Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, January 09, 2006

The red is for blood

Give Up Blog has a map of abortion possibilities—the states likely to restrict abortion if Roe v. Wade is undermined, as estimated by the Guttmacher Institute.

image

That's disturbing. The South and the middle of the country would throw away an essential clinical service that many women depend on at some point in their life, as you can see from this overview.

  • Half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; half of these end in abortion.
  • In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred.
  • At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45.
  • 88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
  • A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions.
    • 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s;
    • 61% have one or more children;
    • 67% have never married;
    • 57% are economically disadvantaged;
    • 88% live in a metropolitan area; and
    • 78% report a religious affiliation.

Legal restrictions won't change those numbers, except perhaps in one way: more women will die or be rendered sterile by botched illegal abortions, so there will be fewer repeated abortions. I guess if that's what you want, it makes sense to legislate greater risk for women…but I would hope a majority would not want that. I fear that most vote for restrictions based on short-sighted priggishness, with no thought for the consequences.

I'm also looking at that strange island of Minnesota, surrounded by a sea of red and pink. I suspect that there are many hypocrites in the Dakotas and Iowa and Wisconsin who would willingly legislate the morality of the poor underclass of their state, knowing full well that if their daughters have a little 'accident', they can just slip across the state line for a weekend in Minneapolis—and maybe catch a little casino action in Mille Lacs after the procedure.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3694/cEyowOSE/

Comments:
#57127: — 01/09  at  09:46 PM
Contraception, abortion, and the right to support herself place reproductive decisions solely in the hands of women. Before women were allowed to support themselves (to be economically independent of male domination), able to prevent unwanted conception and unable to reliably/safely get rid of an unwanted pregnancy a certain percent of women had babies by men whom they did not want to have children by. But with economic independence, contraception, and abortion women are able to restrict the fathers of their children to those men whom they want to father their children. Domination is - increasingly - no longer an effective reproductive tactic for men. In several (10? 20?) generations this may have some interesting social effects...and provide some interesting data for studying how genes affect behavior. So - jerks, make sure that a tissue sample gets archived so that your 'missing contribution' can be studied, because your genes are going away...



#57128: — 01/09  at  09:52 PM
Colorado should NOT be red.

The state legislature is Democrat now...both houses.

Colorado was one of the first states to legalize abortion, in 1967 iirc.



#57130: — 01/09  at  10:09 PM
spencer wrote:

I'm extremely disappointed to see that my home state of Michigan is apparently in the reactionary mouthbreathers camp. It always seemed like a pretty reasonable state, but I guess things may have changed since I left.


As a born-and-raised Michigander, this disappoints me too, but I imagine Michigan's "red" status on this issue has something to do with the reactionary turn that the Michigan GOP took in the 1990s along with its control of the state legislature and its big fat gerrymandering. The political culture in Michigan is still rambunctious enough that a good defense of reproductive choice can still be made there, especially with the aid of a Democratic governor who is willing to veto any attempt by the Lege to ban abortion rights.



#57133: — 01/09  at  10:35 PM
mcubed: ...the experience can and frequently does leave psychological scars that go deeper than any other medical procedure...

The reasons for seeking abortion are usually "deeper" (wider, longer...) than those for seeking other medical procedures. An infection or injury involves a lot less than poverty, a relationship break-up, a dysfunctional lifestyle, or any of the other common motivators leading to abortion; and the abortion itself easily becomes the representation of all the issues which made it happen (the latter process facilitated by a massive & manipulative guilt/propaganda campaign).

Your points are legitimate, as far as they go - but they're in apparent disregard of the undeniable fact that abortion is the front line of a very ugly theocratic putsch attempt now in progress. Expecting reasonableness in this context is about as practical as holding a discussion on the validity of Martin Luther's "95 Theses" during an IRA-UDF showdown in Belfast: the conflict has moved well beyond its nominal issues.

Note that this thread began with a look at prospects for one side's goal of employing the machinery of law enforcement to impose its absolutist ideology on all of us. Like every other form of freedom, abortion rights are laden with "gray areas" and subject to abuse - and those problems will be seized upon by the enemies of that freedom - but the elimination of those rights will clearly lead to much greater problems. Don't be surprised if your discourse, echoing the themes of anti-choicers' rhetoric, produces the reactions provoked by antis’ arguments.

Does this mean that discussions of the nuances and ambiguities of abortion are taboo until abortion rights are securely established in the US (i.e., not during our probable lifetimes)? No (though they might as well be in certain contexts), but it does require a recognition that such points are superglued to extraneous sharp-edged shrapnel, and cannot be handled as if they were unencumbered.

Those of us “opposing” you in this dialog are not necessarily small-minded, just under serious pressure and perhaps rather irked that you seem oblivious to this. I doubt that many Frenchmen in 1914 approved of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but deploring the criminality of that murder would not have made you many friends while awaiting the German advance at the Marne 10 weeks later.

Take a good look at the rants which energize the rank-&-file of anti-abortion activists (and compare them to the facts in particular cases, such as “partial-birth” abortion): PZ has it exactly right that this culture war is driven by 200-proof emotionality. Whatever lah-di-dah niceties the National Review crew may chatter over their teacups, I guarantee they will neither call for a calmer approach nor contradict any of their own faction’s vast and steaming falsehoods. It’s not the pro-choicers who flogged reasonableness out of the arena.



#57134: — 01/09  at  10:46 PM
I mean that the basic argument is an emotional attachment to babies (which is just fine) which is transferred to a relatively undifferentiated zygote.

I agree with mcubed. This is bald rationalization. The woman is having an abortion to prevent a baby.



#57135: — 01/09  at  11:02 PM
So,NSE it is the same as abstinance or condoms. Actions taken to prevent a baby. Of course you cant prevent a baby, unless it isnt already a baby, which it isnt.

Thanks for your support.



#57137: — 01/09  at  11:05 PM
So,NSM, it is the same as abstinence or wearing condoms. Actions taken to prevent a baby. Of course you cant prevent something that already is, so you agree that it isnt a baby being aborted. A pregnancy is being terminated to prevent a baby, which does not yet exist.

Thanks for your support.



#57138: The Rev. Schmitt. — 01/09  at  11:13 PM
I agree with mcubed. This is bald rationalization. The woman is having an abortion to prevent a baby.

Preventing the potential for a baby to happen in the future is not killing a baby. Abstinence is similarly practised to prevent a baby.

-The Rev. Schmitt.



#57143: Alon Levy — 01/09  at  11:59 PM
Isn't it also the case that 40-50% of all pregnancies, whether intended or not, end in "spontaneous abortion," i.e. miscarriage?

Wikipedia says it's 78%.

Legal restrictions won't change those numbers

Won't they? Since 1973, the number of annual abortions in the US has almost doubled.

It's a good thing this isn't Imperial America and I'm not the Emperor. If it were up to me I'd give every 14-year-old male in the country a state-sponsored vasectomy and only after his second consecutive tax return was filed would he be allowed to "reconnect". The women have had to pay the price for too long.

If they can abort, why do males need vasectomies?

If it were up to me, there'd be government-funded abortion on demand up to week 40 with no parental notification laws whatsoever. If a 9-year-old girl gets pregnant, she should be allowed - even encouraged - to terminate her pregnancy.

Overpopulation is eventually going to settle the abortion issue. Even right wingers tend to excuse current Chinese policies that lead to widespread abortions because they recognize that the Chinese absolutely must limit population growth if they are not to sink back into misery.

No, it won't. The USA needs to increase its population at least three-fold for that to happen, but current population projections hold that it will stabilize at far less than that.

You mean valuing human life is "purely emotional"?

Valuing the life of someone who happens to be homo sapiens by species but doesn't have a brain sufficiently developed for consciousness is emotional. It looks human, ergo it's a rational being that deserves moral protection.



#57146: — 01/10  at  12:19 AM
"If it were up to me, there'd be government-funded abortion on demand up to week 40 with no parental notification laws whatsoever. If a 9-year-old girl gets pregnant, she should be allowed - even encouraged - to terminate her pregnancy."

Ah, but that's rationality speaking. We can't expect rationality of the fundies.



#57148: — 01/10  at  12:25 AM
From the CDC
The 6 million-plus pregnancies in 1996 in the U.S. resulted in 3.9 million births, 1.3 million induced abortions and almost a million fetal deaths. This means that 62 percent of pregnancies ended in a live birth, 22 percent in abortion and 16 percent in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Trends in birth, abortion, and fetal loss have varied over the past 20 years, but since 1990 the rates for all three have declined: live births, down 8 percent; induced abortions, down 16 percent, and fetal losses, down 4 percent.


Your comparison for 1973 to today is missing some important information. What is the change in total population or appropriate aged female population over this time period? Did it also double? increase by 50%? In addition, there is no data prior to 1973 because abortion was not legal in all states, so at the least data would be skewed, if available at all. So we cant really compare illegal vs legal abortions rates in the US, since illegal rates are unknown.

What is the point of using a 9 year old as your example when most 9 year olds are pre pubescent?

While we may agree on the end goal here, I again find your arguments flawed and misleading.



#57152: Alon Levy — 01/10  at  01:10 AM
What is the point of using a 9 year old as your example when most 9 year olds are pre pubescent?

My point obviously applies only to pubescent girls. I deliberately used a very low age to highlight the fact that I don't think there should be parental consent below a certain age, say 14.

What is the change in total population or appropriate aged female population over this time period?

Between 1973 and 1990, when the number of abortions peaked, the USA's population increased from 211 to 249 million. I don't have hard data on your other questions, but any changes over these 17 years must have been small: slight aging of the population, and a slight reduction in the average age of puberty. Population growth can't possibly account for all or almost most of that growth in abortions.

Before 1973 there's no reliable data that I know of, which is a shame, because I honestly want to know what the effect of legalization on the number of induced abortions was. Normally I'd go for an international comparison, but there are huge cultural differences, which make such comparisons spurious.

While we may agree on the end goal here, I again find your arguments flawed and misleading.

Those aren't my arguments. When debating whether abortion is moral or should be legal, I don't talk about the number of abortions, but about fetal (lack of) consciousness.



#57155: Jim Harrison — 01/10  at  02:17 AM
People sometimes talk about the population problem as if the limiting factor was space. What's in short supply is not standing room, bu raw materials such as oil for which substitutes aren't readily available. The rate of population growth is indeed declining but the momentum of growth means that the world's population will keep on growing past the the current 6.5 billion for some time. I personally think that a die back is the most likely end of the episode. Chashes are what normally happens in cases of exponential growth, but the better placed nations may be able to cope with the problem by less drastic means. Under those circumstances, abortions aren't going to effectively outlawed.



#57158: — 01/10  at  03:21 AM
Of course you can have a lot of interesting discussion about "what can/can't, should/shouldn't be considered "life" with regard to zygotes, embryos, spontaneous abortions, and so on, and the ethical implications thereof. " But when you're actually facing the real-life consequences of a pregnancy which, for whatever reason, you can't cope with, the detached reasonings of other people about what ethical status they would personally allot to these things may not seem terribly important. Pregnancies mean different things to different people in different circumstances, and while it's very easy to theorise (especially when you're one whose biology means you will never be in that situation yourself), cold reality can be terribly different from theory - as the many, many pro-life women who seek abortions and pro-life men who facilitate them on behalf of their wives and daughters ought to understand. Looking for a one-size-fits-all solution based on (frequently abstract, and too frequently politically motivated) philosophising is pointless in an area so very complex, so very differentiated, so very subject to chance/fate/accident/whatever, and so very emotional and personal.



#57159: — 01/10  at  03:27 AM
Pierce R. Butler: the abortion itself easily becomes the representation of all the issues which made it happen

...Which is among the reasons why abortion is often considerably more traumatic than other procedures. Needing an abortion is typically an indication that something has failed. Most women do not seek to have abortions, the way a person might seek to have plastic surgery. They have an abortion because the prospect of carrying a pregnancy full term is untenable. The comparisons some are making to birth control (or even abstinence) is way off the mark because birth control is proactive. Women (or couples) practice birth control precisely to avoid the necessity of an abortion. If there were no moral, ethical or psychological distinctions in most peoples' minds between birth control and abortion, then most women wouldn't bother with birth control at all.

But these distinctions exist for all but the most extremist of pro-choice advocates. The majority of Americans are pro-choice, but the majority are not "pro-abortion." Take the hard-core, fundamentalist minority of Americans who are rigidly anti-abortion out of the equation and you are left with a majority for whom abortion is an unpleasant, undesirable, but necessary fact of life. Treat that majority with disdain -- deny the distinction between birth control and abortion, poo-poo the ethical considerations involved in taking a deliberate step to terminate a viable pregnancy (vs. preventing that pregnancy from occuring in the first place), dismiss the psychological trauma that abortion can induce as "emotional attachment" -- and you will succeed in driving some of that pro-choice majority into the anti-abortion minority. Put plainly, people don't like being told their issues are silly, nor that they are acting out of "priggishness."

Note that this thread began with a look at prospects for one side's goal of employing the machinery of law enforcement to impose its absolutist ideology on all of us.

Note that my objection to this thread began not with a criticism or refutation of those prospects, but with the dismissive and reductionist attitudes expressed about people who are anti-abortion. Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 30+ years, yet many pro-choice advocates carry on with the rhetoric of the beleaguered and embattered. It rings as hollow as the Upper-Middle-Class- Straight-WASP-Male who claims that affirmative action means he's being discriminated against. People with every advantage in a given situation should learn to take the high road because it is human nature to champion an underdog. Right now, anti-abortion forces are the underdog and they are playing that card effectively, in particular by appealing to the conflicts most people have about abortion. I disagree with your contention that the nuances and ambiguities of abortion are taboo, in any contexts. I think those are what people who are pro-choice need to address, and some do this quite effectively. The biggest risk is with trivializing these ambiguities to the point where you come off sounding like what the more heated of anti-abortionists would call a baby-killer. If pro-choicers were not the ones who flogged reasonableness out of the arena, they are the one who need to bring it back.



#57164: Alon Levy — 01/10  at  06:28 AM
If there were no moral, ethical or psychological distinctions in most peoples' minds between birth control and abortion, then most women wouldn't bother with birth control at all.

Why? Even if you honestly wouldn't have any qualms with aborting, it's easier and less physically painful to be on the pill or demand that any man you have sex with put on a condom than abort. In most countries there's also a cost issue: abortions cost more money than contraceptives and prophylactics.



#57165: — 01/10  at  06:54 AM
Before 1973 there's no reliable data that I know of, which is a shame, because I honestly want to know what the effect of legalization on the number of induced abortions was.


As you point out, the comparison is not perfect, but one can get a pretty good idea of what would happen by looking at the Romanian experience. At one point, Romania's then dictator decided that his country was underpopulated. So he banned abortion. The immediate result was a decrease in the abortion rate. But within a few years, the abortion rate was back to pre-ban levels. The maternal mortality rate, on the other hand, had skyrocketed. After the fall of communism, the ban on abortion was one of the first laws reversed. The immediate effect was a large increase in the abortion rate, especially late (second trimester) abortions. However, again, within a few years, the rates were back to pre-legalization levels. The maternal mortality levels went down to near western levels as well. So basically, it appears that banning abortion doesn't prevent it, it just makes it much more dangerous.



's avatar #57167: — 01/10  at  07:15 AM
mcubed,
"Which is among the reasons why abortion is often considerably more traumatic than other procedures."

I think it this is both rather irrelevant and an example a reductionist attitude that you discount. As Eleanor say, pregnancies and thus abortions mean different things to different people. Since you bring it up, I would think that amputations could easily be as traumatic, and they are also indications of failure. This could be tested, there are likely to be a number of women who had both procedures who could be asked which was experienced as worst.

"many pro-choice advocates carry on with the rhetoric of the beleaguered and embattered"

I don't live in US, but I have the impression from news report as well as this thread that this is the case around some abortion clinics. So I am not surprised to find the rhetorics reflect the facts.

Alon,
I agree.

But I would also like to see a pill for men since that would bring even more advantages. Pills for women bring some risk to them while apparently pills for men will not incur risks. Condoms, while good for causal sex, is a bother for a couples.

And the pill for men will perhaps balance responsibilities and opportunities more. Today women (should) own the decision to stop pregnancies; it's their body. Tomorrow men (should) own the decision to start pregnancies; it's their sperm.



#57169: — 01/10  at  07:28 AM
mcubed makes my point beautifully. The majority of Americans have no principled "pro-life" argument at all against abortion- if they did they'd have to be in favor of a blanket ban. (Even extreme pro-lifers are highly inconsistent in their positions, as Dianne has pointed out.) The restrictions they favor are based on little more than squeamishness- and patriarchal thinking. That's not a morally impressive position, and mcubed's attempt to defend it is confused to say the least. Why should I treat with respect a morally incoherent position that forces X to pay a steep price for Y's squeamishness about sex?



#57171: — 01/10  at  07:32 AM
P.S. The facts discussed in the following post urgently need to be factored into the moral equation, and I don't see the people mcubed is defending doing that at all: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2006/01/blogging-for-choice-month.html



#57172: Bob Dowling — 01/10  at  07:44 AM
Returning to the maps showing sexual disease frequencies, can I ask for a source? I'd like to see the maps for other diseases.

I would be very dubious about correlating incidence of sexual disease against abortion policy (as a signature of more general sexual policy) without also correlating them against other disease incidence rates. What you should be looking for is a correlation between sexual policy and sexual disease rates AND the lack of correlation between sexual policy and non-sexual disease rates. It could be that disease rates are higher across the board in those states.

(I should also insert the usual caution about leaping from correlation to causality too.)



#57173: — 01/10  at  08:03 AM
Hey, remember guys, mcubed is pro-choice. Sure, every comment is then filled with anti-choice talking points, which do not accept any actual ambiguity over abortion whatsoever. Oh, and the people defending choice here are the real out-of-control self-righteous ones. All of this is classic trolldom: "I'm a liberal, but...[RNC talking points]." "I'm an atheist, but...[defense of Dominionists]." "It's you people here that are the real problem, because...[projected behavior]." It's actually sort of sweet to see. Many trolls don't even pretend anymore.

Anyway, lots of people have weighed in about Illinois being pink in the map. While it does not seem to make sense based on the current political climate, I would wager that it is based on the fact that Illinois still has a "trigger law" on the books. If the Supreme Court overrules Roe, the “policy” of Illinois to prohibit abortions “shall be reinstated.” The provision also bestows rights on the “unborn.” However, it doesn't ban abortion outright, since Illinois repealed its criminal statute. If a new ban were enacted, it might be struck down under the Illinois Constitution, though this is of course uncertain. So this is where "moderately likely" comes from in the illustration. The "trigger laws" are the land mine in all of this.

And of course, none of this takes into account that once Roe has been overturned to "let the states decide," the extremist fundamentalist Christians will start screaming for a federal ban. The current Republican leadership might figure, why not? They and their well-off backers will always have access to abortion, and they can transfer all the electoral frothing at the mouth to the evils of homosexuality. Note that they've been setting this up as a backup already.



#57177: — 01/10  at  08:46 AM
oscar zoalaster said something interesting:
In several (10? 20?) generations this [male domination of a woman's reproductive system] may have some interesting social effects...and provide some interesting data for studying how genes affect behavior.

It already has had social effects...
A great new book by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner called FREAKONOMICS has correlated the legalization of abortion with the massive decline in crime since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
According to the US Deparment of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics): In 1973 there were 44 million violent and property crimes compared to 23 million violent and property crimes in 2002. That's a reduction of almost 50%!
QUIZ:Can anyone tell me why Levitt and Dubner believe that legalizing abortion is correlated to lower crime rates since '73?



#57183: — 01/10  at  09:26 AM
Anyone who supports abortion at 40 weeks is "rational" only in the sense that it was "rational" for the Germans to kill the Jews, or for Catholics to kill the Protestants, or for anyone to kill someone else who is in the way. It's pure barbarism.



#57186: — 01/10  at  09:37 AM
And anybody who supports restrictions that, by making access to abortion difficult, is causing timely, first-trimester abortions to be less likely, is thereby working to increase the freequency of 40 weeks + abortions. You did take that onboard in your moral calculus, right? Oh, and by the way, if you're American, what are you doing to help decrease the appalling rate of infant mortality in this country? Or do they stop counting once they're born?



Page 3 of 5 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >

Next entry: Cryptographers, kids, and cats, too

Previous entry: Youse could have a little…accident

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college