Haven’t the statistics bore out that it doesn’t really matter what a president believes about abortion? The abortion rate went up and down under Clinton (mostly down IIRC), and up and down during the Bush years. As someone mentioned above, it’s apparently more closely tied to the state of the economy than anything the man in the White House believes.
No.
The law is a useful tool for somethings, but as I pointed out before, outlawing abortions won’t prevent more abortions than educating women will. What I don’t “get” is why would someone who is pro-life prefer to change the law rather than promote sex education as a way of stopping abortions.
I understand getting the law right for the sake of the legal system. That is a worthwhile goal, but we are talking about the goal of preventing abortions here. At least that is what I made the OP about, assuming that a pro-lifer’s goal is to prevent abortions. So, which candidate would actually prevent more abortions?
I’m not saying there are no good reasons to overturn Roe v. Wade. My main point is that sex education would prevent more abortions than overturning Roe v. Wade would.
I’ve never read Roe v. Wade, so I can’t sincerely argue about whether it is good law or not. If you want to vote for McCain because you want the law fixed then go ahead.
What I am trying to say is that outlawing abortions won’t stop more abortions than increasing sex education will. So if you want to vote for who will prevent more abortions, then Obama might be a better choice.
If someone could present a case as to why outlawing abortion in certain states would prevent more abortions than sex education would, then I will gracefully concede this argument.
Just out of curiosity, (and maybe this needs a separate thread), has anyone actually documented a reduction in pregnancies that could be tied to sex education?
As an analogy, even before recent financial difficulties for school systems, a lot of those systems had begun getting out of the driver education business on the grounds that there was no evidence that it reduced teen accidents. I am not arguing that sex education is not a good idea; I am only asking whether any evidence has been presented to demonstrate the reality of sex ed reducing pregnancies (or STDs).
I see that this already has been replied to, but I’'m going to stick in my own as well. I think it comes down to the same fundamental question that pretty much all abortion debates come down to: When does one become a person? I submit that one has a moral obligation to intercede to stop actions that cause the loss of human life*. However, if there is not human life then the grounds for intercession are less firm, but are not necessarily absent. So therefore the fact that Person A thinks personhood begins later than Person B does not mean that Person B should say nothing. In fact I would say that Person B must say something because they believe human life is present.
I present this analogy to illiterate my point. It’s not perfect so forgive me. If there are two hunters in the woods and the first is about to fire at something that the second believes to be a human being then the second has a moral obligation to object despite the fact first hunter disagrees.
The debate therefore then comes down to when personhood begins. In my opinion this is the heart of the debate and all the rest is just window dressing.
*To me personhood is necessary for human life and so I use the terms interchangeably in this context.
I’m not sure how easy it is to prove a link, but it is very well documented that the Netherlands, with an extensive sex education program, has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. It also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world despite a very liberal abortion regime.
The Netherlands is also very different in terms of demographics from the United States. Just right off the bat - African-Americans and Latinos are large minority groups in the United States that have higher teen pregnancy rates than the larger population. They don’t make up comparable parts of the Dutch population at all.
I’m not saying we can’t learn something from the Dutch, but we are a different country and solutions we come up with have to fit in here.
You need to be more clear about what you’re saying. I’m reading this as increasing the African-American and Latino population in the Netherlands would create higher teen pregnancies. Or that somehow sex education works for the Dutch but won’t work for African-Americans and Latinos.
I’m sure you meant something else.
I would suspect that it comes down to socioeconomic factors: Blacks and Latinos in the US tend to be poor and live in inner cities. Likely, if you looked at the statistics for poor inner-city whites, they’d be similar to those for inner-city minorities, and the statistics for affluent suburban minorities would be similar to those for affluent suburban whites. If so, this would indicate that the Netherlands have done a better job than the US at addressing the problems associated with inner-city poverty, and that we should perhaps follow their economic example.
- We also have sex education in this country in most places I do not know how much this differs from the Dutch approach, but I’m willing to bet there are differences.
- We do not resemble the Dutch in many demographic respects.
- The differences between the sex education programs plus the differing population make a direct comparison more difficult. I was just pointing that out.
Here’s a relevant news story I just happened upon, from 2007.
We had a comprehensive sex-ed course as 1/2 of our health class, discussing all the terrible STDS, and various methods of birth control like the pill, condoms, sponges etc and how you use them properly, and we went through all the stats on teen pregnancy. My high school required you pass health class in 10th grade in order to graduate. Two people, Nichole and Tim, did not, and were forced to graduate in December because they hadn’t retaken the class in 11th or 12th grade. Subtracting the two of them there were 74 people in my graduating class, half female. Of those 37 girls who had passed that health class in 10th grade, 4 got pregnant the summer between 11th and 12th grade and had their babies. (who knows if anyone had an abortion). That means they all got pregnant well after taking sex ed. Fortunately, all four were able to finish high school on time.
How much higher than 10% teen pregnancy rates do abstinence only sex ed school districts have?
I’m sure it will have some positive effect, but not the level people seem to think it will. Some of the enthusastic demands for sex ed programs to solve the entire problem seem to ignore that a great many teenagers are prone to ignoring the information and taking risks anyway - it’s part of the problem with not having the part of your brain that weighs risk properly fully develop until your mid-20s. I liked our program, but even if it was installed in every school in the country there would still be a deplorable number of abortions every year.
Actually the Dutch do have a similar issue. Their abortion rate is significantly higher among immigrant groups than among the indigenous population.
My money says that when 1/3 of schools are using Abstinence only, as their main method of sex education, its not all that surprising it doesn’t do much to stop pregnancies.
From here Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia
which cites this pdf http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/Sex-Education-in-the-U-S-Policy-and-Politics.pdf
I’m not a pro-lifer, but come on give me a break. Obviously if you are a pro-lifer you want to elect a president who is more likely to appoint conservative judges to the supreme court.
If you see abortion as a modern-day holocaust, then obviously you are not going to be very impressed by a candidate who is pro-choice but claims to have a plan to reduce the number of abortions by 5 or 10 percent.
Duh.
It’s not that obvious to me. Say you wanted to save money on gas, and one man told you he could improve your car’s efficiency by 5 or 10 percent by airing up the tires properly, teaching you better driving habits, and providing regular tuneups. Another man says he can eliminate your gas bill entirely by replacing your car with a flying unicorn.
In other words, sure, 100% less abortion sounds a lot better than 5% or 10% less, but it’s never going to happen. I voted for the person who has realistic plans to address the problem.
I see two problems with your analogy. First, for me (and most Americans), saving money on gas is more of a pragmatic concern than a moral concern. I don’t see burning gas in the same moral light as I see killing babies. I don’t get upset when I see a NASCAR race, i.e. when I see people burning gas for entertainment purposes. On the other hand, if NASCAR cars ran by burning babies, then I (and most other people) would oppose NASCAR pretty strongly.
(Keep in mind that to most pro-lifers, abortion really is on the same moral level as killing babies.)
Second, I would guess that most pro-lifers really believe that they have a realistic chance of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. It’s not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy like flying unicorns.
By comparison, I have a family member who dislikes Obama and sides with McCain but told me she is still voting for Obama because of the abortion issue. Specifically out of a concern for Roe v. Wade. Is this family member voting in a ridiculous, unreasonable way?
The goal of pro-lifers is to stop abortions. Not just to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The argument here is that overturning Roe v. Wade won’t stop more abortions than sex eduction will.
Now you can argue that this isn’t true, but don’t say it is obvious that someone who is against abortions should vote for a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s not so obvious when you realize that overturning Roe v. Wade won’t do much to stop abortions.
The argument here is that overturning Roe v. Wade won’t stop more abortions than sex eduction will.
Now you can argue that this isn’t true, but don’t say it is obvious that someone who is against abortions should vote for a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s not so obvious when you realize that overturning Roe v. Wade won’t do much to stop abortions.
[/QUOTE]
The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that one Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned, the pro-lifers will rejoice and consider their work done. I’m sure that’s not true.
To pro-lifers, overturning Roe v. Wade is a necessary and important first step towards accomplishing their goals.
I don’t see any pro-life candidates (much less McCain) suggesting anything more than overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama is the first politician that I’ve seen who has come out with a realistic plan to reduce abortions.
Do you seriously think that the pro-lifers will call it quits once Roe v. Wade is (hypothetically) overturned?