No, The Christian Right does not Drive Up the Abortion Rate - But Thanks for Asking
Last Friday a piece written by Terry Cosgrove, head of Personal PAC, was extensively quoted in the Capitol Fax Blog. It asked if the Christian Right drives up the abortion rate, and then cited some statistics suggesting the answer is yes. It noted that the highest abortion rates all uniformly occur in countries that ban abortion and outlaw birth control. It further noted that the lowest abortion rates come in the countries with the fewest restrictions on abortion and no restrictions on birth control. It claimed, rather astoundingly, that half the hospital beds in every big city in South and Central America are occupied by victims of botched abortions. It argued that for those of us who want to save children’s lives, the best thing we could do is become pro-abortion. What it did not do is reveal where any of these statistics were coming from.
I remembered, of course, that the pro-choice movement has long had a dicey relationship with standards of evidence when advocating their cause. In trying to keep partial-birth abortion legal they claimed it caused the child no pain because the anesthesia killed the fetus. They had to back off that whopper when the medical profession couldn’t stomach the lie and women who needed anesthesia were afraid to get it for fear it would kill their child. They claimed that over 90% of such abortions were medically necessary to save the mother’s life. (Cosgrove repeated that one when we appeared together recently on WLS. When I noted that the American Medical Assn. said partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the mother’s life, he muttered that it was all politics). But even by the loose standards usually used by the pro-abortion movement, this piece seemed pretty far out there. So I decided not to just refute Cosgrove with any old statistics, but with statistics derived solely from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and Center for Reproductive Rights. I am not content to demonstrate that he is wrong, but that even working from his own side’s playbook he is wrong. If you wish to check any of my assertions, simply go to the website of either of these organizations.
First, his assertion that the highest abortion rates are always in the countries that have the tightest restrictions on abortion. According to Guttmacher, the four countries with the highest abortion rates; Vietnam, Romania, Russia and Ukraine have NO restrictions on abortion or laws against birth control. Of the top nine only one, Chile, outlaws abortion outright. Brazil only allows it to save the mother’s life, but every other entry either has no restrictions or offers the standard medical loopholes. On this factual assertion, he is just dead wrong.
Next the assertion that the lowest abortion rates come in the countries that have the fewest restrictions. If he had not asserted that this is an invariable rule, he would be close to right, here. Of the nine countries with the lowest abortion rates only three; Japan, Israel and England have any restrictions on it. It is true that western countries with few restrictions usually do have among the lowest rates in the world. In South and Southeast Asia, the rates are high even with the most permissive laws. In Russia and Eastern Europe, rates are at the highest in the world even with absolutely no restrictions. Since the countries with both the highest and the lowest rates all have little or no restriction on abortion, permissiveness cannot be the key to low rates. One significant difference between the west and the two regions just mentioned is that all the western countries have vigorous pro-life movements while the latter two regions do not. That may not be the fundamental cause for the low western rates in permissive countries and the high rates in eastern and Asian countries with permissive laws, but at least it is an argument that fits the facts, unlike the argument Cosgrove makes.
Finally we have the assertion that half the hospital beds in South and Central America are taken by victims of botched abortions. I will confess I did not undertake a study of morphology in these regions. I called a friend in Guatemala who laughed and said; no they are not tossing out heart patients to make way for victims of botched abortions. Then I called a friend in Peru who, at first, laughed at the assertion. Then she got angry and said that is one of the “Yankee’s” favorite racist stereotypes; South American woman as the impoverished, ignorant slattern. I had to assure her that I was not the racist here – I was writing a piece refuting the assertion. We’ll leave it at that.
Cosgrove’s pro-choice Personal PAC is very effective: I shudder every time I hear a friend in the legislature has been targeted by them. Cosgrove, himself, can be very eloquent – as long as you don’t check the facts he spouts. Like the prophet in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he just makes it up as he goes along.
66 comments:
I thank the author for arguing against the ultra-simplistic argument that making abortion legal or illegal will have a drastic affect on abortion rates.
There are some other factors that are extremely important.
1) Social consequences of being a single mother
2) Financial viability of being a single mother
3) Accessibility and social acceptance of contraception
I can think of a lot of other differences between Russia/SE Asia and the West.
Crash-dev,
#1 & #2 can be mitigated by offering the child up for adoption.
As for #3 – if you don’t have access to contraceptives, then either don’t have sex. If you do CHOOSE to have sex, then be willing to accept the natural consequences of that CHOICE. (and to think, some people say pro-lifers are 'anti-choice').
Mr. Johnston, you lost me at Romania. It would have been more accurate to have shared the information about the countries that go from restricted to unrestricted legal abortion, which also can affect the rates for quite some time.
GOPartisan, you can't enforce your views on #3. If I get pregnant and a legal abortion is not available to me, I travel until I can find one if my resources allow it, or find me a back-alley doc if they don't. Your only decision is whether you want to protect my life by keeping it legal, or not. That's the only problem you have a prayer of solving.
"Cosgrove, himself, can be very eloquent – as long as you don’t check the facts he spouts. Like the prophet in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he just makes it up as he goes along."
Who knew Terry Cosgrove and Ed Murnane had so much in common?
I suppose the Chicago Tribune also had their facts wrong a few weeks ago when they editorialized that abstinence only sex education was a failure because of more pregnancies, more STDS and more abortions among abstinence only educated kids than those who received unbiased, scientifically based,honest and comprehensive sex education. All right wingers can do is beat their bibles, have no solutions to problems, and cause so much misery with their theocratic musings. They should all go to Iran where it is their heaven on earth---all abortion and birth control is illegal and there are no gays there.
Yinn –
You are absoluately right: I can't force anyone to abstain from sex. Sex is, after all, a completely legal, personal behavior....
like smoking, or drinking.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are disqualified from certain public health benefits if you are a smoker. Do you support that policy, or do you think that it violates an individual’s right to engage in a completely legal, personal behavior?
You can also be denied a liver transplant if you are a drinker. Again: do you support that policy, or do you think that it violates an individual’s right to engage in a completely legal, personal behavior?
Most in our society readily accept the idea that drinkers and smokers should be forced to deal with the consequences of their choices, even if that means being denied life-saving medical care. Why should those who have sex should be held to a different standard. After all, isn’t the preservation of human life as, if not more, important as keeping the costs of medical coverage low? Is an unborn child less deserving of a chance at life than a non-drinking transplant candidate? I don't think so. Do you?
GOP,
Are you saying you equate sex to drinking and smoking?
There are social consequences to giving a child up for adoptions well.
Why can't we just have comprehensive sex education and readily available contraception? I doubt it would be take expensive, especially when compared to the money being spent killing people. To me it seems like the we could save the most lives with little expense.
I think we can better predict the effects of increased sex education and increased contraception information and access than we can the results of overturning Roe v Wade.
So can we agree on the first part, and then move to talk about abortions?
I'm not completely sold on abortions being good for society, but I don't trust the people who want to limit access when they won't concede that increases knowledge and contraception will help.
Dan –
They are not entirely equate-able in every context (if I had a teenage daughter, I’d be more upset if I found out she was having sex than if she was drinking or smoking), but for the purposes of this debate, there are salient comparisons.
Isn’t abortion – in the vast majority of cases – just a way to avoid, for whatever reason, the consequence (parenthood) of your actions (sex), at the expense of someone else (the unborn child)? How is that different that a smoker wanting Medicare (and, in turn, tax-payers) to cover his emphysema medication; or a drinker ruining another liver that could be used to save the life of someone more ‘deserving?’
What if you had a teenage son?
GOP,
From your comments, I assume you are completely in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest? There is no choice there.
crash-dev:
I'd be equally concerned about a teenage son having sex. Teens are not prepared to deal with the enormous implications of sex - mentally, emotionally, or financially. If/when I have children of either gender, I plan to teach them that they should not have sex unless they are willing/able to be a committed mother/father and wife/husband for the rest of their life, as nature (vis-à-vis the potential for pregnancy) intended.
skeeter:
I'm not "in favor" of abortion in cases of rape and incest, but I am willing to compromise there. From a legal standpoint, mainstream pro-life advocates (like me) recognize that abortion is the ultimate conflict of rights: the rights of the woman to decide what is best for her own body vs. the right to life of the unborn child. In the 95+% of cases in which the pregnancy results from consensual sex, I’d argue that the child’s rights take precedence because the woman has already exercised her right to decide. In the few cases where the pregnancy results from non-consensual sex, I think it is reasonable to still provide that right of choice to the mother. Is this in conflict with my religion’s teaching on the issues? Yes. But, from a political standpoint, my pro-life stance is actually based more on “natural law” (see my above response to crash) than Vatican law.
There's a term for this:
----
I’d argue that the child’s rights take precedence because the woman has already exercised her right to decide.
----
"slut-shaming"
Actually, Dan, it has nothing to do with shaming.
Given GOP's note about rape/incest (and assuming no major medical reason -- cancer of the mother, ectopic pregnancy, etc.), GOP has a point. The woman made a choice. There are now two people involved. Why should she get to make that decision? GOP's example of the drinking liver patient is right on target. The person made the choice, and now must live with the consequences.
I favor legalized abortion for the reason that I know that abortion will continue whether it is legal or not, but nothing about that position changes the fact that abortion, as a means of birth control, must be viewed as morally bankrupt. If not for the fact that having a woman butchered in an illegal abortion is even worse, the right wing would have an argument.
Finally, nothing I am saying here should be construed with agreement with the orginal post. Charlie loses every campaign he touches because people he backs have this strange view that access to birth control should be limited. That is completely insane.
dan -
Gee, I wonder if I could come up with an equally ignorant and obtuse way to reframe your opinion, which I assume is that a woman's right to do something to her own body takes precedence over a child's right to life.
Would you like me to try, or would you like to actually engage in a thoughtful, civil debate?
skeeter,
thanks. your comments were a pleasant suprise this morning.
respectfully, of course, I do disagree with your stated reason for keeping abortion legal. to that end, my question to you is this: at what point does a society become obligated to make an admittedly "morally bankrupt" practice safe and legal (remembering that, again, two people are involved, and it is not a 'victimless crime')?
In response (and I really don't want to get to much into this debate, as it is still a digression from the original ridiculous post):
Overall, I support a framework based on Roe v. Wade, which did a nice job of balancing the interests. I see a major difference between a first term arbortion when the chances of a successful pregnancy are still very much in question, as opposed to a second or third term abortion and as such, believe with the Court that the interests should be weighed differently during the trimesters.
For what it is worth, I also have no use for this argument that any embryo is actually "life." Being very familiar with the process, I view "life" as more of a continuum (spelling?) where sperm or egg alone is one step, fertilized egg is another, implanted is another step, and so on. As you get closer to birth, the rights and interests change.
Is that a perfect and moral system? Maybe not. But it seems much better than any other solution offered.
skeeter -
I certainly hope that by "original ridiculous post" you mean the Cosgrove article to which Charlie is responding, and not Charlie's factual rebuttal of Cosgrove's outrageous fabrications.
Whether the specific numbers are accurate or not, Charlie's basic premise -- that the "Christian" right does not drive up the abortion rate, is in fact, ridiculous.
OF COURSE the far right drives up the abortion rate. When you deny birth control to people or make birth control more troublesome to obtain, and deny any sex education other than "abstinence only", it can have no purpose OTHER than to drive up the abortion rate. To argue otherwise is insane.
skeeter -
first and foremost, it's one thing to suggest that the effect of pro-life policies is to drive up the abortion rate. It's quite another to suggest that is their "purpose."
secondly, people who have abortions generally do so because they had sex despite being unwilling and/or unable to fulfill the responsibilities of being a parent, right? Would people do so less if they had easier access to contraception? I doubt it. If anything, they’d probably do so more, wouldn’t you think? And considering that no form of birth control 100% effective, abortions will still become ‘necessary’ for some of those pregnancy-averse sexually active individuals, right?
So, what is the most effective way to reduce the rate of abortions? Enact policies that discourage people from having sex until they are willing and/or able to fulfill the responsibilities of sex’s natural, potential consequence: pregnancy. Which side is seeking to do that? Which side is sabatoging those efforts with self-fulfilling arguments about “people are going to do it anyway, so…?”
You are basically criticizing pro-lifers for not being unprincipled Machiavellians. Yes, we view abortion as an evil practice that should be stopped. But we aren’t willing to throw the rest of our principals overboard merely to curtail it ‘by any means necessary.’
Actually, I believe that the "purpose" is to establish a Taliban-like state where all unmarried pregnant women are stoned, but that is another matter completely. They also want to abolish all sex outside of marriage, which is ironic considering that so many of those right wingers -- Gingrich, Hyde, Vitter, Craig -- seem to really enjoy sex outside of marriage. I honestly cannot understand why people like Charlie Johnson are opposed to the Muslim extremists, since he sees eye to eye with them on so many issues.
Further, you wrote:
"secondly, people who have abortions generally do so because they had sex despite being unwilling and/or unable to fulfill the responsibilities of being a parent, right? Would people do so less if they had easier access to contraception?"
Why wouldn't they? Think what a hassle it was in high school to obtain birth control. If you made it easier to obtain, some certainly would take advantage of it, and since studies have shown that "abstinence only" has almost no impact, it sure beats the heck out of the alternative.
I fail to see how banning birth control from schools, and stopping sex education, could possibly serve the purpose of limiting abortion. The very idea seems completely senseless.
what a shame....
we where having such a nice chat, skeeter.
(1) the Taliban didn't stone unmarried pregnant women quite as often as they shoot them in the head in soccer stadiums for minor offenses.
(2) even the most extreme manifestation of the Christian right - the Puritan settlers - only shamed adulterers. They never stoned them.
(3) Just because a few individual politicians have been hypocritical in their personal lives doesn't mean that the ideas they publically endorsed are invalidated.
(4) If it is "senseless" to think that banning birth control from schools, and stopping sex education, could would serve the purpose of limiting abortion, then I'm sure you could easily cite some accurate figures demonstrating that the opposite is true.
With regard to the Taliban -- my understanding is that even rape victims are executed for the pregancy. I may be wrong, but I recall a high profile case in Pakistan on that issue.
Although my example may be extreme, the general point stands -- I can't see much difference between the goals of the Taliban and the goals of the far right in America. Both want to establish a society based on strict religious fundamentalism and both seek to exclude from society any non-religious (look at some of the recent statements by high profile conservatives about whether Muslims should hold public office). Other than the fact that neither really lives up to their own religion, I don't see much of a difference.
With regard to the Hyde, etc. examples: The far right claims that if we teach kids abstinence, then it will prevent sex outside of marriage. If so, then how do you explain Hyde, etc.? Are they particularly stupid people who have not learned the lesson? If you believe that abstinence education works, then why didn't it work for them?
Perhaps the reason you “can't see much difference between the goals of the Taliban and the goals of the far right in America” is because you have a wildly distorted view of the latter. All we want is the ability to determine, locally and democratically, what laws will govern our communities, instead of having nine unelected judges write the laws for the entire country. Are the policies we seek to implement informed by our faith? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to advocate for them.
With regards to sex ed - who do you think is going to be more likely to have sex as a teen: a kid who was taught the fact that no birth control is 100% effective, and that sex should thus only be engaged in by those who are prepared to deal with the possibility of pregnancy; or a kid who was taught that, since you’re going to try this anyway, here’s how to do it “safely?” The problem is that any answer to that question must take into account another factor: teens know that, if they do become pregnant, they can have it aborted, often without their parents ever even finding out. Abstinence-only does, to a large part, need the presence of teachable consequences to be affective. So, is abstinence-only inherently ineffective, or has it just been ineffective because the far-left has been working to sabotage it?
"But that doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to advocate for them."
Although you cab advocate for a "Christian" nation where Muslims are excluded from public service, you certainly are not living up to what this country should stand for, and you are far more similar to what the Taliban stands for.
When you want to make homosexual relations a crime, you are validly exercising your 1st Amendment rights, but again, you are trying to create a society similar to what the Taliban stands for.
Advocate all you want -- but show me a difference between your plan and the Taliban's plan.
With regard to sex ed -- I see no problem with teaching that abstinence is preferred. However, unlike you, I want children to be educated as to how to prevent pregnancy. Further, those "abstinence only" programs don't work. Look at the stats in Texas. They tried it, and it failed completely.
Do you really think that if abortion was made illegal, it would end? People will still get abortions. Many of them, however, will end up getting brutally butchered in the process. The far right doesn't care about those women though, because the far right considers them sinners who deserve what they had coming to them.
I note your lack of response on the Hyde -- Vitter -- Craig argument.
If abstinence education is effective, why wasn't it effective on them? Let's be real --Henry Hyde is a very smart man. He is definitely among the intellectual giants of the right (which is admittedly something like "he's the tallest midget", but I digress).
Why do you believe that teaching abstinence -- and only abstinence as the far right demands -- will work, when it didn't work for them? Are you really trying to argue that the left is so effective, that it caused Henry Hyde and David Vitter and Larry Craig to cheat on their wives?
"show me a difference between your plan and the Taliban's plan."
First, foremost, and perhaps most importantly, we plan to have laws written by democratically elected representatives of the people. We also don't plan to execute anyone for their offenses (except, perhaps, for the crime of murder).
Is that not a significant enough difference for you??
Also, please tell me who, exactly, advocates actually criminalizing homosexuality, or excluding Muslims from public service. Please do not lump the entire pro-life movement in with the extreme minority of the far, far right wing. I don’t do that to you or other liberals here that I debate.
With regard to sex ed - I acknowledge that "abstinence only" have not had the desired effect, and I addressed why I thought that was already. Do you have any response to that comment?
Do I really think that if abortion was made illegal, it would end? Of course not. Theft, murder and rape are all illegal, but people still do it. Does that mean we should just go ahead and make it legal? Of course not. People might still choose to attempt abortions, and they may get injured in the process. Does the far right care about those women? Of course. (If nothing else, we certainly care about them as much as pro-choice advocates care about the well-being of unborn children). We would reach out to them (just as we reach out to women with unwanted pregnancies now) and offer to assist them in pursuing other options, like adoption. But, no, we don’t think there should be a “safe and legal” path for them to pursue an action that we believe results in the taking of a human life.
In response to the Hyde -- Vitter -- Craig argument: they – as adults, mind you – made a conscious decision to reject the principals they preached. I fail to see what that has to do with the efficacy or merits of teaching children not to have sex until they are adults.
With regard to Hyde, etc. and why it they are so important: The "Christian" right advocates teaching only abstinence. If teaching only abstinence was effective, then those three would not have cheated on their wives.
They did.
With that in mind, what makes you believe that teaching abstinence -- but not teaching birth control -- to high school kids will make them refrain from sex?
If it didn't work for those three, why in the world do you believe that it would work high schoolers?
You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing grown adults exercising their own judgment to teenage students who rely on the guidance of parents and educators.
When I was in high school, I was told how I could and could not dress; I was told where I had to be and when; and I was told to practice abstinence until I was married.
Now that I am an adult, I am free to dress however I want; I can go pretty much where-ever I want, when-ever I want; and I can use my own judgment regarding sex.
If I wear sloppy cloths to a formal occasion, does that mean that my school’s dress code failed and should thus be abandoned? If I show up late or blow off work, does that mean my school’s tardy and truancy policies failed and should thus be abandoned? If I decide to have sex with a woman outside my marriage, even at the risk of disease or pregnancy, does that mean my high school’s abstinence education policy failed and should be abandoned?
Let me get this right: You believe that a high school kid will have more self-control that a United States Congressman? Is that really your argument? You hold a Congressman to a lower standard than some kid?
Looks like you behaved a lot better than I did in high school. In HS, I really liked beer, and no matter what my parents said, I still drank a decent amount of beer. My parents did cause me to limit the amount of beer I consumed, but I still did consume beer. Kids will be kids. Smart parents provide a framework so that kids can be taught morality, but at the same time, will provide guidance as to prevent anything extremely serious from happening
Abstinence education shouldn't be abandoned. It should be supplemented. We should make sure that these kids also receive education as to how to prevent pregnancy if they decide that abstinence isn't the only policy.
The failure to teach those options -- as we have seen in Texas -- leads to more abortions.
My argument is that Hyde and Vitter’s adult indiscretions represent personal, moral failures on their part, not the failure of whatever sex ed curriculum(s) they were exposed to 30 years ago.
The problem with the “kids will be kids” philosophy is that it becomes self-fulfilling.
What message do you think kids get when they are basically told: “since we know you’re going to try this anyway, here’s how to do it ‘safely’.” Do you think that, maybe, they get the message that it’s kinda-sorta not a big deal if they go ahead and do it?
Now, what message do you think kids would get if they were told: “being sexually active is not something that you should engage in until you are ready to be a parent because, even if you use birth control, there is still the possibility that you will get pregnant, and you will have to have the child.” Do you think, maybe, they get the idea that sex is something they aren’t prepared to handle yet and thus, shouldn’t do?
The problem is that in Texas, the second part of the later message was missing, because they don’t have to have the child – they can abort it. Do you see how that can make the message less effective, making it a bit unfair to cast judgment on the efficacy of what pro-lifers want to teach children about sex?
You did – perhaps inadvertently – bring up a good point, which is that “parents” should be providing their children a moral framework for life – not educational bureaucrats. To the extent that sex should be discussed in school, it should be at a level that is acceptable for all parents’ value systems. Since most parents, even those who wish to teach their children “safe sex,” would probably agree that kids shouldn’t be having sex in high school, why not just leave it at that. What do you think is harder: being a parent who wants to teach abstinence only and having to overcome the message that “since kids are kids, here’s how to have sex ‘safely’,” or teaching “safe sex” on top of abstinence only?
I still fail to see your Vitter distinction.
You claim that abstinence education is somehow effective.
Doesn't the example of Vitter and Hyde and Craig show the opposite? They were educated, and they were so overcome by the beauty of the person they were pursuing, that they gave in. They are walking examples of the fact that you can talk about abstinence until you are blue, but it probably isn't going to make too much of a difference. For a lot of people --including Vitter, Hyde, Gingrich, etc. -- an attractive person overcomes any personal morality.
Don't you hope that Vitter knew enough, when he was hanging out with the prostitutes, to use a condom? Don't you hope, for the sake of Vitter and his family, that somebody taught him what they were and how to use them? If David Vitter can't control himself, you have to hope that the result wasn't an unwanted pregnancy or an STD.
Moreover, you seem to have this strange view that a sitting United States Congressman or Senator has less control over his impulses than does your average high school kid. That seems contrary to common experience.
I believe, as do the studies that looked at the Texas experience, that if you treat high school kids like they have brains, that they will be more inclined to act like they have brains. If you preach to them, they tune it out (or get the message wrong, like the studies of Texas that show more high risk activity). Teach them abstinence. However, if you really are concerned with getting rid of abortion - and you don't just feel that all people who have sex outside of marriage go to hell -- then you need to teach them how to act responsibly so that they when they break the rule, the result will not be a pregnancy.
Your example of parent's choice begs the question. If parents don't like sex education, they always have the option of pulling their kids out of the classes, but in doing so, they will probably increase the chance that their child will either get pregnant (or get somebody pregnant) or will get an STD. Parents do stupid things all the time and the law allows them to do this too.
Your other premise is just not supported by any fact. You believe that if abortion is somehow made illegal, that it will end.
That won't happen, and never in our history has it happened.
Women still got abortions. They did did it then, they do it now, and they will do it in the future. Illegal or legal has never made a difference. The only difference that legality made is the safety of the procedure and it is pretty well documented that the far right doesn't really care about the safety of any women getting an abortion.
Why do you insist on claiming that I believe things, despite the fact that I have said the complete opposite?
I wrote two hours ago: “Do I really think that if abortion was made illegal, it would end? Of course not.”
Yet, you accuse me of believing that “if abortion is somehow made illegal, that it will end”
You say that I “claim that abstinence education is somehow effective,” despite the fact that I have never said that. In fact, I have repeatedly acknowledged that it has not been effective, yet. I believe that it CAN be effective, and I’ve explained how and why. Instead of engaging those comments, you persist in mis-stating my positions.
You accuse me of having “this strange view that a sitting United States Congressman or Senator has less control over his impulses than does your average high school kid.” What I have said, however, is that grown men are more capable of making their own decisions about sex, and are free to do so. Of course teens have less “control” over their impulses, which is exactly why they need the parents and educators to explain the consequences of those impulses, and that there is no truly “safe” way to act on them.
I think children do respond better to clear, direct lessons, like, “don’t have sex because there are serious, lifelong consequences.” As I have pointed out, this has never been given a fair test in the last 30 years because teens know that they can always abort the pregnancy and avoid those lifelong consequences.
In closing, are there people on the far right who don’t really care about the safety of any women getting an abortion? Probably, there are some. But I’m not one of them, which is why I donate every year to Catholic Charities, which provides counseling and support to women seeking abortions. Please, don’t say that I don’t care because you don’t like the care that I offer.
Maybe I am failing to understand your point.
Are you trying to say that abstinence only education, with no birth control eduction, can work ONLY if abortion is made illegal?
By your logic, Vitter, Hyde, and Craig engaged in their activities only because abortion is legal.
Skeeter,
Should we stop preaching to teens about drinving under the influence, since so many adults - including members of Congress - end up doing it? Perhaps we should suppliment drivers ed with a lesson entitled: 'If you have to drive drunk, here's how to minimize the risk of getting into an accident.' I mean, if we were really serious about reducing the number of teen fatalities on the road, we'd be doing that already, right?
Actually, my understanding of the teaching about DUI is that:
1. Don't drink at all; and
2. If you do drink, don't get behind the wheel.
Sounds like:
1. Don't have sex at all; and
2. If you do have sex, use birth control.
Okay, let’s go with that for a moment…
In some “progressive” circles, it is considered “responsible parenting” to host an after prom party where you allow the kids to drink in a “controlled” environment, so that they don’t end up drinking and driving. Now, you seem to think that, because ‘abstinence-only’ has yet to demonstrate positive results, we should scrap it. Well, as someone who is involved in traffic safety advocacy for a living, I can tell you that teens who attend such parties are not any less likely to drink and drive when left to their own devices. In other words, the “they’re going to do it anyway so let’s teach them how to do it safely” method hasn’t proven a success for drinking; and I don’t think it’s much more successful for sex, either. Why? Because just as teens think THEY can handle drinking and driving, and that THEY won’t become a statistic, regardless of what those ‘cool’ parents who fed them booze after prom tried to teach them, teens think that THEY are responsible enough for sex, and that THEY won’t get pregnant, regardless of what their teachers say.
So, if your way is unsuccessful, where do we go from there?
Well, perhaps we should realize that “we” can’t do anything about it – only parents can. “We” can provide parents with the resources and support, but “we” can’t take their place. Unfortunately, too much of what “we” have been trying to do has actually undermined, not supported, what parents are trying to do. That is why conservatives are so mad. That is why the most pronounced electoral gap is not based on gender, it’s based on marital and familial status
I don't understand that last post.
Are you really claiming that saying "don't drink and drive" has zero effect and should not be taught?
Do you really believe that if the only message is "never drink", the message would be more effective than "if you are going to drink, don't get behind the wheel"?
I just don't see how your analogy has any relevance to this argument and frankly, your point again seems insane. Do you really want to stop teaching kids that, if they do drink, don't get behind the wheel because very bad things might happen? Do you really believe that "if you do drink, don't get behind the wheel" serves to promote more DUI accidents?
The "Christian right" wants our schools to teach abstinence-only (at an amazingly high dollar cost, but that is another matter completely). As a result, the question is not "should the parents by the sole teach or should the schools get involved." The Christian right WANTS the schools involved.
The issue is the message. Your last post does nothing to counter the argument that birth control should be taught.
Skeeter,
Of course we should teach "don't drink and drive." The impaired judgment that makes driving after drinking dangerous is an important illustration of the dangers of drinking altogether, and it should be part of the discussion. But, unlike with “safe sex,” you can talk about it in a way that doesn’t send the message that not driving makes drinking an acceptably safe and appropriate activity for teens.
It’s worth noting that in Illinois, teens can loose their license for drinking, even if they don’t drive. That’s a good thing, in my mind. And it reflects the kind of mind-set we should bring to the table when discussing the best way to address teen sex in our schools.
How can I not laugh at that last post:
Per GOP:
1. Telling high schools kids "Don't drink, but if you do drink, do it in a safe manner", per GOP, does NOT promote drinking.
However,
2. Telling high school kids "Don't have sex, but if you do so, do it in a safe manner", per GOP, DOES promote sex.
Am I missing something in your argument?
Yes, you are missing something. What I actually wrote was:
“The impaired judgment that makes driving after drinking dangerous is an important illustration of the dangers of drinking altogether, and it should be part of the discussion"
This is NOT the same as “telling high schools kids ‘Don't drink, but if you do drink, do it in a safe manner.’” The difference is, telling kids not to compound the danger of drinking by getting behind the wheel does not imply that drinking but not driving is a safer and more acceptable activity.
Now, let’s see if we can apply that to sex:
The risk of pregnancy and disease is an important illustration of the dangers of sex, and should be part of the discussion. (so far, so good)
Telling kids not to compound the danger of having sex by not using birth control does not imply that having sex while using birth control is a safer and more acceptable activity. (hmm....)
You see, I can tell kids not to drink and drive without it being interpreted as a lesson on how to drink safely. It is, however, by definition impossible to teach “safe” sex without it being interpreted as a lesson on how to have sex safely.
Interesting.
Sounds like DUI and driver's ed have changed since when I went to school.
I specifically recall being told all about the .10 limit and approximately how many drinks per hour will get you to that limit, and what happens if you go over that limit.
Apparently, you are telling me that the sort of talk had been abolished and has been replaced with "Don't drink, because if you do, you might get into an accident or get arrested for DUI or all sorts of other bad things" with no reference at all to legal limits or how many drinks it would take to get there.
Back when I was in school, the information about .10 and what that meant was important because it told us that if we screwed up and had a drink or two, we would have some idea as to at what point we would be a danger to others.
That was similar to being told "don't have sex, but if you do, here's how to avoid being a danger to others."
When did these new lesson plans that you discussed come into place? You would think they would get more publicity. Maybe you should write something so that parents like me know that I need to explain what .08 means to my kids, since, according to you, there will be no reference to .08 in the schools (as that would serve to promote drinking).
Regardless of what it was like when you were in school, skeeter, teens today are NOT taught how much they can drink and then drive without being a danger to others. They are taught that if they are pulled over with ANY trace of alcohol in their system (anything above 0.00) they loose their license for 2 years. They are also taught that they can loose their license for up to 1 year for drinking, even if they don’t drive afterwards.
Now, they are taught how much adults over the age of 21 are allowed to drink before they reach the maximum .08 BAC limit, but this is different from teaching “safe sex” in at least one very salient way: when we teach kids about .08 and say, ‘not till you’re 21,’ there is something to back it up. They are legally barred from purchasing and consuming alcohol until they are 21; but when we teach kids safe sex, we can’t say ‘not till you’re X,’ because there are no age restrictions on the purchase or use of condoms. It’s not “this is knowledge for future use,” as in the case of .08, it’s “this is knowledge to use if you feel that you just can’t wait to have sex.”
GOP,
You must realize how ridiculous your argument is.
Let me get this right:
According to you, we can teach kids about .08 and how many drinks it takes to get to .08 because there is a law that prevents them from drinking at all into they get to 21? Drinking before 21 is illegal, so it is OK to teach kids about .08 without promoting it.
That's your argument? You have got to do better than that.
Ever hear of "statutory rape"?
Because that law is in place, according to you, we should teach kids under that age all about condoms, since that law will prevent them from engaging in activity. Since that law bars the activity, we can teach them about birth control without worry.
Why do keep with this line of reasoning?
Give it up. Your arguments are ridiculous. Why not just admit the obvious: Making birth control readily available serves to decrease abortions, but drives the far right insane because they just don't like any sex at all. They care more about not mentioning the possibility than about stopping abortion. Which of course is a shame. It is a wasted opportunity for all sides to unite to work to limit abortion. All blown by the right wing extremists.
Nice work. You all would rather spend time protesting outside clinics than about taking real steps to limit abortion.
Are pro-life advocates guilty of making the perfect the enemy of the good? Maybe. But, remember: in our view, accepting the "good" would mean giving tacit approval to an absolute wrong. We'd prefer to work towards the complete elimination of that wrong, and are not content to settle for a decrease of it.
Does that make us unreasonable zealots? Again, maybe. But even in our zealotry, we are more able to see the big picture - we are able to recognize that there is more to the issue of teen sex than pregnancy.
To wit:
25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
Individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.
Sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins.
Among girls aged 12-16, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.
Do we want to reduce abortions? Yes. But we also want to reduce teen suicide, depression, smoking, drug and alcohol use, and divorce. We recognize that, even to the extent that sex is not the central factor in each of these issues, it's the best place for us to start spreading the most good and improving our communities and our society.
Your last post proves my point.
You would prefer more abortions and some personal feeling of "wanting to do best" as opposed to fewer abortions but a feeling that you are somehow condoning sex.
That is exactly what the debate is about and why the original post is wrong.
You are content to see more abortions in order to keep your own hands clean of any talk of condoms.
The irony, of course, is that the efforts of the far right have been a complete failure. Look at Texas. After all that money tossed away on "abstinence only", the kids are still doing what they were before. They are just doing it in more risky ways. The kids who die of AIDS because they were not educated as to safe sex and birth control are not a concern to the far right, who believe they deserve it as punishment for their evil ways. Nice moral system you have there. Saying yes to more abortion and more STD, in a very Christian way.
Skeeter,
First of all, you do realize that the abstinence only program in Texas that you keep bringing up as an end-all-be-all example of the concept’s failure has only been in effect for 3 years, don’t you? Do you really think it’s fair to dismiss any educational theory on such a short trial run?
Secondly, to say that I am “content to see more abortions in order to keep your own hands clean of any talk of condoms” is an unsurprisingly ignorant distortion of what I’ve said. If I really were “content” to see more abortions, I wouldn’t donate to Catholic Charities and their pregnancy counseling programs. And I am perfectly willing to talk about condoms. I want to talk about how they do not protect against every disease of the body or mind connected to sexual activity; how they don’t protect against HPV, or depression and decreased self-respect. I want to talk about how contraception is far from 100% effective, and that it should only be used by people are seeking to reduce the chances of pregnancy, not eliminate the potential.
You can talk all day about how much you don't like abortion, but the policies you favor serve to increase it.
With regard to failure rates on condoms: When condoms fails, the risk of pregnancy goes up and the risk of certain STDs goes up.
When abstinence fails -- and the stats show that abstinence only eduction is a complete failure -- the result is more unwanted pregnancies and fare more STDs than when condoms are used. Also, as the Texas case shows, the incidence of real high risk behavior goes up.
Finally, I sure how that somebody taught Congressman Hyde and then-Congressman Vitter and Sen. Craig about condons. I sure how that Hyde used one when he was cheating on his wife, and I hope that the prositute that Vitter hired used one and I sure hope Sen. Craig used one when he visited those rest rooms.
Here's an idea: Find an effective abstinence traing program that works on the GOP congressional caucas. When that works, then try it out on the rest of us.
In the meantime, feel free to pat yourself on your back and tell yourself what a great "Christian" you are, while the policies you demand cause abortion and STDs to rise. Nice work!
Skeeter,
Again, the Texas program has only been in place for 3 years. That’s not even enough time for those who had “safe sex” ed as freshmen to turn 18 and be cycled out of the system. Do you have any stats with a trendline of more than 5 years? If not, then I don’t know how you can summarily condemn it as a “complete failure.”
Sure I do.
Henry Hyde.
Perhaps the greatest abortion opponent when he served in Congress.
A man in whom it was deeply ingrained that abortion and infidelity are wrong.
A man who was taught that abstinence is the only way.
He still cheated on his wife.
If we can't teach Henry Hyde, what chance do we have with a bunch of hormone charged teens?
Henry Hyde somewhere learned about birth control. The result was that when he failed to control himself, he was able to protect himself from an unwanted pregnancy.
We are talking about teaching high school kids not to have sex until they are adults. Did Henry Hyde have sex while he was a high school student? I don’t believe so. So, whatever abstinence-only education he received achieved its goal: it stopped him from having sex until he was old enough to deal with the potential consequences. If he had fathered a child out of wedlock and abandoned the woman and child (which I don’t believe he ever did), then you could say that abstinence-only failed him.
BTW, do you think that if we don’t teach kids about condoms in high school, they’ll never find out about them in time to use them as adults?
Earlier, I listed several reasons why discouraging teen sexual activity is a worthy goal in its own right. By promoting abstinence, we are trying to reduce teen pregnancy AND all of those other negative effects of teen sexual activity. We should be giving our kids MORE reasons to abstain for sex until they are adults, not teaching them that there’s a way to do it “safely” even as a teen.
Is that really your point?
Abortion is OK if the parents are grown ups? Sex outside of marriage is OK for Hyde et al because they were grown up and could make that choice?
The question really is whether "abstinence only" and other far right programs serve to reduce abortion.
They don't. The programs don't work. You can talk until you are blue about abstinence, and people still screw up. Hyde screwed up. Vitter screwed up. Gingrich screwed up. Guiliani screwed up. Craig screwed up. All of those guys got the "abstinence" message and still messed up.
But you still have faith in that message and still don't want to utter the word "condom" or "the pill" to people who need to know about those things.
Now go tell yourself what a fine person you are, as your policies (if they were ever to be enacted in Illinois, and luckily your party is too weak to do that -- interstingly enough due to people like Charlie Johnson who keeps losing) fail to stop risky sexual activity and fail to prevent abortion.
No, that is clearly not my point.
Abortion is not okay for grown ups; sex is. Adults are, as they should be, free to use their own personal judgment regarding sex; children should not be – and the fact that some adults have used poor judgment to reach bad decisions doesn’t change that.
Now, I’ll ask again: if you have any stats regarding the results of abstinence only programs with a trendline of more than 5 years, please share them with me. You need more than 3 years of results from a single program in Texas to conclusively say that the whole concept of abstinence-only, generally, doesn’t work.
Yes I do.
I have the fact that the GOP caucas, which has been educated as to abstinence only, does not practice abstinence only.
If abstinence only education was effective, it would have stopped Vitter, Craig, Gingrich and Hyde.
It didn't.
It doesn't work.
Those people strayed because THE MESSAGE DOES NOT WORK.
Talking about not having sex does not prevent people from having sex. All it does is make them engage in higher risk activites.
When you develop a message that can effectively prevent GOP congressman from having sex outside of marriage, then you should try and expand that message to others.
If you can't stop abortion foe Henry Hyde, who can you stop?
Skeeter,
The martial indiscretions of men in the 40s and 50s is NOT evidence that high school abstinence programs are ineffective at stopping teenagers from having sex. I don’t know why you think it is, but it isn’t.
Telling kids not to have sex and then teaching them how to do it “safely” is like telling them not to speed and then giving them lessons in high speed maneuvering.
Actually, telling kids not to have sex, but if you do, think of the consequences and be prepared is far more akin to teaching kids not to drink, but if they do, don't get behind the wheel, and we've already covered that.
That being said, why are you continuing with your absolutely ridiculous "arguments"?
Your point, now, is that people can forget everything they learned, once they leave high school?
Under your new plan, as long as the kids refrain from activity while actually in school -- and there is no evidence of that yet, and instead the evidence points to MORE high risk activity -- you are calling it a success? Or, under your plan, is it a success if they don't start sleeping with prostitutes until they are elected to Congress?
What's the new standard here?
Skeeter,
My “standard” is that the decision of when and with whom to have sex is not one that teenagers in high school should make.
Now, I’m sorry that you have such a pessimistic view of today’s children. It’s sad that so many people, like you, feel that their children are doomed to repeat their mistakes, and that kids are inherently defiant and rebellious. It’s sad….but it’s also infuriating for parents who don’t want those low expectations placed onto their children by “progressive” educators and bureaucrats.
What do you mean that the teenagers should not make that decision? How is that even possible (unless you believe in a police state -- I'm not ruling that option out)?
They make the decision and the key is to help them make decisions that are correct.
Show me when your plan has ever worked. It has not worked in Texas. In Texas, the result is increased high risk sexual activity.
It hasn't worked in the GOP Congressional Caucas, where even the most anti-abortion congressman still has sex outside of marriage.
Your plan has never worked.
But yet you stick to it.
Sounds pretty insane to me.
You are right. Teen do make the decision, and the key is to help them make decisions that are correct. I want to teach them that not having sex is the right decision; that there is no “safe” or appropriate way for teens to engage in sexual activity. And I want to find an effective way to teach them this.
You, on the other hand, want to give up. You think that one brief trial at a single school district is all the proof you need that the whole concept is futile. You think that adultery among adults is evidence that abstinence programs for teens aren’t worth trying.
So, you’d rather just want tell them that, ‘well, it turns out that there is an appropriate way for them to have sex, if you really want to try it.’ You want to tell them that you don’t really expect they are going to make the right choice anyway, so here’s how to avoid one or two of the negative affects of the wrong choice.
If that’s what you believe, fine. I’m not going to waste anymore time trying to explain myself to someone who doesn’t care to understand. Go twist someone else’s words and mock someone else’s values for a while.
I'm not mocking your values.
I'm mocking you for promoting head-in-the-sand policies that serve to destroy your own values.
Post a Comment