What if abstinence-only and outlawing abortions actually made things worse?

[camerong]

Foremost, I wholly believe in the Church’s authority on these matters. However, I think the evidence that abstinence-only approaches reduces sex outside of marriage, and the evidence that outlawing abortions reduces abortions, is equivocal (in other words, its not entirely clear). My question is this–what if it were proved beyond a doubt that abstinence-only education made kids have sex more than endorsing contraception, and outlawing abortions wouldn’t decrease abortions, but instead make the same number of abortions far more dangerous? What then?

My thought is that we take these positions primarily because they are the morally correct positions, not because they are practically effective. It may happen to be that they are practically effective, but even if they aren’t, that does not change the moral imperative. Thoughts?

 

[speight]

its going to happen weather you legalize it or not promote it or not, but forgiveness is for everyone.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Abortions in the UK have constantly risen since they became legal, so I doubt legalising abortions makes them less frequently undertaken. Statistics regarding incredible figures of illegal abortions in countries where illegal are inevitably approximate - so best taken with a pinch of salt, I suspect!

The UK is also constantly seeing more and more marriages end in divorce, which I suspect is most regularly caused by extra-marital relations. Co-habiting partners are furthermore less likely to remain permanently together than married. It’s a pretty promiscuous nation - I somehow suspect that is a factor in this situation

And VDs here are also on a rapid increase

All despite the ever-increasing availability of contraceptives - so much for that! So more and more, I suspect the Catholic Churches position is essentially validated

 

[vera_dicere]

Almost 40 years later, and Bernard Nathanson saying their numbers were a crock, people still have this mindset that banning abortion will increase abortions and increase them dangerously so.

The reality is, abortions will happen regardless of legality, but a lot of abortions happen because the woman has the mindset that “well, if the law says its okay, then it must be”.

Abstinence will never increase abortions or sexual activity. Its only when people don’t practice abstinence that sex happens, so you can’t really blame abstinence for people not abstaining, can you?

In actual fact, when abortion was illegal, around 90 - 95% of abortions were performed by doctors, and they were safe and careful, because honestly, if you were rubbish at doing it, you’d get found out and arrested. Its simple logic.

Just consider though, meth use. Should we legalise that so people can do it in a safer environment under medical superverison? Of course not.

People are always going to do illegal things. And sometimes doing said illegal things will harm them. But that’s partially why it was illegal, the harm it will cause themselves.

Long and short of it, don’t believe the rubbish about abstinence causing more sex and illegal abortion causing more abortions.

 

[Mark77]

You’re both missing the point.

**What is important is doing our best to do what is right by following the Truth of Jesus Christ & the teaching of His Church, no matter how unpopular!
**
Since you are using sexual relations & their repercussions as a topic let’s look at condom use as an example disproving the myth of “equivocal” logic.

Secular society tells us that condom use is great! They say people will have relations anyway, so why not reduce unintended pregnancies & STD’s with condoms. They demean the Pope & the Church’s stance against condom use as "repressive, barbaric, naive & ignorant."

**The fact is that the promotion of condom use in Africa to reduce AIDS has been studied by the secular, non Catholic scientists & they have found that the Truth is exactly the opposite of the secular “group think propaganda!”
**
**A study conducted by an athiest, Dr. Edward C. Green, PhD, Senior Research Scientist, Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard University, using government statistics, concluded that condom usage did not reduce AIDS in Africa. The only country with a reduction in AIDS was Uganda, which promoted abstinence & a one partner policy! harvardaidsprp.org/faculty-staff/index.html

Dr. Green concludes “The Pope may be right!”
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Trishie]

We have no choice but to defend unborn life, regardless of how people act in consequence. We can’t condone the murder of any of God’s children however tiny.

 

[momor]

The reality is, abortions will happen regardless of legality, but a lot of abortions happen because the woman has the mindset that “well, if the law says its okay, then it must be”.

I would add that a lot of abortions happen because the woman has the mindset that “oh well, if I get pregnant with this guy I’m not married to I can always get an abortion.”

 

[camerong]

While I agree with much of the above evidence, the fact remains that the evidence is hotly contested. But that wasn’t the point of this thread. What I’m trying to explore here is the difference between rationale for acting morally, and the effects of that act.

Consider:

We refrain from immoral things even if they benefit everyone (except spiritually); we act morally even if it benefits no one (except spiritually).

So, in a way, its immaterial whether abstinence or laws against abortions decrease moral acts. These things are right because they are right. We want laws against abortion because it is the most moral thing to have laws against abortion, and we encourage people to be abstinent because that is the most moral thing. If these acts also have practical benefits of decreasing abortion or sex outside of marriage, then wonderful. But, even if these acts DO NOT have these benefits, they are still correct because they are most moral.

Put another way, imagine for a moment that the Church had no opinion on these issues. Would we still be as firm in our commitment to them, based upon the evidence of their efficacy alone?

 

[kage_ar]

In 1970, the USA saw 193,491 abortions.

In 1990 the USA saw 1,429,279 abortions.

CDC is the source for those numbers.

If 1.4 million is more than 193K, then, there were fewer when it was illegal.

Use some common sense. More people do legal things than illegal things.

 

[BuphiloCatholic]

Kage_ar said:

In 1970, the USA saw 193,491 abortions.

In 1990 the USA saw 1,429,279 abortions.

CDC is the source for those numbers.

If 1.4 million is more than 193K, then, there were fewer when it was illegal.

Use some common sense. More people do legal things than illegal things.

This is really misleading for two reasons: (1) what motive would anyone have to self-report an abortion in 1970 when doing so was tantamount to self-incrimination? People don’t as a rule give answers to pollsters that could conceivably result in their own long term imprisonment. And (2) do you have any idea how much the population of the United States Grew in the period between 1970 and 1990?

60 million people at least. Of course we’d have to look at the population of reproductive aged females however to get a true sense of context for the numbers you’ve given. Since you haven’t bothered to give us those numbers the numbers you have given are inconclusive at best.

 

[Catholic1954]

It was not illegal to have an abortion, it was illegal to perform one, so there would be no self incrimination for a woman to admit that she had an abortion. Do you know how many abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade? 50 million and counting. There is a good chance that many of us have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins that we will never meet.

 

[camerong]

Did anyone actually read the question before replying? I’m not at all interested in debating the evidence behind these things, but the implications of a certain hypothetical I laid out in the OP.

The question is, would these goals (discouraging contraception and outlawing abortion) still be morally best if they did not have the desired practical effects?

 

[angelerulastiel]

If making abortions legal would definitely reduce the number of abortions, without any chance of them increasing, then I would probably be for having abortion be legal. Although I would never believe anyone who told me that making it legal would decrease the number of abortions. There is no logic behind that situation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Foremost, I wholly believe in the Church’s authority on these matters. However, I think the evidence that abstinence-only approaches reduces sex outside of marriage, and the evidence that outlawing abortions reduces abortions, is equivocal (in other words, its not entirely clear). My question is this–what if it were proved beyond a doubt that abstinence-only education made kids have sex more than endorsing contraception, and outlawing abortions wouldn’t decrease abortions, but instead make the same number of abortions far more dangerous? What then?

My thought is that we take these positions primarily because they are the morally correct positions, not because they are practically effective. It may happen to be that they are practically effective, but even if they aren’t, that does not change the moral imperative. Thoughts?

I agree with what you are saying. Laws supposedly reflect the societal consensus concerning the commission of particular acts. In a civil society such as the U.S., there are supposedly practical underpinnings for the laws, but there are also, at least in theory, objective moral underpinnings. The Constitution is not theoretically based on “this works, this doesn’t” but upon rights inherent in human beings because they are human beings, which necessarily assumes a non-human provider. Quite frankly, if society was based on practical outcomes alone, there is no great reason not to execute all of the non-productive members of society forthwith.

But we shrink from that; first, because everything in the nature of most of us recognizes it as evil by a measurement outside ourselves, but also because we instinctively know how corrupting such things are, and how the practicalities can so easily become unfavorable when practicalities are the only yardsticks. A society that gets used to killing becomes progressively more accepting of killing. In a world in which, for example, the developmentally disabled (or the unborn) are not safe, none of us is safe, because someone can always make a persusive argument against our continued existence. The 20th Century was so befouled with such “persuasive arguments” and so littered with deaths caused by them, that by now we should understand that a lot better than we seem to.

 

[cargau]

Foremost, I wholly believe in the Church’s authority on these matters. However, I think the evidence that abstinence-only approaches reduces sex outside of marriage, and the evidence that outlawing abortions reduces abortions, is equivocal (in other words, its not entirely clear). My question is this–what if it were proved beyond a doubt that abstinence-only education made kids have sex more than endorsing contraception, and outlawing abortions wouldn’t decrease abortions, but instead make the same number of abortions far more dangerous? What then?

My thought is that we take these positions primarily because they are the morally correct positions, not because they are practically effective. It may happen to be that they are practically effective, but even if they aren’t, that does not change the moral imperative. Thoughts?

Reducing the number of abortions is an admirable goal. Outlawing abortions serves this aim. But, it also says a great deal about the society at large. Laws that sanction and even support the destruction of babies depict a morally deprived populace. If abortion may be legal, what other actions that are offensive to God and harmful to society may be looked upon as a moral “good”.

Murder is against the law, yet murders still occur. Abortion will never be eliminated altogether as long as there are human beings possessing free will. But, we do need leaders who possess the chutzpah to draw a line in the sand and say, “no more”!

A young girl was arrested this week for doodling on her desk. But if she wanted to kill her baby, the government would not only allow it, they would pay for it (once the presidential order is rescinded)…Scary!!!

 

[camerong]

Thank you Ridgerunner and cargau for your thoughtful replies.

Let me continue the analogy briefly. Let’s again assume for the moment that, in a particular country or city, outlawing abortions would cause women to get unsafe abortions, and thus the same number of babies would die, but also mothers would die.

Is the society more just for having moral laws, even though there is an increased harm to individuals? Is this still a desirable outcome?

The reason I pose this issue is because there are many who agree that abortion is immoral, but argue that practically, outlawing abortions would only result in a similar number of “back alley” abortions which would harm women more. I’m trying to figure out if this argument can be won without resorting to arguing about statistics. In other words, “even if outlawing abortions does what you say, it is still a worthy goal because…”

 

[Biggie]

Thank you Ridgerunner and cargau for your thoughtful replies.

Let me continue the analogy briefly. Let’s again assume for the moment that, in a particular country or city, outlawing abortions would cause women to get unsafe abortions, and thus the same number of babies would die, but also mothers would die.

Is the society more just for having moral laws, even though there is an increased harm to individuals? Is this still a desirable outcome?

Outlawing abortions would not “cause” women to get unsafe abortions. The statement denies free will.

Justice, by definition, requires adherence to moral principles. It cannot be achieved by a negation of morality.

Morality is not measured by outcomes, but by coincidence with natural law. It predicts an end of happiness that supersedes the intermediate end of success.

In the example above, a greater wrong than abortion occurs because the law itself is put to death and all depend on the rule of law for survival.

 

[whm]

This is really misleading for two reasons: (1) what motive would anyone have to self-report an abortion in 1970 when doing so was tantamount to self-incrimination? People don’t as a rule give answers to pollsters that could conceivably result in their own long term imprisonment. And (2) do you have any idea how much the population of the United States Grew in the period between 1970 and 1990?

60 million people at least. Of course we’d have to look at the population of reproductive aged females however to get a true sense of context for the numbers you’ve given. Since you haven’t bothered to give us those numbers the numbers you have given are inconclusive at best.

You are right in that Kage should have included the number of abortions caused by the pill, IUD, morning after pill etc. The source of the outrageous number of surgical abortions is a) being “legal” and b) the widespread use and acceptance of contraception (as predicted by Paul VI).

 

[catharina]

Did anyone actually read the question before replying? I’m not at all interested in debating the evidence behind these things, but the implications of a certain hypothetical I laid out in the OP.

The question is, would these goals (discouraging contraception and outlawing abortion) **still be morally best **if they did not have the desired practical effects?

Obviously yes.
Morality will always trump numbers.

 

[St_Francis]

Your original question does not work because it is based on an unreal idea: If X does *not *lead to Y, what should we do, when X in reality leads to Y. Positing something that is not real and then asking a question about it makes no sense.

…Let me continue the analogy briefly. Let’s again assume for the moment that, in a particular country or city, outlawing abortions would cause women to get unsafe abortions, and thus the same number of babies would die, but also mothers would die.

The *reality *is that the same number of women would *not *get abortions, *because *of the illegality. The price would rise and there were be fewer willing to provide one, and women, having actual brains, would also change their activities so as not to find themselves pregnant with no recourse. (This is not to say that all women would begin to act chastely, but they would be more careful about the circumstances.)

Is the society more just for having moral laws, even though there is an increased harm to individuals? Is this still a desirable outcome?

Since the consequence of the law would *not *be an increased harm to individuals, there is no question here.

The reason I pose this issue is because there are many who agree that abortion is immoral, but argue that practically, outlawing abortions would only result in a similar number of “back alley” abortions which would harm women more. I’m trying to figure out if this argument can be won without resorting to arguing about statistics. In other words, “even if outlawing abortions does what you say, it is still a worthy goal because…”

This is based on the false idea that the number of abortions was about the same before and after legalization. Before Roe v Wade, abortion proponents were saying that the number of abortions would not go up (which was wrong), that all that legalization would do would be to render abortion safer for those women who would have them anyway.

This turned out not to be the case.

When people bring the idea up that abortion numbers would remain the same if they were outlawed, you need to challenge them on this point. Ask them what evidence they have for this, considering X (that the number of abortions went up drastically, both in real numbers and percentage-wise, after legalization).

And if they are so darned concerned about the safety of women, what about the rise in STD’s during the same period (part of which can also be blamed on the development of ABC methods which do not protect against STDs)?

And maybe they are also concerned about children living in poverty? Because the biggest determinant of a child’s living in poverty is whether his or her parents are married and together. Children from single-family homes are more likely to live in poverty (69% of children born to never-married mothers, 45% of children who live with their divorced mothers; 25% of all children in the USA). Maybe we should outlaw extra-marital sex?

To be honest, if the only argument your discussion partner has is the fallacious idea that the only result of outlawing abortion would be an increase in harm to mothers (since abortion harms *all *the babies involved), challenge him on that rather than assuming he has a point which needs to be countered.