From CNN:
Abortion Fast FactsCNN Library
Updated 1:10 PM ET, Fri June 1, 2018
At the linked webpage above, we are at about half the number of abortions than we were in 1980.
Due to improvement of birth control technology, I presume?
The number of abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973, then peaked in 1990 and has been on the decline since then.
At any rate.....with the current Bret Cavanaugh hearings going on and all the buzz about Roe v Wade getting overturned, it got me to thinking about abortion itself.
Assuming that in a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have any abortions performed....I'm interested on your thoughts on how we can reduce the number of abortions performed each year.
I realize in some cases, a woman is raped...and that is something that cannot be addressed as preventable.
We have birth control methods and also planned parenthood type organizations which disseminate educational materials and provide counseling.
I assume sex education is still taught in schools.
What else can be done to further reduce the need for abortions?
Right now (according to 2014 data in the linked webpage) there were 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
Is that about as good as we can get?
I don't tend to discuss this subject, but I'll simply throw my thoughts out here again and no, I won't fight or interact with anyone on it - mostly because I've never seen a single person change his or her mind on the subject based on a single discussion.
There are ONLY TWO consistent positions: a) abortion right up until prior to birth; b) no abortions for any reason. Virtually every single rational person on the planet falls somewhere along the continuum of greater/lesser inconsistency, and I include myself in that so that nobody thinks I'm ripping anyone else as a hypocrite. I'd prefer to call it pragmatic/realistic consistency, and we could debate the level of that all day long.
I hate abortion. I wish there would never be another one ever again. It is the subject MOST given to rhetorical arguments that are mostly devoid of any value beyond point scoring for debate. But then I'm forced to deal with a number of realities including the following
- we are NOT a theocratic nation (nor do I advocate we become one)
- legal or illegal, abortion is still going to happen
- a good portion of the time the "woman's right to choose" is REALLY "a man telling her she should get one" and he'll pay for it
- most abortions are unmarried women under 25 (but usually above teen years) who are (wait for it) white
- abortion is still going to be legal regardless of who winds up on SCOTUS (even an overturn of Roe v Wade - which I'd say is less likely than the idea Reagan is going to get a third term - isn't going to 'abolish abortion' like so many think)
- the best thing I can do as an evangelical who has had multiple women confess abortions to me is offer Christian love and support, she usually has enough condemnation (note: I'm not a priest or anything, but I AM pretty easy to talk to, Tidefans posts notwithstanding har har)
- both abortion AND anti-abortion are big business for some people
If we pass a law that limits abortion to the standard litany of rape/incest/save mother's life, guess what? We're going to have a massive increase in the number of women who go to a clinic and say "I was raped." To me, it's not all that different from the old "if we add this waiting period to firearms," I don't think that's going to stop a single mass shooting nor do I think limiting abortion to R/I/SML will stop even one.
I think in the bigger picture you have to educate (I know, another rhetorical term) and you MUST point out that abstinence is the ONLY guaranteed way to not conceive. Yet you must also point out the necessity of birth control (and make such available), and I think abortion (like war) needs to be treated as an absolute last resort of any kind. And yes, I DO in essence hold to a "life at conception" viewpoint, but the question before SCOTUS in Roe v Wade concerned whether or not the unborn child fell under constitutional protection, NOT whether life begins at conception. I could never advocate it in a counseling setting, either, but regarding legality, it is something I reluctantly admit probably has to be. It's one of those, "Look, I don't like it, but since it's going to happen anyway, it may as well be safe."
As I said, most of the arguments across the spectrum are rhetorical. It's easy to say the woman should give birth to the child but the fact is that most folks who advocate such a position are strongly against welfare and social programs that a lot of these born children will have to be covered by. It's also easy to say - as Al Gore was fond of repeating like a robot - "I buh-LEAVE in the ROT of a woman to choose," but ignore what she's choosing (and equally ignore that Gore actually proposed legislation in the House in 1984 arguing life begins at conception).
I hate the issue all the way around, and I'm not a one-issue voter, either.
I guess that shows my hand pretty well.