It's Not Enough to Be 'Wanted'. (pro-life)

opinionjournal.com ^ | Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT | JOHN R. LOTT JR.

[Alien Syndrome]

The abortion debate usually centers on the morality of the act itself. But liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast social changes in America. With the perennial political debate over abortion again consuming the presidential campaign and the Supreme Court, it might be time to evaluate what Roe v. Wade has meant in practical terms.

One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions just didn't start with Roe, or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have abortions when their lives or health were endangered. Doctors in some states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health. Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.

• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.

• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.

• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Some of this might seem contradictory. Why would both the number of abortions and of out-of-wedlock births go up? If there were more illegitimate births, why were fewer children available for adoption?

[Alien Syndrome]

So after so much of this liberal gibberish about abortions “preventing unwanted birth” it seem that it actually causes more of them. But then again it doesn’t surprise me; most leftist polices do cause the opposite of their intended effects, all in the name of more “victim” voters.

[Sherman Logan]

Don’t confuse correlation and causation.

It is a lot more likely that the same changes in attitudes that promoted the Roe decision also promoted premarital sex and out of wedlock births.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Not to mention the colossal expansion of the welfare state.

[Dilbert San Diego]

So the same set of attitudes that led to liberalized abortion laws and to Roe vs. Wade also led to more liberalized attitudes about sex outside marriage, and more liberalized attitudes about out of wedlock child bearing too.

And at the heart of such attitudes is the idea that we shouldn’t make any “value” judgements. By definition you would have to make value judgements about behavior if you want to say no to abortion, no to out of wedlock parenting, no to the concept of sex with no strings attached, etc.

[Alien Syndrome]

But it was Roe that legitimized these attitudes. It may not have directly led to the out of wedlock births but it was the catalyst that gave them their jump start.

[gridlock]

But then again it doesn’t surprise me; most leftist polices do cause the opposite of their intended effects

One wonders how many times in a row leftist policies must have negative consequences before we can stop calling them "unintended".

[Sherman Logan]

Agreed.

There was obviously a massive shift in attitudes towards sex, personal responsibility and other issues starting in the mid-60s.

There were many consequences of this shift. IMHO the liberalization of abortion was just one of them. It didn’t cause the shift.

[Dajjal]

Sexual Suicide and Naked Nomads bump

[TigersEye]

Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.

It would seem that the culture of abortion creates inadequately cared for children at a much higher rate than it eliminates unwanted children. In any case abortion is the killing of a human being.

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

45,951,133

Total Abortions since 1973

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[TigersEye]

One wonders how many times in a row leftist policies must have negative consequences before we can stop calling them "unintended".

Ignorance is getting to be a pretty thin excuse.

Communism kills!