Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, contraception lowered the birth rate, but the arguments raised in the links in the OP are valid, especially since more abortions are done in the demographic at greater risk for criminality. That demographic is less likely to have access to or to use effective contraception, has a higher unintended pregnancy rate, and has a higher abortion rate.
Since we are talking about this, I might as well post these links here:
Also, once again, whether or not legalized abortion reduces the crime rate appears to be a red herring in regards to the question of whether or not abortion is morally justifiable.
Actually, abortion bans could reduce the number of abortions as well, considering that not every woman which would have gotten an abortion if doing so was legal will actually get an abortion if an abortion ban is in place. I am well-aware that banning something does not completely end it, and this also applies to things such as banning rape, child abuse, assault, theft, infanticide, domestic violence, et cetera. However, if one considers something to be morally unjustifiable, and if a ban will reduce the frequency of these things occurring, then it makes sense to support such a ban.
I certainly agree with you that we need to implement comprehensive sex ed everywhere and that we need to make effective and reliable contraception easy to access for everyone who needs it.
Also, I don't think that even religious nutjobs consider condoms to be abortifacients.
With an abortion ban in place, women with money will just go some place where abortion is legal. That places the burden more on women without the financial means to travel. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no way to accurately tally illegal abortions, though I have seen estimates of 1,000,000 per year in the US. Making abortion illegal would not reduce the number performed as much as you might expect. Also, you can already buy the drugs used for medical abortion online. Drive abortion underground again and there would be no way to police that.
Well, to be fair, one might be able to make a case that getting abortions in order to prevent disabled offspring from being born is a form of eugenics. For instance, I think I heard that around 90% of Down's syndrome embryos/fetuses are aborted.
The availability of abortion might actually allow some parents to have children who otherwise might avoid pregnancy altogether. Consider Tay Sachs disease for example. Without a way to diagnose it in an affected embryo or fetus, some parents might forgo pregnancy altogether.
The figure you give for Down Syndrome terminations may be too high:
"The weighted mean termination rate was 67% (range: 61%–93%) among seven population-based studies, 85% (range: 60%–90%) among nine hospital-based studies, and 50% (range: 0%–100%) among eight anomaly-based studies. Evidence suggests that termination rates have decreased in recent years. Termination rates also varied with maternal age, gestational age, and maternal race/ethnicity."
I've been saying that for years.
People claim that we're aborting the next Einstein or Mozart, but I beg to differ. Children who aren't wanted, aren't nurtured and encouraged.
I worked in psychiatry for many years, and it was a common theme for the insane and the criminally insane. 'My mother never wanted me.'
'Every mother a willing mother. Every child a wanted child.'
-Dr. Henry Morgentaler
It sounds like in the debate of nature vs nurture you side with nurture. How much of a difference do you think being raised with love by their mother would have made to an insane person?
It will be a relief for many women when misoprostol is cheaply synthesized and as available as Tic-Tacs. The end of surgical abortions means the end of conservative bullying and continued choice for women.
Abortions are harder to get especially in the south. I do not know how available that abortion drug you mentioned is.
With an abortion ban in place, women with money will just go some place where abortion is legal. That places the burden more on women without the financial means to travel. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there was no way to accurately tally illegal abortions, though I have seen estimates of 1,000,000 per year in the US. Making abortion illegal would not reduce the number performed as much as you might expect. Also, you can already buy the drugs used for medical abortion online. Drive abortion underground again and there would be no way to police that.
I don't believe I said anyone considers condoms to be abortifacients, but there are some who consider IUDs and oral contraceptives to be.
In some religions all artificial birth control is considered a sin; condoms included. Nobody here is considering the poverty aspect of crime to unwanted/too many children. It doesn't just relate to abortion but to birth control also.
I grew up Catholic in the 1950s. While the majority of families even back then limited their families to 2 or maybe 3 kids using "forbidden" methods of BC, I did know families with 7+ children. None of them had the Romney's or Santorum's financial means. All were poor. Would they have been if they had limited the size of their families? Probaby not.
Were their children wanted? Well, the best way to put it was that all their children were accepted, and a given based on their religious beliefs.
Just about all their oldest kids were always in some kind of trouble, both the boys and the girls. One boy I knew was arrested by the time he was 14 years old and still in elementary school. Another girl got pregnant when she was 14. Yes, she had the baby and Grandma had to raise it along with her 6 kids.
Both parents had to work and the oldest siblings had to become substitute Mommy and Daddy. They resented that, and most rebelled against it. In my work I have also seen this today with the large families I have know.
It is not just abortion alone. If these families had fewer children, perhaps they could have given them more individual ATTENTION they so much wanted, and not forced them to become adults when they were still children themselves.
submitted for your approval: that for every Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin aborted, we also abort one Einstein, Mother Teresa, etc.
The corresponding drop in crime and crimes against humanity offsets a good or good to humanity. It's relatively easy to measure a drop in crime and it's really hard to measure the drop in a good to humanity.
No, your births were unintended. Once you were conceived, your parents, by your own description, provided a loving home for you. That means you were wanted.
In the US, about half of all pregnancies are unintended:
Since no one is forced to have an abortion, there is no way to "manipulate the gene pool."
There is also no "pro-abortion push." Advocating legal abortion in no way implies pushing someone to have one, only that the option is kept available for the individual woman to choose.
What those who would re-criminalize abortion want to forget is that abortions were going on before Roe v. Wade. They were difficult to obtain, expensive, and medically risky. Illegal abortions accounted for a significant portion of maternal deaths and a significant proportion of those were nonwhite women. Women who survived an illegal abortion complication were often left infertile.
The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by providing our children with education about human reproduction and access to reliable methods of contraception. This is made difficult by the push from those who believe just about every contraceptive available is somehow an abortifacient and those who try to block access to contraceptives through group insurance.
The same party that supported eugenics back in the 20's was responsible for legalizing abortion. I submit that people knew full well that minorities and poor whites would take advantage of it more then elite. It's simple math, the less Minority/PWT births the less Minorities/PWT there are to continue breeding. The same correlation is used to reduce crime. The less people born who are prone to crime the less crime. Numbers don't lie! I'm actually kind of ambivalent on the Abortion issue it doesn't effect me. My correlation may be a stretch but to deny the stats is disingenuous at the least.
Also, once again, whether or not legalized abortion reduces the crime rate appears to be a red herring in regards to the question of whether or not abortion is morally justifiable.
I didn't have the time this morning to read every link. However, I have much respect for the Economist as a publication (I subscribed for 3 years). So, I read the article. The article doesn't particularly dispute Levitt and Dubner's conclusion that legalized abortion lowered the crime rate. Rather, it expresses skepticism and presents other viewpoints.
What I personally find convincing about Levitt and Dubner's conclusion is the following:
1. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973.
2. The crime rate in the USA began to drop noticeably in 1994, when the first fetuses aborted would have been about 20 to 21 years of age (peak ages of criminality).
3. The drop in crime was across the board. You could chart a small, but steady decline in virtually every category of both violent and non-violent crime that has persisted from 1994 to present.
4. Crime statistics have never shown a reversal of this trend since 1994.
5. Other factors which are alleged to have caused a decrease in the crime rate (such as minimum mandatory prison sentences) had been in place in many places long before 1994 and crime continued to increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adams_aj
submitted for your approval: that for every Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin aborted, we also abort one Einstein, Mother Teresa, etc.
The corresponding drop in crime and crimes against humanity offsets a good or good to humanity. It's relatively easy to measure a drop in crime and it's really hard to measure the drop in a good to humanity.
Its the rare child born in ghetto who becomes an Albert Einstein. Einstein himself was born to what I would describe as upper middle class parents in Germany. Einstein's father was head of an electric company. I looked up Mother Teresa and not much seems to be known about her early life. What was mentioned is that her father was a politician. I would submit that the vast majority of famous and influential people stand on the shoulders of parents who had above average accomplishments in life. The idea of "eugenics" or only breeding people with certain genes is a fallacious argument. Environment is a critical influence. Part of the formula for success in life is inheriting a good environment.
I don't think a world could or should be created where only the wealthy and bright are permitted to breed. However, that isn't the issue. The issue is allowing women who do not believe they can be good parents or who do not want to be parents to terminate their pregnancies.
Last edited by markg91359; 05-05-2014 at 08:52 AM..
It's not my business what a woman choses to do and there are no shortage of humans on earth and never will be. It does seem though that many criminals (not all) come from rough upbringings and/or poor families. Being around negative upbringing could make a person have less value on human life leading to careless acts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
