Are we benefitting from the abortions?

[miko2d]

 Numbers are approximate because they are fron charts, not tables.

Abortions became legal in US in 1973.

Abortions numbers are per 1000 women aged 15/44
Per 1000 women means approximately per 2000 population. So in order to get values per 1000 population aged 15/44 the values have to be halved. I call it Ab/1000pop

 I suppose that one abortion means less then one child unborn - a girl having 2 abortions in 2 years may be killing 2 fetuses, but she could have produced only one child during that time.

 It requires no proof that most of the abortions happen in the families with troubled social background. Don't remember exact numbers, probably 90%+. Let's assume that due to the two previous considerations, the number of  children with troubled social background not born because of the abortions is 2/3 of the number of abortions. Call that NbornT/1000pop.

 It is a well-known statistics that most of the violent crime is commited by people with problematic social background. Such people are also more likely to live in poverty, commit suicide or have an abortion.
 The reasons are obvious. If a young girl has an undesirable child, not only will she have much harder time succeeding in life, she will usually not be able to bring the child up to become productive member of a society. Thus the misery is perpetuated. The same girl given few more years should be able to grow up herself, create a family and have the same number of children in much better conditions. Also such children would be much less likely to be exposed to drugs, alcohol and other harmfull substances during pregnancy, resulting in better health, fewer mental and behavioral problems.

Year                       71   73   75   79   83   87   91   95
Abortions/1000 women       0    16   20   29   28   27   26   23
Ab/1000pop                 0    8    10   14.5 14   13.5 13   11.5
NbornT/1000pop             0    5.3  6.6  9.6  9.3  6    8.6  7.6
Cumulative NbornT          0    5.3  11.9 21.5 30.8 36.8 45.2 52.8

Social evils
20 years later             91   93   95   99

Suicide by firearm  000    18.5 19  18.5  17
Homocide by firearm 000    16.5 17  14.5  <12
Abortions/1000 women       26   25  23
Murder rate per 100,000    9.75 9.5 8     6

 The first children not born in 1973 would have been 16 in 1989, 20 in 1993 and 25 in 1998. Ages 16-25 are the most likely to commit violent crime, suicide, etc. If my assumptions are correct, the legalization of abortion caused 45.2 undesirable children from troubled social backgrounds not to be born by 1991 - 22 boys and 22 girls per 1000 population 35/64 old. If we had 100 million people in that age group in 1991, that would be 45,200 people - about 22,000 men and 22,000 women.

 If you look at the statistics, all the social evils were on the rise before that, peaked in 1991 and are on a steady decline since then - murder, violent crime, suicide, even abortion. Localised studies in the places where abortion was legalised earlier or later show the same corellation.

 While all kinds of politicians, police officials and religious leaders are taking credit for those drastic reductions, the real reason seems pretty clear to me. Whether we are for or against abortion, as a society we seem to be benefiting from it enormously.

 Just in the year 1999 3.75 fewer people were murdered per 100,000 then in 1991. That makes 9,750 in one year alone!

 Somebody with time on their hands, calculate how many lives, including abortions would have been lost if the crime and other evils did not drop from their peak but stayed there for the next 10 years, let alone continued to grow? What would be monetary cost to society - deaths, medical, police, justice, jails, welfare?
 How much did it cost to abort those people? $1000 each? $2000 each?
 How much would it cost if the "abortion pill" had been used instead of surgical abortions, including complications?

 It seems that public funding of abortions returns much more bang for the buck then funding of jails, police, educational programs, etc.

 I am retyping the numbers from the latest issue of Economist, so up to this point the post was supposed to be objective.

 I do support the freedom of choice myself though I don't expect that anyone in my family would ever exercise it. I believe if the trend holds, the number of abortions will decrease drastically and stabilize on much lower level, probably even lower then the number of unsafe illegal abortions would have been if they were outlawed.
 While I am against killing of innocent human beings, I do not believe that the question at which stage after conception a subject becomes a human being would ever be resolved because it is purely subjective, so no point arguing about that.

 Since I have heard most of the arguments before, I would much rather appreciate some objective information I did not know that can give me more knowlege on the subject.

Regards,
miko

[Dowding]

 

If you look at the statistics, all the social evils were on the rise before that, peaked in 1991 and are on a steady decline since then - murder, violent crime, suicide, even abortion. Localised studies in the places where abortion was legalised earlier or later show the same corellation.

Miko - you imply that suicide and abortion are social evils. I've heard that term used to describe abortion (I wouldn't agree with it though), but I've never heard suicide described as such. Is this what you mean?

I personally agree with the performing of abortion preferably before the foetus starts to grow and definitely before a CNS is developed. I've always thought that abortion is better than having a child born that will be unloved, abused etc - you are storing up a problem for society there. Maybe your info. reflects this; however, more time would be required to make any solid conclusions.


[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Regurge]

Why not have publicly funded baby dumpsters? So even a few months after birth the mother can ditch the kid if it becomes too much trouble.

Too bad theres no statistcs on how many of those babies would have become decent human beings, happy to be alive.

Seriously though, how about paying low-income women to get their tubes tied (the medical term escapes me). They would get the procedure for free plus a few hurdred bucks bonus. They get some extra cash and can have unprotected sex till the cows come home, we dont get stuck with their criminal kids. Sounds like win-win, and nobody has to die.

I think this was tried by and individual, who was then labeled a racist for doing so.

[miko2d]

 Dowding,
 You are right, I refer to abortions and suicide as social evils only because that is a common opinion/terminology.
 Since both of those acts are performed by individuals on themselves by free choice, they cannot be technically called evil.
 At the same time significant numbers of both are indicative of general troubled state of the society (or the affected part of it).
miko

[edog]

 

While all kinds of politicians, police officials and religious leaders are taking credit for those drastic reductions, the real reason seems pretty clear to me. Whether we are for or against abortion, as a society we seem to be benefiting from it enormously.

Your inferences derived from your  statistical manipulations simply do not allow you to come to that conclusion, my friend. Even if all your calculations are correct, they offer no substantive evidence that the two sets of data are causally related.  The best that you can hope for with that type of data is that there will be some correlation....and I have to tell you that the data you present is very weak in that regard.  Furthermore, the numerous other variables that have changed over the period of time you are assessing require that you assess the influence that THOSE variables have on your dependent variable, before you can conclude anything about abortions.  Your analysis wouldn't have a snails chance in hell of getting published by a reputable scientific journal!

edog

[StSanta]

Heh, I've waited for this topic to come up. I haven't wished to debate it on this forum, but I knew that if it ever came up, I wouldn't be able to stop myself  

Also up, the classical anti-choice rethoric of calling a zygote/embryo/fetus an "unborn child". It can be debated where  one stops and the other starts, but what is hard to debate is that a butterfly under part of its development is a caterpillar.

Or is it an "unborn butterfly"?

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion (which is a nice way of describing a logical fallacy, argumentum ad absurdum, one could argue that masturbation kills millions of potential humans - potential egg/sperm combinations aren't realized. Not to mention natural abortions, or just menstruation. Oh well.

Personhood is granted on legal basis. Once granted, human rights apply. A person can be declared incapable of handling him or herself, but personhood is not revoked.

Another interesting aspect is viewing the fetus as a person, for the sake of the argument, and for the sake of seeing where it leads us. Assuming that pregnancy is unwanted, you have the case of one person, with all its rights, invading another unwilling person's body and effectively acting like a a parasite, causing major discomfort and draining nourishment and resources. If you're allowed to shoot an intruder in yer home, what are you allowed to do with an intruder in your body?

"Don't have sex", some would say, but that is really a red herring. Not allowing a person to evict another from his or her body would be akin to denying a person medical attetion after a car crash on the basis that he or she did not use a seat belt, i.e didn't minimize the risk of innjury. This assuming that the accident was just that, an accident.

The key isssue here would be intent, then.

I don't like abortions at all. I dislike them even more as a way of birth control. But, it ain't my body, and it ain't my choice. And there's no way in hell I am gonna force my morals down the throat of someone else, especially as I have *no* chance of ever being in there situation, being unable to carry children myself as a male. Do whatever you want to with your body, includng drugs, and I'll do what I please with mine.

Regurge, specculation like that would also require you to see the other side of the on - how many would turn out as bad, evil persons? Gviven that abortions according to the stats mainly take place amongst people with bad social backgrounds (which is not entirely true), the chances are much higher. This is like a religious debate in a sense, and I'll stick to my guns; I'll deal with the factual before I deal with the potential, since any idea has potential.

What's funny is that here,, our teenage mother per thousand inhabitants is very much lower than in the US. Of course sexual education is mandatory and there isn't a general taboo regarding sex. And yonung Danish women are quite liberated on their views on sex, so exposure is definitely there (unfortunately, not always near me  ).

Personally, I think there are greate evils I can dedicate myself to fighting than intruding on another persons right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

And, this ain't a political debate, so no left/right flames. This is an ethical one.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Eagler]

Abortionists seem to be cutting their own throat (not to mention their soul, yes StSanta there is such a thing). For each child they murder, they are cleansing the gene pool of an individual who would be raised exposed to that way of thinking. Eventually they should be in the minority and truth/justice will prevail. I just hope it's not too late ............

Eagler

[Dowding]

   

"Don't have sex"

You're right, StSanta. When has this, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever worked? This is the line taken by the Catholic church on the Aids epidemic in Africa - i.e. you cannot use a condom because it is a crime against God, and therefore to halt the spread of Aids people should use restraint.

Naivety at its most irresponsible extreme.

Eagler - the 'soul' and its interpretation is very much a personal view. You may believe in it in whatever way you wish; I believe that it is as much your right as any person's right to do what as they wish with their 'soul'. That is why I am pro-choice. Do you think that people should be allowed to have a different spirtuality to yourself?

Are you a pacifist, Eagler? What are your thoughts on killing human beings that have been born?



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]

[StSanta]

Heheh Eagler

I see we are on diametrically opposite positions on this issue  .

First; regarding soul: prove it. Just the numbers, as we're used to in AH  . Then the way it functions, the biology behind it  .

Seriously, I can appreciate religious concerns. But, I cannot let them intervene with human rights. And a zygote/embryo/fetus does not have human rights. Assuming it does, we run into additional problems, as I've discussed before.

Wish I could say I am concerned about my soul - I ain't though. I'm not good, but I ain't evil and in the long run, it really doesn't matter.

Had I been aborted, I'd not be here to write this obviously. I'd also not known what I'd have missed, so that's a bit of a non issue too.

Come to think of it, no one asked ME whether I wanted to be born or not! My parents, those selfish buggers, decided that two weren't enough, and egoistically threw me into this world. What bastiges!   One would think they'd have the decency of throwing in a Vette for the deal.

Oh well. Life could be a helluva lot worse  .

My guess is that established religions will loose some of its foothold, and the New Age type ones gain some - that has been the trend here for some years. With it, traditional religious opposition to abortion will go down a bit. Not good news for Eagler though.

But, you can just let Bush win the elections, let some of th Sumpreme Court judges either retire or die, and let the Bushmaster appoint some judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. I'd feel for American women though, and American Civil Right organisations. Truly a huge step backwards.

Just my opinion, not worth getting upset about  .

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
Eagler - the 'soul' and its interpretation is very much a personal view. You may believe in it in whatever way you wish; I believe that it is as much your right as any person's right to do what as they wish with their 'soul'. That is why I am pro-choice. Do you think that people should be allowed to have a different spirtuality to yourself?

Yes, I do. Though I think most things spiritual come from the same source. Each of us are entitled to their own beliefs or lack thereof.

 

Are you a pacifist, Eagler?

Pacifist - 90% of the time. Can't be put into the same class as say Ghandi but not an activist either. Don't go picketing in front of women clinics. There's extremes on both ends.

 

What are your thoughts on killing human beings that have been born?

Not quite sure what you mean here. Death penalty, yes. War, yes. For the fun of it - NO. (Virtual killing i.e. AH doesn't count right, as I do enjoy that   )

Eagler

[This message has been edited by Eagler (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Eagler]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
Heheh Eagler

I see we are on diametrically opposite positions on this issue   .

Wish I could say I am concerned about my soul - I ain't though. I'm not good, but I ain't evil and in the long run, it really doesn't matter.

Had I been aborted, I'd not be here to write this obviously.

StSanta
This is your strongest argument for pro choice yet!  

Have a great weekend

Eagler

[miko2d]

 OK,
 Guys, there is no point arguing whenever a religion is involved. A religious doctrine does not have to be logical or consistent. It relies on acceptance of certain things as absolute truth. A religious person cannot reconsider those while remaining religious. Some religions specifically say when a fetus becomes a child, when the world was created, what food is not allowed or what actions, etc. Those statements may make no sence to the people of another religion or atheists but we all have to just accept existance if various "taboo" for different people.

 Edog:
 Let me extend my calculations one step further to make it more clear. About 22,000 of males of problematic social background were not born by 1991 as a result of abortions.
 I do not have the numbers for the problematic social background group, but we know that african-americans are disproportionately represented in that group. For them the statistics is known. Currently of the african-american males 16 to 25 (35?) years of age 1/3 (33%)are either in jail or on parole (released from jail before the term they were sentenced to). That does not include those who served their term or who's parole period expired already.
 So if we take conservative 40% 22,000, it means 8,800 of those people would have been criminals.

  We would also need to get the statistics how many murders, rapes and violent assaults per year are commited by that number of criminals.
 Consider that the effect started before 1991 - in 1987 when the first unborn criminal would would have reached age 16. 1991 was a peak when the rate actualy started going lower, but it's raise slowing down before due to abortions started before that.
 Take another look ath the statistics. Violent is a leading cause of death among the same age/social group. Check how many of those 22,000 males and 22,000 females would have contributed to the murder statistics as victims?

 I would say that the numbers should account for the most of the drop in the statistics.

 There are other - secondary effects of the abotrions affecting the living people. Every person not saddled with an unwanted child most likely ended up higher on the social scale. She/he had greater chance to continue education, join the workforce, etc. Their social background became higher on average, so among them crime and other social evils became lower still!
 Also, with lower number of criminals/lower crime rate the police was less swamped and became more efficient in preventing the remaining crime.
 More businesses opened in the areas that became marginally more safe, providing employment and income to the affected areas and further improving their social background.
 The inferences seem pretty straightforward to me to account for the most of the drop in the statistics.

 Of coures there were other reasons. My friend who is a surgeon with extensive experience of work in the high crime neighbourhood states that switch from the illigal drugs that caused raised aggression to those that cause euphorea also contributed. So if we legalised drugs and provided the addicts with cheaper and safer ones, we would have long ago made them less aggressive and removed the need for them to rob people to get money for another fix. That money would not have gone to support organised crime.

miko

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by Eagler:
StSanta
This is your strongest argument for pro choice yet!  
Eagler

 So you are saying that you are missing those people that are not born? Do we experience a shortage? Right, we are down to the last six billion of people, so why don't we start some breeding programs.

 I see no point in arguing the virtues of a religion, but I can catch people contradicting their own doctrine.

 Here it comes: We are said to multiply and should not interfere with reproduction. It's God's will that the children are born or not. The overpopulation and other problems will be taken care of by the God in the usual way - wars, famines, deseases.
 Because of "do not kill (murder?)", promoting wars is out. But how about hunger and desease? Isn't death is a much God's domain as life? If is is against his will to interfere with birth by using prevention methods, let alone abortions, how could it be not against his will to interfere with death?
 If we were not supposed to die from cancer, we would not have cancer. Any medical research/treatment aimed at prolonging life should be as contrary to religious people as abortion.

 In fact, there is a branch of cristianity in US that does not accept any medical treatment for any sickness (other then traume, obviously). No drugs whatsoever. They rely on the Gods's will and prayer and let people die from diabetis and other minor and easily treatable defects/ilnesses - often in major and prolonged pain because anesthetics are also out.

miko

[AKDejaVu]

 

There are other - secondary effects of the abotrions affecting the living people. Every person not saddled with an unwanted child most likely ended up higher on the social scale. She/he had greater chance to continue education, join the workforce, etc. Their social background became higher on average, so among them crime and other social evils became lower still!

Wow.. this is a great assumption.  It seems you even have numbers to back it up.

Of course, you assume there are two options: 1) abortion  2) raising the child.

Your argument is flawed at the core.

AKDejaVu

[wrench]

I'll leave out any moral issues and just focus on equality.

In the US a woman's right to choose is sacred  

What I want to know is, how is it that the man has NO CHOICE or say in the abortion issue, yet if the woman chooses to have the baby, the man is suddenly equal in terms of support?

If the birth of any child in the USA is the sole choice of the woman, why are men jailed and forced to "pay up" when a child is born?

Until women take FULL respnsiblity for the choice they shouldn't have it. It is not equal as it is now, a woman's choice has just as much to do with a man's future as the baby's (or parasite as some said).

As long as pro-choice people can assume that the man will have to take responsibilty if the choice for life is made, they will not want to discuss the issue on a rational level.

Wrench