Abortion is totally outlawed and no women is having one. How would society be affected?

[Annie-Xmas]

Over in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530494&page=2) thread, the subject was touched upon.

So, there's no abortions. How is society affected? Who is raising all the babies? Where are the jobs for these people when they reach adulthood? How does society handle the increase of people?

[Shagnasty]

The book Freakanomics has a section on the rapid crime decrease in the past couple of decades and asserts that much of it can be directly traced back to widespread legally available abortions. The unwanted children that were likely to become criminals were never born in the first place. I don't know how big that effect really was but some of it has to be to some degree and crime would pick up again 15 years from now if abortions were outlawed.

[Little Nemo]

Another effect Leavitt mentioned was that the legalization of abortions closed most of the orphanges in the United States - women who didn't want a child and couldn't get an abortion put their baby up for adoption. There was a surplus of orphans with more children than they were parents looking to adopt so a lot of kids didn't get adopted and grew up in orphanges. After Roe v Wade this domestic supply of orphans essentially disappeared and that's when the idea of adopting foreign babies began.

[Cat Fight]

No more outsourcing jobs to India and importing domestic help? Let the orphans do it! Even more women living below the poverty line, and fewer women in jobs above minimum wage. Possibly a backslide in terms of women having consensual sexual relations with men, and possibly higher levels of rape. And more infanticide.

[Beadalin]

So why is abortion outlawed? That might impact the fallout, quite a bit. I would hope that some of the ramifications of this would be:
1) Vastly improved sex education in schools
2) Cheap or free condoms available everywhere, as easy to get as tampons/pads are now
3) All other contraceptives more widely available, including Plan B

Of course, you're also going to have more women dying during pregnancy or during childbirth, or becoming ill during pregnancy. You'll have more children born with severe physical and developmental problems. You'll have more pregnancies in young teens brought to term. Rape and incest pregancies will be brought to term, and those girls and women should have access to counseling for being forced to bear those children.

Healthcare costs as a whole will rise even more sharply, given the above.

[RealityChuck]

Another effect Leavitt mentioned was that the legalization of abortions closed most of the orphanges in the United States - women who didn't want a child and couldn't get an abortion put their baby up for adoption. There was a surplus of orphans with more children than they were parents looking to adopt so a lot of kids didn't get adopted and grew up in orphanges. After Roe v Wade this domestic supply of orphans essentially disappeared and that's when the idea of adopting foreign babies began.I can't see how he can support that. Orphanages ended because it was felt foster homes were better -- there are issues, but the kids aren't being warehoused in poorly financed facilities. I can't imagine social workers would allow orphanages to continue.

[Claire Beauchamp]

Just because abortion is outlawed doesn't mean women won't have them.

[Cat Fight]

Just because abortion is outlawed doesn't mean women won't have them.

I think we're supposed to just believe that this is the case, somehow, for the OP to work. Because of course, in reality, women and men who don't want children will find a way.

Forgot to add – I imagine murder rates would go up when it comes to pregnant women. Murder is already the leading cause of death for pregnant women in America. Adding unwanted children to the mix (children who may have been the result of cheating, pregnancy that's evidence of a crime like incest or rape, offspring that can potentially cost thousands in child support) isn't likely to help.

[Mahna Mahna]

Forgot to add – I imagine murder rates would go up when it comes to pregnant women. Murder is already the leading cause of death for pregnant women in America. Adding unwanted children to the mix (children who may have been the result of cheating, pregnancy that's evidence of a crime like incest or rape, offspring that can potentially cost thousands in child support) isn't likely to help.

This was my first thought, along with a rise of domestic abuse in general - walking out of an abusive relationship is even harder when children are involved.

I'd also expect a significant number of older women, particularly from lower income families, would keep working long past retirement age. When the mother is unfit or unready to raise her child and the father isn't in the picture for whatever reason, more often than not it's the grandmothers who step up to the plate - which, in turn, means these women have to keep working until the grandkids are old enough to support themselves.

[Emily Litella]

Just because abortion is outlawed doesn't mean women won't have them.
There will be a lot more women dying from trying to give themselves abortions, just like before Roe v. Wade.

[Dangerosa]

I can't see how he can support that. Orphanages ended because it was felt foster homes were better -- there are issues, but the kids aren't being warehoused in poorly financed facilities. I can't imagine social workers would allow orphanages to continue.

But the supply of kids reduced to the point where you COULD have a foster care system. And they still have issues recruiting enough quality foster parents in a lot of places. If you can't find foster homes, you have no choice but to 'warehouse' children - or let them roam feral on the streets (a popular choice in some third world countries where they don't even have enough orphanages).

Foreign adoption, however, was actually a result of the Korean War and predates Roe v. Wade by fifteen years. Although after Roe v. Wade the difficulty of domestic adoption increased, while at the same time the options in foreign adoption increased.

[Dangerosa]

One fairly significant effect will be the burden on public facilities.

Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies is currently terminated. That means we need 25% more schools and teachers.

A number of those pregnancies are terminated because screening shows issues with the fetus. Frequently that translates to much higher medical costs over the life of the person. Presumably, those would be passed on.

[Dublin11]

There are countries where abortion is illegal. What tends to happen is that if abortion is available in a nearby country and there is no restriction on you travelling there, that's where you go. I doubt that you'd tell the airline ticket booker the purpose of your visit, if your own country had outlawed abortion, of course. Because you'd probably be denied travel in a case like that. And reported to the police.
So one new effect would be an increase in the revenue for the airlines, on account of a whole new line of business - abortion tourism, for want of a better expression.

In a vast country like America, only the wealthy would be able to do that, I suppose. And for the very wealthy, it wouldn't really be an issue. Very wealthy people can always find the type of doctor who is willing to be paid enough to overlook certain things. Like the law.

The less financially well off and more desperate would revert to the old ways of backstreet abortions, as well as cruder and more violent physical methods of separating the mother from the foetus - beating or kicking the baby out, for instance.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Just because abortion is outlawed doesn't mean women won't have them. Yep. Abortions, especially early abortions, are actually pretty easy for even non-medical people to perform. Of course, if you want safe abortions, with sterile technique and painkillers, that's gonna cost extra. Some doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel will quietly terminate pregnancies, some will do it out of compassion, and some will do it for the money. Wealthy women, or the women who can get some cash from someone, will go to another country to have the procedure done legally, just as they did when abortion was illegal before.

I also have to wonder about ectopic pregnancies, and other pregnancies that will either endanger a woman's health, or pretty much guarantee a dead mother as the outcome.

The consequences? I think that some women will give up straight sex altogether, and some will become far pickier about when and with whom they have sex. There will be a lot more unwanted kids around, and I think that we will, indeed, have a lot more crime in about a little over a dozen years.

[Teacake]

Suicide rates, especially among teenagers, would rise.

[Little Bird]

1) Vastly improved sex education in schools
2) Cheap or free condoms available everywhere, as easy to get as tampons/pads are now
3) All other contraceptives more widely available, including Plan B.
I know you said this is what you *hope* would happen, but it's doubtful.

Outlawing abortions would be the first step to outlawing the pill, then condoms, then sex ed. Premarital sex would be re-criminalized. Eventually any prenatal care would be outlawed, just in case the lady had a "miscarriage" shortly there after, or was coached on how to induce one.

There would be a sharp rise in infanticide and abandoned babies, as well as child abuse and death. More women would die in childbirth and because of complications of pregnancy.

Any woman with any sense, intellect, or self-respect would leave. Hopefully similar men would too. All that would be left are the pro-birther, educating their children at home using the Bible and the staff. Any higher education would be left to those few who can afford it, people who were able to control their fertility somehow.

Eventually the US would become a backwater, women barefoot and pregnant in the home, industry and business would stagnate and the economy would collapse. At that point, society would revert to some sort of feudal system, wherein the massive class of the unwanted would become slaves to the upper class. The only methods of population control would be starvation, disease, and overwork.

At that point another country would probably try to take the USA over, inserting their own people as feudal lords as a new colonization. The USA would be no more, having crumbled in all but name years before.

Just my humble predictions.

[Shot From Guns]

Outlawing abortions would be the first step to outlawing the pill, then condoms, then sex ed.

I hope you mean that if you wanted to outlaw all contraception, the first step would be to outlaw abortion, not that outlawing abortion is necessarily and always the first step to outlawing all contraception.

[Shot From Guns]

For anyone interested: the example cited in Freakonomics was Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Romania))(Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=communist+abortion+illegal&source=bl&ots=4oQiA3mvE-&sig=zQ9V0Y8o-XvledKHKkNTdMg7s9o&hl=en&ei=R1KxSoL9I5D6MObZhPMN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=communist%20abortion%20illegal&f=false))

[gigi]

Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies is currently terminated. That means we need 25% more schools and teachers.

A number of pregnancies wouldn't happen because folks would be more that much more careful about using contraception, without the backup plan of abortion.

[Der Trihs]

I hope you mean that if you wanted to outlaw all contraception, the first step would be to outlaw abortion, not that outlawing abortion is necessarily and always the first step to outlawing all contraception.Pretty much automatically, yes. And curtailing women's rights in general. The anti-abortion movement is fundamentally a crusade against women, and the rights of women.

I'd expect an increase in child abuse due to there being so many unwanted children. I'd expect laws against abusing both women and children to be curtailed or eliminated as well; contempt ( or worse ) for both is part and parcel of anti-abortionism. There'd be quite a few women dying due to hospitals being afraid to treat pregnant women for fear of being accused of abortion if she miscarries.

A nation that actually succeeds in stopping all abortions is going to be nearly totalitarian towards women. It'll need to test women on a regular basis, and any woman who tests positive for pregnancy would have to be sent to what amounts to "maternity prison" and kept under constant surveillance. Because otherwise she might find a way to get an abortion out of the country or underground; possibly with the connivance of her husband so you can't trust him either.

A number of pregnancies wouldn't happen because folks would be more that much more careful about using contraception, without the backup plan of abortion. I'd expect contraception to be outlawed as well, and women's protection against rape curtailed or gone. Because that's the kind of society that would do such a thing.

[Cat Fight]

Since most oral contraceptives can be doubled up to equal the effects of the morning after pill (which many anti-abortion groups wrongly consider an abortifacient), I can't see how this society would allow women to continue taking the Pill. Or using copper IUDs.

Here's (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/anti-abortion-group-announces-drive-o) a group that's moved on to the Pill and other forms of birth control. Most are more subtle.

[Dangerosa]

A number of pregnancies wouldn't happen because folks would be more that much more careful about using contraception, without the backup plan of abortion.

I'm not sure how many, though. Most women I know who had abortions had them because birth control failed, not because they weren't careful using it.

[Little Nemo]

Murder is already the leading cause of death for pregnant women in America.I believe this statistic has been refuted. It's a misquote. The original study actually said that murder is a leading injury-related cause of death among pregnant women (automobile accidents were the actual leader in this category with murder being second). But non-injury-related deaths were more than twice as common as injury-related deaths. cite (http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/security-news/security-crime-news0043.htm) In reality, a pregnant woman is less likely to be murdered than a non-pregnant woman. cite (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349613/posts)

[Apollyon]

I'd expect contraception to be outlawed as well, and women's protection against rape curtailed or gone. Because that's the kind of society that would do such a thing.
While I sometimes think Der Trihs' opinions are a bit extreme I think he's probably smack on the mark here...
Here's (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/anti-abortion-group-announces-drive-o) a group that's moved on to the Pill and other forms of birth control....and when I first saw that news article I was completely gob-smacked (and considered an RO Pit post).

So while I don't think outlawing abortion must inevitably lead to a full dystopia, it does appear that some of the same people pushing for it will then push for further and more extreme limitations.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

also have to wonder about ectopic pregnancies, and other pregnancies that will either endanger a woman's health, or pretty much guarantee a dead mother as the outcome.
YES. Ectopic pregnancies and stuff like a baby dying in utero is THE REASON why abortion should be legal NO MATTER what.
A number of those pregnancies are terminated because screening shows issues with the fetus. That's very sad. I do think that in cases like where there are "potential special needs" the parents need to talk to someone who REALLY knows about the particualr syndrome or birth defect.
Not just a doctor, since even many geneticists are ill informed about various and sundry birth defects. I also think a lot of parents are almost..........they want a designer "normal" kid. I have some issues I was born with. I am on some listservs that deal with my issues.....I really sometimes want to SLAP the parents who sign on, and start moaning and bitching about their wittle Smashlie having *gasp* SPESHAL NEEDS!!!!! These kids are kids who are hard of hearing or who have other relatively mild issues.
I hate how doctors make it seem like ALL birth issues are some giant catasophe or that you can always tell about severe birth defects. Only a small percentage of birth defects are genetic. The rest just happen randomly.

[Annie-Xmas]

Since adoption is a factor in creating serial killers (30% of serial killers are adopted, as opposed to 2% of the general population) there would be more serial killers and more killing of women.

With more babies available for adoption, more older children would languish in the dreadful foster care system.

[gigi]

I'm not sure how many, though. Most women I know who had abortions had them because birth control failed, not because they weren't careful using it.

Right, I don't know the volume either, I just don't think it's accurate that exactly the same number that are aborted now would be born instead.

[Dangerosa]

Right, I don't know the volume either, I just don't think it's accurate that exactly the same number that are aborted now would be born instead.

No, and some people who have first trimester abortions would miscarry later - or their children would die very young.

But 1 in 4 is huge. Even if you are only increasing the public school burden by 15% instead of 25%, its huge. And when you consider that a lot of the kids LIKELY to enter the school system would be among the neediest - i.e. if we posit that its disadvantaged women who are more likely to get abortions now - they would increase the burden on the schools disproportionally for their numbers.

[BigT]

Since adoption is a factor in creating serial killers (30% of serial killers are adopted, as opposed to 2% of the general population) there would be more serial killers and more killing of women.

With more babies available for adoption, more older children would languish in the dreadful foster care system.

That is an extraordinary claim if I've ever heard one. So we definitely need a citation. Even if you are correct. I'd suspect that there's a large difference between birth and older child adoptions.

[Little Nemo]

That is an extraordinary claim if I've ever heard one. So we definitely need a citation. Even if you are correct. I'd suspect that there's a large difference between birth and older child adoptions.I can't provide a cite but it sounds reasonable to me. It's the same factors that Leavitt cited in his book. The type of people who seek abortions tend to be the same type of people who would make poor parents if they didn't get the abortions. There's common factors between the two groups: poverty, poor education, being underaged, being unmarried, drug and alcohol use, poor health, family problems. So if you decrease the amount of people in this group who get abortions you increase the number who become poor parents or put their babies up for adoption. And poor parenting is a factor in children being raised poorly and going on to do anti-social things like become serial killers.

[Dangerosa]

That is an extraordinary claim if I've ever heard one. So we definitely need a citation. Even if you are correct. I'd suspect that there's a large difference between birth and older child adoptions.

The adoption is probably not the biggest factor, one factor seems to be birthparent genetics. If birth dad is scum, there seems to be some "nature" that can't necessarily be overcome by "nurture." I think the stat is off though. But it is true that serial killers are far more likely to be adoptees. And there are some other variables - Ted Bundy counts - he was adopted by his stepfather - but raised by mainly bio relatives. And it isn't universally true. International adoptees don't seem to be any more or less violent than other people.

[PhiloVance]

I can't provide a cite but it sounds reasonable to me. It's the same factors that Leavitt cited in his book. The type of people who seek abortions tend to be the same type of people who would make poor parents if they didn't get the abortions. There's common factors between the two groups: poverty, poor education, being underaged, being unmarried, drug and alcohol use, poor health, family problems. So if you decrease the amount of people in this group who get abortions you increase the number who become poor parents or put their babies up for adoption. And poor parenting is a factor in children being raised poorly and going on to do anti-social things like become serial killers.

My post is my cite; yeah that'll do it. :dubious:

[Lust4Life]

Making abortion illegal will bring about a return to women seeking "Back street abortions"when desperate.
I believe that these resulted in a quite high death rate amongst the women involved.

Also I would fear for any child born as a result of a woman being raped.

[lindsaybluth]

posting to subscribe

[Shot From Guns]

Pretty much automatically, yes. And curtailing women's rights in general. The anti-abortion movement is fundamentally a crusade against women, and the rights of women.

You seem to unfortunately conflating all people who are against abortion into the same camp. There are plenty of people who would like to eliminate the need for abortions by better access to birth control, adoptions, health care for pregnant women and children, and childcare. Not to mention workplace laws that would stop penalizing women in terms of their career advancement when they take time off to give birth to and/or raise children.

How many women do you know who enjoy getting abortions? IMO, abortion is a symptom of a system that isn't working--women who don't want to get pregnant don't have access to the resources they need, and women who might otherwise choose to keep a child can't afford to do it.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I would like to reduce the need for abortions, but I don't think that there's going to be a way to *eliminate* the need any time soon. I think that more reliable birth control for both men and women will help. Condoms are good, and it's wonderful that so many people realize that condoms help prevent the spread of disease as well as pregnancy, but I have a daughter who was conceived while her dad and I were using condoms and contraceptive foam together. NO method of birth control is 100% effective. Even women who are (voluntarily) abstinent can be raped.

Allowing better access to the morning after pill would also help reduce the need for abortions. Sometimes, people might not plan on having sex, but are swept away in the heat of the moment.

[sqweels]

But but but... there would be more Respect for Life!

[Der Trihs]

Pretty much automatically, yes. And curtailing women's rights in general. The anti-abortion movement is fundamentally a crusade against women, and the rights of women.
You seem to unfortunately conflating all people who are against abortion into the same camp. There are plenty of people who would like to eliminate the need for abortions by better access to birth control, adoptions, health care for pregnant women and children, and childcare. Not to mention workplace laws that would stop penalizing women in terms of their career advancement when they take time off to give birth to and/or raise children.

How many women do you know who enjoy getting abortions? IMO, abortion is a symptom of a system that isn't working--women who don't want to get pregnant don't have access to the resources they need, and women who might otherwise choose to keep a child can't afford to do it.
But none of that has anything to do with the OP. This isn't about people trying to make abortions unnecessary; this is about the government forcing women to breed against their will. And I see little evidence that there's "plenty of people", or even a significant number who want to outlaw abortion and have even the slightest concern for women or children. The simple fact is, anywhere in the world where these people get what they want, the result is suffering and death for both of those groups while the anti-abortion people either look the other way or outright gloat. Or are the ones inflicting the suffering and death in question. Because that's the point of the movement.

I find claims by the anti-abortionists that they are looking out for the welfare of children about as believable as claims by racist groups that they are just looking out for the welfare of white people, or of anti-gay groups that they are trying to "save marriage" by refusing to let gays marry.

[Shot From Guns]

I would like to reduce the need for abortions, but I don't think that there's going to be a way to *eliminate* the need any time soon.

Agreed. Making abortions illegal right now wouldn't do a damn thing, other than drive a lot of women to get illegal, dangerous abortions. Everybody should be working together to make abortion unecessary--unfortunately, no one wants to be sensible, they just want to scream from their own sides of the line. A good number of pro-life people, (though not all, as Der Trihs claims) are opposed to all forms of birth control and are just trying to get rid of extramarital sex altogether. And I'm sure a lot of pro-choice people are afraid that if they admit that abortion is, objectively, not such a great thing, that it will be a slippery slope to recriminalization.

And I see little evidence that there's "plenty of people", or even a significant number who want to outlaw abortion and have even the slightest concern for women or children.

Apparently you're not looking very hard (http://www.feministsforlife.org/), then.

[Cat Fight]

Apparently you're not looking very hard (http://www.feministsforlife.org/), then.

They call themselves Feminists for Life, but the life involved isn't the woman's. I'm all for more research into and subsidization of hormonal birth control – they're against it all (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/185637/985). I'd have an easier time believing anything they said about wanting to take the burden of contraception off of women if they were advocating more research for male birth control.

What Serrin Foster will not be advertising during her campus visit is that Feminists for Life is opposed to contraception. On this point, her organization and the rest of the pro-life movement is unified: most pro-life groups in the United States are anti-contraception.

Today, pro-life groups are reclassifying the most common contraception methods, including the birth control pill, the patch, the intrauterine device, and Depo Provera, as "abortifacients," claiming, with no scientific backing, that they cause abortions. On its Web site, Feminists for Life lists emergency contraception as an abortion method. If this were true, Feminists for Life must also consider 40 percent of all birth control methods as abortion methods too because they have the same mode of action as emergency contraception.

[Shot From Guns]

They call themselves Feminists for Life, but the life involved isn't the woman's. I'm all for more research into and subsidization of hormonal birth control – they're against it all (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/185637/985). I'd have an easier time believing anything they said about wanting to take the burden of contraception off of women if they were advocating more research for male birth control.

Huh, I was trying to find information on their site about that, and I couldn't. That's certainly annoying.

Whether or not someone considers non-barrier forms of birth control to be abortifacients is going to depend on whether follow the medical definition of abortion or if they consider anything that prevents the zygote from implanting to be abortion. Hormonal contraceptives and IUDs all prevent implantation, so if someone considers the moment of conception to be what defines personhood, they would logically consider those methods of birth control to be abortifacients.

People who don't support any forms of birth control, including barrier methods, are trying to control women. People who sincerely believe that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and therefore support barrior methods but not birth control that prevents implantation, are just giving the "child" (quotes because personhood of a single cell is up for debate) the same rights as the mother.

[Guinastasia]

Since adoption is a factor in creating serial killers (30% of serial killers are adopted, as opposed to 2% of the general population) there would be more serial killers and more killing of women.

With more babies available for adoption, more older children would languish in the dreadful foster care system.

WTF? Where the hell did you hear this? :dubious:



I can't provide a cite but it sounds reasonable to me. It's the same factors that Leavitt cited in his book. The type of people who seek abortions tend to be the same type of people who would make poor parents if they didn't get the abortions. There's common factors between the two groups: poverty, poor education, being underaged, being unmarried, drug and alcohol use, poor health, family problems. So if you decrease the amount of people in this group who get abortions you increase the number who become poor parents or put their babies up for adoption. And poor parenting is a factor in children being raised poorly and going on to do anti-social things like become serial killers.

So basically, only sluts and trash get abortions? :rolleyes:

And you're saying what -- that poor parents put their kids up for adoption? Then how does that mean said kids are raised poorly? Or am I completely misreading what you're saying?

[Superhal]

Over in [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530494&page=2]So, there's no abortions. How is society affected? Who is raising all the babies? Where are the jobs for these people when they reach adulthood? How does society handle the increase of people?

Probably nothing major. Very few so-called "doomsday theories" ever really pan out. Society has some variance for a few decades, then everybody adapts.

[River Hippie]

I think more people would opt for sterilization. Being child-free would become more common.

[Dangerosa]

WTF? Where the hell did you hear this? :dubious:






I went to go find the stats on this - because as I said before, the numbers are off on this one (as I recall), but there is truth - adoptees are far more likely to be violent criminals. Particularly domestic adoptees. But there are confusing variables - kids adopted by a step parent or grandparent are considered adopted. Kids adopted out of foster care situations - that have often had a history of abuse before they even reach foster care. It isn't ADOPTION that is necessarily the root cause, but there IS correlation. Unfortunately, my adoption books are almost always out on loan to someone, and are currently out on loan to a friend. And I can't remember the name of the book, or the author.

(They are also far more likely to commit suicide, far more likely to seek mental health help, far more likely to get divorced.)


(I think its Patricia Irwin Johnston's Launching a Baby's Adoption that has the stats in it. Its dated - 1997)

[Translucent Daydream]

Of course, you're also going to have more women dying during pregnancy or during childbirth, or becoming ill during pregnancy.

Yeah, like my exgirlfriend's mom. She was about 30 minutes from dying from an eutopic(sp?) pregnancy. The first doctor wouldn't do the abortion on moral grounds, even through the zygote or fetus or whatever wouldn't have been viable, and she was 30 minutes or so from dying according to the same doctor. Another surgeon ran down the hall and took her for a hysterectomy, where as she was still wanting to have children later. That killed that.

Oh sorry,

/soapbox

[Guinastasia]

Translucent Daydream -- it's ectopic. (Was this in the US? I hope she sued, or at least threatened to! WTF?)


I went to go find the stats on this - because as I said before, the numbers are off on this one (as I recall), but there is truth - adoptees are far more likely to be violent criminals. Particularly domestic adoptees. But there are confusing variables - kids adopted by a step parent or grandparent are considered adopted. Kids adopted out of foster care situations - that have often had a history of abuse before they even reach foster care. It isn't ADOPTION that is necessarily the root cause, but there IS correlation. Unfortunately, my adoption books are almost always out on loan to someone, and are currently out on loan to a friend. And I can't remember the name of the book, or the author.

(They are also far more likely to commit suicide, far more likely to seek mental health help, far more likely to get divorced.)


I think its Patricia Irwin Johnston's Launching a Baby's Adoption that has the stats in it. Its dated - 1997)


The reason it concerns me, is that if I want to have children someday, there's a chance I'd have to adopt, (a lot of anti-convulsants cause birth defects). :( Not necessarily, but it's always in the back of my mind.

[Translucent Daydream]

sorry

hijack

Translucent Daydream -- it's ectopic. (Was this in the US? I hope she sued, or at least threatened to! WTF?)


I tried to convince them to do something about it. This happened in 1992. She told me the story about it in 2000, I don't know how long the statute of limitations would be on it, but I tried to get her to at least report it to the AMA. She and her husband are now very paranoid of anyone in the medical profession so it was impossible to convince her to go the AMA with it.

/hijack

[Shot From Guns]

So basically, only sluts and trash get abortions?

No, the theory is that women get abortions who don't want to raise the children (regardless of the reason), so these unwanted kids are the ones least likely to be raised in such a way as to prevent them from becoming criminals as teens and adults. Here's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect) discussing the link between legalized abortion and crime.

The first doctor wouldn't do the abortion on moral grounds, even through the zygote or fetus or whatever wouldn't have been viable, and she was 30 minutes or so from dying according to the same doctor.

WTF? Even the "no abortion, even to save the mother's life" Catholic Church allows the removal of the fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

[davekhps]

More people wouldn't be able to walk away from the consequences of their actions.

[Dangerosa]

The reason it concerns me, is that if I want to have children someday, there's a chance I'd have to adopt, (a lot of anti-convulsants cause birth defects). :( Not necessarily, but it's always in the back of my mind.

Do your research. Most adopted kids turn out great. But there ARE risk factors. And it isn't unreasonable to believe that if we outlaw abortion, the things that contribute to adoption being a contributing factor toward "challenging" kids will grow. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Babies born to mothers doing drugs. Children conceived in situations of domestic violence. Birth mothers who decide to give raising kids a go, but who are really ill equipped for it and end up having parental rights terminated. Less than ideal placement situations (as the need for homes grow, adoption agencies may need to be less picky - yeah for gay couples, boo for less than stable home situation). Birth parents whose mental health state would have had them terminate - and who pass on a genetic predisposition to mental health issues.

Some of these stats, and I'm not sure when the ones I remember were compiled, are based on people born (and then adopted) pre-1973.

ETA: A big risk factor is aslo attachment disorder. And attachment disorder can lead to all sorts of "less than socially acceptable" behavior as adults. Particularly with kids who spent some time institutionalized or who went from care situation to care situation.

[Cat Fight]

More people wouldn't be able to walk away from the consequences of their actions.

Exactly. The same people banning abortions would have to face the poverty and crime they'd helped foster.

[Shot From Guns]

Exactly. The same people banning abortions would have to face the poverty and crime they'd helped foster.

Beat me to it. :D Although I was going to go with something like, "You mean that the government would have to enforce better maternity leaves and provide better health care and child care, right?"

[Guinastasia]

No, the theory is that women get abortions who don't want to raise the children (regardless of the reason), so these unwanted kids are the ones least likely to be raised in such a way as to prevent them from becoming criminals as teens and adults. Here's a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect) discussing the link between legalized abortion and crime.



WTF? Even the "no abortion, even to save the mother's life" Catholic Church allows the removal of the fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.


That's not true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)


However, Catholic scholars with The National Catholic Review and AmericanCatholic.org make a distinction between "direct abortions" that is, abortion which is either an end or a means, and "indirect abortions." While the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The embryo or fetus will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life, not to harm the embryo or fetus. Therefore, it is not a direct abortion.

While the positions in the previous two paragraphs appear in tension with one another, the relevant distinction may be between cases where the mother's life may be "in jeopardy," and cases where the mother would almost certainly die without the procedure that would—incidentally—destroy the fetus.



Even though it is an ectopic pregnancy that is mentioned the church is not going to forbid an abortion on grounds that a woman's life is in danger for another cause. (For example, recently there was a case where an 8 year old girl was raped and became pregnant -- and most certainly would have died without an abortion. While originally the bishop in her area -- this was in Latin America -- excommunicated those involved, the excommunication was revoked, due to the circumstances.)

[lavenderviolet]

They call themselves Feminists for Life, but the life involved isn't the woman's. I'm all for more research into and subsidization of hormonal birth control – they're against it all (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/185637/985). I'd have an easier time believing anything they said about wanting to take the burden of contraception off of women if they were advocating more research for male birth control.

If you just look at their website, the organization plainly states that they do not take an official stance on contraception or abstinence: Link to the FAQ page (http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception).
Even if you can find FFL members who are anti-contraception, that doesn't make FFL as a group anti-contraception or mean that an anti-contraception stance inherently goes with being against abortion. I can easily find members of the Democratic party who are vegetarians, but that doesn't mean all Democrats are vegetarians or that the Democratic Party has an official stance against meat.

On the website you link to, "Loserboy" (as he calls himself). needs a lesson in reading comprehension. He uses this quote from commentary in the FFL newsletter as "proof" that FFL is anti-contraception:
birth control counselling and abortion often indirectly contribute to the victim’s sense of shame, guilt, and blame for what is happening, since she is told to “take control” and “be responsible” for her “sexual activity,” implying that this situation is indeed within her power to control.

The FFL article the quote was lifted from is about a woman who was SEXUALLY ABUSED BY HER BROTHER. The article writer's point was that when people assumed she was having sex voluntarily and just not being responsible about birth control it was hurtful to her since it wasn't her choice to have sex, let alone to not use condoms. The point is not to say that birth control is bad but to make people think about jumping to conclusions that a woman with an unplanned pregnancy must have been irresponsible with birth control.

When someone can so grossly misunderstands something that's written down, I do not have much faith that Katha Pollitt's out of context report of Serrin Foster's view of birth control is an accurate understanding of her viewpoint. Considering how you can make a snippet of a quote sound like it supports any side of things, it would be more useful if she actually did report Serrin's comments in their entirety.

Don't let Dailykos do your thinking for you. Think for yourself.

[Der Trihs]

Beat me to it. :D Although I was going to go with something like, "You mean that the government would have to enforce better maternity leaves and provide better health care and child care, right?"
Not really. They'd just let the women and the children they forced upon those women sink or swim. At best. That after all is what we see in the real world; anti-abortion cultures are always also uncaring or outright hostile to women and children in general.

Assuming they exist at all, these compassionate anti-abortionists who always get brought up in these discussions are clearly insignificant in number and influence. In a nation that actually managed to forbid abortion and make it stick you'd be lucky if women kept the vote, much less got more maternity leave.

[Little Nemo]

So basically, only sluts and trash get abortions?

And you're saying what -- that poor parents put their kids up for adoption? Then how does that mean said kids are raised poorly? Or am I completely misreading what you're saying?What I actually said was "poverty, poor education, being underaged, being unmarried, drug and alcohol use, poor health, family problems" exist in both groups at a significantly higher rate than these factors exist in a random group of people. These are facts. Saying that somebody is a slut or trash because they're a high school drop-out, a drug addict, or a teenage mother is a matter of opinion and not one I would make.

And Leavitt does show that parents who put their children up for adoption at birth do still have a significant effect on their children's lives.

[Annie-Xmas]

It both amazes and disgusts me that 10% of the population would not allow an abortion even to save a woman's life. "Well, the doctor could be wrong."

For a real story of a case that the anti-abortion people should have kept their thoughts to themselves, read about Nancy Klein (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/12/nyregion/after-battle-on-abortion-a-struggle-to-recover.html). Her husband (the baby's daddy) and Ms. Klein's parents agreed to the abortion that the doctors said would help her recover from a coma, but two absolute strangers went to court to stop it, one claiming to represent Ms. KLein and one claiming to represent 'the baby."

[Shot From Guns]

That's not true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)

As far as I can tell, you just linked and quoted something that directly supports what I said. (I.e., the Catholic Church does not allow abortion, even to save the mother's life, but does allow measures to save the mother's life that would indirectly result in the death of the fetus, such as the removal of a fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.)

Not really. They'd just let the women and the children they forced upon those women sink or swim. At best. That after all is what we see in the real world; anti-abortion cultures are always also uncaring or outright hostile to women and children in general.

But we're looking at a hypothetical situation here, not "what if this particular misogynistic culture outlawed abortion."

Assuming they exist at all, these compassionate anti-abortionists

:waves: Hi. You've met one now.

Note that I'm an anti-abortionist in the sense that I think that abortion is a terrible stopgap measure that hurts women's rights, and I would like to see our government work towards actually addressing the issues that lead women to get abortions, not that I think making it illegal would solve anything. I would be perfectly happy for it to remain legal but unecessary.

[Cat Fight]

Don't let Dailykos do your thinking for you. Think for yourself.

You could throw 'check your links' in there, too. Thanks.

[Shot From Guns]

It both amazes and disgusts me that 10% of the population would not allow an abortion even to save a woman's life. "Well, the doctor could be wrong."

It's not that they think the doctor could be wrong--it's that they think the fetus's right to life is absolutely commeasurate with the mother's, and that it is never ethically right to sacrifice one life to save another. So, in the same way that they don't believe you could kill one person to harvest their organs to give another a life-saving transplant, they think that it's wrong to kill the fetus so that the mother may live, even if doing nothing will result in the death of both.

By doing nothing, they believe themselves to be not culpable in the death of the mother, which is caused by the fetus. If they were to abort, they would be culpable in the death of the fetus, with no corresponding credit for saving the mother.

Note: This is not a view that I endorse; I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind it.

[Der Trihs]

But we're looking at a hypothetical situation here, not "what if this particular misogynistic culture outlawed abortion."Which realistically is the same thing. Outlawing abortion goes hand in hand with misogyny.

:waves: Hi. You've met one now.

Note that I'm an anti-abortionist in the sense that I think that abortion is a terrible stopgap measure that hurts women's rights, and I would like to see our government work towards actually addressing the issues that lead women to get abortions, not that I think making it illegal would solve anything. I would be perfectly happy for it to remain legal but unecessary.Then you aren't really "anti-abortion" as the term is normally used; and certainly not in the context of this thread which is about outlawing abortion. I'M "anti-abortion" by the standard you are using, and so is almost all of the population I think; abortion is clearly second best to effective birth control by a large margin. "Anti-abortion" normally means "wants to outlaw abortion".