If abortions were outlawed in America, what would the outcome be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter interestedman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence said:
Not so. Illegality doesn’t stop those who want illegal drugs in any way. In fact, it would create another market for drug dealers. Prohibition didn’t stop those who wanted alcohol and eventually those laws were reversed.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. There are many women who get abortions that would not have gotten them if they weren’t being toted as safe and consequence free by abortion providors. Many women are coerced into having an abortion by parents, family members, and even health officials. These people would be less likely to push a mother in crises to an illegal back-ally abortion doctor. Also, many women would be less likely to have an abortion if they didn’t think it was safe. Some still would, but many others wouldn’t.
 
Bill_Martin said:
I doubt there would be less sex. Probably just a big increase in contraceptive use.
Click to expand...
Theres massive contraceptive use now and we still have abortions. I’m sure there would be a spike as you say but also a ton of women who just won’t want the hassle of consistency and become conveniently fridged.
 
St_Francis said:
That might explain the reduction in the numbers, but it would not explain the reduction in the *rates. *The numbers do reflect the emigration.
Click to expand...
It would rather depend on the ‘book-keeping’. Going from Poland to the UK is like going from one American State to another, it isn’t like going from Poland to the US, the bureaucracy involved is minimal, especially in the state of origin.

What happened was several hundred thousand (really) young Poles turned up in the UK (never mind Germany, France, Italy etc) over a couple of years. So, since this was the ‘fertility’ group, the number of births recorded would be reduced but Poland (until it has its next census) would not know how many women of child-bearing age it actually had, only what extrapolations of its previous census predicted it would have.
 
St_Francis said:
Looking at the numbers for Poland, one sees that both the rate and the number of abortions dropped by 90% the year abortion was outlawed.
Click to expand...
Ah-ah, careful here. This page uses official data, ergo it is drop in reported abortions, not actual abortions. Illegal abortions are not reported (obviously).

My reasoning is very simple. If you have (say) 20% abortions pre-ban, then you should see a 20% increase in births post-ban. If you don’t observe that, something is wrong.

A tangential point to this is, would the US manage to survive a sudden 20% increase in births. Hmmmm.
St_Francis said:
Altho some speculate that Polish women simply went to other nations to get abortions, there is *no *evidence of that. Numbers for neighboring nations continued their own, less-steep decline.
Click to expand...
Actually, I agree on that. That’s quite easy to check, because neighboring countries report non-resident abortions, and there was no corresponding increase.
St_Francis said:
When the law was modified for about a year in '97, the rate went up three-fold, then declined when that change was ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
It was six months, plus, the change in question required the woman to prove that she is living below poverty line.

Anyway, Fig. 1. in your article is interesting. You can see that the law made some impact on the fertility rate in ('93 vs. '94). However, that change was undone within a year – in '95 the trend overcorrected downwards. This is consistent with people learning how to avoid the law. Also, the '97 change in the law is not visible on the graph. It can’t be; your “threefold increase” was actually a 6-fold increase from 0.12% to 0.77%, but even 0.77% will not affect fertility rates in any meaningful way. Extrapolating that to a full year, would give an abortion rate of 1.4%. Interestingly, that would be comparable to abortion rate of 2.2% in the last full year pre-ban ('92).

Another interesting thing in that data is that you can see abortion rates drop before the law was enacted. There is about 9-fold decline in abortions in 1987 - 1992 without the law. Something to do with social changes during that period probably.

My opinion is that you cannot use this data to prove that this law alone was responsible for the decline of abortion rates in Poland.

Also, someone mentioned the massive emigration to UK. That started mid-2004. That actually may have an effect on post-2004 fertility rates, because the Polish gov’t admitted that it has no data about how many people actually emigrated to UK. Hence the population size used for calculating post-2004 fertility rates can be off, artificially lowering them.

The pre-2004 data remains valid though and it shows that Polish gov’t managed to irrecoverably crash the country’s demographics despite banning abortion. A remarkable feat indeed. ( ← sarcasm ).
 
kompaz said:
Ah-ah, careful here. This page uses official data, ergo it is drop in reported abortions, not actual abortions. Illegal abortions are not reported (obviously).

My reasoning is very simple. If you have (say) 20% abortions pre-ban, then you should see a 20% increase in births post-ban. If you don’t observe that, something is wrong.
Click to expand...
I understand your reasoning, but it doesn’t really make sense. Did Poland let people know ahead of time it was contemplating outlawing abortion? Did they inform women that abortion was outlawed when they did it? Could women have changed their behavior? There is no reason that one would expect women to have *absolutely no reaction *when the ban came into effect. Women are capable of rational thought, after all.
A tangential point to this is, would the US manage to survive a sudden 20% increase in births. Hmmmm.
Click to expand...
Still assuming that a ban would bring about *no change *in behavior…

Actually, I agree on that. That’s quite easy to check, because neighboring countries report non-resident abortions, and there was no corresponding increase.

It was six months, plus, the change in question required the woman to prove that she is living below poverty line.
Thanks for that info.
Anyway, Fig. 1. in your article is interesting. You can see that the law made some impact on the fertility rate in ('93 vs. '94). However, that change was undone within a year – in '95 the trend overcorrected downwards. This is consistent with people learning how to avoid the law.
Click to expand...
Or how to obey the law!
Also, the '97 change in the law is not visible on the graph. It can’t be; your “threefold increase” was actually a 6-fold increase from **0.12% to 0.77%, but even 0.77% **will not affect fertility rates in any meaningful way. Extrapolating that to a full year, would give an abortion rate of 1.4%. Interestingly, that would be comparable to abortion rate of 2.2% in the last full year pre-ban ('92).
Click to expand...
What??? According to this, the *annual *abortion rates were .1 in 94, 95, and 96, then went up to .31 in 97; then down to .03 in 98. In both sources, whatever happens is according to the year, so you can’t extrapolate at all!

I don’t know where you got your bolded numbers from… and I don’t see how you can make a rate of 1.4% comparable to 2.2%…
Another interesting thing in that data is that you can see abortion rates drop before the law was enacted. There is about 9-fold decline in abortions in 1987 - 1992 without the law. Something to do with social changes during that period probably.
Click to expand...
Possibly… but I can’t imagine much was going on there during that time…
My opinion is that you cannot use this data to prove that this law alone was responsible for the decline of abortion rates in Poland.
Click to expand...
Nor would I. The rates were definitely on the decline already, altho the law caused a precipitous drop and the rise during the brief loosening of the law shows that the legal status of abortion does have an effect, which was what I was talking about: what the effect of outlawing abortion would be.
…The pre-2004 data remains valid though and it shows that Polish gov’t managed to irrecoverably crash the country’s demographics despite banning abortion. A remarkable feat indeed. ( ← sarcasm ).
Click to expand...
To what do you attribute the fall in fertility?
 
The valuing of human life at all stages is a step in the right direction. If we devalue life at any stage, it can, and will be devalued at ANY stage.
 
kompaz said:
It was six months, plus, the change in question required the woman to prove that she is living below poverty line.

Anyway, Fig. 1. in your article is interesting. You can see that the law made some impact on the fertility rate in ('93 vs. '94). However, that change was undone within a year – in '95 the trend overcorrected downwards. This is consistent with people learning how to avoid the law. Also, the '97 change in the law is not visible on the graph. It can’t be; your “threefold increase” was actually a 6-fold increase from 0.12% to 0.77%, but even 0.77% will not affect fertility rates in any meaningful way. Extrapolating that to a full year, would give an abortion rate of 1.4%. Interestingly, that would be comparable to abortion rate of 2.2% in the last full year pre-ban ('92).
Click to expand...
This point is just an aside, not connected to abortion, but about how government deals with the recipients of programs and whether or not they are in ‘compliance’.

It’s my understanding that back when welfare was first started in the USA (in the 40’s or 50’s?) social worker would come to the women’ns homes and check their closets for men’s clothes, etc. They wanted to make sure there was no one living there bringing in an income since the woman was on welfare.

Well it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT today. Today NO ONE reports when a client is not in compliance with whatever it is they are supposed to be in compliance with for whatever program or programs they are receiving money and/or services for. It is UNHEARD OF. For real. I have worked for a company that receives most all it’s funding from government for the past 20 years. I have also worked for other companies that receive their funding the same way. And given the lenght of time I have worked in such a capacity I have rubbed elbows with people who work for different government agencies, etc, etc.

People get an apartment and are not supposed to have someone live there. They sign paperwork saying they know this and can be kicked off the program if they have someone move in. People routinely move others into their apartments and nobody does anything about it. Everyone knows from the bottom to the top and no one does anything about it.

People sign contracts saying they can be kicked out if they use drugs. They use drugs. They go to the hospital and are tested positive for drugs. They don’t get kicked out, ever (hardly-unless the agency/governent branch the agency reports to is so concerned that the person will die and they will get bad press as a result). Otherwise it continues on and on.

These are but a couple of examples. Government used to be a check on people who received benefits. Now they are a system that practically recruits people to receive benefits. And they are invested in keeping them on benefits as long as possible and it’s standard practice to do this. One would get into trouble and probably loose their job if they started speaking out against this.
 
Don’t stone me:thumbsup:, but someone told me that abortion is not really an evil at all, since the baby is not really alive until a certain point–like when we eat a chicken egg. Can you help me here? I have never been quite clear on this issue. Does the pill kill the possibility of pregnancy? Or does it kill a human being?
 
ReachingFaith said:
Don’t stone me:thumbsup:, but someone told me that abortion is not really an evil at all, since the baby is not really alive until a certain point–like when we eat a chicken egg. Can you help me here? I have never been quite clear on this issue. Does the pill kill the possibility of pregnancy? Or does it kill a human being?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, endowed with an immortal soul and to be considered a person in full. This is de fide. The Church teaches that artificial contraception interferes with God’s will, and is also a sin, though not the sin of murder that abortion is.
 
People get an apartment and are not supposed to have someone live there. They sign paperwork saying they know this and can be kicked off the program if they have someone move in. People routinely move others into their apartments and nobody does anything about it. Everyone knows from the bottom to the top and no one does anything about it.
Click to expand...
People sign contracts saying they can be kicked out if they use drugs. They use drugs. They go to the hospital and are tested positive for drugs. They don’t get kicked out, ever (hardly-unless the agency/governent branch the agency reports to is so concerned that the person will die and they will get bad press as a result). Otherwise it continues on and on.
Click to expand...
That’s unfortunate it’s like that where you live-it’s NOT like that in my area. The complex I live in has Section 8 housing and there are people who get kicked out of there quite routinely. I guess it depends on the management company that runs it or how tough the local laws are. Ours seems very aggressive because they have a LONG waiting list of people who need that assistance and they want to make sure that the people who already live there are obeying the rules.
 
ReachingFaith said:
Don’t stone me:thumbsup:, but someone told me that abortion is not really an evil at all, since the baby is not really alive until a certain point–like when we eat a chicken egg. Can you help me here? I have never been quite clear on this issue. Does the pill kill the possibility of pregnancy? Or does it kill a human being?
Click to expand...
The Chicken egg analogy fails because that egg is not fertilized.

Pardon my crude analogy here folks but it’s the best way to make a point…

A woman “lays and egg” too…one every month or so…It’s called ovulation and that egg is then either fertilized or not. If it is fertilized then it is a human embryo. If it is not fertilized it flushes out of her system.

The Chicken, if she is fertilized will lay a fertilized egg and the chick will begin forming if it is not fertilized…it’s just an egg…Not a chicken…

Crude yes…but I hope it helps…

Actually the above reference to eggs reminded me of a wonderful old thread…
How to turn someone pro-life in two easy steps. 👍

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
The Chicken egg analogy fails because that egg is not fertilized.

Pardon my crude analogy here folks but it’s the best way to make a point…

A woman “lays and egg” too…one every month or so…It’s called ovulation and that egg is then either fertilized or not. If it is fertilized then it is a human embryo. If it is not fertilized it flushes out of her system.

The Chicken, if she is fertilized will lay a fertilized egg and the chick will begin forming if it is not fertilized…it’s just an egg…Not a chicken…

Crude yes…but I hope it helps…

Actually the above reference to eggs reminded me of a wonderful old thread…
How to turn someone pro-life in two easy steps. 👍

Peace
James
Click to expand...
that thread was perfect. Absolutely perfect. Thank you!
 
JRKH said:
The Chicken egg analogy fails because that egg is not fertilized.
Click to expand...
Actually, if one farm raises, or backyard raises, chickens, and has a rooster on hand, yes they are fertilized. There is no dobut in my mind at all that each and every egg in my refrigerator is fertilized. Having had 100% hatch rates many times, I can be 99% sure of that.

Everyone who has their own chickens, with a rooster included (and most do), has fertilized eggs. All you have to do, is stick them in the fridge and that just-fertilized egg stops growing a chick.

In fact, you can keep them in the fridge a few days and suspend them (while collecting other eggs) and then when you have enough eggs or enough of the ones you select, you can take them out of the fridge and bring them to room temperature, and then put them in an incubator, and they will start growing again, and chicks will hatch.
JRKH said:
The Chicken, if she is fertilized will lay a fertilized egg and the chick will begin forming if it is not fertilized…it’s just an egg…Not a chicken…
Click to expand...
See above 😉
 
Rence said:
Actually, if one farm raises, or backyard raises, chickens, and has a rooster on hand, yes they are fertilized. There is no dobut in my mind at all that each and every egg in my refrigerator is fertilized. Having had 100% hatch rates many times, I can be 99% sure of that.

Everyone who has their own chickens, with a rooster included (and most do), has fertilized eggs. All you have to do, is stick them in the fridge and that just-fertilized egg stops growing a chick.

In fact, you can keep them in the fridge a few days and suspend them (while collecting other eggs) and then when you have enough eggs or enough of the ones you select, you can take them out of the fridge and bring them to room temperature, and then put them in an incubator, and they will start growing again, and chicks will hatch.

See above 😉
Click to expand...
Of course what you say is true…when I had chickens I did not keep roosters with them for just that reason…Didn’t want to risk cracking open and egg and finding that little blood spot…yuck.

But for the benefit of the person who asked…The eggs one buys at the grocery store have not been exposed to a rooster and so - are not fertilized…

Peace
James
 
The birth rate would increase dramatically, which would be beneficial. If it weren’t for immigration the US would have been having a severe population drop over the last few decades, that added to an aging population causes all kinds of financial and social ills.

As far as “abortion going underground”, that would decrease with time and the everpresent dangers of back alley abortions making them less appealing. The whole situation would be much better if we could straighten out the adoption system in this country, which right now is absurdly costly and a paperwork nightmare. MOre young women would be willing to go to term if adoption could be guaranteed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top