Hard truths on abortion, sex, and all that

[fnr]

Let me start by saying I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’m starting this thread to have a civil conversation over emotional issues. I’d like to use evidence, so please help!

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, birth rates have been declining. A good example of that is found on Wikipedia’s page on “demographic transition,” which cites Sweden’s history of birth and death rates over hundreds of years (CBR and CDR are crude birth/death rates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Demographic_change_in_Sweden_1735-2000.gif

Globally, fertility abirth rates are dropping. Even in places like Bangladesh, where CIA estimates the birth rate (per 1000 population) to be 22.53 (74th in the world), it’s been declining. In the industrial democracies of the world (with the U.S. being the exception) and former Soviet Bloc, many national birth rates have fallen below the replacement rate (that needed to maintain the population at its current size). In his book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century, Stratfor founder George Friedman asserts that this change will be the #1 driver of geopolitical change in the future. In the YouTube movie Demographic Winter, scholars (generally conservative but not entirely) predict a decline in Western civilization as a result of these trends.

Obviously, abortion and contraception figure in, but the decline in birth rates predates Roe v. Wade, the Sexual Revolution, and other culture war issues. Condom manufacturing was revolutionized around 1930, when the U.S. Army made them standard issue (reversing the trend of high incidence of STD infection during overseas deployments such as the Spanish-American War). General Pershing in WW 1 retained a urology consultant to address the issue.

Today, control of fertility is central to women’s lives and modern society. Women have children if/when they want, based on complex decisions of career, age, economics, and religion. Children reported “unwanted” by their mothers get fewer resources and less attention from their mothers. In countries where abortion is illegal, unsuccessful abortion is associated with higher rates of depression. Rates of parental murder of children declined after Roe v. Wade. Yes, it’s horrific. These all suggest that women select a lifestyle with a given number of children based on economic and relationship factors, and that children beyond that desired number are not regarded as well.

Contraception and abortion both fit into this picture. Abortion has lower rates of complication than vaginal and Caesarean delivery, including depression. Condoms and “the pill” are commodity goods, just as other lifestyle products. Controlling fertility is relatively cheap and easy. Contraception is a “primary” insurance against pregnancy, and abortion is “secondary” insurance.

Contraceptive sabotage and pregnancy coercion are employed within abusive relationships. Women in violent relationships are less likely to employ contraceptives.

In addition to its role in perpetuating society, pregnancy plays an important role in human health, having children and breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of a number of important causes of death and disease. Women who have their first babies before their late 20s have lower risk of breast cancer than women who give birth later (and women without children). Having children younger and breastfeeding also reduces long-term cardiovascular risk in women. Men who have two or more children have lower cardiovascular disease risk.

I thought of these questions while considering the possibility that Roe v. Wade could get overturned if Romney was elected. Though he wasn’t, it seems that anyone concerned about abortion or sexuality needs to take these issues head-on. Based on these factors, and electoral realities, it seems exceptionally likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade or be more favorable toward state-level abortion regulations.

With all that in mind, how should the pro-life movement proceed?

 

[mark_a]

With all that in mind, how should the pro-life movement proceed?

The pro-life movement, particularly NFP Catholics and quiverfull Protestants, should have all their young people listen to Janet Smith’s “Contraception, Why Not?” talks so that we don’t have our own “demographic winter”.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Globally, fertility abirth rates are dropping. Even in places like Bangladesh, where CIA estimates the birth rate (per 1000 population) to be 22.53 (74th in the world), it’s been declining. In the industrial democracies of the world (with the U.S. being the exception) and former Soviet Bloc, many national birth rates have fallen below the replacement rate …

You are behind a bit, the US is below the replacement rate, also.

Today, control of fertility is central to women’s lives and modern society. Women have children if/when they want, based on complex decisions of career, age, economics, and religion.

I don’t think this is true, generally. It’s a cultural perception but not a demonstrable reality. Most women are just getting pregnant the way they always did. But I do think more are choosing not to get pregnbant. However, doesn’t address the worldwide birthrate decline.

Children reported “unwanted” by their mothers get fewer resources and less attention from their mothers.

They used to kill them and sell them more.

Based on these factors, and electoral realities, it seems exceptionally likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade or be more favorable toward state-level abortion regulations.

I don’t know why you believe this. Is there a case in progress for them to hear? They can’t just meet for coffee one morning and decide to overturn RvW, they have to have a case to rule on. And they are going to need a Constitutional argument, not a bunch of statistical data. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what is right or what makes sense, it decides what’s legal under the Constitution.

With all that in mind, how should the pro-life movement proceed?

My answer has always been the same: we have to stop trying to prove we are right, stop trying to get others to accept our theology, and focus on supporting women and helping boys and girls feel valuable and esteemed. We do that in one case by valuing children and in another by valuing the elderly. Seamless garment, all of life is valuable.

Walk the walk and people notice. Scream and preach and they cover their ears.

There should not be one child in foster care that can be adopted, because Catholics should have them all in decent homes, and there should be so many Catholics offering to be foster parents that no one else need apply. We teach our children to pray by them watching us do it.

We stop shipping our elderly off and take them into our homes and be delighted with the opportunity to make the sacrifice which will turn out to be a huge blessing for us. We care for them until death and demonstrate by our own behavior what it is to love one another.

Then, people will ask us for the answers, and we won’t need signs.

 

[RPRPsych]

You are behind a bit, the US is below the replacement rate, also.

I don’t think this is true, generally. It’s a cultural perception but not a demonstrable reality. Most women are just getting pregnant the way they always did. But I do think more are choosing not to get pregnbant. However, doesn’t address the worldwide birthrate decline.

They used to kill them and sell them more.

I don’t know why you believe this. Is there a case in progress for them to hear? They can’t just meet for coffee one morning and decide to overturn RvW, they have to have a case to rule on. And they are going to need a Constitutional argument, not a bunch of statistical data. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what is right or what makes sense, it decides what’s legal under the Constitution.

My answer has always been the same: we have to stop trying to prove we are right, stop trying to get others to accept our theology, and focus on supporting women and helping boys and girls feel valuable and esteemed. We do that in one case by valuing children and in another by valuing the elderly. Seamless garment, all of life is valuable.

Walk the walk and people notice. Scream and preach and they cover their ears.

There should not be one child in foster care that can be adopted, because Catholics should have them all in decent homes, and there should be so many Catholics offering to be foster parents that no one else need apply. We teach our children to pray by them watching us do it.

We stop shipping our elderly off and take them into our homes and be delighted with the opportunity to make the sacrifice which will turn out to be a huge blessing for us. We care for them until death and demonstrate by our own behavior what it is to love one another.

Then, people will ask us for the answers, and we won’t need signs.

Great post right there. Without wishing to devalue those who protest - who are also serving as a “sign of contradiction” for today’s perverse society - I think what you’ve suggested here is truly “a more excellent way”, and fits in well with the concept of the New Evangelization. The early Christians changed the world by living this way, and I believe that we can too - though it’s far from easy.

 

[Mijoy2]

There should not be one child in foster care that can be adopted, because Catholics should have them all in decent homes, and there should be so many Catholics offering to be foster parents that no one else need apply. .

How?

 

[zenith15]

How?

What do you mean, “how”? If we as a Church are demanding the banning of all abortions, and if many of those young moms choose adoption because there are not enough social services in the USA to assist them to a place where they can survive on their own with a child, or if they just simply don’t feel they can raise said child (too young, incest, rape, etc), then there SHOULD be Catholic and other pro life families willing to step up to the plate and provide these babies with something besides a life of being shuttled around from foster home to foster home, whether they be “perfect white infants”. minority infants (who, by the way, are just as perfect and beautiful), disabled infants, infants whose mothers had drug problems or no prenatal care, and so on. When we support pro life policies, we should be ready to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak.

I’m not saying EVERY Catholic is in a position to adopt–but many are, and just don’t want to. There are not enough families to go around for infants that don’t meet the “perfect white baby” criteria so often sought after by adoptive parents. A family I know with a woman who was infertile and had already adopted a white child was considering adopting a black child and the mother’s grandmother said doubtfully “I don’t know if I could learn to love a black grandchild”.

We need to open our hearts and souls to these children that so many work so hard to save from abortion, and make sure that one they ARE born, they have a family to belong to, whether it be with the birth mom or with a loving adoptive family.

 

[Julia_Mae]

How?

Call your county Social Services Department and ask how to apply to be a foster parent. I guess it’s probably online, though I find many government websites to be difficult to navigate.

 

[triumphguy]

You are behind a bit, the US is below the replacement rate, also.

I don’t think this is true, generally. It’s a cultural perception but not a demonstrable reality. Most women are just getting pregnant the way they always did. But I do think more are choosing not to get pregnbant. However, doesn’t address the worldwide birthrate decline.

They used to kill them and sell them more.

I don’t know why you believe this. Is there a case in progress for them to hear? They can’t just meet for coffee one morning and decide to overturn RvW, they have to have a case to rule on. And they are going to need a Constitutional argument, not a bunch of statistical data. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what is right or what makes sense, it decides what’s legal under the Constitution.

My answer has always been the same: we have to stop trying to prove we are right, stop trying to get others to accept our theology, and focus on supporting women and helping boys and girls feel valuable and esteemed. We do that in one case by valuing children and in another by valuing the elderly. Seamless garment, all of life is valuable.

Walk the walk and people notice. Scream and preach and they cover their ears.

There should not be one child in foster care that can be adopted, because Catholics should have them all in decent homes, and there should be so many Catholics offering to be foster parents that no one else need apply. We teach our children to pray by them watching us do it.

We stop shipping our elderly off and take them into our homes and be delighted with the opportunity to make the sacrifice which will turn out to be a huge blessing for us. We care for them until death and demonstrate by our own behavior what it is to love one another.

Then, people will ask us for the answers, and we won’t need signs.

 

[fnr]

You are behind a bit, the US is below the replacement rate, also.

I’m mistaken. Population in the U.S. is still positive largely because we have better higher immigration rates than other countries in the U.S. or Asia. U.S.-born people do have birth rates below the replacement rate. Good catch.

I don’t think this is true, generally. It’s a cultural perception but not a demonstrable reality. Most women are just getting pregnant the way they always did. But I do think more are choosing not to get pregnbant. However, doesn’t address the worldwide birthrate decline.

There are definitely changes in how births occurs. The average age of first-time mothers is higher now than in 1970. According to one website, in 1970 it was 21.4 years old, 2008 it was 25.1 in the U.S. In Europe and Japan, the average age of first-time mothers is now over 29 years old. This age change is a result of women postponing their first birth for various reasons, including women’s higher education, increasing employment (and employability due to productivity enhancement), and later age of a marriage.

My mother was 21 and still in college when she was married; my sister was 26 and done with graduate school. I think women who are in college or grad school, or who are still single and working don’t want to get pregnant until they’ve established themselves in a stable household economic environment and only then are they open to children. There’s a lot of pressure on parents now to have perfect kids, so I think parents, men and women, feel like they need to have stable income and time to spend with their kids. As such, I think that’s a large reason why birth rates have changed in many countries.

I don’t know why you believe this. Is there a case in progress for them to hear? They can’t just meet for coffee one morning and decide to overturn RvW, they have to have a case to rule on. And they are going to need a Constitutional argument, not a bunch of statistical data. The Supreme Court doesn’t decide what is right or what makes sense, it decides what’s legal under the Constitution.

All I’m saying is that it’s highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court will overturn Roe, since Kennedy (the new “Mr. Swing”) was main author of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision is still alive. I’m just saying that the pro-life movement shouldn’t bet on Roe falling anytime soon.

My answer has always been the same: we have to stop trying to prove we are right, stop trying to get others to accept our theology, and focus on supporting women and helping boys and girls feel valuable and esteemed. We do that in one case by valuing children and in another by valuing the elderly. Seamless garment, all of life is valuable.

Walk the walk and people notice. Scream and preach and they cover their ears.

I totally agree with you!

There should not be one child in foster care that can be adopted, because Catholics should have them all in decent homes, and there should be so many Catholics offering to be foster parents that no one else need apply. We teach our children to pray by them watching us do it.

We stop shipping our elderly off and take them into our homes and be delighted with the opportunity to make the sacrifice which will turn out to be a huge blessing for us. We care for them until death and demonstrate by our own behavior what it is to love one another.

Then, people will ask us for the answers, and we won’t need signs.

Very well said! Once there is a pregnancy, we don’t want any child to be unwanted.

Also, I think that rather than take time to elect pro-life politicians and protest or hold vigils in front of clinics, people concerned with abortion (which should be all Catholics at a minimum) should be reaching out to the women who are most at risk of getting an abortion and helping get them to a place where “the choice” is not one they feel they have to make. That means addressing issues of how younger women (and men) are without jobs or income, how in large cities (which have the highest abortion rates) “unmarriageable men” are a large fraction of the population as a result of high crime rates among young men and convicts who can’t get jobs, and how sexual behavior is treated as a rite of passage among many teenagers in their first romantic encounters.

That suggests that as Catholics, we should get into the streets and start to talk more prophetically about how young women (and men) are left on their own to fend for themselves so often, and how we want to offer them communities that will support them. That applies to young married couples too, who get married in front of tens or hundreds of friends and family members, and who pretty much have to do everything else on their own afterward. We were talking about that issue in my small church community a few weeks ago in reference to the marriage readings we heard on a Sunday.

 

[Samuel63]

Hold on tight as if we are in an incredible storm. Each person of faith needs to take very seriously the benefit of marrying someone else that is also of the “one true faith.” Then, procreate to the extent you can raise the children properly and in the faith, deeply rooted in the faith. Network with others of the same mind.

It is time to change tactics a bit.

 

[HansTrappist]

Obviously, abortion and contraception figure in, but the decline in birth rates predates Roe v. Wade, the Sexual Revolution, and other culture war issues.

In The Death of the West, Pat Buchanan makes many points that address this issue. In part, he says:

In the 1950s, abortion was not only a crime, but a shameful act. There was no national clamor for its legalization. Yet, fifteen years later, a Supreme Court decision declaring abortion a constitutional right was hailed as a milestone of social progress. A revolutionary transformation had taken place in the beliefs of tens of millions of Americans. One of two things had happened: Either the sixties drove a moral wedge between us, or the sixties exposed a moral fracture that had existed, but that we had failed to recognize…

…Historians may one day call “the pill” the suicide tablet of the West. It was first licensed in 1960. By 1963, 6 percent of American married women were using Dr. Rock’s invention; by 1970, 43 percent were “on the pill…”

…“Any human society,” wrote anthropologist J.D. Unwin, “is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom. The evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.” What is now called the Greatest Generation came of age in the Depression and World War II. It displayed great energy and gave Americans a position of unrivaled preeminence. The baby boomers and Gen-Xers, by and large, opted for “sexual freedom.” Soon we shall see if Unwin was right. The early returns suggest that he was, that the West will not survive its experiment in sexual liberation in recognizable form. As the conservative columnist Jenkin Lloyd Jones observed, “Great civilizations and animal standards of behavior coexist only for short periods.”

 

[Hat4]

We are three weeks away from being certified to do foster care.

 

[Julia_Mae]

IAll I’m saying is that it’s highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court will overturn Roe, since Kennedy (the new “Mr. Swing”) was main author of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision is still alive. I’m just saying that the pro-life movement shouldn’t bet on Roe falling anytime soon…

Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you had said the opposite! My bad.

 

[Julia_Mae]

We are three weeks away from being certified to do foster care.

How excellent! God bless you abundantly in your efforts!

 

[Dale_M]

Based on these factors, and electoral realities, it seems exceptionally likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade or be more favorable toward state-level abortion regulations.

Did you mean to say that the Supreme Court would be exceptionally unlikely to overtuen Roe v Wade?

If I understood your post, you were laying out the practical reasons why some consider abortion should be available. I am not familiar with the legal issues, but I suppose those arguments might enter into defending a woman’s right to privacy.

Many conservatives in the US think that it simply is a matter of electing the right president who will appoint the right Supreme Court justices. I don’t think it is that simple.

 

[jediliz]

take planned parenthood’s style of sex ed OUT OF SCHOOLS and you would see a decrease in promiscuity. If teens aren’t taught that its okay to have sex with whomever, whenever and the earlier the better…then they won’t be having sex and becoming pregnant AS OFTEN. Don’t give them a false sense of security by handing them The Pill as if it were CANDY. Be a good role model.

Abby Johnson was PRAYED out of Planned Parenthood as she said recently on her facebook page…so, vigils at Abortion facilities are STILL important (40 Days for Life saved several hundred babies this Fall…and that’s only the ones they KNEW about!). Yes, we need to get to women before they go there…but remember, there are those who are pressured into it by the father of the baby OR their parents. Some don’t even know that the pregnancy centers EXIST! Also, schools will teach sex ed, but veer away from child development and then we wonder why women buy the lies from the counselors who say “its a piece of tissue” or “its not a baby yet” or “heart tones” (As said in the Live Action undercover video —>information here liveaction.org/rosaacuna/

Fatherhood begins in the womb…how many broken families do we have there with a woman who is a single mother with children from several fathers? Teach your sons to RESPECT WOMEN! If they can’t respect their mothers and their sisters, would they respect a woman they fall in love with? Or father the child of?

 

[Mijoy2]

What do you mean, “how”? If we as a Church are demanding the banning of all abortions, and if many of those young moms choose adoption because there are not enough social services in the USA to assist them to a place where they can survive on their own with a child, or if they just simply don’t feel they can raise said child (too young, incest, rape, etc), then there SHOULD be Catholic and other pro life families willing to step up to the plate and provide these babies with something besides a life of being shuttled around from foster home to foster home, whether they be “perfect white infants”. minority infants (who, by the way, are just as perfect and beautiful), disabled infants, infants whose mothers had drug problems or no prenatal care, and so on. When we support pro life policies, we should be ready to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak.

I’m not saying EVERY Catholic is in a position to adopt–but many are, and just don’t want to. There are not enough families to go around for infants that don’t meet the “perfect white baby” criteria so often sought after by adoptive parents. A family I know with a woman who was infertile and had already adopted a white child was considering adopting a black child and the mother’s grandmother said doubtfully “I don’t know if I could learn to love a black grandchild”.

We need to open our hearts and souls to these children that so many work so hard to save from abortion, and make sure that one they ARE born, they have a family to belong to, whether it be with the birth mom or with a loving adoptive family.

I meant logistically “how” as Julia Mae answered. But your answer is welcomed too.

On th is note, I have and idea/suggestion:

How about a Forum dedicated to Foster families/ adoption? I know there is already a Family forum but perhaps a step in the direction of this concept a forum that addressed the concerns and logistics of adoption and foster families might be a step in the direction of Julia Mae point of walking the walk and not just preaching the talk.

Is there a suggestion box somewhere?

 

[Dale_M]

Is there a suggestion box somewhere?

There is an entire forum for that
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=95

 

[fnr]

Did you mean to say that the Supreme Court would be exceptionally unlikely to overtuen Roe v Wade?

You got me. By the time I realized my typo, the time window on editing had elapsed. Sorry for any confusion!

 

[fnr]

take planned parenthood’s style of sex ed OUT OF SCHOOLS and you would see a decrease in promiscuity. If teens aren’t taught that its okay to have sex with whomever, whenever and the earlier the better…then they won’t be having sex and becoming pregnant AS OFTEN. Don’t give them a false sense of security by handing them The Pill as if it were CANDY. Be a good role model.

The problem is that there are many health publications that have found that comparing the sex issues from abstinence-only methods vs. “comprehensive” sex education have found that over follow-up period longer than a year, the students who went through abstinence-only classes actually have as much premarital intercourse as those in control groups or who go through “comprehensive” sex ed. Furthermore, when they have sex, the abstinence-only students don’t use condoms or other contraceptions, while “comprehensive” sex ed students do at higher rates. As such, the risk of STD infection actually increases in abstinence-only students compared that risk of students in a comprehensive sex ed class.

I see abstinence-only classes as a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound. That “wound” is based on the cultural changes that concern me: that which says that sex is a cheap commodity that boyfriends and girlfriends need to have prior to committing themselves to one another. That’s not something that can be changed in a school class, it’s something that requires large-scale cultural change in order to really change. I think people who suggest abstinence-only classes think that can get the culture back to the time when sex wasn’t cheap (or at least the students who take the classes). However, in the absence of other cultural change methods suggests that such classes don’t help much at all. You’re welcome to contradict me on this, but I’ve seen enough well-conducted studies that have led me to conclude that abstinence-only classes are not only ineffective, but actually dangerous without changing the larger culture. If you want to see the research on that stuff, I suggest starting with these to URLs:
www.pubmed.org
scholar.google.com

Abby Johnson was PRAYED out of Planned Parenthood as she said recently on her facebook page…so, vigils at Abortion facilities are STILL important (40 Days for Life saved several hundred babies this Fall…and that’s only the ones they KNEW about!).

Yes, I have her book, but the plural of “story” isn’t “data.” If we take what took place at her clinic and turned it into widespread cultural outreach of all sorts, maybe the women wouldn’t be heading there in the first place

Yes, we need to get to women before they go there…but remember, there are those who are pressured into it by the father of the baby OR their parents.

Parental pressure is higher among young women of higher income families. And men can have an economic pressure to escape the financial responsibility of fatherhood. But that’s not the only pressure women get. And as I cited in the OP, on a statistical basis, women in violent relationships don’t use as much contraceptives as do women in nonviolent relationships. Pregnancy can be a tool of coercion by men used to strip women of their ability to work and gain independence that will help them break up the relationship.

So there’s coercion and pressure potential on both sides, and that’s exactly the kind of cultural issue I think needs to be addressed.

Some don’t even know that the pregnancy centers EXIST! Also, schools will teach sex ed, but veer away from child development and then we wonder why women buy the lies from the counselors who say “its a piece of tissue” or “its not a baby yet” or “heart tones” (As said in the Live Action undercover video —>information here liveaction.org/rosaacuna/

Again, this gets into the cultural change I see… single women getting pregnant is still looked as shameful. While I want to get more marriages prior to pregnancies, addressing the shame of young single women in high school or applying for college while “showing” is a major reason for ongoing abortion. These mothers don’t want to be seen pregnant!

Fatherhood begins in the womb…how many broken families do we have there with a woman who is a single mother with children from several fathers? Teach your sons to RESPECT WOMEN! If they can’t respect their mothers and their sisters, would they respect a woman they fall in love with? Or father the child of?

Fatherhood is another enormous cultural outreach I see as critical!