This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
I urge the citizens of Lake County to vote "No" on Referred Law 6 on Tuesday. I advocate this for a simple reason: I want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.
Seems like fuzzy logic, doesn't it? However, the facts of the matter speak volumes. Let's compare the U.S. with Holland, which has the lowest abortion rate in the world. Holland's rate is approximately 6.5 abortions per 1,000 live births. In the U.S., the rate is approximately 21.5 abortions per 1,000 live births. Disturbing, isn't that?
Abortion is legal in both countries. So, what factors influence Holland's very low abortion rate? Among many factors are the following: free and widespread access to contraception since the 1970s, a cultural view that abortion is a last resort, and excellent access to sex education (which, by the way, does not result in more sexual activity; teenagers in Holland have a later age of first sexual experience and fewer partners than their U.S. counterparts).
Why not completely ban abortion? Although it seems contrary to reason, countries with very strict bans on abortion do not experience lower abortion rates than countries with more liberal abortion access. For example, Latin America as a region, has strict bans on abortions and an abortion rate of approximately 37 abortions per 1,000 live births, which is significantly higher than the abortion rate in the U.S. Peru, where abortion is illegal, has a staggering abortion rate of 56 abortions per 1,000 live births. (Excellent information on abortion rates is available from the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Biotechnology Information.)
Throughout the world, the two factors that have proven to drastically reduce abortion rates are access to contraception and sex education. The evidence shows that restricting access to legal abortions does not result in fewer abortions. If we're truly committed to reducing the number of dead babies, Referred Law 6 is not the way to do it. Let's start discussing and acting on ways to effect real change.
Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)
-
In Politics: Nationally: The Election is over and the wrong side won. I
have nothing to contribute to the barrels of ink being used by Pundits to
explain a...
3 days ago
I don't have any statistics, but have heard this argument a lot:
ReplyDeleteSD has one of the lowest abortion rates in the US, and it also restricts access to abortion more than most.
What say you about that? Is there a correlation?
When you look at real data worldwide, you see that there is no clear correlation between laws restricting abortion and the incidence of abortion. South Dakota's abortion rate is relatively low more because of social stigma and the practical difficulty of driving to Sioux Falls for an appointment at the only clinic in our 70,000-square-mile state that performs abortions. But even stigma and religious attitudes can't explain it all: Colombia has a near-total ban on abortion, and it is a strongly Catholic nation, yet is has an abortion rate four times that of the United States. And depriving women of access legally or practically hasn't stopped women in all cultures from learning how to self-abort.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to decrease the incidence of abortion is all fine and good, but public policy needs to be based on good science to produce the best results for our dollar. Banning abortion is a crapshoot; empirical data shows that providing education, increasing access to contraception and health care, and promoting respect for women produces clearly better results. If you're serious about banning abortion, create policies that get the job done by addressing deeper, earlier problems that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
Bah! Science and time shall settle this argument. As of now, the unborn are "savable" at 22-23 weeks. But there will come a time when science and technology will be able to remove a hours old fertilized egg, and raise it in a medical chamber of some sort, until it is ready to emerge from its artificial uterus.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, I don't know. Did I say settle? I meant complicate.
Let's go with the easily available contraceptives, excellent sex education, and more respect for women. My wife and I have decided that sex education should be a year long course, hitting topics such as types of birth control including NFP, prenatel care, post natel care, and gosh, a whole lot more. Comments should not be this long I have decided.
Still don't see a reason why we can't vote Yes on Referred Law 6 AND increase sexual education. Hit the disease with both medicines.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the same numbers about the abortion rate in countries where it is illegal and where it is legal. It only stands to reason that if there is more access to birth control that is free or affordable and really good sex ed. that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThe reason we shouldn't hit it with both medicines, is because the "make it illegal" medicine takes money, time, and especially attention away from the fact that better education and available contraceptives is a cheaper, more viable means to reducing and eliminating abortions. Making it illegal isn't medicine, it is anesthesia. It treats the symptoms, not the cause.
Wait, I apoligize. I forgot that we americans would rather make things illegal, to make judging people legitimate. Doctors who perform abortions are not just bad people, they are criminals. (please don't read this as a personal attack, David, but more as an attack against american culture.)
"The reason we shouldn't hit it with both medicines, is because the "make it illegal" medicine takes money, time, and especially attention away from the fact that better education and available contraceptives is a cheaper, more viable means to reducing and eliminating abortions. Making it illegal isn't medicine, it is anesthesia. It treats the symptoms, not the cause."
ReplyDeleteIf the goal is to reduce the number of abortions to 0 (which seems to be harmonious with everyone who has participated in the blog discussions here), then I say treat it on both ends... hit the root of unwanted pregnancies with all the education we have (make it a required semester or year-long high school course), and put a law into effect that clearly states that we as South Dakotan's find abortion to be criminally irresponsible (except in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother)... just as insurance fraud and leaving dog doo-doo on the sidewalk is criminally irresponsible. For any male who is convicted of rape or found to be encouraging a female to seek an abortion (except for the above-mentioned cases), give him a mandatory vesectomy... revoke his right to use semen when he proves to incapable of using semen in a responsible manner. Just as you revoke a driver's license for reckless driving, you revoke a man's semen for reckless screwing.
It's worth all the time and money it takes... every penny and every minute. It means way more to our civilization, than virtually any other issue... the status quo is enshrining irresponsibility. Each casual abortion is immeasurably tragic... not just for the loss of a potential life, but moreso for the pit of selfishness the parents have sunk into, and the depraved condition of redefining a fetus as a harmful parasite to be removed rather than a human child to be intrinsically loved.
"After hunger, sex is our strongest instinct and greatest problem. Nature is infatuated with continuance, and dolls up the woman with beauty and the man with money to lure them into continuing the species, and so it gives to us males such sensitivity to the charms of woman that we can go quite mad in their pursuit. Sex then becomes a fire and flame in the blood, and burns up the whole personality -- which should be a hierarchy and harmony of desires.
"Our civilization has unwisely stimulated this sexual impulse. Our ancestors played it down, knowing that it was strong enough without encouragement; we have blown it up with a thousand forms of incitation, advertisement, emphasis, and display, and have armed it with the doctrine that inhibition is dangerous, whereas inhibition – the control of impulse – is the first principle of civilization.
"Marriage was probably developed not only for the better care of children and property, but to save us from the tyranny of sex. In marriage that instinct is given abundant freedom, but it is channeled within limits consistent with social order. By submitting to marriage we can take our minds off sex, and become adult.
"Marry as soon as you can keep the wolf from the door. You will be too young to choose wisely, but you won't be much wiser in these matters at forty; there's no fool like an old fool in love. We parents should help you to get started in wholesome married life: help you with money, and -- if you will permit us -- with counsel. Don't let your choice of a mate be determined by the accident of propinquity or the pressure of physiological needs. Don't buy a grab-bag in a coma. Let at least three months intervene between betrothal and marriage.
"The difficulties of marriage are far less than its rewards. One touch of a woman's hand can be paradise -- if the touch is not for too much. Napoleon said that the only happiness he had ever known was in loving his children; and I hope you won't have children without marriage." -Will Durant
(I probably could have cut the quote shorter to make it more relevant, but I like the whole thing too much.)
Joe: You make it sound that making a judgment of somebody's character based on their beliefs and actions is an American way of doing things.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I also do not believe in blocking stem cell research because I don't consider it immoral. If I did and believed it was to the point of murder I would support making it illegal without any hesitation regardless of the "good" it might do society. I don't think I could support the extreme inhumanity of the research conducted in Nazi Germany even it would have found the cure to cancer and saved every victim of the disease in the last 70 years. This all applies to abortion. It doesn't matter to a person dedicated to stopping abortion based on strongly held beliefs that making it legal would reduce the numbers in time. It would be the same as participating in it to allow it to happen. It would be the same as legalizing cocaine. Even if research said that would reduce it's use I could never support it. It is the same as voting to bring in more gambling here in NE. I don't care how many schools get that money. It is wrong. There are other ways to fund education.
How about we nationally segregate America along gender lines in schools. If it didn't improve the pregnancy rate, it would very likely improve their education. :)
David,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, and I am happy to see that you have a perspective of hitting it with both medicines. I fear that the majority, well, since last Tuesday, the minority of people in SD think that making it illegal is The Solution. My thoughts are, however, that if the money and energy used to make abortion illegal was rather applied to a preventitive medicine approach, making it illegal later would be easier, since the mindset of people will have changed. Wow, attack of the long sentance. It must be my german heritage coming through. I do think and believe it is ideas that change the world, and we need people's ideas to change. Right now, it is a "if I get pregnant, I can't afford school, I can't have a career, etc.." Difficult problems indeed. Regardless, I think we both see eachother's position, and are better people for it. David Hume said truth springs from arguments among friends. Using fuzzy logic, David, you are now my friend.
Phaedrus,
Abortion opponents have a sticky situation. These are my thoughts. If there we a group of people going around, in public, killing newborns, wouldn't people rise up to stop them? From the perspectives I have heard that anti-abortionists have, these newborn killers are just as bad as doctors who perform abortions.
So why are there not more extreme measures being taken? If I told a group of 500 church goers, that they could prevent or postpone abortions, simply by laying down in front of the abortion clinic, shouldn't they do that? Wouldn't they? Of course, they should do all the other things, like try to make it illegal, but where are the pitchforks and torches? Heck,it seems to me that black people had more conviction for civil rights, then anti-abortionist do. How much is a baby's life worth? If everyone who voted yes to make abortion illegal simply went to SD's one and only abortion clinic, I am pretty sure there would be no abortions commited that day. Is getting arrested to stop or postpone an abortion to much to ask?
Granted, this goes against my beliefs of there needing to be a mindsetculture change. But still, if people truly believe that abortion is murder, and know when and where these murders are happening, why are they sitting on their hands?
On the flip side, all those people could also offer the woman who wants an abortion support, offer to pay for everything, house her and the baby, etc.
Gosh, posts should seriously not be this long.
I am one of these crazy people who should be laying down in front of clinics, I am that hipocrite. It is tough to balance a healthy dose of deontology with a a spoonful of utilitarianism.