The Netherlands has an abortion rate around a quarter that of the United States. The teen abortion rate is one seventh that of the US. (South Dakota's reported abortion rate is also remarkably low, nearly the same as the Netherlands' rate, although the
Guttmacher Institute notes that it's hard to be certain about the SD number, since it doesn't include the number of SD women who go out of state for abortions.) How do the Dutch do it? I suspect kicking out the Puritans four centuries ago might have helped. But research shows the reduced abortion rates actually come from starting further up the problem stream and reducing unwanted pregnancies, not by scaring, demonizing or punishing women, but by good old
education and empowerment. The Dutch don't pontificate; they just
solve the problem. Instead of just restricting abortion and then patting themselves on the back for being so darned moral, the Dutch educate their people, reduce abortion, and get other public health benefits -- less teen sex, lower STD rates, and fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to boot. Think about that when you vote on Tuesday.
This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
"But research shows the reduced abortion rates actually come from starting further up the problem stream and reducing unwanted pregnancies, not by scaring, demonizing or punishing women, but by good old education and empowerment."
ReplyDelete1) Do you really think that when a state decides that casual abortions are irresponsible behavior, that that decision amounts to "demonizing or punishing women"? Do you view laws against insurance fraud as demonizing and punishing doctors?
2) What's wrong with implementing both a law against casual abortions and offering more education on the subject? Voting Yes on 6 isn't mutually exclusive with sex education.
3) Puritans? Seriously? Let me see a citation for that claim?
Cory is correct. The places with the worst problems are the places with the highest teen pregnancy levels (which by the way has never gone down because of sex ed classes or abstinence only classes...at least not significantly so.) The solution is Education in the form of extra-curricular activities at school and empowernent at home by a family that gives a sense of being valued and wanted and doesn't sexualize their children. But I'm sure that's what he meant :)
ReplyDeleteNone of which addresses what to do when pregnancy happens in spite of it. But hey, those people that believe to the soles of their feet that the immortal human soul is born at conception are just demonizing women. They should just give up and recognize the benefits to society that allowing those murders provides......I don't agree with the Pro-Life position but I give them respect for their beliefs. If there is ever to be a resolving of this issue than both sides need to understand that.
Phaedrus says, "teen pregnancy levels (which by the way has never gone down because of sex ed classes or abstinence only classes...at least not significantly so.)"
ReplyDeleteUm, read the linked articles. This isn't just speculation about Puritans (though there may be something there, David!) Sex ed, coupled with access to reliable contraception, gets the job done.
Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the US -- Why the Difference?
Contraception in the Netherlands: The Low Abortion Rate Explained
The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide
David: If Lesley Unruh were serious about offering more education on the subject, she would be promoting a sex ed measure right alongside Referred Law 6. Instead, we get the moralizing and demonizing. It's there. You yourself have suggested it, saying your position is based not on a desire to protect life but to punish women for behaving irresponsibly. See also Katha Pollitt's "Prochoice Puritans" for more comment on the anti-abortion mindset and the lack of will to create real working solutions.
ReplyDelete"David: If Lesley Unruh were serious about offering more education on the subject, she would be promoting a sex ed measure right alongside Referred Law 6."
ReplyDeleteI expect that she is a reasonable person (she's the mother of Melita's boss), and we could talk to her about the Netherland statistics. Certainly if her desire is to decrease unwanted pregnancies, sexual diseases, and misinformation, she should be open to sex ed. Maybe that's step 2 if we can actually pass referred law 6.
"Instead, we get the moralizing and demonizing. It's there. You yourself have suggested it, saying your position is based not on a desire to protect life but to punish women for behaving irresponsibly."
Whoa, buddy. I never once said that I wanted to "punish" women. I never (even in my mind) demonized them. Are we searching for the truth or propagandizing a smeer campaign?
My position has always been that people need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. One of the consequences of sex (besides ensuring that your boyfriend will love you*) is that you have a chance at becoming pregnant. If you actually do become pregnant, that isn't punishment, but natural cause and effect. If you don't want to get pregnant, there are many ways to avoid it... one of which is to avoid sex.
Consider a person who leaves the sprinklers on continually at her house while she goes on vacation for a month. When she gets back, she'll have a large bill to pay. Is it "punishment" for the water company to insist that she pays that bill? Or is that a natural consequence of her actions?
I have always maintained that government's first principle is ensuring that its citizens act responsibly. That means if someone fails to make a car payment, the government allows the dealership to repossess... rather than nullifying the responsibility, and letting the negligent person keep the car. So too with abortion, as with just about every decent law in America. The government doesn't nullify a citizen's responsibility to accept the consequences of her action (except in the case of bankruptcy, which I view to be a legitimate exception... and the subject of a whole different thread).
To consider pregnancy as "punishment" reflects a profoundly unnatural philosophy: that the fruit of one's womb isn't to be thought of as a child, but as a parasite. It is only with that (I have to say it again) unnatural mindset that one can possibly consider it "punishment" to bear a pregnancy born in consensual sex. I don't know what else to say... it seems like self-evident depravity to confuse a tapeworm with your own son or daughter. Even an honest atheist Darwinist would hold offspring in a higher esteem.
Now as a Christian, I feel obliged to go a step further than I request of my government. I feel that any woman I encounter who had an abortion, should receive my full and unconditional love. I should welcome her into my home as a neighbor, talk with her, laugh with her, play games and eat dessert with her, and if neceesary, grieve with her about her loss (if she initiates conversation on the topic). And if she happened to bring up the subject and tell me that she had a right to do what she did, and has no regrets, I would probably just let the comment drop without further conversation. The last thing in the world I would do is judge or demonize her. That does absolutely no good (to either of us).
So what, Cory, is your position on abortion? I want to hear it all fleshed out and in the open. Do you consider it responsible for men and women to hook up in a bar, have a one-night stand, and then pull out arms, legs, and beating hearts three weeks later because they misused their condom? Is that responsible behavior? Is the child of an unwanted pregnancy really no different from a parasite? Is a fetus ever a human before the borning cry, subject to its own rights? Do you wish that there were fewer than 800 abortions in SD each year? What is your ideal number? What do you think should be done to get to that number?
In my experience, pro-choice people are always reluctant to state their true honest beliefs without waffling and hand-waving. My guess is that Southern slave-owners had the same predicament.
"See also Katha Pollitt's "Prochoice Puritans" for more comment on the anti-abortion mindset and the lack of will to create real working solutions."
It's the word "Puritan" that I find comical. CS Lewis wrote as senior devil Screwtape, instructing junior tempters that whenever they needed their 'patients' to commit some sin in the modern era, they could rely on mocking a patient's conscience as being merely "Puritan", "conventional", or "bourgeoisie" morality. That those three words had been hand-picked as triggers to give patients an instant adverse reaction to what is almost always plainly decent and right.
*Note: Just kidding.
"I expect that she [Leslee Unruh] is a reasonable person (she's the mother of Melita's boss), and we could talk to her about the Netherland statistics. Certainly if her desire is to decrease unwanted pregnancies, sexual diseases, and misinformation, she should be open to sex ed. Maybe that's step 2 if we can actually pass referred law 6."
ReplyDeleteOh, David, please, please do. Whether Ref. Law 6 passes tomorrow or not, please forward Mrs. Unruh our blog conversation. Please suggest she turn some of her political capital toward this further step, a comprehensive Netherlands-style sex education program, that will help keep women from facing the despair of abortion and unwanted pregnancy. And let me know what she says. (If she agrees with us, I will fall out of my chair.)
I see all these rave reviews on the Dutch perspective however I have found it difficult to find anything pointing to what the rates were before they were doing it. I don't see how it proves the effectiveness of a program to show how low teen pregnancy is after the program if it was just as low before it even started. Since 1980 the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the Netherlands actually sextupled, from a low 5 percent to 25 percent of all births. At the same time the overall birth rate has continued to drop down to around 1.3%. Other European countries have similar problems of a shrinking population excluding immigration (often of people hostile to the established culture / government) The evaluation of success should also include all of the consequences, not just the convenient ones.
ReplyDeleteBesides which it leaves unanswered why the proliferation of these classes has done so little. Even if I took all the date from the advocatesforyouth site at face value the problem still remains. It didn't fix it and it is still only moderately less bad. I think it only improved because of fear of AIDS anyway.
So what, Cory, is your position on abortion? I want to hear it all fleshed out and in the open. Do you consider it responsible for men and women to hook up in a bar, have a one-night stand, and then pull out arms, legs, and beating hearts three weeks later because they misused their condom? Is that responsible behavior? Is the child of an unwanted pregnancy really no different from a parasite? Is a fetus ever a human before the borning cry, subject to its own rights? Do you wish that there were fewer than 800 abortions in SD each year? What is your ideal number? What do you think should be done to get to that number?
ReplyDeleteA little Google-searching will produce some interesting articles on Leslee Unruh's position on sex ed and the morning-after pill....
ReplyDeleteQuestions, questions...
ReplyDelete"So what, Cory, is your position on abortion?"
--safe, legal, and rare
"Do you consider it responsible for men and women to hook up in a bar, have a one-night stand, and then pull out arms, legs, and beating hearts three weeks later because they misused their condom?"
--irresponsible behavior, yes... but I'm not going to stand at the clinic door and require people to answer under oath whether they use a condom properly or anything else about their sexual behavior. I'm certainly not going to subject a rape victim to that question. If we want real responsibility rather than fearful obedience, there are some matters we have to leave to individual conscience. My respect for privacy keeps me out of other people's sexual choices (or the choices forced upon them by others).
"Is the child of an unwanted pregnancy really no different from a parasite?"
They are different, but the mother is still being asked to place her body in the service of another human being. Given some of the cruel circumstances under which that service might be forced upon her, I am willing to leave that choice to the woman, not the state or the lying moralizers who would hijack our legislative process to push their personal agenda (an agenda their churches apparently are not strong enough to push on their own).
"Is a fetus ever a human before the borning cry, subject to its own rights?"
One problem is that the question has not been resolved to a level of consensus that warrants state involvement.
"Do you wish that there were fewer than 800 abortions in SD each year?"
Yes.
"What is your ideal number?"
0.
"What do you think should be done to get to that number?"
Policies that actually work rather than make moralizers feel good about themselves. Reread the posts for details.
Thanks for answering my questions... I have one more, though, after reading your answers.
ReplyDeleteSince you and I both think that abortions are bad and 0 is the ideal number, if it turned out that the Dutch stats were wrong (or somehow not applicable to our situation) and that sex ed does nothing in terms of decreasing the number of abortions in South Dakota. And furthermore, it is found that banning abortion does decrease that number significantly... (ie all your stats are wrong and all of Unruh's are right) would you then be in favor of a law banning abortion (with exceptions for rape and incest)?
Oh and one more: what's the flaw in the abortion ban + sex ed position? For some quirky reason both you and Unruh seem to think that these are mutually exclusive. I say hit the disease with both medicines... that truly seems like the most robust way to decrease abortions.
I guess I should post a follow-up just to make my first question (of those last 2) more clear. I'm trying to understand your priorities... is it either (A) reducing the number of abortions or (B) ensuring a right to choose?
ReplyDeleteIf the only way to achieve A was to deny B... would you be ok with that, or is there some ideological reason why you think we should never ever deny B?
David, I'll contribute my own answers to your questions when I manage a few minutes away from baby care, but for now, a question for you. If we should ban abortion, would you advocate mandatory vasectomies for all men who conceive unwanted children?
ReplyDelete"If we should ban abortion, would you advocate mandatory vasectomies for all men who conceive unwanted children?"
ReplyDeleteWell, what constitutes an unwanted child? For example, Melita and I are hoping that she won't become pregnant this year, even though we are fulfilling our Biblical marital duties to one another (with contraceptives). But these things aren't 100%, and she could become pregnant.
If she would, we would most certainly keep and raise the child to the best of our abilities... but would it still be considered an "unwanted child"? I'm assuming not.
So an unwanted child would have to be something more drastic... a child conceived out of irresponsible sex where neither participant wanted to be a parent, certainly couldn't afford to be a parent, probably aren't married, but had to have their 10 second orgasm nonetheless. If that's what we consider an "unwanted child", then yes, I can go along with you.
With privilege comes responsibility. If you fail to use the privilege of a car in a responsible manner the state revokes that privilege. So too with the privilege of semen? Sure. Makes sense to me. And that probably would help decrease the number of abortions... maybe the most effective solution offered so far.
Erin: "would you advocate mandatory vasectomies for all men who conceive unwanted children?"
ReplyDelete...I would advoacate mallet castration for men who father children and casually abondon their responsabilities.
Hi Cory and Erin,
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious about your answers to these questions:
"Since you and I both think that abortions are bad and 0 is the ideal number, if it turned out that the Dutch stats were wrong (or somehow not applicable to our situation) and that sex ed does nothing in terms of decreasing the number of abortions in South Dakota. And furthermore, it is found that banning abortion does decrease that number significantly... (ie all your stats are wrong and all of Unruh's are right) would you then be in favor of a law banning abortion (with exceptions for rape and incest)?
"Oh and one more: what's the flaw in the abortion ban + sex ed position? For some quirky reason both you and Unruh seem to think that these are mutually exclusive. I say hit the disease with both medicines... that truly seems like the most robust way to decrease abortions.
"I guess I should post a follow-up just to make my first question (of those last 2) more clear. I'm trying to understand your priorities... is it either (A) reducing the number of abortions or (B) ensuring a right to choose?
"If the only way to achieve A was to deny B... would you be ok with that, or is there some ideological reason why you think we should never ever deny B?"
David,
ReplyDeleteThe much too short (because it’s daughter’s naptime, and I’m supposed to be working right now) answer to your questions:
Question A: The first part of this question seems moot to me. The studies show over and over again that comprehensive sex ed works to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So let’s just set that whole bit aside. Your actual question is: Do you favor an abortion ban? No, I don’t support an abortion ban. I don’t believe the state can compel anyone to use his or her body to support the life of another human being.
Question B: Abortion ban + sex ed? My answer is above.
Question C: Priorities. I don’t think I need to prioritize these. I don’t believe we can criminalize abortion. I do believe abortion should be as rare a thing as possible. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to prioritize the two. Perhaps you can explain.
Question D: Again, my answer is above.
"I don’t believe we can criminalize abortion."
ReplyDeleteI believe this is basically the answer to all my questions. If you don't mind my asking... why not?
You talked in part about the government not being able to tell a woman what she can do with her body (not exactly those words, but that's the gist I picked up), yet the government already does have several laws criminalizing behavior between a person and her body:
1) She can't put heroin in her body.
2) She can't put antibiotics or morphine in her body without a doctor's permission.
3) She can't drive a car without putting a seat belt over her body.
4) She can't run out in public without clothes covering her body.
5) She can't use her body for prostitution.
6) A 17-year-old can't put a cigarette in her mouth. (A 20-year old can't put alcohol down her throat.)
7) A woman cannot use her body for sexual pleasure with a 15-year-old boy (or vice versa).
8) A teacher cannot use her body for sexual pleasure with a student.
9) No one can use their body to force sex upon another person.
10) Most schools won't allow students to wear clothes that reveal certain parts of their body.
11) Minors can't adorn their bodies with tattoos.
You get the drift...
With so many other restrictions on what a woman can do with her body (most of them being far less immoral than abortion, at least in my mind), I don't understand why someone who seems to have an equal desire of eliminating abortions wouldn't consider outright banning as part of the solution.
I'm not advocating that it's the end in and of itself... banning heroin certainly wasn't the end of heroin use. But it's a logical starting point. The original intention of law was to define what a society deems moral. So if you think abortion is immoral, then why not illegal?
Say hi to Cory and Katarzyna for us. We will be in Madison around Christmas... not sure what your plans are, but we would love to see you.
David,
ReplyDeleteWe would love to see you and Melita at Christmastime! Give us a call when you’re in Madison, and we’ll make sure to get together. Now onto the discussion at hand.
My reason for saying that I don’t believe we can criminalize abortion was stated in my response. I don’t believe the state can compel anyone to use his or her body to support the life of another human being. Notice that this is quite a different thing from saying that the government should not be able to tell a woman what she can do with her body. (And notice that I did not specify women alone in my response.) I completely agree that we are not free to do whatever we want with our bodies. We are free, however, (and should remain so) from being required to keep other people alive with the use of our bodies. At least we are since the abolition of slavery.
"I don’t believe the state can compel anyone to use his or her body to support the life of another human being."
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting sentence. Were I to read it outside the context of our discussion, it sounds like you mean that the gov can't force me to perform heroic feats for a fellow citizen... ie go in after a drowning child, attempt CPR on someone who's not breathing, etc. I'm not totally sure of the legality of crisis situations, but I know that sitting idly by can get you charged with co-conspiracy or negligence... so in a sense, I'm pretty sure that the government does force you to use your body to help save other people's lives in some situations.
And there are also laws about abandoning one's (born) child... each parent has a "duty of care" to fulfill. The government compels them to use their body to provide food and shelter.
Or we could talk about organ donation, and that sentence would maintain that such donations must be voluntary. Personally, mandatory organ donations has always been logical to me... but I understand that some religions consider it taboo, and don't care to press the issue.
Furthermore, I think the biggest fireworks would go off if we dropped that sentence in the middle of a conversation on universal health care. The idea of universal health care is that each citizen does have a significant involvement in their neighbor's health. The government is going to forcibly take roughly 20% of my income (read this as "20% of my property" or about "2 hours of every day's sweat") and use it on other people's health and longevity. So the government can forcibly take an arm and a leg in taxes for health care, but not a literal arm and a leg (or spare kidney)? To me that seems like a contradiction in values.
But most importantly, I don't see the sentence as being particularly relevant to the topic at hand. The word "compel" implies force and denying choice... yet the govenment isn't forcing the unborn child on the woman (or man). It was the woman's own consensual free-will action that lead to the pregnancy. (We're not talking about rape, where I know that you and I agree.) Her own choice caused her to have another life dependent on her body... not the government's choice.
The government is merely saying that once you make such a choice, you are committed to it. And that's no different from what the courts rule on every day. If you sign a contract you are committed to follow it. If you incur a debt you are committed to pay it. If you deface property you are committed to restitution. If you give birth to a child you have to provide food and shelter for her. Actions have consequences, and it's the government's position to ensure that its citizen act responsibly in civil affairs.
And what about the notion that law is morality? If you seriously think that abortion is immoral, what prohibits you from saying it is illegal?
Always a pleasure to discuss these things with you.