Abortion: A reflection of society

From Cal Thomas on Townhall.com, today:

sc.jpg

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down state laws restricting abortion, the cost of that decision continues to increase our moral deficit, which will have far greater (and eternal) consequences than the impact from economic challenges during a possible recession.

Depending on how one counts the number of abortions per year since 1973, more than 50 million people who might have been are not. These were people who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world. But now they cannot, because they are not. Would we be fighting the battle over immigration had we not rid ourselves of a generation of humans who likely would have done the work for which we are now importing illegal aliens? Actions have consequences....

(Continue reading on page 2)

[HT: proofreader Angela; photo courtesy of Townhall.com]

Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took the question of endowment of life by "our Creator" and placed it in the hands of individuals. History has shown what happens when humanity seizes such power for itself: political dictatorships, eugenics and scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code. Each becomes her and his own god; each becomes a taker of life, rather than a giver, inverting the creation model into one of destruction and transforming the pregnant woman from life-giver to life-taker.

The social restructuring unleashed by the judicial fiat that was Roe created a cultural fissure that remains today. We moved quickly from acknowledgement of a right to live, to assertions of a right to die....

Abortion on demand cannot be seen in isolation from social breakdown....

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation.

In recent years there have been signs that things may be - if not turning around - then moderating. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortion numbers have declined steadily since 1990, from a high of 1.2 million annually to fewer than 900,000. This is due, I believe, to the unrelenting commitment of the pro-life movement through pregnancy help centers, information by Internet, marches and what appears to be a growing pro-life consensus among many women who reject the cavalier attitudes about life displayed by their mothers' feminist generation.

Hollywood has infused a pro-life subplot into films such as "Juno" and "Knocked Up." Might the "old-fashioned" become the new fashion?

After 35 years of slaughtering our young, isn't it time to stop? That child born in 1973 could be a parent now. There are children who could have been born today. Thirty-five years of killing has diminished and corrupted us all....


Comments:

He's relying on a report from the CDC???? And I thought he was smart.

Let's see. When the numbers of abortion per year started to decrease California stopped reporting to the CDC. Before that, California was responsible for over 17% of abortions in America.

Let's see. Reporting anything relating to abortion is all voluntary. No clinic is federally required to report any numbers, nor do they have to report all numbers. If you read the CDC Abortion Survellience reports you will find out that they do not guarentee there numbers because of inaccurate reporting by the states.

No one, and I mean not one person, knows the number of abortions. The two abortion clinics in NJ that were temporarity shut down last year (I think one did close) - do you really think they reported correctly? They didn't even know how to properly sterilize their equipment nor did they know how to mop under the surgical tables. How could they have possibly known how to properly record their numbers?

Planned Parenthood is fighting being an Ambulatory Surgical Center. Beyond the fact that they would have to make the doorways larger in order to comply with the states fire code standards of buildings ; they would be required by the state to accurately report their statistics. hmm....

They may claim that abortion numbers are down - did they notice that the morning after pill had record breaking sales last year? Did they also notice that there is a difference in reporting surgical abortion and medical ones? Were the medical abortions included? oh yea, we don't know because reporting on abortion is not regulated nor required.

I do have to say that I agree with the concept of the article....I just disagree with the fact that abortion is down. Our immorality is causing evolution to go backwards. We are becomming more like the beast who has no self control over their actions.

Posted by: valerie at January 18, 2008 7:37 AM


Immigration would still be a big deal, had the Roe decision not occurred. Heck, might even be a bigger issue, what with more people already here.

Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2008 7:53 AM


or, there might not be many more people. Abortion delays the age a woman has children, but she ends up having about the same number anyway. And, even if abortion were illegal, many would still seek them. And, if you guys are right and easy access to abortion makes people have "illicit" sex more (whatever that is), then many of these pregnancies may never have happened. This whole argument that legal abortion is taking away too much of our population is silly.

Be against abortion because it "murders babies," if you want. But the "we don't have enough people in this country" argument doesn't make much sense.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2008 8:57 AM


Well, then who was the person responding to the jokes, who was the one responding to the command to open her eyes? If you can't open the other video, then try this link instead:

http://www.terrisfight.org/pages.php?page_id=37
Who was that laughing at the jokes? Someone else? No, it was Terri.

Bethany, still the same error message. I'm at work, and I'll try again later when at home. Even if there is the appearance of consciousness in 2002, the feeding tube was pulled in 2005, so that is the time I would focus on, especially given the autopsy.

Indeed - our legal system has plenty of flaws, but there are still two sides to this story.
......

If there was any doubt, why in the world would you take a chance on causing her to suffer for 14 days!

As before, if she had said that she didn't want to be kept alive in such circumstances, beforehand, I would go with her wishes, despite what you see as suffering for 14 days.
......

By the way, you haven't answered how come you are not nearly as open to hearing the other side about CPC's...you're ready and willing to condemn them over simple accusations from the other side, which are completely unsubstantiated. Yet, you want us to give Michael Schiavo a break. Give ME a break.

I haven't given up on the CPCs, B. Apparently some have been sued, but I want to find our what for, and what the results were. If Michael Schiavo was doing what Terri had originally said she wanted done, then you don't need a break and I think he was doing right.

I would not want to be kept alive like that.

Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2008 9:31 AM


Hal: Abortion delays the age a woman has children, but she ends up having about the same number anyway.

Hal, I certainly did not know that. Where did you get that info?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2008 9:32 AM


Awesome article, Jill. You bring up several good points I had not thought about. You stay on the very edge of the issue and I admire your courage to stand up and print the truth-however ugly it is! I stand with you and wanted to tell you keep up the good work!
They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. Revelation 12:11

Posted by: Carla at January 18, 2008 9:35 AM


I haven't given up on the CPCs, B. Apparently some have been sued, but I want to find our what for, and what the results were.

I would like to know that too, Doug.

If you ever happen to find any lawsuits filed against CPCs which were won, let me know.

Until then, we'll agree that there is nothing wrong with CPC's and that they are a good place for women to go to hear the alternatives to abortion, and to have access to multiple resources for pregnant women and mothers.

Unless you still consider them to be what you said they were - places where women are coerced, brainwashed, lied to, etc.... without having substantial evidence, that is.

Posted by: Bethany at January 18, 2008 9:40 AM


Doug:

4) When a woman gets an abortion, for the most part it is not changing the total number of children she has; rather, it is shifting the timing so those births come later in life. This is an important fact to remember. One in four pregnancies ends in abortion and this has been true for 30 years in the U.S. But the impact of abortion on the overall birth rate has been quite small.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/bill-bennett-and-freakonomics/

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2008 9:56 AM


"Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took the question of endowment of life by "our Creator" and placed it in the hands of individuals. History has shown what happens when humanity seizes such power for itself: political dictatorships, eugenics and scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code. Each becomes her and his own god; each becomes a taker of life, rather than a giver, inverting the creation model into one of destruction and transforming the pregnant woman from life-giver to life-taker. "


so True.

Posted by: jasper at January 18, 2008 10:03 AM


Hal,

If you hadn't aborted 2 of your children, and allowed them to be born, would you still have had the other two? Or was two your "limit"..

Because 2 + 2 makes four. So you would have had four children...

Posted by: mk at January 18, 2008 10:18 AM


Carla, thank you and amen... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 18, 2008 10:27 AM


MK, I think we would have stopped at two.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2008 10:42 AM


"Abortion delays the age a woman has children, but she ends up having about the same number anyway."

Some problems with this statement:

1) This statement assumes that a woman can get pregnant at will.

2) It doesn't explain the fact that thousands of dollars are spent by women each year on fertility treatments because they can't have the children they want.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2008 11:45 AM


Anonymous --

1. The vast majority of women can get pregnant at will.

2. What does fertility treatment have to do with the price of tea in China? Infertility has always existed. Now we know how to treat it, when in decades past we did not. So what?

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 12:06 PM


50 Million missing people is nothing to sniff at. What these people could have contributed to a country, the discoveries that will never be, the future children that are not, the real cost will never be known in this life. To say that these people would have been unwanted and therefore noncontributors or mostly negative contribtors to society is not valid. We don't know what may have come about.
My mother became pregnant with a baby less than 3 months after I was born. Because she had a heart condition, every doctor she saw recommended she abort. My brother, that baby years ago, is now a meteorologist and is my kids fav uncle! God had a plan, but my parents couldn't see it at the time and the doctors most certainly couldn't.
But, it's not only abortion that has diminished us all. The mother of abortion, contraception has played an even greater role in destroying our culture and society.
Take a look at all the empty schools and school buses - there are 3 schools empty in my little rural town. Those are all the children couples decided not to have. The kindergarten class last year had 18 students in it, this year it has 8. We are a culture of dealth. We will NEVER win this culture war until people ditch contraception. In fact it's so politically incorrect to discuss this option, that we are even willing to poison our environment with tons and tons of estrogens. We don't care about our bodies, our culture, our environment, so long as we can indulge in our lust.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 12:08 PM


Cal Thomas makes me laugh:

Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took the question of endowment of life by "our Creator" and placed it in the hands of individuals. History has shown what happens when humanity seizes such power for itself: political dictatorships, eugenics and scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code.

What a load of horse-shit. 35 years after Roe and Doe, the US is not a dictatorship, doesn't practice eugenics and doesn't allow unlimited scientific experimentation. Clearly, morality doesn't collapse from women receiving human rights.

The decision whether or not to have a child rightly belongs with individual women, not the government acting on behalf of some mythical "Creator" that can't speak for itself and is accountable to no one.

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 12:21 PM


What planet do you live on reality? Doesn't practice eugenics? When we can abort a child for a cleft palate, club foot, Down's syndrome, or because it's a girl.
No scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code? Really, when we have chimeras being created, embryo research.
Dictatorship? When you have media that routinely reports only one side of life issues and really never wants to get to the bottom of an issue. Governments that beat protestors, jail them, question them if they PRAY (God we can't have them doing THAT), force doctors to prescribe medications against their conscience, make abortion training mandatory in med school, pay off politicians to look the other way while they break the laws....
Better get another moniker, yours isn't very accurate.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 12:37 PM


Patricia --

Take a look at all the empty schools and school buses - there are 3 schools empty in my little rural town. Those are all the children couples decided not to have. The kindergarten class last year had 18 students in it, this year it has 8. We are a culture of dealth.

Sounds like you need to get out of that little town. All the schools around here are busting at the seams. The local school district has had to build four new elementary schools in just the past 10 years, and all of them have portable buildings to house the overflow of students.

The US population is not in decline, and the US birth rate is the highest it's been in decades.

We will NEVER win this culture war until people ditch contraception.

NO, THANKS! Having more kids before I can afford them would be irresponsible, and a disservice to the child I already have.

In fact it's so politically incorrect to discuss this option, that we are even willing to poison our environment with tons and tons of estrogens.

Oh for chrissake, environmental estrogen pollution doesn't come from women using birth control:

http://www.worldandi.com/public/2001/October/ee.html

Over the past 10 years, many synthetic compounds and plant products present in the environment have been found to affect hormonal functions in various ways. Those that have estrogenic activity have been labeled as environmental estrogens, ecoestrogens, estrogen mimics, or xenoestrogens (xenos means foreign). Some arise as artifacts during the manufacture of plastics and other synthetic materials. Others are metabolites (breakdown products) generated from pesticides or steroid hormones used to stimulate growth in livestock. Ecoestrogens that are produced naturally by plants are called phytoestrogens (phyton means plant).

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 12:46 PM


When we can abort a child for a cleft palate, club foot, Down's syndrome, or because it's a girl.

That's not eugenics. Eugenics is akin to dog breeding: weeding out unfavorable heritable traits from the gene pool. Not a single one of the things you've listed are inheritable traits. Cleft palate, club foot, Down's syndrome and femaleness will always exist, no matter how legal abortion is. Nobody is forced to abort imperfect fetuses in the US.

No scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code? Really, when we have chimeras being created, embryo research.

Nothing unethical here.

Governments that beat protestors, jail them, question them if they PRAY, blah blah blah

Oh please. What a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 12:57 PM


My experience mirrors almost all countries in the west except the US.
The US is the only western country that has recently returned to a replacement level of 2.1 children /woman -- BARELY
I live in Canada and our birth rate is at 1.3. We've had abortion and a more liberal society than the US. Our culture is dying. The French-Catholic culture in Quebec has been decimated for years.
As for the number of kids, I be willing to bet that if most people took a good hard look at their lives and what they have, they'd be better of with a few less toys and few more kids. After all the toys break you know.....
Estrogens in the drinking water of cities does not come from breakdown of plastics and so forth. Most of this estrogen comes from women on BC who pee the excess out. You cannot have a city with a sizable population of BC using women and tell me that this will not affect the environment.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 1:04 PM


Reality get a new moniker - you really need it.
You need a few other things too, but I'm too polite to list them.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 1:05 PM


Being Catholic is not a genetic trait either, but the Nazi's didn't mind including them in their eugenics program to improve the Aryan race.
Eugenics is the elimination of any feature considered undesirable. From a Finnish study,
"Only very few, pediatricians somewhat more often, thought that Down's syndrome is not a good enough reason for pregnancy termination, but more (15-21%) thought that current prenatal screenings in general are (partly) based on EUGENIC thinking."
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102237093.html

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 1:15 PM


Patricia --

As for the number of kids, I be willing to bet that if most people took a good hard look at their lives and what they have, they'd be better of with a few less toys and few more kids.

Not likely. Most people would be better off putting their extra money in to savings and investments that build interest. "Just have more kids" adds an enormous financial burden to a household without any guaranteed return on the investment: kids can die, grow up to be losers, rip you off, stick you in a home and leave you for dead, etc.

Estrogens in the drinking water of cities does not come from breakdown of plastics and so forth.

Yes, they do. They come from the manufacture of plastics, from pesticides and from steroids used in livestock production. You can't look at the billions of tons of estrogen-mimicking plastics in our environment, and the millions of gallons of estrogen-mimicking pesticide sprayed on acres and acres of farm land, and point the finger at teeny tiny birth control pills for polluting the environment. That's dumb as hell.

Birth control pills contain only enough estrogen to fool the body in to thinking it is pregnant. If everyone stopped taking the pill and started getting pregnant a lot more, you'd still have about the same amount of estrogen coming out in their pee.

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 1:31 PM


Patrica, thank you! :) You are awesome.

Posted by: Bethany at January 18, 2008 1:31 PM


Patricia --

Nobody is forced to abort undesirable fetuses in the US. Therefore, there is no eugenics program going on in the US.

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 1:36 PM


Anonymous at 11:45 was me. Sorry

Reality 12:06 PM,

It has a lot to do "with the price of tea in China" - I love that phrase. Here's why,

I was responding to Hal's post at 9:56 AM.

I stand by my statement that woman cannot get pregnant by will. Sure, she can take the necessary steps, but it's not guaranteed, by a long shot. I know married, middle-aged women who are childless, not by choice. I had trouble getting pregnant after getting married but I finally did after 15 months. I learned you can't take it for granted that a baby will come when you want one We should stop perpetuating that myth. It hurts women to send the message that they can have an abortion now, because they can always have kids later.

The use of fertility treatments is evidence that many women who are delaying their childbearing years are NOT getting pregnant naturally, as they wish.

CHILDREN ARE A GIFT FROM GOD, EACH AND EVERY ONE.

Posted by: Anonymous2 at January 18, 2008 1:40 PM


It has a lot to do "with the price of tea in China" - I love that phrase.

Me too! :D

I stand by my statement that woman cannot get pregnant by will. Sure, she can take the necessary steps, but it's not guaranteed, by a long shot.

Obviously it's not guaranteed, but it's not a long shot at all. 85% of couples become pregnant within the first year of unprotected sex.

It hurts women to send the message that they can have an abortion now, because they can always have kids later.

Nobody is sending that message, though. Most people know that fertility fades with age, but that doesn't mean we should have kids way before we're ready for them.

The use of fertility treatments is evidence that many women who are delaying their childbearing years are NOT getting pregnant naturally, as they wish.

No, it doesn't. Assisted reproduction is a brand new field of medicine -- of course more people are using it!

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 1:57 PM


(Un)Reality:
There are numerous studies that have proven a link between contraceptive estrogen and hormone problems and some cancers. Studies by your country's EPA have shown fish caught downstream from storm sewer effluent have a range of sex organ problems including transgendered features. Populations are predominantly female with very few males. The University of Pittsburgh has found similar effects in wildlife studied adjacent to city sewage runoff. EPA scientists who tried to get the mainstream media to pick up on their bizarre results which they related to contraceptive estrogen effects were blown off. WHY? Because it's not politically correct. Plastics take years to leach estrogen compounds, but a woman peeing out estrogen is pretty much real time.
As for women using fertility treatments most are women who have delayed childbearing too late I believe this is EXACTLY what's happening. There has been a myth out for some time now, at least the last 30 years or so, that states a woman can have children EVENTUALLY. However, a woman is most fertile in her twenties, and by the age of 35 her fertility will have declined substantially. Some doctors are now telling women that if they want to have children, sooner is better than later. Added to this is the highly promiscous behaviour these women often engage in which results in chronic STI's rendering a woman's open reproductive system scarred permanently. In fact, it has recently been determined that it is not the STI that causes the infertility problem but the fact that in some women a chronic cycle of infection is set up. In addition to this it has been demonstrated that the contraceptive pill predisposes women to these kinds of infections. The reason this is so is not fully understood at this time.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 2:14 PM


"Nobody is forced to abort undesirable fetuses in the US. Therefore, there is no eugenics program going on in the US." (Un)Reality

No, but more and more pressure is placed on women to have a baby with problems "terminated". The fact that a couple can make the decision to abort a baby with a "defect" shows a shocking "eugenics" mentality. The fact that so many do so now, shows that this mentality has taken strong root in our culture.
In fact, in Canada, all pregnant women are now being advised to have a test for Down's Syndrome. I'm not that naive to believe that this is done so that doctors can actually HELP the unborn baby (which they can't) or prepare the parents for it's birth. Instead, its merely another aspect of the search and destroy mentality.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 2:23 PM


Reality,

I think there IS a message out there that says "you can have an abortion now because you can always have kids later." It's subtle, but it's there.

Sex ed programs that ignore the abstinence message are basically saying that if you're going to have sex, use birth control, and you'll be "fine". FINE. Then when things aren't "fine" and the girl becomes pregnant, she says, "I didn't think it could happen to ME". She is put into a situation that she's not ready for and now society tells her she has a choice between having the baby or aborting. Neither choice is one a young girl who's not ready to raise a child should have to make. All of a sudden promoting birth control to teens doesn't seem like such a good idea.

Fertility treatments, or "assisted reproduction" as you call it, are used by women who are not getting pregnant on their own naturally, as they wish. My point was that the total number of births might be lowered instead of being shifted as described in Hal's post because of the fact that the fertile years were lost.

Posted by: Anonymous2 at January 18, 2008 3:04 PM


Patricia,

Excellent posts! Sorry for making the same point as you on the fertility treatments, I should have read the latest posts before posting mine.

Posted by: Anonymous2 at January 18, 2008 3:20 PM


Governments that beat protestors, jail them, question them if they PRAY, blah blah blah

Oh please. What a bunch of nonsense.
------------------------------------------
Liar. This view of "reality" is distorted & full of crap as an August day in Georgia is hot.

Posted by: reality czech at January 18, 2008 3:37 PM


Hey, Anon2 apparently it has to be repeated at LEAST TWICE because some people just don't get it! NO problemo!

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 3:47 PM


Patricia, are you also aware that in various cases, mistakes have been made claiming that fish have switched gender, when infact they have not? DNA markers have turned out to be false leads for some fish, etc.

However, it does seem every article i pull up that mentions it has happened does in fact blame the chemicals in PLASTICS, not birth control

Posted by: Dan at January 18, 2008 3:50 PM


Patricia:

Take a look at all the empty schools and school buses - there are 3 schools empty in my little rural town. Those are all the children couples decided not to have. The kindergarten class last year had 18 students in it, this year it has 8. We are a culture of dealth.

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking? I think this is a geographical issue, not an abortion issue. My boyfriend grew up in a small Kentucky town an hour or so away from Louisville. His town, and most of the towns nearby, are losing population -- to re-locating, not to abortion. If I had to speculate, I'd put a lot of money betting that fewer people abort their unplanned pregnancies in his county than in many others. But people who can choose to leave frequently do. By contrast, the schools of the small upstate New York town that I grew up in, and the three nearest counties, are all stuffed with kids.

I think your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold up, especially since the areas that are statistically losing population and actually shutting down their schools in some cases are not the areas with higher abortion rates.

Posted by: Alexandra at January 18, 2008 5:14 PM


Hal, you wrote,

Abortion delays the age a woman has children, but she ends up having about the same number anyway.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2008 8:57 AM

At first I thought this notion was plausible but as I looked at the numbers, I started to doubt it. Women who have ever had an abortion have fewer children than women who have never had an abortion. Women who have ever had an abortion have a 30% higher breast cancer incidence and researchers attribute it to the fact that they have fewer children and those children are born to them later in life on average.

So demographically speaking, I don't think what you are saying is demonstrably true.

The evidence points the other way.

Posted by: hippie at January 18, 2008 9:37 PM



Nobody is forced to abort undesirable fetuses in the US. Therefore, there is no eugenics program going on in the US.

Posted by: reality at January 18, 2008 1:36 PM

No one is forced to listen to rap music
Therefore no one is promoting rap music in the US.

We definitely have OB doctors with a eugenic mindset who tell patients they should abort. Patients aren't forced but they are pressured. If you don't think a woman can stand up to a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center, do you think she will go against her doctor's advice?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 18, 2008 9:50 PM


Alexandra
I live in Canada and schools are empty here. The small town I live in had 4 elementary schools and one large high school, 9 years ago. We now have 2 schools, both elementary. The average class size is about 23. But the younger grades are smaller and smaller each year. In fact where I live a major supplier of school buses just closed its factory. About 3 years ago they retooled the plant to make smaller buses since the large ones were driving around 3/4 empty. The plant closed this past year. The bottom line is that we can't find enough workers to man our factories. Our schools are emptying and we have a glut of teachers here. There are about 100 teachers for every kids in the province of Ontario. Our population demographics are becoming an inverted pyramid. I've discouraged my daughters from becoming teachers because there simply won't BE anyone to teach in 15 years time.
As I said earlier, our birth rate in Canada is 1.3 - well below replacement level. Immigration is offseting that somewhat but most of these people are going to the large cities such as Toronto,Vancouver etc.
Abortions in my province peaked in 1995 with just over 46,000 and average around 37,000. In the 24 years from 1979 to 2003 there were roughly 840,000 children aborted. From 1970 on the number is well over 1 million for Ontario alone. You cannot tell me that these missing children would have had negligible effect on the economy of the province. 1 million people in America may not be such a big hairy deal but in a more sparsely populated country such as Canada the effect is likely to be substantial.

Posted by: Patricia at January 18, 2008 10:10 PM


If you don't think a woman can stand up to a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center, do you think she will go against her doctor's advice?

Posted by: Bethany at January 19, 2008 6:22 AM


"Women who have ever had an abortion have fewer children than women who have never had an abortion."

That's not the correct comparison. You have to compare the the number of children of women to had abortion to the number THOSE women would have had without access to abortion. If those numbers are about the same, abortion doesn't have much effect on population (there would be some effect, of course)

The women who never had an abortion would have about the same number or children regardless of abortion laws.

Posted by: Hal at January 19, 2008 1:33 PM


"If I had to speculate, I'd put a lot of money betting that fewer people abort their unplanned pregnancies in his county than in many others."

No, this country is actually worse than most countries. It would be alot worse too if it wasn't for CPC's and other pro-life programs.

Posted by: jasper at January 19, 2008 8:32 PM


CounTY, Jasper, not counTRY. :P

Posted by: Lyssie at January 19, 2008 9:25 PM


When a woman gets an abortion, for the most part it is not changing the total number of children she has; rather, it is shifting the timing so those births come later in life. This is an important fact to remember. One in four pregnancies ends in abortion and this has been true for 30 years in the U.S. But the impact of abortion on the overall birth rate has been quite small.

Hal, thanks for the source and the quote. My high school class was 1977, and at the time a few girls were getting married and right to having kids, but the majority didn't want to do that - they wanted time on their own or not with kids, anyway.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 10:29 AM


with the price of tea in China?

I thought it was "the price of rice.."

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 10:31 AM


I think there IS a message out there that says "you can have an abortion now because you can always have kids later." It's subtle, but it's there.

Well good grief, I hope so. For some girls/women, a given time is most certainly not a good time to have kids, and here's to them not having them until later if that's what they want.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 10:34 AM


Patricia: Estrogens in the drinking water of cities does not come from breakdown of plastics and so forth. Most of this estrogen comes from women on BC who pee the excess out.

Around these parts we don't pee into our drinking water.

Well, there was that one time when Bubba Roy was really drunk up by the dam....

Posted by: Doug at January 21, 2008 10:39 AM