Did you by chance read the book? I feel like a broken record here. The author clearly states that his "Party of Death is NOT equivilant to the Democratic Party. He is referring to a philosophy that he feels degrades human life to something that can be redefined at will. He includes Republicans in the “Party of Death,” if they espouse the same philosophy. The reason the he includes “Democrats” in the title, is because he believes that the Democratic Party has basically gotten into bed with people who espouse this kind of thing, for political expediency, whether or not they actually personally believe in it.
As far as personhood goes, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, otherwise they would be protected under the Fourtheenth Amendment, which says in part
Actually, the pertinent part of the XIVth Amendment that SCOTUS referred to was:
Obviously a fetus has never been born or naturalized and is therefore not a citizen.
I have good insurance, and the state would never have to pay for my injuries. Seems to me that the state should have much less interest in whether or not I wear my seatbelt than they should have in whether or not babies are killed.
I don’t care if people make money off of it or not. I am just saying that someone making money off of something may have a motivating reason not to give women information about her alternatives.
cosmosdan suggested that the person could call on the phone to get the information over the phone, and set the appointment for 3 days later. Where is the hardship in this?
Don’t people giving up babies for adoption have 9 months to think about it? And there are waiting periods in which they can get the baby back if they change their minds. And yes, I believe adoption counselors do go through the various options with the mothers. Certainly, they give them extensive counseling to be sure that they are mentally/emotionally ready to give the baby up vs. keeping it.
Obviously. And I think it is ethical of the abortion provider to be sure the mother is aware of all of these organizations.
I have no idea what most people want…I was talking about my personal preference. I don’t agree that 3 months is not a long enough time. These days, the at-home tests can tell you if you are pregnant about 12 days after conception. You miss one period, you take the test, and you still have 2 1/2 months to decide what you want to do.
Why would it in practice make it available only to the tiniest minority of people?
The point is that it CAN be done…it is perfectly legal, and I don’t agree with it unless the life of the mother is in danger. I don’t care if there is one done a year or 1000. It makes me physically ill to think of a baby about ready to be born being dragged out of the womb and having its brain sucked out. Seriously, I cannot understand why anyone would think that this is something that needs to be kept legal. It is this kind of thing that Ponnuru was talking about when he refers to the “Party of Death;” people who can justify killing a baby about to be born are literally an inch away from justifying killing a baby that has already been born.
There’s no reason not to give women information about all the programs where she might get help. No one has given one reason why this would be a bad thing, other than some emotional reaction that it is overly paternalistic. Please give me one good reason why having this information would be harmful.
OK, if you want to get technical…how about requring to offer?
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that it is none of their business. However, medical professionals give their opinions about elective procedures all the time. Sometimes doctors refuse to do plastic surgery if they think the person has an unhealthy reason for desiring it, or they ask the person to have counseling first. It’s about being sure that the patient knows what they are getting into. Of course, there are some doctors who will carve up a face like whoever worked on Michael Jackson. He wanted the surgery, but is it ethical for a doctor to do that? I’m not sure it is.
I find this argument ridiculous. There are dozens of ways in which we as a society try to look out for and protect the interest of adults who might be uninformed. That’s all I’m suggesting. I find, “don’t be ridiculous they’ve already heard” completely naive at best.
I take this to mean you really don’t know. In all honesty neither do I but the world being what it is I wouldn’t be surprised. Why do you suppose they do it if not in large part for profit. I’m not saying most abortion clinics, but I’d wager enough to matter. I’ve seen plenty of businesses create policies that were definitely detrimental to their customers for the sake of profit. Do doctors ever prescribe medication to get a kickback? Do some preform unnecessary surgery for money. I’d be interested in knowing how many abortion clinics are actually owned by someone who is there daily and how many are owned by someone else who sets the policies effecting profits.
Please…#1. yes it’s completely obvious that a waiting period won’t change a woman’s economic status. What it might change, which was made perfectly clear, is their awareness of support programs that might allow them to keep a child when they abortion was the only economic solution.
#2. I’m assuming no such thing and never said or implied it. What I think may be true from Sarafeena’s 1st hand experience {if you have any I’m all ears} is that enough woman would change their mind to make the effort worthwhile. How many is that? I don’t have a number or a percentage.
A delay is not an obstacle. Asking those that are sure of what they want to tolerate a waiting period to help the smaller percentage is not asking too much IMO. Especially since they get exactly what they wanted without change and the few can be greatly effected in a positive way.
I don’t recall saying anything about restricting it to the point of near impossibility. Care to correct me? My suggestion is a waiting period and some information oriented counseling after which anyone who still chooses abortion would be granted one. In what way does that make it a near impossibility?
This is just another ridiculous assumption that simple common sesne should tell you isn’t true.
Really. I didn’t know and I’m glad to hear it. In case you didn’t actually read some of the posts there are definitely some women who don’t know what all the options are. It’s not insulting their adulthood to try to insure that the minority, who don’t know all the options have the chance to be made aware before they make an important choice.
Once again, we have dozens of laws to protect those who may not know all the options available to them. I can’t see a waiting period as an undue hardship for the women you think have their minds made up in a completely informed adult manner. While I deeply sympathize for any rape victim who gets pregnant I don’t see ending their emotional hardship two or three days sooner a justification to impose undue emotional trauma on others. That kind of trauma suffered by a woman who has an abortion and then regrets it lasts a lot longer than two or three days doesn’t it? A few of those rape victims might opt for another choice as well.
Please try and be realistic. You spoke of the incredible burden of transportation and time. I proposed that a woman who gets in touch with a clinic could have the information mailed to her and a phone conversation with an information counselor. She makes the trip only after a brief waiting period thus making one trip only. Is that a reasonable solution or not?
I haven’t looked it up but I’d wager there’s some kind of interview and a wait prompted by simple scheduling for many elective surgeries. The added concern here is two fold. Even those who see a fetus as just a clump of cells can’t deny the life potential there and I would hope the idea of giving that potential some consideration before choosing to end it isn’t too outrageous. We must also realize that not every woman who applies for abortion sees that fetus as just a clump of cells either. For you the choice to get a vasectomy was “I don’t want to have any {more} children” How reversible are vasectomies? For at least some women the choice is “I don’t want to have this child” It is out of concern for the few making that kind of decision and the respect for that life potential that the choice to have or not have an abortion might be a considered more serious.
Yes and yes. In fact I didn’t know the Bush admin had that rule. ONe more reason to be disgusted by them.
Yep
agreed. In fact I’m surprised about the pregnancy rate. Effective birth control is available isn’t it?
A friend of mine actually went to get his reversed. How viable is that? My guess it it varies from doctor to doctor and clinic to clinic. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, there is a difference.
My other question is at the time you chose to get one did you have children?
If a young man of 21 or 22 with no children asks to get a vasectomy would the doctor be morally responsible to talk to him about the seriousness of the decision and even ask him to think about it for a few days or would he be a meddling bastard?
We sure hope so. I think good sex education including birth control and abortion should be mentioned fairly early. It seems irresponsible to wait.
That wasn’t actually the questions I wanted to ask but since we’re there.
In WWII Japan attacked us but Germany also attacked our ships that were supplying Great Britain. Not only that Roosevelt was certain that if we didn’t help our allies in Europe then we would eventually face Hitler alone. It took him years to convince an American public that still remembered WW1 all to well. In other words Germany was a direct threat to our security as well.
I agree. There is a lot to consider and it isn’t an easy call. In this specific case I think enough evidence is and has been available. It’s only gotten worse as time has passed. Regardless there’s no need to continue the comparison.
I understand. I see the two discussions as somewhat linked but certainly seperate discussions.
That’s the crux of my feelings about the author rather than the issues. In choosing his title he asked for it so he’d better be ready.
Very nice of you to say so. It has been my pleasure. It’s one of the things I enjoy about the SDMB I’ve been greatly educated and had my horizons broadened by several fine folks like yourself. I appreciate the guidelines of GDs that tend to somewhat weed out the rabid fanatics.
On a side note I’ve been thinking for months that I personally need to put my money where my mouth is and find some real way to contribute a little time to my community. It may not be the same kind of cause you chose but thanks for providing a little testimonial motivation.
Yes and no. When I was in college you had to go to drug stores to get condoms. Now they’re on the shelves in grocery stores. But sex education still leaves a lot to be desired. It took a lot of debate in my quite liberal school district before the sex education play could include putting a condom on a banana. Imagine the situation in an abstinance only school.
Again, it’s irreversible. At least I was told that I shouldn’t count on being able to reverse it. I did have two kids - we’re poster children for planned parenthood, with the second planned to give us a year off between paying for college - which we were damn glad of two years ago!
There’s a consultation, like there is for any surgical procedure.
One anecdote. My cousin is an ob-gyn, and specialized in fertility. He worked for years with one couple - this was over 20 years ago - helping them conceive. It finally worked - and they decided they were getting divorced and she wanted an abortion. :eek: I’m sure he wanted to dope slap the both of them, but adults should control their bodies. There is no law saying a doctor shouldn’t counsel his or her patients about anything - but do want the jackbooted representatives of Washington or a state government in the examing room, coming between a woman and her doctor?
It seems to me conservatives spend a lot of energy keeping the prying fingers of government away from their guns, but when it comes to my daughters’ vaginas - not so much.
cosmosdan…I’m sorry I misunderstood your question!
Interesting.
from here
another page states the 40 to 50% of the reversal operations are unsuccessful. I guess that means some are.
I think the reaction and the amount of consultation for a man with two planned children would be quite different from a single childless young man. Rightfully so.
It would be reasonable for a doctor to choice to refuse the procedure for personal convictions.
dope slap…that’s a better expression. All three of my kids were accidents and not very convenient. They are now wonderful adults who contribute to society.
I understand this objection. Someone mentioned the seatbelt law and in general I am opposed to the kind of laws that suggest “you’re not capable of making a decision so we must make it for you, and of course punish you if you don’t obey the law that’s for your own good”
This situation I see as slightly different. We want women to have a choice but when conservatives claim that “the poor have chosen their own lot, why should we give them what we have worked for,” liberals cry for more social programs to look out for the needy and less fortunate. We put programs in place to require a waiting period for firearms. Can’t adults make that decision without government interference? We create laws to insure that other types of businesses give their clients the proper information to make a responsible choices.
What I’m proposing is out of concern for the few women who might choose abortion out of desperation we create a short waiting period and we do more to insure that clinics are distributing information about support programs.
I completely agree with your point that all information should be distributed freely. I find the Bush’s selective control of information reprehensible although I am not surprised by one more in a long line of reprehensible acts by them.
Again I see you point. I tend to see my proposal as a social program born out of concern rather than an attempt to control or limit.
The other side of the coin is interesting to me. I support personal responsibility. Liberals seem to want lots of programs in place to help the poor many of whom are where they because of a series of bad choices. When conservatives say “It’s their own dam fault” Liberals cry about how heartless they are. Now I propose what I see as a helpful program and I get “leave them alone, butt out, they can make their own decisions”
I hadn’t asked the actual questions and they are a little off subject but here goes.
Just to get your take.
In thinking about this issue from a spiritual stand point my conclusion is that believing in a soul or spirit we have no way of knowing when that soul enters the body or how that works. Children die and we have a hard time explaining any reason or purpose in that. One thought that intrigues me is that the purpose of that soul was to bring that experience to the others involved.
I believe in honoring the potential of life even if we don’t know. We must try to equally honor the free will of the people involved trusting that every choice has just consequences even if we can’t always see them. In other words it is dishonoring the free will given by God to try and force our own vision of morality on others. Some things we need to leave to God. We choose for ourselves but not for others. Concerning abortion this might mean that the decsion should be left between the woman as well as the doctor and God. We try to help those in need and help people make good decisions. You experience some women who need help in order to choose something other than abortion. I’m sure there are other women who feel coerced by family pressure and the opinions of others to have a child they may not have kept if they were free to decide for themselves. Shouldn’t those women be just as free to choose?
It also occurs to me that if we believe that God’s will cannot be frustrated then no soul meant to come into human existence will ever be denied. If that is true then is it possible the decision to abort a pregnancy or not is more about the people involved in that choice and how the choice affects their lives , than the fetus?
You have said you consider that the being is fully human from the moment of conception right? If you are convinced of that then I suppose I can surmise your feelings about what I’ve said. If you care to I’d like to hear your thoughts from the spiritual point of view. If we are truly spiritual beings more than temporary physical beings how does that affect the abortion decision?
Boy! I hope that wasn’t too confusing.
The Burden of a Waiting Period
Despite the desire of those on the board to use the waiting period to provide women with alternatives to abortion, in practice it has been used almost purely as an obstacle and a scare tactic to spread false information. Although first term abortions have been seen to decrease in areas where a waiting period is mandatory, a proportional rise in second term abortions has been noted, suggesting that the waiting period only served to postpone abortions to a medically riskier time, not reduce them overall.
At present, 87% of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider. If left to the states, there would likely be even fewer. States like North Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana and others are considering or have passed statewide abortion bans. As I’ve already mentioned, access to an abortion provider is limited for the poor and rural. If they have to travel out of state, it becomes even more so. To my knowledge, a phone call to make an appointment does not count as part of the waiting period. The woman must first show up in person before it begins. If the proponents of this were only concerned with making sure a woman is aware of her options, I imagine they could have implemented the waiting period as you suggested. Since they didn’t, it seems to me that the ultimate purpose was to make actually getting an abortion that much more difficult.
Waiting costs money. Travel expenses. Lodging. Food. Childcare, if the woman already has children. Time off work and lost wages. If two visits are required because they cannot be accommodated within a three day period, the “waiting period” can stretch into weeks. The later it is performed, the riskier the procedure and the higher the cost. These are the things the courts have described as being an “undue burden” on those seeking an abortion. These problems aren’t as big for the upper middle class or the wealthy, but for everyone else it can mean not having realistic access to a medical procedure. If nothing else, this violates the equal protection clause.
When abortion providers have been required to provide counseling, it came with state approved “scripts” that pushed childbearing, and included misinformation designed to frighten and dissuade women from going through the procedure. Many counseling requirements for doctors, hospitals, and health agencies specifically prohibit them from including information about abortion. This is not about “getting all the information”. It’s about stacking the deck.
“Partial-birth abortion” has been singled out by the anti-abortion movement precisely for this reason. People react to how it makes them feel rather than looking at the facts. The name was invented by the anti-abortion movement. Medically, it’s a D&E (dilation and extraction). They account for around 1% to 2% of abortions performed, and statistics show that none are performed past the period when a fetus would be defined as premature. Doctor’s need a sound medical reason to perform one and the only references I can find for “psychological trauma” are extremely rare cases where a woman has become suicidally depressed. There’s a thread in IMHO about depression. It’s a real, medical state, and to toss it aside as an unsound concern is dangerous. In general, though, D&Es are performed because of danger to the mother’s health, or because of an incurable medical problem with the fetus (problems which might be reduced if the U.S., like every other industrialized nation, had government supported, guaranteed health care). Banning D&E primarily penalizes people who wanted their pregnancies, but have tragically been unable to sustain one until birth.
Three months is not a long time. Many women experience irregular periods. Before she was on the pill, my girlfriend’s could come anywhere from three weeks to six months. I would imagine perimenopausal women would have similar difficulties. This also affects women with infrequent or nonexistent periods due to exercise, women with light periods who mistake spotting that normally occurs early in pregnancy as a period, and women whose pregnancies are initially misdiagnosed.
Well, see that’s where the two sides are never going to agree. Legally and medically, abortion is not “killing a baby”. I understand it will always be so to the pro-life supporters, but I would argue that that’s a religious belief and shouldn’t have any bearing on the law.
I’d really like to see some evidence of the “abortion mills” anti-abortionists claim exist. No, not all doctors live up their standard of ethics. But the worry that something bad might happen, or that someone might take advantage of a system is no reason to restrict its legality. You can’t punish one person because another might profit.
In actuality, abortion providers charge less than average fees than other specialties. Adjusted for inflation, an abortion in the 90’s cost half of what it did in the 70’s.
And I think it’s absurd to think that anyone goes in for an abortion without having thought long and hard about it first. People who wouldn’t have an abortion if they thought they had other options, generally look for other options.
And the trauma of a woman who needs an abortion but is denied it? APA studies have found no evidence of post-abortion trauma, and “while some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.” In fact, higher levels of stress and psychiatric problems are found in women opting for birth or adoption than abortion. Other studies have found that women who undergo counseling by those who promote a post-abortion stress disorder, regardless of their actual psychological problems, were encouraged to direct their anger at the doctor and told that they hadn’t been warned of the psychological danger.
The potential for life is not equal to actual life. The rights of a fully formed, autonomous woman should always outweigh the “consideration” we should give to a lump of cells. As I discussed with D&Es, there are plenty of women who seek abortions who consider a fetus to be “more than a clump of cells”, and yet, they’ve still decided that an abortion is best for them. So how is your “concern” relevant for these women? By your standards, they should know more than anyone else the issues and decisions involved. They would be the least in need of waiting periods and counseling.
I’ll have to bow out on that note. My guest status expires tomorrow, and as much as I’ve loved being able to talk with you all, I don’t have the extra cash for entertainment right now. Thanks for letting me participate.
My argument was not that how the waiting period was being used by others was justified. I don’t support scare tactics or the spreading of false information. The fact that waiting periods have been misused by some is not a convincing argument against the waiting period itself.
I understand what you’re saying but that was not my argument. AS I said clearly and repeatedly. My proposition was a waiting period out of concern for the women making the choice. I have nothing but disdain for those who would manipulate policies to judge and punish women.
For them not for me. Do not judge and respond to my posts based on the actions of others. The argument is that women should have access to all the available information to make this choice. That’s what I support.
I agree.
I’d like to see some reliable info on this too. I have no problem with anyone making a profit but when dealing with something like this it needs to be done with special consideration and sensitivity for the patient.
I can easily believe that a very high percentage have already done this. My concern has been for those who may not be aware of what support programs are available. I’ve stated it clearly and acknowledged that it is a minority. The argument that “all women already know all the options” is just ludicrous and a waste of time.
Here you make an interesting argument. I’d like to see those studies. It makes sense to me that woman compelled to have a child they didn’t want to have would suffer emotional trauma. I can also believe in the feelings of relief and happiness. for many.
I agree. That’s why I chose the word consideration.
One more time. My concern is for the few who may not be aware of all the options. Not women who have given it careful consideration and made up their minds. For those women I honor their choice.
While it may be true that some have misused the waiting period you have failed to convince me that it is wrong in principle or creates more undo hardship than aide. It may be that there are fewer women that would be helped by a waiting period and information counseling than I originally thought. I’d have to do more study to find out.
No, it’s not confusing, but I am not sure I have a good answer for you, because I am not all that spiritual of a person. Most of my pro-life belief comes more from my own attempt to reason out in my mind when the “clump of cells” becomes a baby. The only answer to this that seems logical to me is at conception. I detailed in another thread how I came to this conclusion, so I won’t do it again here, but suffice to say that all the points that people usually mention (1st trimester, viability, 2nd trimester, birth etc.), just do not make sense to me…there is no point where I see the baby being fundamentally different from one moment to the next other than conception.
So, yes…I believe that babies are babies from the moment they are conceived. I also do believe in free will, and I believe that everyone has to answer for themselves in the final analysis. But I believe that with free will God has given us an awesome responsibility. We are called to CHOOSE to live moral lives, even though we have free will not to. To me, the ultimate in misusing this free will is to kill one’s own child in the womb. In addition, because of this controversy over whether or not this is a moral thing to do, that child doesn’t have the protection of society or the state, as any other person does. This brings an even stronger imperative on the only person with power over this child to protect it…the mother. In my mind, the problem with abortion in our society isn’t that it is legal, it is that the attitude towards it has become so cavalier.
As far as God’s will is concerned, I believe that it is thwarted all the time. Or, more to the point, in a way his will is irrelevant to the happenings on earth. The world was created with good and evil in it, people have free will, and they exercise it.
I don’t know the answer to your last question except to say that I guess that I would have to assume that anyone who believes that the baby is a person and more importantly, has a soul, then I would think that they would be much less likely to believe that abortion is OK. I don’t know this to be a fact, of course, but I would imagine it would be so.
I hope this comes a little closer to answering your question. 
I think the message was that one shouldn’t go into this operation expecting to be able to change one’s mind. A very reasonable message. A friend’s boss tried for a long time to reverse his, and spent a lot of money and failed.
This doctor should have guidelines posted as to what he will or will not do. I don’t know what medical ethics say, but I think it is wrong to decide who gets treated and who doesn’t out of his personal preferences. No one is forcing him (or our anti-birth control druggists) to take this job.
This is a bit of a hijack, but if conservatives really believed that they would be in favor of increasing the minimum wage so that those who work their butts off can get a break. I’m successful for the most part because I had the good fortune to be born smart. I don’t fool myself that this is from any sort of good choice or virtue. If 50% of our personality is genetic, how can we claim that the poor guy who can’t handle anything but simple work does it out of bad choices? If their hero, the president, hadn’t been born to a rich and powerful family he’d be a pauper or dead.
Did you know that the inventor of the Xerox machine spent much of his childhood living in boxes because his father got sick and couldn’t work very much? A bad choice by his father, no doubt.
The waiting period is not for them to reconsider, but for their records to be checked to make sure criminals are not buying guns.
I really don’t think that making social support available to the poor is the same as a mandatory waiting period or mandatory counseling. Information on all the options, including adoption, should be readily available. But let’s not fool ourselves that those who want this mandatory counseling are going to settle for equality of options. They want to show the bloody pictures. They want the heartbeat - and I bet they’re not going to show the lack of brainwaves.
Should someone who turns on the ignition without buckling a seatbelt be forced to watch a five minute video of mangled bodies, like you see in Driver’s Ed? Should a picture of a cancerous lung be on the back of every cigarette carton? It might save some lives, but let’s keep the government out of it, okay?
volvelle, excellent post. I thank you.
cosmosdan, I understand your point, but in reality the waiting period is used to try to make life harder for those wishing an abortion. We’re in the 21st century - how about a packet of information, or an email with links to dispassionate sites giving information about options, when an appointment is made? There is a difference between making information available and ramming it down a woman’s throat.
I realize that post makes me sound more conservative than I really am. It isn’t easy to find the balance between helping people but creating a society and system that promotes a motivation to work and personal responsibility. I have some personal experience with folks who abused the system but I realize the fault is only partly theirs. It’s our responsibility as a society to try and create jobs that pay a decent living wage. Things are out of balance.
True. I was trying to point out that we do choose to impose laws to protect people. A bad comparison I guess.
I believe you. I’m not in favor of abuse of the guidelines to restrict choices or to manipulate them. I realize it’s not going to be a perfect system. There may be a minority of clinics too eager to make a profit and a minority of women who don’t know all the options. Perhaps all we need are packets of information that have to be distributed and information at the clinic under the heading of “Adoption” or “Assistance programs” I agree that most women who actually apply have already thought it through. My thought was to try and be as sure as possible that the info was getting to those in need.
I agree. Those posters infuriate me. If I joined them with a poster of a couple going at it with a red circle and line through it I’d likely be arrested. They don’t seem to care about the families driving by and the kids in those cars. We can’t show the coffins of soldiers coming home to show the horrors of war but those are okay. What hypocrisy.
I wish I’d gotten that response from volvelle first. It was much more thought provoking than the other. I guess I can understand how someone might see my posts as reinforcing some bad practices but that’s not what I meant at all.
I guess I see the woman least likely to know as probably poor and less educated, or under emotional stress and needing some help. I’m not for ramming anything down their throats. I think it’s important enough to do more than simply have flyer’s on a coffee table. I see it more as an information counselor who communicates with the clients only to offer information. Those who already know their options can ignore it. I confess that I haven’t really examined all the facets of this issue.
I am very much in favor of complete information and education before pregnancy. I don’t think we do enough to prepare our young people for real life.
BTW my stepdaughter decided to give her baby up for adoption and continue her education. When the child was born the adopting parents and her Mom were there supporting her. She gets regular updates on the child’s progress. I thought it was marvelous.
Wow…I am so impressed by that. As an adopted person myself, I have so much admiration & thanks for women who are brave enough to do this. It warms my heart more than any legal abortion restriction ever could!
Yes thank you. Feeling as you do I understand.
In Freakanomics the authors worked with crime statistics and whether the state made it difficult to obtain abortions. The states that supressed abortion have higher crime rates. The people that seek abortions often reason that they are unable to raise a child. They are on drugs, alcohol , too young and immature ,too poor, alone or dont feel able to raise a kid. Sometimes economic reasons and taking mothers and young fathers out of the school system occur. But when the national laws allowed abortion a huge drop in the crime rate occured.All the cities and the Clinton governmebt took credit for the drop in serious crime. But, the authors saw an unmistakable corelation to the availability of abortion. They also found that many that had abortions got pregnant later in life when they were better prepared to raise a child. The kids turned out better.