Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 14 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
Switch to Forum Live View Majority of Americans now ‘pro-life,’ poll says
9 years ago  ::  May 28, 2009 - 9:35AM #131
Posts: 5,750

May 27, 2009 -- 7:32PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Okay. Sorry for the delay. I've been busy and stuff =D

May 25, 2009 -- 10:30AM, newsjunkie wrote:

You said my statement was not true and then cited that study. That study had nothing to do with my statement about abstinence-only education. My statement was that abs-only ed is not effective in reducing unintended pregnancy. So, where is some actual evidence that my statement was not true? If you have none, why not admit that you can't show that my statement was incorrect? Why not at least
admit to the possibility that my statement wasn't incorrect? I had said originally that abstinence ed is part of the solution -- part of what can reduce abortions -- I see this as a point of agreement between us. But it does need to be said that abstinence only education programs aren't effective at reducing unintended pregnancy -- that's what the evidence shows.

I never said abstinence only programs are effective. You said abstinence isn't effective,

I did not say abstinence isn't effective. If you say I did, produce the post. I can't continue a discussion in which each time you post you say I am making claims I never made. I would not expect you to put up with that from me. I respect your efforts here enough to try to be careful not to mis-state things you say. When you object, and say that I did mis-represent you, I go back and check your post. This is very time-consuming.

I have tried to keep the discussion on studies from reputable sources that give us good information on the best way to reduce abortion. I do not want to spend my time addressing claims I never made. If you want to also focus on information regarding abortion reduction, we can continue, but if you continue to say I said things I didn't, this discussion is going to end.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  May 28, 2009 - 10:28AM #132
Posts: 5,750

May 27, 2009 -- 7:32PM, Bei1052 wrote:

It's interesting that despite all its restrictions on abortions, MS ranks 28th in abortion rate.

28th? Really? Even going by the source you posted, it doesn't rank 28th. I'm curious where you got that from?

Of course it has a very high pregnancy rate -- I think this shows that simply implementing more restrictions without addressing the rate of unintended pregnancy isn't the best approach.

This assumption hinges on the fact that high pregnancy rates are inherently bad, which they aren't (Indeed, higher birth rates are preferable to low birth rates) or that Mississippi has a problem with high pregnancy rates-- Which they don't.

...And, last I checked, the majority of pregnancies in the U.S. are "unintended", just so you know. I thought I'd point that fact that.

South Dakota has restrictions on abortion and a low pregnancy rate -- their abortion rate is very low. New Hampshire has a low pregnancy rate and an abortion rate similar to MS's, and it doesn't have the restrictions on abortions MS does.

Ummm... What? As of 2005, New Hampshire had an abortion rate of 11.7 while Mississippi had an abortion rate of 4.9, which is less than half that of New Hampshire. South Dakota has an abortion rate of 5.1, also less than half of New Hampshire. Both Mississippi and South Dakota have similar laws. South Dakota and Mississippi both have comparable birth and overall pregnancy rates (Link).

OK, I did make an error -- the study I was citing was on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. I do apologize for the confusion on my part there. Still is interesting to see that despite the restrictions MS has on abortion, it still ranks 28 in teen abortion rates.

So, I went to the CDC and got their most recent abortion surveillance report (2005). Here's the link. It has no data for NH. It does have data for MS, showing an abortion rate of 10 ( that's 10 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44). For VT, quite a liberal place, the rate is 12. For GA and TX, quite conservative areas, it's 14 and 15, respectively. And VT has none of the restrictions on abortion that MS does.

Look, some people do not believe early-term abortion is morally wrong. Some think that if you discover you're pregnant, and determine you aren't in a position to parent a child, and aren't suited to give the child up for adoption, then the responsible thing is to have an abortion, and the earlier the better. Many of these people would have the abortion whether it's legal or not. If you make abortion illegal, it means people will procure the abortion from non-medical professionals, or will have to travel farther to obtain one where it is legal, increasing the time before a woman has the abortion. I don't think these negative consequences are necessary. I think that improving access to BC and educating people better on how to use the BC properly is the way to go. I don't see a downside to that strategy, like there is to making abortion illegal ior restricting it severely. States already have the ability to restrict abortion post-viability, and to require parental notification for minors seeking abortion, and I'm fine with that. But making 1st trimester abortion illegal, surely that could produce a small reduction in abortion rate, but would have numerous negative consequences. Small reductions in abortion have been occurring, even in states that placed no restrictions on abortion. Continue to improve education and access to birth control -- that is the more reasonable and effective way to reduce abortion.

And now I must leave you for the day.

Quick Reply
Page 14 of 14  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook