conceived child in the case of rape. it is not ok to kill a just-conceived child if the woman agreed to the sexual act; it is not ok to kill an unborn child who is past being just-conceived, but right at that point, for you, it is ok.

… Obviously I am not the only one because the majority feel the same, even those who want abortion outlawed.

The majority of whom? Certainly not a majority of Catholics who take the teachings of the Church seriously.

I do not believe that the Church’s intent, by establishing these guidelines, meant to take this teaching as far as some of the conservatives on this forum do. And we have all kinds of varying degrees of conservative on this forum.

I think that the teaching is very clear: that a woman has the right to protect herself from being impregnated as the result of an attack against her, but not to even run the risk of killing anyone in the process.

Where the “conservatives” on this board are taking this any further than what the teaching seems to be?

I do believe their intent was to establish a guideline in an attempt to eliminate any possible abuses by making exception in the case of rape.

The exception is for the prevention of pregnancy, not for abortion.

Sorry this bothers you, but as long as there is rape, my view on it isn’t going to change. If you label me pro-choice because of this, then it’s fine with me. God is my only judge.

God is the only judge of the state of your soul, but you are putting your viewpoint out there, and there is no bar against someone judging *that. *

And I believe he loves women as much as men.

What are you saying here? That *now *that Plan B has been invented, He loves women more than He did before? This statement really makes no sense.

Women have been victimized for centuries.

And men never have been

Telling her that pregnancy is a “gift” after a rape dehumanizes women especially given the fact that the Church itself doesn’t regard such a situation as a “gift” if it allows plan B after rape. For those women who want to accept the challenge of allowing a preganancy to take place after a rape, that’s cool with me, as long as their not coerced and it’s truly their choice. Those that don’t shouldn’t have to, and should have every opportunity to prevent further damage.

Etc.

continued

 

[St_Francis]

from above

Considering rape only accounts for 1% of the reasons women have abortions, I’d say your damaging your own cause by trying to hinder women in this manner. You’d have more supporters if you didn’t go this route.

So you think that showing the incredible inconsistency of saying it’s ok to kill the other innocent victim of a rape, esp when even the actual perpetrator of the rape would not face this sentence!, damages our “cause”? The fact that those who advocate the legality of abortion in *any *situation will use part of our position against justice towards the unborn is no reason for us to change our position, which would merely show that bullying would make us all go away.

Pro-choicers know you want abortion abolished in all cases, and if it has to be legal to protect rape victims, it will. Pro-lifers who are sympathetic to rape victims will also choose against laws that abolish abortion. They can say what they like, but their actions speak louder than words.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to have justice for all. Reducing abortions is good and laudable, but the reality is that the unborn child is deserving of protection in all cases, not just some. You said that the woman is dehumanized by saying that the child is a gift–by saying that a child conceived of rape is all right to abort, you are dehumanizing the child. As long as we dehumanize even one unborn child, justice will not be served.

 

[Rence]

All that doesn’t show that abortion is going to go away just because it’s illegal. It only shows that you and I disagree with the administration guidelines of Plan B after a rape situation. And Plan B is available at the corner store without a prescription for anyone over 17 and with a presciption for anyone, and can be obtained online as well. The reality is until women either abstain from sex, which I don’t see happening anytime too soon, or use contraception correctly, abortion will always be there and be a problem. Since it would be unethical and immoral to phyisically force women to abstain from sex (or to become pregnant at all), the only logical course of action to take would be to make her not want to have one. As long as she wants one, someone will give one to her, and someone will always give her money to get one.

In Brazil, abortion is illegal except for the case of rape, incest and threat to the woman’s life. Studies showed that abortions were just procured illegally. So outlawing it didn’t resolve the problem in Brazil, a predominantly Catholic country. It just made it more expensive and more dangerous to obtain in Brazil. And in addition to the cost of the illegal abortion, there was an additional cost in the emergency rooms when the woman was injured or became infected after the procedure.

 

[Christopher68]

And how does that make a difference?

Because the government has failed miserably when they try to enforce ‘crimes’ where there is no consensus that the activity is wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

…The reality is until women either abstain from sex, which I don’t see happening anytime too soon, or use contraception correctly, abortion will always be there and be a problem. Since it would be unethical and immoral to phyisically force women to abstain from sex (or to become pregnant at all), the only logical course of action to take would be to make her not want to have one. As long as she wants one, someone will give one to her, and someone will always give her money to get one…

I think that a lot of the disagreement on this issue stems from our coming from totally different viewpoints. I personally would always work for complete criminalization with education because I see the problem as being the dehumanization of the unborn child coupled with the social thinking that procreation and sexual activity are mutually exclusive, which is the result of the availability of artificial birth control, both of which are based on the so-called Enlightenment’s views of humanity, freedom, and everything else.

Changing the laws is a way to stop the current situation in which we allow the avoidance of reality. Right now, many people are oblivious, and there is no particular incentive for them to consider what they are thinking and doing, because reality is not permitted to impinge on their world. As Catholics, one thing we are called to do is to teach all nations. We are called to consider and to teach others to reflect on not their temporal reality but their eternal destiny. If we continue to merely respond to their ideas on their terms, we will get *absolutely nowhere. *Their ideas are flawed and their terms are erroneous.

Do you think that enabling people is the way to get them to change? No, of course not. That is why women have multiple abortions, why women on welfare continued to have children (when that would get them more aid), people have affairs and shatter their families, why STDs are rampant in our population, etc, etc, etc.

As long as we shield people from the effects of their actions, they will not change. the way to get them to change is not to continue to shield them but to allow them to experience the full force of the results of their actions.

PS I’m not ignoring the rest of your post, just don’t have time right now to address those points

 

[St_Francis]

…In Brazil, abortion is illegal except for the case of rape, incest and threat to the woman’s life. Studies showed that abortions were just procured illegally. So outlawing it didn’t resolve the problem in Brazil, a predominantly Catholic country. It just made it more expensive and more dangerous to obtain in Brazil. And in addition to the cost of the illegal abortion, there was an additional cost in the emergency rooms when the woman was injured or became infected after the procedure.

So, we should save money by allowing people to kill unborn babies legally? How’d that work out in the USA? Abortions increased *ten-fold *when we decided to “make abortion safe” for what turned out to be huge exaggeration of the number of women having illegal abortions.

Now let’s consider how an education campaign works towards reducing sexual activity: In Uganda, the Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms campaign halved the rate of AIDS cases in pre-natal clinics in seven years, with further reductions since then. In Uganda, the 70-percent decline in HIV prevalence [in] the early 1990s [has been] linked to a 60-percent reduction in casual sex.…

In South Africa, the promotion and distribution of free condoms had the opposite effect: rates rose by one-quarter over 4 years.

So, no, I really don’t think that the fact that women in a highly sexualized world continue to have abortions where it is illegal shows that we need to decriminalize abortion, because, as has been pointed out, there is not one iota of evidence that these abortion-promoting people’s ideas will work as touted.

 

[Rence]

I think that a lot of the disagreement on this issue stems from our coming from totally different viewpoints.

Yes, we do. We both view abortion as amoral but have different views on how to eliminate, or rather, what would not work to eliminate it.

Do you think that enabling people is the way to get them to change? No, of course not. That is why women have multiple abortions, why women on welfare continued to have children (when that would get them more aid), people have affairs and shatter their families, why STDs are rampant in our population, etc, etc, etc.

No, I don’t think enabling people is going to make them stop. But I also don’t think making it illegal will stop. And even if access was restricted to situations such as rape, incest and threat to the woman’s life, I do not believe that contraception will ever be illegal.

As long as we shield people from the effects of their actions, they will not change. the way to get them to change is not to continue to shield them but to allow them to experience the full force of the results of their actions.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that they will allow you to make them feel the full force of their actions. They will take actions to “correct” their problem. In the meantime, those who do not choose to circumvent the proposed law to which you refer, will unload their burden on a society that does not want to pay for other people’s children.

 

[Rence]

So, we should save money by allowing people to kill unborn babies legally? How’d that work out in the USA? Abortions increased *ten-fold *when we decided to “make abortion safe” for what turned out to be huge exaggeration of the number of women having illegal abortions.

I don’t know what you mean about “we should save money”. I’m talking about the cost of abortion to the consumer, not to society. Older women have told me that illegal abortions in their day were $2000

Now let’s consider how an education campaign works towards reducing sexual activity: In Uganda, the Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms campaign halved the rate of AIDS cases in pre-natal clinics in seven years, with further reductions since then. In Uganda, the 70-percent decline in HIV prevalence [in] the early 1990s [has been] linked to a 60-percent reduction in casual sex.…

In South Africa, the promotion and distribution of free condoms had the opposite effect: rates rose by one-quarter over 4 years.

So the education efforts to promote abstinence, being faithful and use condoms halved AIDS. That’s great, except that the Church forbids the use of condoms. And I agree, as seen in the South Africa case, just handing them out without education WILL make AIDS go up because without education, people will use them in appropriately. Yes, these results make complete sense to me.

Again, how are you going to accomplish the task by outlawing abortion, and then contraception? Even by your study, condoms with education on how to use them, worked.

So, no, I really don’t think that the fact that women in a highly sexualized world continue to have abortions where it is illegal shows that we need to decriminalize abortion, because, as has been pointed out, there is not one iota of evidence that these abortion-promoting people’s ideas will work as touted.

 

[edwest2]

The reality is that prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases, today there are about 25.

leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html

It is an epidemic but apparently, people who believe they know something cannot control their own bodies. There is a serious disconnect here. Instead of telling women to avoid abortions, why not tell them to avoid sex altogether? And get married, not to a fling, but someone they actually took some time to get to know?

God bless,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know what you mean about “we should save money”. I’m talking about the cost of abortion to the consumer, not to society. Older women have told me that illegal abortions in their day were $2000

I was referring to the mention in your post about how women whose abortions hurt them ended up in ER’s.

WRT the price of an illegal abortion–that is precisely one of the opportunity costs that someone else mentioned would stem the tide of abortions were it to be made illegal.

So the education efforts to promote abstinence, being faithful and use condoms halved AIDS. That’s great, except that the Church forbids the use of condoms. And I agree, as seen in the South Africa case, just handing them out without education WILL make AIDS go up because without education, people will use them in appropriately. Yes, these results make complete sense to me.

The point I was trying to make was in the different approaches. The nation which relied only on condoms experienced a *rise *in HIV; the nation which first emphasized abstinence and faithfulness experienced a decline due to the 60% reduction in casual sexual activity.

Again, how are you going to accomplish the task by outlawing abortion, and then contraception? Even by your study, condoms with education on how to use them, worked.

Well, I don’t know how you can say that “my” study showed that condoms worked, considering that the reduction is attributed to the 60% decrease in casual sexual activity and in the nation which relied on condoms there was a 25% increase in the number of HIV cases.

But, yes, I do believe that a good education program accompanied by outlawing abortion would very significantly reduce the number of abortions in the US. Sounds weird, I know, but there it is. I did not suggest outlawing contraception… don’t know how that came up.

 

[Rence]

I was referring to the mention in your post about how women whose abortions hurt them ended up in ER’s.

Thank you for clarifying

WRT the price of an illegal abortion–that is precisely one of the opportunity costs that someone else mentioned would stem the tide of abortions were it to be made illegal.

Oh there’s no doubt in my mind that the cost will skyrocket if abortion is made illegal. Unless, of course, someone who sympathizes with women will do it at less expense. Who knows? But I also have no doubt that women will come up with the money if they want one, despite the cost.

The point I was trying to make was in the different approaches. The nation which relied only on condoms experienced a *rise *in HIV; the nation which first emphasized abstinence and faithfulness experienced a decline due to the 60% reduction in casual sexual activity.

You have to remember that these abstinece and faithfulness programs that also include condoms, also include the correct and incorrect way to use condoms. When used properly, condoms are very effective. When not used correctly, the results are deadly.

Well, I don’t know how you can say that “my” study showed that condoms worked, considering that the reduction is attributed to the 60% decrease in casual sexual activity and in the nation which relied on condoms there was a 25% increase in the number of HIV cases.

A 60% decrease in casual sex activity does not equate to abstinence. I know quite a few people who don’t engage in “casual sex” but who are sexually active. Remember too that those who don’t believe premarital sex is immoral believe that engaging in sexual activity in only one partner at a time is acceptable. The 25% increase in HIV with simply handing out condoms is expected.

But, yes, I do believe that a good education program accompanied by outlawing abortion would very significantly reduce the number of abortions in the US. Sounds weird, I know, but there it is. I did not suggest outlawing contraception… don’t know how that came up.

I apologize St. Francis. I thought you were one of the ones who also wants to outlaw contraception as well. By contraception, I mean artifical birth control, or the Pill and the IUD. The Catholic Church and some pro-lifers equate abortion to ABCs. Therefore, when in a Catholic environment, it’s often not practical to separate the two given they are considered one and the same by the Church.

 

[LilyM]

Rence - I doubt that the South African condom campaign failed to include instruction or information on their proper use, or that the ‘promotion’ simply referred to promotion of the fact that free condoms were available. I’ll freely concede that I might be wrong, of course.

And as has been pointed out, the success of the Ugandan campaign is outstanding in terms of the message about abstinence and fidelity being absorbed and acted upon.

A 60% OVERALL decrease in casual sex doesn’t, to my mind, indicate no abstinence, rather it indicates that many people probably ARE now choosing to be entirely abstinent, or faithful if they are married, who previously weren’t either, while others simply aren’t absorbing the message and are continuing as previously.

People don’t tend, as far as I am aware, to gradually decrease the frequency of casual sex activity like they might gradually cut down their coffee or alcohol intake. They tend either to participate, and frequently, in casual sex or not at all.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh there’s no doubt in my mind that the cost will skyrocket if abortion is made illegal. Unless, of course, someone who sympathizes with women will do it at less expense. Who knows? But I also have no doubt that women will come up with the money if they want one, despite the cost.

Well,that’s a matter of perception which is probably far beyond my ability to sort out. I know that being able to “come up with” a couple of thousand would for most of my life been totally impossible, and for the rest, difficult.

You have to remember that these abstinece and faithfulness programs that also include condoms, also include the correct and incorrect way to use condoms. When used properly, condoms are very effective. When not used correctly, the results are deadly.

Did you read the articleEd West posted? It was the last post on page 2 of this thread, so you might have missed it. It contains a good discussion about condoms, along with a lot of other information. Condoms do not seem to be as effective as people think they are.

A 60% decrease in casual sex activity does not equate to abstinence.

Mp. but it does equate to a serious change in behavious, one involving discipline of what all too often are assumed to be irresistible hormonal urges.

I know quite a few people who don’t engage in “casual sex” but who are sexually active. Remember too that those who don’t believe premarital sex is immoral believe that engaging in sexual activity in only one partner at a time is acceptable.

Right, People aren’t perfect. However, the fact that they aren’t perfect is no reason to continue to allow them to kill other human beings to cover up their imperfection.

The 25% increase in HIV with simply handing out condoms is expected.

Did you mean to write unexpected? because what I have always heard is that condoms *reduce *the danger of getting HIV.

I apologize St. Francis. I thought you were one of the ones who also wants to outlaw contraception as well. By contraception, I mean artifical birth control, or the Pill and the IUD. The Catholic Church and some pro-lifers equate abortion to ABCs. Therefore, when in a Catholic environment, it’s often not practical to separate the two given they are considered one and the same by the Church.

I do not equate abc with abortifacients. However, it seems that the Pill comes in a form that does not have an abortifacient effect. IUDs, otoh, are abortifacient.

The Church sees that some actions are tolerable and some are not. Abortion is not tolerable. However, no one is talking about outlawing abc per se.

 

[Rence]

Did you read the articleEd West posted? It was the last post on page 2 of this thread, so you might have missed it. It contains a good discussion about condoms, along with a lot of other information. Condoms do not seem to be as effective as people think they are.

No, not yet.

Did you mean to write unexpected? because what I have always heard is that condoms *reduce *the danger of getting HIV.

No, I meant EXpected. Condoms do reduce chances of getting HIV if used correctly. Keeping condoms in hot cars (or out in the heat) or in freezing cars compromises them and makes them more prone to break. Reusing (gross!) condoms even in the same “sex marathon” compromises their effectiveness. Using certain oil based lubricants like vaseline, can cause a latex condom to break or tear or get little p(name removed by moderator)ricks, etc. Pulling and tugging on it while putting it on can cause it to break. Waiting too long to put them on, or putting them only halfway (among other things) on isn’t using it correctly. Just handing someone a condom without warning them how they can break or be ineffective is just a pregnancy waiting to happen.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Rence,
While I may agree that bans are an ineffective way to go about it, I believe one has to go further than hoping/assuming that it’s about no longer wanting abortion. I think until unmarried females no longer want to efface themselves by purchasing “love” for sex, hoping that sex will buy them (pseudo) commitment from their lovers, then they will continue to use abortion as a form of birth control, because they will continue to put their bodies at risk for conception.

Many Catholics argue that “contraception leads to abortion.” I think that’s less than accurate-- not that contraception leads away from abortion, but that an embrace of unguarded relationships leads to a casual attitude toward pregnancy and its consequences, which in turn generates a casual attitude about abortion. I think the root of abortion is not contraception, not at all: it’s a lack of self-love, a lack of self-respect, a willingness to barter one’s body like a prostitute in this era when sex has so little value except as a commodity apart from context.

I don’t get why women think it’s necessary to do that. Any man who “requires” or “assumes” that about a woman does not cherish her unless he fully intends to marry her, and the vast majority of men who use sex as a prequisite to love do not have a sense of cherishing their women apart from their physical usefulness.

I heard just today that there was a recent survey about how prevalent it is for young women to “put up with” and “endure” the mandate to engage in sex casually, whether or not that was/is a desire coming from within them: that rather, a large proportion of young umarried women are merely succumbing to cultural pressure against their innate desires and preferences.

Women, exactly why are we allowing men such power over us? Why do men get to have the “say” in this dynamic? We’re CEO’s, entrepreneurs, VP’s, and hold major political positions. Yet we turn into jellyfish when men “demand” sex as a condition of sustaining a mature and serious relationship? What kind of “power” do we believe we really have?

 

[edwest2]

Recently, I watched two attractive people on TV talk about their encounter from the night before. The man said there was something there. The woman dismissed it as “just sex.” The man countered by saying, “I’ve had ‘just sex’ before, and this was something different.”

When intimacy is reduced to ‘just sex,’ what are both parties actually getting out of this momentary physical contact? Satisfying an urge, like going to the bathroom?

Seriously. Are people so afraid that they will not risk real intimacy with another person and just satisfy a passing urge? And where is their heart during the encounter? Set on “off”?

This isn’t about power for women or men. This is a substitute for the real thing. A fake. It shows a lack of hope and the potential for trust and true love. Real love, not meaningless sex.

I was fortunate to grow up in and know other families where the husband and wife took care of the kids they brought into the world. Instead of rebelling, I understood my parents weren’t out to cheat me out of some fun. They had both been teenagers before – they knew the drill.

All this ‘alternate lifestyle’ and cohabitating with sex nonsense does not teach people about real love and real committment.

We, meaning everyone, need someone we know will be there for us, in good times and bad.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Biggie]

Because the government has failed miserably when they try to enforce ‘crimes’ where there is no consensus that the activity is wrong.

 

[Biggie]

Because the government has failed miserably when they try to enforce ‘crimes’ where there is no consensus that the activity is wrong.

What’s the basis for that argument? Failed miserably where? I am unaware of an instance where an activity was legalized because it could not be enforced.

And therefore popularity should be the measure of a crime? Prostitution? Drug Abuse? Parking violations? Speeding? Should we put the criminal statutes up to a popular vote? If an activity were not popular among a segment of the population, there would be no need to criminalize it.

 

[callmecharles]

I don’t care what the study says. It would necessarily reduce the number of abortions, just like banning alcohol reduced the amount of drinking.

That’s not to say an outright ban is without negative consequences. You can’t make the market go away; it merely goes underground. Just like with the mafias of prohibition, there will assuredly be some underground network of abortionists. With a ban, all regulations are stripped away, and it becomes possible for people without any medical training to perform abortions.

But if we’re really serious about reducing the number of abortions, a ban can’t be taken off the table.