Coincidentally, a new Canadian study just came out supporting some of the points made above.
JThunder: We do indeed have higher statistics now, thanks to more stringent laws on child abuse reporting. However, these laws were enacted in the 1980’s and the rise in child abuse dates back to before then. Indeed, there are several studies which indicate a causal connection between abortion and child abuse […]
Your link only shows a bibliography reference to some articles, so I’m not able to see what those studies actually claim. However, I would be very dubious about inferring that abortion somehow causes child abuse. I could well believe that there may be a strong correlation among parents between incidence of abortion and incidence of child abuse: many of the women who seek abortions got pregnant out of irresponsible carelessness or immaturity or lousy judgement, or due to rape or incest or in an otherwise abusive relationship. If such women get pregnant again in similar situations and don’t abort the pregnancy, they and their partners are at higher than average risk for becoming abusive parents.
In other words, there may well be a positive correlation between various bad life situations and abortions, and also a positive correlation between those bad life situations and child abuse. But that doesn’t mean that abortion causes child abuse.
Moreover, one of my earlier links showed that the same trend has been observed in other countries, and that child abuse in the state of Washington exhibited a sharp increase immediately after abortion was legalized there.
Again, this seems to be a conflation of correlation with causality, a bit reminiscent of the notorious conservative/fundamentalist claims that dropping SAT scores or rising teen pregnancy rates were caused by the court ban on school prayer in the 1960’s. You would have to look at changes in child abuse rates in the years before legalization as well as afterwards, and you would also have to eliminate the possibility of other causes, before you could justifiably conclude that the correlation between increasing child abuse and legal abortion meant that abortion caused child abuse.
I also note that the “sharp increase” in abuse you mention in Washington (actually, your cited source only discusses Seattle: “Washington state legalized abortion in 1970. Within 28 months, incidents of child abuse in Seattle, its largest city, rose 379%”) is more or less meaningless as a pure percentage, without some ideas of the raw numbers. If, as the same source says, in 1972 “there were 2.05 reported abuse cases per 1,000 children”, then the absolute numbers involved may be pretty small, in which case even a 379% increase is statistically insignificant.
We need to be especially careful about the difference between cause and correlation, rather than just assuming that every study that unearths a positive correlation has actually found a “causal relationship”. By the standards of the evidence anyone’s presented so far, we could just as reasonably claim that legalized abortion has caused the increase in reported UFO sightings or the rise in people’s average age at first marriage.
Kimstu, I don’t claim to have absolute proof that abortion causes an increase in child abuse – although I did provide an article with cites several studies supporting that claim. Nevertheless, the point remains that there is a correlation between abortion and child abuse. In contrast, the claim that abortion reduces child abuse remains unsubstantiated, and is thus mere speculation.
I don’t expect anyone to provide absolute proof on this issue, as sociological phenomena do not lend themselves to laboratory experimentation. Still, when one side can support itself with statistical data, and the other side is forced to rely on conjecture, then I think there’s a serious disparity in the strengths of their claims.
Realy Czar?
I believe you, but have clinics really closed because of those protestors?
What about the Rico laws?
This is not true. According to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, which began measuring pregnancy rates in 1976, teen pregnancy rates fell or remained relatively stable until 1986, when they began an upturn. They peaked in 1991, then began declining in 1992 and have declined every year since.
This is not true. According to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, which began measuring pregnancy rates in 1976, teen pregnancy rates fell or remained relatively stable until 1986, when they began an upturn. They peaked in 1991, then began declining in 1992 and have declined every year since.
Whoops–I know this is going to double-post now, but there’s an even more current cite, from just last week, which notes that the rate fell yet again through 2001.
So not only did the number of teen pregnancies not “soar,” it has declined for more years (10) than it rose (5) – twice as many, in fact. I’d say that the availability of abortion in combination with the easy availability of contraception has been an unqualified success in reducing teen births, and that increased access to contraception can only make that more true.
“If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.”
Roe v. Wade was decided in January, 1973. I believe that teen-age pregnancies in the 1980’s were much more common than in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I do not have data, but one just didn’t hear about it nearly as much then. There’s no doubt at all that unwed motherhood is far more prevalent than it was in the 50’s and 60’s.
Note that the CDC report you quote did not compare teen-age birth rate in the 50’s and 60’s against those rates in the 90’s.
BTW welfare reform is probably the main reason for the welcome drop in teen-age birth rates.
Of course, many women in the 50’s and 60’s were simply “sent away” for “illness,” had their babies, had their babies taken and given up for adoption, and so forth.
I doubt it, and I’d like you to prove it.
Well, since the CDC report specifically mentioned that they only began collecting birthrate data in 1976, that’s really unsurprising. What’s more, your post claimed that “Choice was supposed to end teen-aged pregnancies. Instead their number soared.” “Choice,” one is to assume, is equivalent to legalized abortion, ergo your claim is that since Roe v. Wade, teen-aged pregnancies have soared. I have demonstrated that that is not true, so the 50s and 60s are irrelevant to your original claim. If you’d like to amend your claim, I will deal with it appropriately.
Welfare reform is only a few years old. The decline in teen birth rates is in its tenth year. Unless there were a lot of very prescient teens in 1991, you are simply incorrect.
I’d probably never be able to keep a boyfriend for very long, but unless I could find (and afford) a doctor willing to sterilize me, I’d rather be single than (potentially) dead. Gosh, I’m on the pill and I still get stressed out the day before my period comes. 
I just don’t think I could enjoy sex anymore while always thinking “this could be the time that kills me.”
Since this has turned into a Great Debate, I think I’ll quickly tiptoe my non-debating self out of here…
I’d dance in the streets, baby.
90% of abortions done before RVW were done in doctor’s offices.
The term “back alley abortion” was coined by PP and other multimillion dollar abortion industry reps in order to scare the public into thinking that, were RVW overturned, women would all of a sudden be getting abortions with coat hangers.
I’d love to see Planned Parenthood go bankrupt. And they can take their damn lies with them.
WV_Woman - Mind telling us which lies?
Netbrian, here are a few of them:
-
Oh, it’s not a baby. It’s just some tissue.
-
No, abortions don’t hurt that much. Just a little bit and then it’s all over.
-
You’re too young to have a baby, it’ll ruin your life. (Yes, having a kid young CAN ruin your life but how can putting a kid up for adoption do so?)
-
We’re not in it for the money. (At $400+ bucks a pop of course they are.)
-
We’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. (Then how come they get mad when a protester talks a woman out of having one?)
-
It won’t have any long term physical effects.
-
We “counsel” the girls before they have one. (Yeah, if you think coercion is counseling …)
Here are a few more of the lies which were used by the pro-choice movement.
Norma McCorvey, aka “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, has confessed that shelied in her testimony to the Supreme Court. Her lawyers had counseled her to claim that she was the victim of gang rape, so as to gain public sympathy and gain support for her cause.
Sandra Cano, aka “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, testifies that she had been lied to by pro-choice attorneys and was manipulated into having an abortion, so as to establish a landmark case that would further their pro-choice agenda.
The pro-choice movement has long claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare, that the fetus is thoroughly anaesthetized, and that this procedure is only performed in extreme cases – to save the mother’s life, for example. However, one of their own lobbyists, Ron Fitzsimmons experienced pangs of conscience at these lies. He confessed that these claims were patent and deliberate falsehoods.
And of course, I’ve already cited Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who confessed that he and his erstwhile NARAL colleagues were lying when they claimed that millions of illegal abortions were being performed each year, and that thousands of women were dying as a result.
1. Oh, it’s not a baby. It’s just some tissue.
This one is highly debatable, and depends on what stage the potential human is at. At this point, we’re still debating the threshold in which to declare “personhood”.
2. No, abortions don’t hurt that much. Just a little bit and then it’s all over.
Whether this is true or not should have no bearing on the legality of abortion. I think that compared to labor, it’s like a pinprick. And again, it depends on the stage. Taking a pill isn’t horribly painful.
3. You’re too young to have a baby, it’ll ruin your life. (Yes, having a kid young CAN ruin your life but how can putting a kid up for adoption do so?)
The emotional issue is also at stake here, as well as the process of an adoption, parents, partners, and other people. People themselves can determine at what point they should have a baby.
4. We’re not in it for the money. (At $400+ bucks a pop of course they are.)
Okay, can you prove that they make a significant amount of profit for an abortion, especially when compared to delivering a baby and other similar issues? It seems to me that having a baby would deliver far more to one whom was in it for the money.
5. We’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. (Then how come they get mad when a protester talks a woman out of having one?)
They may feel like the women made the wrong choice, or herself was coerced. It could simply because they believe that the emotion triumphed over logic, and now the baby will be born into less than desirable circumstances, or simply will be aborted even later.
6. It won’t have any long term physical effects.
Okay, let’s hear some long term physical effects. And be sure to give some for each stage, not just the later stages.
7. We “counsel” the girls before they have one. (Yeah, if you think coercion is counseling …)
Can you give me some examples of their coercion, preferably from a rather objective news source? In fact, I’d like examples of where each of these was uttered, (links, cites, etc), so I can get some context. This seems rather over-simplified.
I’m sure that WV_Woman will be defending her points soon, but I do want to address one thing.
Regardless of whether one considers the unborn to be a baby or not, it most certainly is not just a lump of tissue. Pro-choicers have been saying that for decades, and yet anyone who has cracked open an embryology text knows that this simply isn’t so.
I’m sure that WV_Woman will compare the “long term physical effects” to those of childbirth as well, and provide cites for the implication that abortion is more physically traumatic than childbirth.
Heck, I can do that for you right now.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/finmort.htm
And, on a more tangential note,
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf12.html
http://www.all.org/issues/ab06.htm
Well, some relevant links:
VW woman I think I need a quote for which PP office is telling those lies you mention.
JThunder, that may be, but (even with that) more current supreme court rulings have gone to still maintain the woman’s right to choose. It is also true that the dissenting justices wrote that they wanted to overturn Roe-v-Wade but they were not successful. . .yet.
And I can not defend the exaggerations and so called falsehoods of the pro-choicers. Only to mention that curiously there is very little info on the number of elective partial birth abortions. It looks like the lie was: saying enfatically that PBA were rare, when in reality there was no reliable data at that time.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm