No pro-life movement before abortion was legal?

[fnr]

I recently read an article in Commonweal Magazine that confirmed what I had thought about the history of the pro-life movement. That is, before attempts to legalize abortion, there was no pro-life movement:

Furthermore, growing up Catholic I did not hear priests rail against abortion. To the contrary… the subject was seldom mentioned. On the rare occasions when it was mentioned, abortion was certainly assumed to be a grave wrong. So were many other things mentioned far more often…

So it was largely to philosophical reasoning that I turned in the years before and after Roe, when the moral and legal status of abortion began to be extensively debated in the United States—and when people my age, including friends and family members, began to confront the question in personal terms…

In the years preceding Roe, campaigns to loosen legal restrictions on abortion at the state level had simmered and occasionally flared. But that decision, as we all know, did not only modify but swept aside laws in fifty states. It sent shock waves through a large portion of the population, Catholics in particular, who held abortion to be an unjustified taking of a human life. A genuine grassroots antiabortion movement arose, which church leaders, already active in those state-level battles, quickly reinforced but never controlled. Stunned by Justice Blackmun’s dismissal of any need to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” the antiabortion movement focused on that as the crux of the matter. When a few prominent ethicists followed their defenses of abortion to the conclusion that indeed infanticide, too, might well fall into the realm of the permissible, the antiabortion movement found further grounds for insisting on the “moment of conception” as the single factual firewall against a thoroughgoing collapse of the right to life.

One paper arguing for liberalizing abortion published in 1966 said this:

Millions of American have been personally involved in abortions… in most cases illegal ones. Despite this widespread personal experience, there has been too long a conspiracy of silence on the subject of abortion.

A representative sample of 1,484 adult Americans were asked their views…
…
…support the view that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion under the following circumstances:

• 71 percent if the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy.
• 56 percent if she became pregnant as a result of rape.
• 55 percent if there is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby.

…there was very little religious group differences. Although official Catholic doctrine makes no allowance for abortions in the event of high probability of deformity in the fetus or for pregnancies following sexual assault, close to a majority of Catholic men and women were in favor of legal abortion to cover such situations…
…
The study also showed that attitudes toward abortion cut across both political orientation and party lines. People with a liberal political orientation who are independent of any political affiliation, show the most liberal attitudes toward abortion (mean of 51 percent [in six circumstances]). But at the next level of liberal views on abortion are Republicans of both liberal (47 percent) and conservative (46 percent) persuasion, and liberal Democrats (42 percent). Those least sympathetic to abortion law reform are conservative Democrats (36 percent) and those who are politically uncommitted or apolitical.

What the American public clearly does not support, however, are abortions in situations which all studies indicate to be the predominant conditions for women who seek abortions…

• 21 percent if the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children.
• 18 percent if she is not married and does not want to marry the man.
• 15 percent if she is married and wants no more children.

As the second paper argues, it seems like there was a “conspiracy of silence.” This “conspiracy” seems to have no problem that (according to the same paper from 1966) abortion was taking place a lot.

Where illegal abortion is concerned, the estimated range of operations is from 250,000 to somewhat over 1,000,000 per year in the United States. We are on somewhat firmer ground in gauging the incidence of legal abortions conducted in hospital settings, particularly when they are based on statistics from municipalities where such abortions are required to be justified and recorded. The most recent estimate for the United States is somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000… to many people opposed to law reform this is not a “significant” problem because there is no agreement on exactly how extensive the incidence of illegal abortion is. Further, many persons refuse to believe even the lower limit of the estimated range, on the grounds that they personally know of no woman who has had an illegal abortion."

On a per-capita basis, the range given here overlaps with current ranges estimated by CDC. To me, this information collectively suggests that as long as abortion took place “underground,” most people were OK with it. There was no grass root movement, just church leaders arguing with politicians.

My issue with the modern pro-life movement is that I still see very little done to reduce the types of abortions that occurred prior to Roe v. Wade. Crisis pregnancy centers do some of this, but there’s no outreach to prevent the kinds of situations that were so prevalent before Roe v. Wade. If it’s overturned, does that mean that abortion returns to the “conspiracy of silence,” or this time, will it really be different? What do you believe?

 

[Least]

Ya, the good-old-days, back when people had the good enough sense not to flaunt something so heinous, before monsters would ask for acceptance for such behavior and ask that it be held on-par with a “health issue.” Welp, time to get out the pitch-forks and torches. Time to decide which way is more acceptable to be “wrong.”

 

[Least]

My issue with the modern pro-life movement is that I still see very little done to reduce the types of abortions that occurred prior to Roe v. Wade. Crisis pregnancy centers do some of this, but there’s no outreach to prevent the kinds of situations that were so prevalent before Roe v. Wade. If it’s overturned, does that mean that abortion returns to the “conspiracy of silence,” or this time, will it really be different? What do you believe?

My issue is with the pro-abortion movement, why should I, at your urging (and trust me, you ought to be urging me) hang on to any shred of my humanity (much less my Catholicism and Christianity) in my dealings with you, when it appears you can so readily (by this one issue) abandon yours? You cannot chuck this little piece of our Societal Agreement [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012] and hope to have any leverage for me to not chuck the rest.

I don’t want to get to heaven and have St. Peter ask me why I didn’t beat you like a rug.

 

[TK421]

People generally get the government that they deserve. What this does show is that evil is not something that magically popped up post-1970s. ‘The good old days’ are a myth. Roe vs Wade was the inevitable ruling that came from a culture that had already gradually become complacent on the issue; the cultural attitude simply had yet to be reflected in law.

However, it doesn’t really bother me that talk on abortion wasn’t as common until Roe vs Wade was ruled on. When something goes public, it’s to be expected that the Church is going to become more vocal about it, because when the state goes against Church teaching, it becomes far more necessary for the Church to be the opposition voice. In the 1930s you probably heard Church leaders across the world talk much more about the dangers of violent fascist and communist movements than you do today. Why? Because it was a contemporary danger of that particular time. The Church isn’t okay with violent fascism in the present day, but because it is not a pressing issue in our current generation, you’re not going to hear a ton about it. It’s more strongly addressing other areas, such as commercialized sex and the destruction of fidelity, and what it is doing to our world.

 

[april32010]

Msgr.Reilly of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants helpersbrooklynny.org/ was involved pro- activites in the late 60’s. abortionists had been going to prison in the U.S. for years.

 

[globaljim]

One reason why the movement exploded was the blatant nature of how the Supreme Court decision was made. Being a Country Boy the best way I have seen this expressed is this…If you see a dark form in the wood and cannot tell whether it is a bear or a man -
common law is very clear you [must] determine it is not human before shooting!
As for what is going on today How is it that there is a majority of Catholic Conservative
Judges - a majority and yet nothing has been done to correct this blatant blunder?!!

 

[fnr]

Msgr.Reilly of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants helpersbrooklynny.org/ was involved pro- activites in the late 60’s. abortionists had been going to prison in the U.S. for years.

I guess my concern here is that prayer at the clinic is sort of an “end of the pipe” way to stop a flood. I think the way to reduce the abortions that vigils don’t stop is to go to the “start of the pipe” (before women become pregnant) and reach out to those in areas with highest abortion rates.

 

[edwest2]

I recently read an article in Commonweal Magazine that confirmed what I had thought about the history of the pro-life movement. That is, before attempts to legalize abortion, there was no pro-life movement:

One paper arguing for liberalizing abortion published in 1966 said this:

As the second paper argues, it seems like there was a “conspiracy of silence.” This “conspiracy” seems to have no problem that (according to the same paper from 1966) abortion was taking place a lot.

On a per-capita basis, the range given here overlaps with current ranges estimated by CDC. To me, this information collectively suggests that as long as abortion took place “underground,” most people were OK with it. There was no grass root movement, just church leaders arguing with politicians.

My issue with the modern pro-life movement is that I still see very little done to reduce the types of abortions that occurred prior to Roe v. Wade. Crisis pregnancy centers do some of this, but there’s no outreach to prevent the kinds of situations that were so prevalent before Roe v. Wade. If it’s overturned, does that mean that abortion returns to the “conspiracy of silence,” or this time, will it really be different? What do you believe?

This is a subject that requires careful research. No, society was not OK with illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade. As it was back then, only the wealthy could fly to a place where a doctor would do it, or women would find some “back alley” abortionist. There were homes for “wayward” girls, including those who were pregnant. We had families. You have to consider that in some cases, a young lady had her baby, didn’t marry the father and ended up raising her child at home. You’ll have to provide more evidence that “very little done” prior to Roe v. Wade.

You should also read this: catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Least]

This is a subject that requires careful research. No, society was not OK with illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade. As it was back then, only the wealthy could fly to a place where a doctor would do it, or women would find some “back alley” abortionist. There were homes for “wayward” girls, including those who were pregnant. We had families. You have to consider that in some cases, a young lady had her baby, didn’t marry the father and ended up raising her child at home. You’ll have to provide more evidence that “very little done” prior to Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade did not argue right or wrong of abortions or a women’s right to have them. It “settled” the legal question of whether abortion fell under a woman’s right to “privacy” (i.e. A FREEKING SECRET - you are free to exercise what human history has labled a monstrocity, just don’t do it in a manner that may foster such activity publicly, DON’T ASK DON’T TELL) and tied the legal taking-of-a-life-issue disparity to whether a “fetus” (get clinical so you aren’t forced to use the term “baby”) was more or less likely to survive outside its mother’s body before the first tri-mester.

 

[Michael57]

Hmmm…

I remember that there was a thriving adoption bureau business in the 50s, and 60s, that died off for some reason around 1973.

Abortion was never the scourge that it has become since 1973. It’s killed over 53 million children in the US alone since Roe v. Wade.

Some of us don’t need an article written this year to remember what happened, we watched it happen.

 

[Petite]

Here is an account of women who were pregnant and unmarried in the 40’s, '50’s, and 60’s: The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade by Ann Fessler.

 

[fnr]

Abortion was never the scourge that it has become since 1973. It’s killed over 53 million children in the US alone since Roe v. Wade.

Some of us don’t need an article written this year to remember what happened, we watched it happen.

It’s been 40 years since Roe v. Wade. My question is how many children in the U.S. died in abortions in the previous 40 years. That would be 1932-1972. There are a wide range of per-capita estimates from prior to Roe v. Wade. If we control for population, did the number of abortion rates prior to Roe v. Wade change? I think more abortions took place after 1973, but then the abortion rate went down. As I’ve said in other threads, on a per-capita rate, it looks as if the abortion rate was still pretty high. I want to go after those types of abortions, which take place due to a demand that doesn’t seem to change whether it’s legal or not.

A study in 2012 also found that in Latin America, a higher percentage of pregnancies ended in abortion compared to U.S. and Canada. This says to me that, as prior to Roe v. Wade, a lot of black market abortions are taking place. Cytotec is one drug that can be an abortifacient. You can buy that drug in black markets, even in places where abortion’s illegal.

 

[fnr]

This is a subject that requires careful research. No, society was not OK with illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade. As it was back then, only the wealthy could fly to a place where a doctor would do it, or women would find some “back alley” abortionist. There were homes for “wayward” girls, including those who were pregnant. We had families. You have to consider that in some cases, a young lady had her baby, didn’t marry the father and ended up raising her child at home. You’ll have to provide more evidence that “very little done” prior to Roe v. Wade.

You should also read this: catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Ed, thanks for talking about the homes for “wayward” girls and other stuff. I appreciate your response.

I’ll say that I’ve previously read the web article you suggested. What I’ll say about his article is that the strategies he discusses might be correct. However, this sentence looks problematic because I do a lot of health statistics:

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.

For an illegal and shameful activity like abortion, conducting surveys to figure out how many abortions take place is very problematic. As such, it’s exceptionally difficult to be as precise as he describes. When I look at something that’s that imprecise and uncertain, I always try to put in a range of estimates.

One of the problems in scientific interpretation is that people fighting about A vs. B will almost always say a false positive about what they like and a false positive about what they don’t. It’s just fallen human nature. In the case of pre-Roe abortions, the pro-choice side has a preference to say that more abortions took place, while the pro-life side prefers to say that fewer took place. The pro-choice side will say more women were hurt or killed by illegal abortions. The pro-life side will say that fewer women were hurt or killed by illegal abortions. Each side will criticize the studies that the other side cites, and each side will defend the studies that they cite.

In all cases, human nature is highly subject to “confirmation bias,” that is, the tendency to search or interpret information in a way that confirms their beliefs. I’ll admit that I do it, and doubt that anyone else doesn’t. For me, that says that discussing the ranges of things we love or hate is the most honest way to describe a good or bad thing.

As I said with the quote from the ex-abortionist, I very much doubt that he had access to better statistical estimates of abortion than anyone else did. To me, read the peer review papers and then put together the range of the estimates. Including his number of around 100,000, that means “approaching 100,000” (generous since this estimate hasn’t been published in a peer review journal) to “somewhat over 1,000,000.” In the mid-1960s, that spans a per-capita range around 10% of current rates to somewhat greater than 100% of current rates. I’m trying not be biased, but I’m guessing that I look so! I want to assure you that I’m pro-life, and just think that we need to think about new strategies!

 

[Michael57]

It’s been 40 years since Roe v. Wade. My question is how many children in the U.S. died in abortions in the previous 40 years. That would be 1932-1972. There are a wide range of per-capita estimates from prior to Roe v. Wade. If we control for population, did the number of abortion rates prior to Roe v. Wade change? I think more abortions took place after 1973, but then the abortion rate went down. As I’ve said in other threads, on a per-capita rate, it looks as if the abortion rate was still pretty high. I want to go after those types of abortions, which take place due to a demand that doesn’t seem to change whether it’s legal or not.

A study in 2012 also found that in Latin America, a higher percentage of pregnancies ended in abortion compared to U.S. and Canada. This says to me that, as prior to Roe v. Wade, a lot of black market abortions are taking place. Cytotec is one drug that can be an abortifacient. You can buy that drug in black markets, even in places where abortion’s illegal.

I suggest you review the CDC publications on your hypothesis that abortion was as prevalent before Roe v. Wade as after. It wasn’t, but you’re entitled to whatever opinion you have, regardless of fact.

Your assumption is that abortion was always prevalent, and I tell you that it was not, and never was. Believe what you wish.

You assert that there was a “pro-life” movement prior to 1973?

There was no need for a “pro-life” movement because abortion was not legal and abortionists went to prison and were despised by all right-thinking people and decent society. It was a crime. What you suggest seems to be like looking for a pro-bank-robbing movement.

Try looking at crime statistics about it.

Do you actually believe the hyped horror stories that the pro-abortion people produced from the 60s and 70s? These were bogus from the beginning and only got worse with age.

Good luck with that hypothesis. Sincerely.

Do some real research on it. Go to Guttmacher Institute (they are very proud of how many children they’ve killed) and the CDC data. Look at the scholarly medical journals from the 50s and 60s about it. Along with the crime stats.

There is a substantial group of people missing from the US population, and that number can only be accounted for by the systematic killing of our children.

Do the math, tally the numbers, see what you come up with. Good luck.

 

[JimG]

Before 1973, each state had its own abortion laws. They still do, but now they are restricted by the SCOTUS rulings. The Supreme Court took on itself to overturn every one of those laws in 1973, putting its judgment in place of the state legislatures.

There was not much of a need for a pro-life movement before 1973 because abortion was either illegal or severely restricted, and the people had a voice in the decision—through their state legislatures.

Just as we do not currently see a large anti-infanticide movement—but we surely will when infanticide is made legal. And we are not far from that.