Abortion Debate Forum - Harvard-mit Study Shows Pro-life Laws Reduce Number of Abortions

marvel

replied on December 10th, 2007

Supporter

Does it say how many abortions were performed by untrained individuals? (obviously it's hard to report such a number, but any estimations?)

It would be interesting to see if those numbers fluctuate with the economy and pro-life legislation.

|

yodavater

replied on December 10th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

marvel wrote:

Does it say how many abortions were performed by untrained individuals? (obviously it's hard to report such a number, but any estimations?)

I don't think that counting illegal abortions was the focus of this study, no. In fact, such statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain, since they are not "reported".

|

msrosie

replied on December 10th, 2007

Experienced User

And the number of abortions have risen in the last year. I would think the decline is in large part due to 1. more women using contraception and 2. more teens delaying sex. However, now you have a lot of "abstinence only" education in the USA and what's happening? More abortions. Co-incidence? I think not.

|

yodavater

replied on December 10th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

According to the study, pro-life laws which restrict availability to abortion were the main reason for the reduction in the states which passed them. And after all, who can accuese MIT or Harvard of having a "pro-life bias"?

|

Birch

replied on December 10th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

yodavater wrote:

According to the study, pro-life laws which restrict availability to abortion were the main reason for the reduction in the states which passed them. And after all, who can accuese MIT or Harvard of having a "pro-life bias"?

I can not say that Harvard or MIT has a prolife bias, but undoubtably the individuals who publish studies can.

The author of that study, Michael J. New, Ph.D., is Visiting Health Policy Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and post doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT data center.

Quote:

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Additionally, this statement is not factually true, is it yoda?

yodavater wrote:

According to the study, pro-life laws which restrict availability to abortion were the main reason for the reduction in the states which passed them.

The study actually says this:

Quote:

There are a number of different reasons for this decline. However, one factor that cannot be overlooked is the impact of pro-life legislation in the states. By the end of the decade, more states had adopted parental involvement requirements, informed consent requirements, and "partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More important, regression results provide evidence that each of these laws was effective at reducing the number of abortions that took place.

|

yodavater

replied on December 10th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

Additionally, this statement is not factually true, is it yoda?

I have no idea. Care to be more specific?

Birch wrote:

The study actually says this:

There are a number of different reasons for this decline. However, one factor that cannot be overlooked is the impact of pro-life legislation in the states. By the end of the decade, more states had adopted parental involvement requirements, informed consent requirements, and "partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More important, regression results provide evidence that each of these laws was effective at reducing the number of abortions that took place.

Yes, that's what it says. Do you disagree, or what?

|

Birch

replied on December 10th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

yodavater wrote:

Birch wrote:

Additionally, this statement is not factually true, is it yoda?

I have no idea. Care to be more specific?

Birch wrote:

The study actually says this:

There are a number of different reasons for this decline. However, one factor that cannot be overlooked is the impact of pro-life legislation in the &states. By the end of the decade, more states had adopted parental involvement requirements, informed consent requirements, and "partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More important, regression results provide evidence that each of these laws was effective at reducing the number of abortions that took place.

Yes, that's what it says. Do you disagree, or what?

I just showed you that the researcher is biased, & that your statement "According to the study, pro-life laws which restrict availability to abortion were the main reason for the reduction in the states which passed them" is not accurate (see the above section lifted directly from the conclusion of said study) and you ask if I disagree?

Seriously?

C'mon, quit yankin' my chain. Laughing

So, anyways, ha ha *wiping my tears*, we've now determined that Mr. New had better come up with a study that proves a policy his institution backs or else, eh!

In your defense, which I will generously suppy for you, the faulty study does indicate that laws restricting abortion will lower abortion rates. I know it is not a popular prochoice position, but I actually do think that laws severly restricting abortion will lower the abortion rates dramatically. It seems quite logical to me.

However, I wonder if these laws will also lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies or the number of desperate women, women who don't want to be parents, domestic violence incidences related to abortion, women who have neither the funds or resources to support a pregnancy, or women who do not have the social supports to support a pregnancy?

I doubt it. Since I care, too, to lower the abortion rates (that is, for women who do not want an abortion but are compelled for economic or other 'crises' reasons) I recognize that laws restricting abortion is not going to change the circumstances of unwanted pregnancy. It is a shame that studies are not done to show prolife individuals that laws like this do not change any circumstances.

|

Tylanas

replied on December 10th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Yes, anti-choice laws will indeed lower the number of abortions. But that doesn't solve the actual PROBLEM which Birch brought up.

The problem is not abortion. The problem is unintended pregnancy. Restricting abortions doesn't prevent sperm from getting to an egg.

|

Darkmoon

replied on December 10th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Lower abortion, raise the number of dead women, dumpster babies, infants born with severe fetal alcohol syndrome and deformities due to drug abuse. Denying women safe access to the procedure only ensures that they must use other, more harmful means. An unwanted pregnancy will still be unwanted. Women aren't robots that you can program to think and behave the way you'd like.

|

yodavater

replied on December 11th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

I just showed you that the researcher is biased,

Hardly. You just made a claim that he belonged to a conservative organization. That falls far short of establishing "bias" in the research.

Birch wrote:

I know it is not a popular prochoice position, but I actually do think that laws severly restricting abortion will lower the abortion rates dramatically. It seems quite logical to me.

Me too.

Birch wrote:

However, I wonder if these laws will also lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies or the number of desperate women, women who don't want to be parents, domestic violence incidences related to abortion, women who have neither the funds or resources to support a pregnancy, or women who do not have the social supports to support a pregnancy.

I don't know. Actually, I don't believe that such laws are specifically targeted to accomplish that goal, do you? Possibly, if more people realize that abortions will be more difficult to obtain, they will be more likely to use birth control measures properly..... I don't know. I would suggest that these are two separate problems that probably need to be addressed by two separate legislative actions.

|

Birch

replied on December 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

yodavater wrote:

Birch wrote:

I just showed you that the researcher is biased,

Hardly. You just made a claim that he belonged to a conservative organization. That falls far short of establishing "bias" in the research.

Birch wrote:

I know it is not a popular prochoice position, but I actually do think that laws severly restricting abortion will lower the abortion rates dramatically. It seems quite logical to me.

Me too.

Birch wrote:

However, I wonder if these laws will also lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies or the number of desperate women, women who don't want to be parents, domestic violence incidences related to abortion, women who have neither the funds or resources to support a pregnancy, or women who do not have the social supports to support a pregnancy.

I don't know. Actually, I don't believe that such laws are specifically targeted to accomplish that goal, do you? Possibly, if more people realize that abortions will be more difficult to obtain, they will be more likely to use birth control measures properly..... I don't know. I would suggest that these are two separate problems that probably need to be addressed by two separate legislative actions.

The researcher is employed by an organization that promotes a conservative viewpoint. If that is not evidence of bias, then I throw my dictionary out the window.

Again, your disingenuity has been noted re: "main reason" claims even though you refused to respond to it.

I would say that causation/correlation of laws restricting abortion and the needs of women should to be further researched. I think if it was plainly obvious that laws restricting abortion do not help alleviate these issues, there might be changes made that require higher intellectual functioning than just slapping a band-aid law on the problem.

I would be interested in knowing that if abortions were completely illegal if people would be more stringent in their birth control habits. Does anyone know if this has been shown in countries with strict abortion policies?

|

Tylanas

replied on December 11th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Hey Yodaveter, what do you think about the comment I posted? Don't you think that the actual problem is unwanted pregnancies, NOT abortions? If so, then aren't anti-abortion laws focusing on the wrong thing, too?

|

msrosie

replied on December 11th, 2007

Experienced User

Birch wrote:

I would be interested in knowing that if abortions were completely illegal if people would be more stringent in their birth control habits. Does anyone know if this has been shown in countries with strict abortion policies?

There's a thread on this very board about a study that shows that abortion is just as prevalent in countries where it is illegal as it is in countries where it is legal. Granted, most of the time, birth control is not widely available in countries where abortion is illegal. I am unaware of a country where abortion is illegal but contraception is encouraged and widely available.

|

yodavater

replied on December 11th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Birch wrote:

The researcher is employed by an organization that promotes a conservative viewpoint. If that is not evidence of bias, then I throw my dictionary out the window.

That depends on what you mean by "bias". If you mean someone is slanting the statistics to favor their side, then no, I don't think that working for a conservative organization is prima facia evidence that they are dishonest, or that they cheated on the research.

Birch wrote:

Again, your disingenuity has been noted re: "main reason" claims even though you refused to respond to it.

Again, your highly personal comment is noted.

|

yodavater

replied on December 11th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

Hey Yodaveter, what do you think about the comment I posted? Don't you think that the actual problem is unwanted pregnancies, NOT abortions? If so, then aren't anti-abortion laws focusing on the wrong thing, too?

There is no one cause of "unwanted pregnancies", so I doubt that there is any one solution.

Nor can it be said that abortion can be eliminated by working exclusively on those causes. Planned Parenthood's own surveys of their customers show that many woman abort for "social" reasons, which cannot be addressed by throwing money at the problem.

So there needs to be both a carrot AND a stick, IMO.

p.s. It's yodavater.

|

Tylanas

replied on December 11th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

SO you feel it's okay to ignore the real problem just because it's difficult to solve? Outlawing abortion, now that's simple and easy, one step. Creating a proper sexual education program, making birth control available to all women and properly distributing Plan-B, now that's hard. Too many steps. Let's just make abortion illegal instead of preventing it!!

You could prevent emotional and physical pain. You could prevent death. Yet you choose not to because it's too hard. It's not the simple solution. You don't want to take the effort, the time, or the resources to properly reduce the numbers of abortions. You just want to remove women's rights; that's the easiest path.

The easy way isn't often the RIGHT way.

|

Birch

replied on December 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

yodavater wrote:

Birch wrote:

The researcher is employed by an organization that promotes a conservative viewpoint. If that is not evidence of bias, then I throw my dictionary out the window.

That depends on what you mean by "bias". If you mean someone is slanting the statistics to favor their side, then no, I don't think that working for a conservative organization is prima facia evidence that they are dishonest, or that they cheated on the research.

Birch wrote:

Again, your disingenuity has been noted re: "main reason" claims even though you refused to respond to it.

Again, your highly personal comment is noted.

I do not think you understand research, and I do not have time to explain it to people who have no intention of learning.

You lied; it's not personal; it's factual. Now stand the correction and get back to the business of rooting your points in truth.

Good luck.

|

Birch

replied on December 11th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

msrosie wrote:

Birch wrote:

I would be interested in knowing that if abortions were completely illegal if people would be more stringent in their birth control habits. Does anyone know if this has been shown in countries with strict abortion policies?

There's a thread on this very board about a study that shows that abortion is just as prevalent in countries where it is illegal as it is in countries where it is legal. Granted, most of the time, birth control is not widely available in countries where abortion is illegal. I am unaware of a country where abortion is illegal but contraception is encouraged and widely available.

Thank you msrosie, I had forgotten; here is the link to the thread: http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic111222 .html

I will never understand why people believe legislating against abortion will magically solve all the problems. I believe it will solve their personal angst which is focused solely on getting that thing born and once that is ensured, they wash their hands clean, "job well done" and then turn & make snide remarks about single mothers on welfare and pregnant 16 year olds who 'should've kept their legs closed'.

Conservatives frequently touting the prolife fishing line are also frequently against "liberal" views, such as those that seek to empower women.

|

yodavater

replied on December 11th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

SO you feel it's okay to ignore the real problem just because it's difficult to solve?

That is a non-sequeter, and a total misinterpretation of my post.

Eiri wrote:

Outlawing abortion, now that's simple and easy, one step.

Not easy at all, but it's the first step, IMHO. When that is accomplished, there will be more opportunity to help with the other problems, because we will not have to worry so much about just keeping babies alive.

Eiri wrote:

You could prevent emotional and physical pain. You could prevent death. Yet you choose not to because it's too hard. .

No, I don't think we'll ever eliminate either of those things, do you? And I don't "choose not to", as you so disingenuously state, I just choose not to discuss my other areas of concern on this forum.

|

12 3 4 5 >>