# Hate abortion? Fire Bush! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917 "2004-10-29T20:15:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/21 "2004-10-31T06:31:49Z")
Terribly poor logic. As a society, we permit certain things and ban others. And societal agreement is the only moral force necessary here. Do we say we can’t enforce the laws against murder, because the only ones involved are the murderer, the victim (who’s dead anyway), the life insurance company and God? Of course not. Therefore we can decide to permit or ban abortion. I don’t personally believe that it can be banned without a change in the national mood, and a consensus view that the child is worthy of protection. This, rather than a ban, is my goal, since it alone would reduce abortion. You seem to have moral standing to advocate all sorts of laws, **elucidator**. Saying you have none on this issue is a pure cop-out. Unless, of course, that isn’t your view, and you’re just using it as cover. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/22 "2004-10-31T07:18:50Z")
Well, the choice is entirely yours. You can take me at my word, or you can go pound burdocks. I wholeheartedly endorse your campaign of persuasion, firstly, because I think it is precisely the correct venue, and secondly, because you admit to lacking justification to enforce your views without that concensus. That is a reasonable position, and I have no quarrel with it. But that train left the station about twenty years ago. I rather admire principled futility and Quixotic endeavors. Therefore, I have no problem with simultaneously wishing you the best of luck while assuring you that I will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/23 "2004-10-31T10:36:03Z")
**Mr. Moto** , what has been your own moral standing in efforts to bring deadbeat dads to justice and enforce child support laws? What efforts have you made to see that fathers have equal rights in custody hearings? What efforts have you made in support of on-the-job child care centers? Should there be an amendment to the Constitution banning the abandonment of a child by either parent once parenthood is established? If you and your wife both work outside the home, can you **honestly** say that you both share equally in time spent in childcare and household responsibilities? Do you think that most husbands and fathers do? If a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy, who should decide whether to terminate the pregnancy – the woman, the doctor, her minister, the mood of the society, the government? Please address this question on face value rather than saying that it doesn’t happen often. It does happen. The woman is also worthy of protection. Try to think of her as a human being. If it helps, she was an unborn child once. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/24 "2004-10-31T13:52:40Z")
In those rare instances where the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy, _every attempt should be made to save both the mother and the unborn child_. The mother should **not** unilaterally say, “My life is more important, so let’s just kill this thing! Let’s not even bother trying to save it!” If the fetus is viable, this may require delivering it prematurely–by Caesarean section, if necessary. If the fetus is not viable, then it cannot survive anyway without saving the mother’s life. Every single pro-life organization that I know acknowledges that. And yes, these circumstances ARE rare. That does not mean we should avoid discussing them; however, it does mean that we cannot use these situations to justify abortion in general. One cannot justify abortion on demand on the grounds that it is _occasionally_ need in certain _rare, life-threatening_ circumstances. That would be like saying that people should be allowed to ignore traffic lights, on the grounds that this is _sometimes_ necessary in emergency medical situations. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/25 "2004-10-31T15:11:02Z")
**MM:** _Abortion is legal in America right up to the due date._ This is a **VERY** misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that **under certain restricted circumstances** , abortion is legal after the first trimester. The [Roe v. Wade](http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm) decision established that > [@](#): > > anywhere in the U.S.: > > - a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester, > - state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman’s health. > - abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman’s health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions. So “abortions are legal right up to the due date” applies **ONLY** to abortions necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. All other abortions may be restricted or prohibited in the later stages of pregnancy, and AFAIK that’s exactly what state laws do. **JT:** \*One cannot justify abortion on demand on the grounds that it is occasionally [needed] in certain rare, life-threatening circumstances. \* Nobody’s trying to. The legal point is that the fetus’s legal status as a human person, and consequently its right to life, **changes** over the course of a pregnancy, just as the fetus’s biological development does. Early in the pregnancy, the fetus isn’t sufficiently developed to constitute a fully human person, so the woman’s right to choose an abortion outweighs the fetus’s right to life. (That’s when “abortion on demand” is permitted.) Late in the pregnancy, the situation is reversed: a woman may constitutionally be legally prohibited from choosing an abortion (unless the preservation of her life or health requires it) because the fetus’s right to life now outweighs her right to choose. Setting the transition points at the trimesters is obviously arbitrary and approximate, but it’s a reasonable attempt to make the law reflect the biological reality that over the course of pregnancy, an embryo starts out very different from a developed human person and ends up very similar to one. (That, I think, is what **Zagadka** was trying to convey, although I—and US abortion law—disagree with his position that the fetus’s transition to personhood occurs all of a sudden at the end of pregnancy.) Getting back to the actual thread topic: I agree that it’s impossible to draw from existing abortion statistics the conclusion that Bush policies in general somehow caused an increase in the abortion rate. But it’s worth asking what **did** cause the increase that researcher [Dr. Stassen](http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2425768) claims to have found (new link because I can’t find the story on **Stoid** ’s HouChro link any more): > [@](#): > > individual states, Stassen found that U.S. abortion rates declined 17.4% in the 1990s to a 24-year low when Bush took office. Many expected that downward trend to continue under the conservative president, but Stassen found the opposite: 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected under the pre-2000 conditions, and abortion has risen significantly in those states reporting multi-year abortion statistics. […] > > Stassen’s study found credible linkages between economic hardship and abortion. Two-thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child; half of women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate and co-breadwinner; and women of childbearing age are overrepresented in the 5.2 million additional persons without health coverage since 2000. It sounds reasonable to infer that economic conditions **do** put upward pressure on abortion rates (and I’d think that lack of health care coverage would be especially significant: paying for OB care out-of-pocket is hellaciously expensive, whether you plan to raise the child yourself or give it up for adoption). But I’d also want to know whether more women are getting unintentionally pregnant nowadays than previously, and if so, why. The ineffective-sex-ed factor may be significant; certainly, abstinence-only sex-ed programs are not [demonstrably effective](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html) in reducing teen pregnancy: > [@](#): > > Some abstinence-only programs, like more comprehensive sex education, have been shown to delay the age at which teenagers first have sex – which almost everyone agrees is a good thing. Yet studies also show that when teenagers from abstinence-only programs do have sex, they’re less likely than others to use protection. […] > > As the Union of Concerned Scientists report points out, there’s no evidence at all that the policies pushed by the institute reduced pregnancy rates in Texas. “Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases,” it says. “During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females. Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.” > > The evidence on abstinence-only programs from elsewhere hasn’t been much more promising. Last year, the Minnesota Department of Health evaluated the state’s five-year, $5 million abstinence-only program and found that it hadn’t reduced sexual activity among teenagers at all. Instead, over a year, the rates of sexual activity among students taking the abstinence course doubled, from 5.8 percent to 12.4 percent, which corresponded to the rate of sexual activity among teens statewide. To know what impact this has had on abortion rates, though, we’d need recent statistics on abortions among teens with exposure to different types of sex ed, which I can’t seem to find. ( **JM:** _[Abstinence] is the one known birth control method to be 100% effective._ You’ve heard of the difference between “ideal-use effectiveness rate” and “actual-use effectiveness rate” for contraceptive methods, right? The former is the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of a given method **when used perfectly every time** ; the latter is the effectiveness **as it’s actually practiced**. The **actual-use** failure rate of abstinence—i.e., the rate at which people who are supposed to be using it end up using it inconsistently and incorrectly—is actually higher than that of many other birth control methods. Abstinence is only as good as the self-control of the people who are using it, and when it comes to sex, lots of people turn out to have less self-control than they thought they did.) By the way, as long as we’re picking on illogical arguments: if economic conditions **do** have a significant impact on abortion rates, then just because Bush didn’t **cause** the current economic downturn doesn’t necessarily mean that firing him wouldn’t help. If his policies have been ineffective or counterproductive in promoting economic improvement for women who now can’t afford to have babies, then he’s **contributing** to the “economic-necessity-abortion” problem even if he didn’t cause it. ---
**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:** [October 31, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/26 "2004-10-31T15:47:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **JM:** _[Abstinence] is the one known birth control method to be 100% effective._ > > You’ve heard of the difference between “ideal-use effectiveness rate” and “actual-use effectiveness rate” for contraceptive methods, right? The former is the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of a given method **when used perfectly every time** ; the latter is the effectiveness **as it’s actually practiced**. The **actual-use** failure rate of abstinence—i.e., the rate at which people who are supposed to be using it end up using it inconsistently and incorrectly—is actually higher than that of many other birth control methods. Abstinence is only as good as the self-control of the people who are using it, and when it comes to sex, lots of people turn out to have less self-control than they thought they did. I won’t argue with any of that. It’s just that if a couple finds that they are going to have a child, there are only two people who are responsible for that situation, and neither of those two people is George Bush. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/27 "2004-10-31T15:53:42Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > That’s an interesting little argument - the economy has been poor under Bush, so he’s causing more abortions, so vote for Kerry to lower the abortion rate. > > To be convincing, you’d have to show significant evidence that the decline in abortion rates has been reversed on a nationwide basis (and there’s no data to back such a claim, only that abortion rates have increased in a limited number of states that have been surveyed, and declined in a smaller number). > > Then you’d have to be convinced that Kerry holds the key to an economic turnaround that will purportedly send abortion rates plunging again. > > It’s hard to believe that anyone whose vote is significantly swayed by anti-abortion rights fervor would be affected by such lame arguments. > > Why not just emphasize that there is a continuing threat to abortion rights based on potential appointment of anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, and suggest that people consider their Presidential vote accordingly? All excellent points. That part of the argument - that because better economies lead to fewer abortions, you should vote for Kerry - is much weaker. I personally think you’d have to _try_ to do as poorly as Bush has, but economies do have ebbs and flows all on their own, too. I would have framed the debate as, “Hate abortion? Focus your energy on increasing economic opportunity, instead of on changing the law.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/28 "2004-10-31T17:02:30Z")
**JM:** _It’s just that if a couple finds that they are going to have a child, there are only two people who are responsible for that situation, and neither of those two people is George Bush._ (Actually, in a case of pregnancy resulting from rape, only one person is really responsible for that situation, right?) Mostly, I agree with you. However, I think that promoting ignorance or misinformation about sex or contraception, which is what a lot of abstinence-only sex ed does, confers on the promoters some **indirect** responsibility for the unwanted pregnancies that result. They shouldn’t be on the hook for child support, but they are definitely part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/29 "2004-10-31T18:24:46Z")
I’d just like to make one point concerning economics. I strongly favor adoption over abortion, and would be glad to see a day when we have no abortions and as many adoptions are necessary. The thing is, while I have no idea what it costs to have an abortion, I know that carrying a child to term can be expensive. Pre-natal care must be paid for somehow. Also, sooner or later, the woman carrying the child will have to stop working, if she works. In America, companies are only required to provide unpaid leave for pregnancy. On my last job, with what they pay me and what my routine monthly expenses are, not counting the additional ones incurred by pregnancy, I would literally not have been able to afford to carry a child to term without tapping into some retirement savings I’ve got socked away, and even then, it’d be close. Before that, when I was out of work for seven months, the economics would have been even tighter, and I would not have felt comfortable seeking out permanent employment while pregnant, although presumably I could have set up some arrangement where I’d start work after my due date. While I was laid off, I had no health insurance, which would only worsen the circumstances. Now, I admit to possibly making the situation worse than it is. First of all, I’m a staunch believer that no one should attempt to raise a child on her own, and, barring rape, you’d better believe I’d at least hope the father of the child would assume some of the financial responsibility, although I have always assumed the responsibility of arranging and paying for my own birth control. Second, I’m pretty sure my family would step in to help me out, and the worst I’d have to endure is some long, unpleasant, possibly justified lectures concerning my own lack of responsibility. Third, I would hope my church would also step in and help me out. Come to think of it, would an adoption agency help with some of the expenses, or is this too close to baby selling? The thing is, becoming pregnant does have an economic impact on a woman, and I’m pretty sure carrying a child to term is more expensive than having an abortion. While, as I said, I much prefer adoption over abortion, I also know it isn’t necessarily that simple. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/30 "2004-10-31T18:48:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **MM:** _Abortion is legal in America right up to the due date._ > > This is a **VERY** misleading statement. > > …“abortions are legal right up to the due date” applies **ONLY** to abortions necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. All other abortions may be restricted or prohibited in the later stages of pregnancy, and AFAIK that’s exactly what state laws do. Maybe you never heard of [/doc/{@54854}/hit\_headings/words=4?]Doe v. Bolton.]([http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=)[group+f\_abortion!3A) This case, decided at the same time as Roe v. Wade, established that late-term abortions are legal if a doctor finds a need for them. Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/31 "2004-10-31T19:02:41Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **Mr. Moto** , what has been your own moral standing in efforts to bring deadbeat dads to justice and enforce child support laws? What efforts have you made to see that fathers have equal rights in custody hearings? What efforts have you made in support of on-the-job child care centers? Should there be an amendment to the Constitution banning the abandonment of a child by either parent once parenthood is established? > > If you and your wife both work outside the home, can you **honestly** say that you both share equally in time spent in childcare and household responsibilities? Do you think that most husbands and fathers do? > > If a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy, who should decide whether to terminate the pregnancy – the woman, the doctor, her minister, the mood of the society, the government? Please address this question on face value rather than saying that it doesn’t happen often. It does happen. > > The woman is also worthy of protection. Try to think of her as a human being. If it helps, she was an unborn child once. Right. What have you done, in support of any of these things? I worked for a short time as a clerk in the Allegheny County Family Court, in Pennsylvania. While there, I handled URESA cases and parernity determinations. Please don’t throw my maleness back in my face. I certainly can’t help that I was born male. This accident of birth in no way invalidates my right to take a stand on this issue. Even if it did, there are plenty of pro-life women. Not that it’s of any consequence either way, but Mrs. Moto is a stay-at-home mom. Our kids are 23 months old (boy and girl twins) and three weeks old, our youngest son. If a woman’s life is tryly endangered, abortion should be permitted. I have a problem with statutes providing for abortion if the health of the mother is endangered. This provision has been interpreted too broadly to include her mental and emotional well being, and under this interpretation any abortion could be justified. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/32 "2004-10-31T19:25:35Z")
**Mr. Moto:** \*Maybe you never heard of /doc/{@54854}/hit\_headings/words=4?]Doe v. Bolton. \* The link in your post goes to the opinion of J. Iredell in _Chisholm v. Georgia_, 1793. **MM:** _This case, decided at the same time as Roe v. Wade, established that late-term abortions are legal if a doctor finds a need for them._ That’s essentially the same thing as the _Roe_ decision: late-term abortions are permitted to protect the life or health of the woman, and it’s up to a doctor to decide whether her life or health is actually endangered. **MM:** _Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics._ Got a cite for this? It’s quite a serious accusation to claim that doctors are “routinely” lying and violating their medical oaths in order to provide unnecessary and illegal late-term abortions just because a woman requests one, and I would definitely need to see evidence for it. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/33 "2004-11-01T02:10:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **Mr. Moto** : Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics. Any doctor doing that on a routine basis is acting outside the law and could lose her or his license. Any clinic allowing such a practice would lose the right to remain open. And what we are discussing is what should or should not be within the the law. You will need to provide a _reliable_ source for such an outrageous claim. > [@](#): > > What have you done, in support of any of these things? I spent twenty years teaching in inner city high schools where I counselled young women who were pregnant. I was an advocate for opening the school’s daycare training facility so that it would include children of the girls who attended the school. I babysat while my students studied and administered a final exam once to one of my students who was in labor. In my “spare” time I volunteered at a crisis center doing work both on the phone and in person. Not all of the clients were pregnant, but many of them were, so I familiarized myself with legal options available in the state at that time. I have exposed one deadbeat dad who was running from justice – two wives and two children. (He was also a con artist preying on other women.) I am an advocate for stronger enforcement of paternal responsibility _and_ rights. For 32 years I have been an advocate for fathers having equal rights in custody hearings. (The Equal Rights Amendment would have benefitted men as well as women.) And of course, I support on-site child care centers to make work easier for fathers as well as mothers. I **do not** think the Constitution should be altered according to the “mood” of a nation. My husband and I share equal household responsibilities. That was true in my first marriage where my husband did all of the cooking and much of the cleaning and in my second marriage where we both have other priorites. I would _never_ marry a man who would be so disrespectful as to sit down and relax while I was still on my feet working and taking care of the children. The men who do that and the women who think that that’s the way it’s supposed to be are telling themselves a lighter version of the same lie that white people told themselves about their entitlement to have slaves do the work for them – and every Uncle Tom who bought into it. Now that I have answered your question, please just answer me this one thing. You said: > [@](#): > > Please don’t throw my maleness back in my face. I certainly can’t help that I was born male. This accident of birth in no way invalidates my right to take a stand on this issue. > > Even if it did, there are plenty of pro-life women. In what way did I throw your maleness in your face? Exactly what did I say that prompted you to say that? The only question I asked you that I wouldn’t ask a woman was about the housework and childcare. And if you aren’t doing half of it, it isn’t because you are male, it’s because you choose to be unfair. Your maleness has nothing to do with your stand. You yourself admit that many women are pro-life. Further, many men are pro-choice. I have been married to two men who understand that being **pro-women** does NOT mean being anti-male! Of course you have a right to your opinion, as do I. And I have the right to try to persuade you that maybe you ought to think about 1) what happens to those babies after they are born and 2) the fact that women are deserving of life too. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. As the law stands now, it is a fair law. No viable babies are aborted unless their is a danger to the life and health of the mother. Women don’t abort fetuses they have carried for five or six months without it affecting them physically and emotionally unless they are sociopathic or truly “zero at the bone.” Be aware that abortions that affected the life of the mother were allowed prior to Roe v. Wade. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/34 "2004-11-01T02:44:38Z")
[Fixed link.](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+f_abortion!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt54854%7D/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/35 "2004-11-01T03:07:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Got a cite for this? It’s quite a serious accusation to claim that doctors are “routinely” lying and violating their medical oaths in order to provide unnecessary and illegal late-term abortions just because a woman requests one, and I would definitely need to see evidence for it. [From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:](http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib13.html) > [@](#): > > In United States v. Vuitch (1971), the Court upheld a District of Columbia abortion statute that made it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life or health. The law had been challenged by a physician who had been indicted for interpreting the word “health” to include more than the statute allowed; the physician argued that the word “health” was unconstitutionally vague. > > The Court rejected the argument but, in effect, **approved a broader definition, noting that two other lower court rulings had construed the statute to permit abortions “for mental health reasons whether or not the patients had a previous history of mental defects.”** Indeed, the Court said, “this construction accords with the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health,’ which includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/36 "2004-11-01T03:09:35Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Still waiting John. Care to even _speculate?_ > > Here’s the simple data: > > For ten years, abortion was steadily decreasing. > > Since 2000, it’s been steadily increasing. I was just reminising about Y2K. That really was a boring year. The only thing that happened was that whole Presidential election thing. Nothing else happened. At all. The entire year. Nothing. Therefore, it must be GWB’s fault. :rolleyes: Quite lame, **Stoid**. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/37 "2004-11-01T04:47:41Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > While I’d certainly agree the Bush’s fiscal policy and international adventurism hasn’t done much to help the economy (arguably, it’s made it worse), blaming him for an economic trend that began in 2000 and which was predicted by the nation’s foremost economic guru 4 years previously is not merely asinine, it’s fucking idiotic. Perhaps. Is it asinine and fucking idiotic to observe that, since Nixon, the size of the federal debt (as a percent of GDP) has increased with each Republican administration and decreased with each Democratic one? Or that over the same timespan, Democratic administrations have reduced the size of the federal government (federal outlays as a percent of GDP) more than all the Republican administrations combined? It is certainly reasonable to believe that another Republican administration will lead to a higher national debt and a larger federal government - if recent history is any guide. Granted, correlation does not prove causation, but politicians are eager to take credit for a good economy, it only seems fair to hold them accountable for bad ones. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/38 "2004-11-01T04:53:14Z")
Not at all. Good economies are the result of prudent and practical policies, applied in adherence to sound principles of fostering entrepreneurship and personal responsibility. Bad economies result from unforseeable circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/39 "2004-11-01T05:17:11Z")
**Mr. Moto** , I take it then that you were unable to substantiate your claim. Abortions performed for mental health reasons were permitted before Roe v. Wade if it endangered the life of the mother. I do not know if women had to have a history of mental health problems or if they just had to be diagnosed as mentally ill at the time of the pregnancy to the point of endangerment of life. The fact that a court ruled in 1973 that it was legal to perform an abortion under such circumstances is not evidence that “Such a finding is routinely made by some doctors. Say, some of the ones getting paid piecework for abortions in some clinics.” In fact, the doctors performing the abortions would not be the ones diagnosing a psychiatric disorder. In returning to the subject of the OP, I am pro-life in the most basic sense of the word. Not only am I anti-abortion, I am also anti-war and anti-death penalty, and pro-children. That’s why I boycott Wal-mart’s which has a history of paying women lower wages for the same jobs and being lax in promoting them. (The one exception is their optical department where I get free optometry services and reduced prices on lenses.) In essence, I boycott Bush’s policies whenever possible. He is not pro-life. He is pro-exploitation of issues. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/40 "2004-11-01T06:03:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 1. There is no alternative (such as adoption) other than abortion to give up a baby. Adoption is not a end-all-be-all solution to unwanted children. Last I heard, there are lots of kids needing homes who are bounced around in foster care. **Mr. Moto** stated that there are 1.3 _million_ abortions performed in the US in 2000. About how many people in this country want to adopt? The answer is [less than you might think:](http://statistics.adoption.com/adoption_numbers_and_trends.php) > [@](#): > > In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994) > > In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. But, > [@](#): > > 104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and \*\*51,000 of whom were unrelated. \*\* In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. So, only 51,000 American-born children were adopted by “strangers.” So, the idea that these 1.3 million babies would quickly find homes doesn’t appear to be valid. The numbers of those [seeking to adopt](http://statistics.adoption.com/persons_seeking_to_adopt.php) are not much better: > [@](#): > > The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child. (Freundlich, 1998) > > Of the 500,000 women seeking to adopt, only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997) > > The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 232,000 women were currently taken concrete steps towards adoptions, compared to 204,000 in 1988. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999) Yes, there’s somewhat of a demand for healthy white babies, but what about black babies, or those who were born with severe disabilaties or illnesses? What about the costs and fees associated? (Each state differs.) Most importantly, what are we going to do with the “left-overs?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917.md?page=3)