# Catholic priest appeals to Donald Trump to end abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2016, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500 "2016-12-24T00:26:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/41 "2017-01-03T21:26:20Z")
> [@jacobson](#): > > The majority of Justices were not for Abortion but even with Scalia they had to follow the earlier right to Choice, so I believe it is just a political way to get Pro-birth people to vote Republican. I had read and heard that many RC priests told people if they were RC they had to vote for Trump or a third party. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > You need more evidence than that. It’s explicitly prohibited for priests to do that, and I’ve never heard one do it in decades in the pews, that is endorse or ‘disallow’ a particular candidate. [One did.](http://www.snopes.com/catholic-priest-put-aborted-fetus-on-altar/) ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Juicy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@Soylent\_Juicy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Juicy)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/42 "2017-01-03T21:38:48Z")
My first thought was: “How does a random person acquire an aborted fetus?” Then it got answered in the article: > [@](#): > > Pavone, a Catholic priest who heads New York-based Priests for Life, said the fetus was entrusted to him by a pathologist for burial. \*“…entrusted to him by a pathologist for burial.” \* So the guy exploits the fetus for his own agenda. Shouldn’t there be some kind of “breach of trust” issue here? ---
**Author:** ![Kyomara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8edcca/32.png) [@Kyomara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyomara)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/43 "2017-01-04T03:01:39Z")
> [@Donpeyote](#): > > More Black Americans (Aborted Children) have died because of Roe v Wade in last 43 years than Black Folks in General have died from War , Famine ,Accident, Weather disaster , Slavery & Klan activities & lynchings ,Aids , Sickle Cell Anemia in last 350 years of America . This is a perfect example of the “pro-life” movement 's latest concern trolling tactics, where they try to make it about race instead of women’s rights. There is scarce overlap between pro-lifers and civil rights activists but hey, anything to avoid supporting women’s sexual freedom, amirite? Fetuses are not citizens. The decision of whether or not to carry them to term is solely the mother’s. Abortion is a family planning issue, and it isn’t the government’s business or anyone else’s whether a woman chooses to continue or terminate a pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/44 "2017-01-04T15:51:32Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Your link goes to a site called [MercatorNet.com](http://MercatorNet.com). Here is a passage from their [“Our Ideals” statement:](https://www.mercatornet.com/info/our_ideals) > > My research shows that this site is operated by [The New Media Foundation](http://www.newmediafoundation.org.au).[[url=http://www.newmediafoundation.org.au/mission/]Their mission statement is:](http://www.newmediafoundation.org.au/#story) > > Anyway, looking around the MercatorNet site, these folks clearly have an agenda. [They write against gay marriage and LGBT people](https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality), [rant against “gender Marxists”](https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/for-gender-marxists-pronouns-are-the-latest-front-in-the-revolution/18962), and feature more than a handful of articles about how evil abortion is. > > [The article you linked to is directly copied from a Daily Mail article that is actually linked to in the MercatorNet article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3917460/Sex-education-does-NOT-work-no-evidence-school-initiatives-cut-rates-STIs-pregnancies-offering-teenagers-cash-work.html), although they do omit quite a bit from their re-printing, especially the ending:So there’s that.Here is the abstract from your link:So the idea that making it illegal results in fewer abortions seems like a biased argument, since it seems more likely that making procuring an abortion difficult, if not impossible, has more effect than the legality of the procedure. This is what the last sentence of the abstract is relating: if there is no where to get an abortion, fewer abortions will be performed. > > TL; DR: Your first source is biased and their reporting and therefore conclusions are suspect. Your second source doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. Good work detective. If you don’t trust the source what do you think of the data? As has been pointed out the Mercator Center did not perform the research it just reported it on its site. The actual study was conducted on eight seperate RCTs on three continents. Hard to get better data than that. The Texas study said exactly what I think it does. If you make it harder for people to have abortions then fewer people will have abortions. The way the Texas made it harder for people to have abortion was making them illegal. So making abortions illegal means fewer abortions. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/45 "2017-01-04T16:10:32Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Good work detective. > If you don’t trust the source what do you think of the data? As has been pointed out the Mercator Center did not perform the research it just reported it on its site. The actual study was conducted on eight seperate RCTs on three continents. Hard to get better data than that. > The Texas study said exactly what I think it does. If you make it harder for people to have abortions then fewer people will have abortions. The way the Texas made it harder for people to have abortion was making them illegal. So making abortions illegal means fewer abortions. Hypothetical. You have 100 abortions a year. You pass legislation that makes it illegal. Now you have 80 illegal abortions a year. About half of those have complications that cause reproductive harm in the future (including miscarriages [so, it’s like, bonus abortion]), and around 10 die. (I did pull these numbers out of my ass for the hypo.) Would you consider this to be a net good? You do have fewer abortions. Is that a goal you are willing to strive for at any cost? ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/46 "2017-01-04T17:36:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hypothetical. > > You have 100 abortions a year. > > You pass legislation that makes it illegal. > > Now you have 80 illegal abortions a year. > > About half of those have complications that cause reproductive harm in the future (including miscarriages [so, it’s like, bonus abortion]), and around 10 die. > > (I did pull these numbers out of my ass for the hypo.) > > Would you consider this to be a net good? > > You do have fewer abortions. Is that a goal you are willing to strive for at any cost? Also, add (also made up numbers) You have 20 born children who otherwise would have been aborted. 5 are born into otherwise “good homes” or get adopted into “good homes” by families that can provide for them. The remaining 15 are born to poor mothers without the ability to give them proper prenatal care, or support them properly after they are born. Of these, 5 are born drug-addicted and have complications all their lives, requiring frequent medical care, paid out of public heathcare funding 5 grow up to be violent gang members 5 grow up to be productive members of society Is this a net good? If so, what percentages would make it a net loss? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/47 "2017-01-04T17:55:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hypothetical. > > You have 100 abortions a year. > > You pass legislation that makes it illegal. > > Now you have 80 illegal abortions a year. > > About half of those have complications that cause reproductive harm in the future (including miscarriages [so, it’s like, bonus abortion]), and around 10 die. > > (I did pull these numbers out of my ass for the hypo.) > > Would you consider this to be a net good? > > You do have fewer abortions. Is that a goal you are willing to strive for at any cost? Not directed at me, but I’ll answer: my goal is to avoid the death of people. If your numbers were accurate, and if I assume you mean ten of the mothers die in addition to eighty of the unborn children, then I’d regard it as a failure. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/48 "2017-01-04T18:00:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not directed at me, but I’ll answer: my goal is to avoid the death of people. If your numbers were accurate, and if I assume you mean ten of the mothers die in addition to eighty of the unborn children, then I’d regard it as a failure. I’m not understanding you. You’d choose the path that leads to 100 deaths rather than the path that leads to 90 deaths (80 + 10 vs 100 in the original scenario). Or, do you consider 1 mother death \> 1 “unborn baby” death? Granted, going from 100 deaths to 90 is not some great success, but is it a failure? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/49 "2017-01-04T18:06:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not understanding you. You’d choose the path that leads to 100 deaths rather than the path that leads to 90 deaths (80 + 10 vs 100 in the original scenario). Or, do you consider 1 mother death \> 1 “unborn baby” death? > > Granted, going from 100 deaths to 90 is not some great success, but is it a failure? When you weigh the 40 complications that result in future miscarriages, it seems clear we’re reasonably past the remaining gap of ten. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/50 "2017-01-04T19:49:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Hypothetical. > > You have 100 abortions a year. > > You pass legislation that makes it illegal. > > Now you have 80 illegal abortions a year. > > About half of those have complications that cause reproductive harm in the future (including miscarriages [so, it’s like, bonus abortion]), and around 10 die. > > (I did pull these numbers out of my ass for the hypo.) > > Would you consider this to be a net good? > > You do have fewer abortions. Is that a goal you are willing to strive for at any cost? You have gilded your hypothetical. Of course 80 abortions, ten deaths, and forty miscarriages is worse than 100 abortions. In 1960 in the UK there was an estimated risk of dying in an illegal abortion of around 60 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the ensuing 57 years medical science has progressed enough to get that down to much lower rates. So a more realistic hypothetical would be 50 fewer abortions versus an death of the mother once every hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/51 "2017-01-04T20:08:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When you weigh the 40 complications that result in future miscarriages, it seems clear we’re reasonably past the remaining gap of ten. OK, at least now I understand the calculus. But note that he didn’t say all 40 women with complications would end up having miscarriage; only that the future problems would “include” miscarriages. No actual number was given. And, of course, the numbers are completely made up and don’t reflect anywhere near what the reality would be in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/52 "2017-01-04T20:11:30Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You have gilded your hypothetical. Of course 80 abortions, ten deaths, and forty miscarriages is worse than 100 abortions. . . . Not all pro-life advocates would accept this, reasoning that fetuses/babies are innocent, while mothers/fornicators are wicked and full of sin. (I acknowledge this to be a fairly small segment of the overall pro-life movement.) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/53 "2017-01-04T22:02:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You have gilded your hypothetical. Of course 80 abortions, ten deaths, and forty miscarriages is worse than 100 abortions. > In 1960 in the UK there was an estimated risk of dying in an illegal abortion of around 60 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the ensuing 57 years medical science has progressed enough to get that down to much lower rates. > So a more realistic hypothetical would be 50 fewer abortions versus an death of the mother once every hundred years. First, I did not gild my hypothetical, like I said, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. That’s about as ungilded as you get. I do not understand your statement that medical science has progressed. I mean, I do, but I don’t understand how it applies to illegal abortions that would not be using current medical science. Now, to be fair, one of the reasons that illegal abortions are more safe is because doctors are breaking the law, and performing them anyway. Getting an abortion done by an actual doctor, even if it is not a legal procedure, is nearly as safe as getting it done by a doctor as a legal procedure. But, what if you are not able to find a doctor willing to lose his license, his practice, and maybe even go to jail for your sake? Then you turn to the stuff that has not improved at all in the last 57 years. (Actually now that I think about it, most coat hangers are plastic now, does that help?) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/54 "2017-01-04T23:16:00Z")
There would be – and was, in many places, before legalization – a middle ground of trained nurses and other medical professionals, who would perform abortions illegally, but properly and safely. (Just as I know a guy who does car repairs, cash under the table, without a license from the state. He does a good job…but you’ve got no warranty whatever.) ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/55 "2017-01-06T02:06:54Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > So making abortions illegal means fewer abortions. …fewer _legal_ abortions. > [@puddleglum](#): > > If you make it harder for people to have abortions then fewer people will have abortions. But wouldn’t that lead to more illegal abortions, or forcing more women to go out of state for an abortion? Hence: From the WRTK abstract: > [@](#): > > The number of abortions performed in Texas at 16 weeks gestation or later dropped 88 %, from 3642 in 2003 to 446 in 2004, **while the number of residents who left the state for a late abortion almost quadrupled**. bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/56 "2017-01-06T14:44:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > First, I did not gild my hypothetical, like I said, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. That’s about as ungilded as you get. > > I do not understand your statement that medical science has progressed. I mean, I do, but I don’t understand how it applies to illegal abortions that would not be using current medical science. > > Now, to be fair, one of the reasons that illegal abortions are more safe is because doctors are breaking the law, and performing them anyway. Getting an abortion done by an actual doctor, even if it is not a legal procedure, is nearly as safe as getting it done by a doctor as a legal procedure. > > But, what if you are not able to find a doctor willing to lose his license, his practice, and maybe even go to jail for your sake? Then you turn to the stuff that has not improved at all in the last 57 years. (Actually now that I think about it, most coat hangers are plastic now, does that help?) Before abortion was legalized about 90% of [illegal](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373382/pdf/amjphnation00308-0022.pdf)abortions were done by physicians, and 2-8% done by the woman herself. Even if the woman gave herself the abortion advances in medical care would make it more likely she survived if something went wrong. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/57 "2017-01-06T14:50:24Z")
> [@Eddie The Horrible](#): > > …fewer _legal_ abortions. > > But wouldn’t that lead to more illegal abortions, or forcing more women to go out of state for an abortion? Hence: > > From the WRTK abstract: > > bolding mine. The number of out of state abortions quadrupled from about 100 to about 400 but the total number of abortions still fell by 2,200. That is a huge reduction. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/58 "2017-01-06T15:34:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The number of out of state abortions quadrupled from about 100 to about 400 but the total number of abortions still fell by 2,200. That is a huge reduction. Certainly, but if this huge reduction has resulted in the quadrupling of out-of-state-abortions, is that not a concerning factor for you? From your Illegal Abortion as Public Health Problem link, I saw this: (bottom of p. 949, under point #3) > [@](#): > > In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the **whole country** attributed to abortions **of any kind**. In New York City in 1921 there 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15 Bolding mine. Age of that stat notwithstanding…To make an unsubstantiated claim like that, on all abortions (including illegal ones) I didn’t find very convincing. How this author somehow had a bead on all illegal abortions that occurred is impressive, to say the least. And sure, maybe a quibble - but the use of exclamation marks in what’s supposed to be an academic paper doesn’t exactly warm the cockles of my heart. Did I see a date on that thing? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/59 "2017-01-06T15:35:50Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The number of out of state abortions quadrupled from about 100 to about 400 but the total number of abortions still fell by 2,200. That is a huge reduction. So, funding for child nutrition, daycare, other social services & education was increased to ensure that all these extra little bundles of joy (and their sainted mothers) would be treated with the respect they deserve? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500/60 "2017-01-06T21:28:01Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > . . . Even if the woman gave herself the abortion advances in medical care would make it more likely she survived if something went wrong. Also, advances in medicine have made even do-it-yourself abortions safer. Instead of coat-hangers, there’s the morning-after pill. (There’s a debate as to whether that even counts as an “abortion,” but the opponents claim it is.) The technology and knowledge are more advanced. It wouldn’t be dirty little back-alley operations, but a kind of “underground railroad” with standards of quality. I can also see some states, like CA, MA, and IL, having “sanctuary city” policies, where performance of abortion is not aggressively prosecuted, even if banned at the Federal level. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-priest-appeals-to-donald-trump-to-end-abortion/775500.md?page=4)