As I’ve said in the past, abortion isn’t my biggest hot-button issue. I figure if the terrorists win, the staffs at NARAL and Pro Life Action are equally screwed.
But as I’ve also said in the past, I think technology is going to sway this issue in favor of pro-lifers. The number of abortions is dropping, in significant part because as modern, cheap, ubiquitous ultrasound shows people that a “fetus” is identifiably human looong before Planned Parenthood will cop to it, they get second thoughts about aborting. And the ultrasound is changing minds – more Americans now identify as pro-life than pro-death.
Which is background to this story: Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, prodded by watching an ultrasound of a “tissue mass” being killed off, has defected to the good guys:
“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it.”
Johnson claims that Planned Parenthood, strapped for money, was pushing to make abortion Safe, Legal and a Profit Center; they make more money from “terminations” than counseling, apparently.
Planned Parenthood is seeking a restraining order – not against Johnson’s presence on their property (Johnson has been appearing with “Coalition for Life”, a pro-life group, in pray-ins at the Planned Parenthood clinic) but against the potential for client confidentiality to be violated. Which, I suspect, really means “talking about abortion”.
At any rate – this is how abortion gets settled as an issue; as millions of individuals get convinced by seeing the awful truth (or, less traumatically, the palpable humanity of their own “tissue masses” with their own eyes.
Here’s an interesting perspective:
“Sonography in connection with induced abortion may have psychological hazards. Seeing a blown-up, moving image of the embryo she is carrying can be distressing to a woman who is about to undergo an abortion, Dr. Sally Faith Dorfman noted. She stressed that the screen should be turned away from the patient.” –“Obstetrics and Gynecology News” editorial February 15-28, 1986
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” ~Ronald Reagan
What Scott says. Abortionists know that if their “patients” get to see the victim, the gig is up. Apparently it also goes for their employees.
Abortion is an interesting business. They consider it to be “health care”, yet don’t want full disclure of facts. I hope if I ever have surgery, the doctors won’t intentially withhold valuable info from me.
Or, also, better birth control.
The most effective birth control is the proper use of… Abstinence.
Interestingly the stats I’ve seen have not been in any way supportive that there is a decrease in abortion because of ultrasound, or questionaires, etc.
Please, do show me the studies that support any correlation – if you can find them.
On the other hand, the decreases in unwanted pregnancies does correlate directly to better information and use of contraception; same thing with decreases in STDs.
KR believes in abstinence — for other people. He also believes, according to him, in ‘do as I say not as I do’ is effective in promoting abstinence.
Except that I can’t find any correlation anywhere that preaching abstinence actually leads to abstinent behavior.
KR believes in abstinence — for other people.
That’s really an odd statement. What do you know about K-Rod’s personal life, DG?
I’m sure you can use your statistics to LIE with the worst of ’em, dog-nagit.
Please read my factual statement:
The most effective birth control is the proper use of abstinence from sexual activity.
It is 100% effective! (Not counting the Virgin Mary.)
Dog Gone:
No, what K-Rod said is that the best way for someone to [i]not[/i] get pregnant is for them to [i]not[/i] have sex. And I don’t believe that you are stupid enough to believe that you would actually need a study as proof of that statement.
I think that what it [i]really[/i] comes down to is responsible behavior. If everyone acted in a responsible manner for their own actions, there would be far fewer abortions in this world. Actually, there would be far fewer [i]problems[/i] in this world. But, unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that is against personal responsibility for one’s actions. Why is that? Does responsibility get in the way of personal freedom? Or does that segment just believe that they are beyond the need to be responsible . . . that their lives are inherently more important than everyone else’s lives, so responsibility does not apply to them? What makes them more special than the next guy? I though “that segment” was all about the equality of [i]all[/i] the people . . .
“Some people, it would seem, are more equal than others . . .”
Good points, Buq-Buq.
“there is a segment of the population that is against personal responsibility for one’s actions.”
dog-nagit is part of that segment, always asking for big government to step in and control peoples’ lives… to the point that DG wants the federal government teaching our children how to have sex.
…
Mr. D, you’ve met the wife and I; of course I don’t support abstinence for me. 8)
Some time into the future humanity will look back and view abortion rights the way we look back now on the right to call another human being property.
I don’t know of peer reviewed studies, but the witness I’ve heard from crisis pregnancy centers is that a lot of young ladies do in fact stop considering abortion when they see their baby. I would suggest that those running the big funding centers aren’t terribly interested in this–but Planned Parenthood and others DO seem to be testifying it’d make a difference by their persistent opposition to ultrasound.
Regarding the correlation of abstinence to pregnancy, there are two dichotomies. First of all, is it the practice of chastity we’re talking about, or abstinence classes? Second, is it a truly abstinence based curriculum, or is it “comprehensive” dolled up as “abstinence”?
Real abstinence, as KR notes, is effective. On the other hand, we would expect that 1 hour per week of abstinence class might not be terribly effective at changing 167 hours per week of pervasive sexuality.
Personally, I took a look at the statistics of one “abstinence doesn’t work” study here in Minnesota, and what I found was that they hadn’t even bothered to set up a testable experiment–and definitely didn’t do any statistical tests. So the “result” was a combination of an impossible criterion for success (no kid in the class ever has sex) and a complete lack of control.
When I put together a control out of data in the report, I found 99% confidence that the students in the class had statistically lower rates of sexual experimentation using a two sample p test. Now the cause, we can debate, but the result, we should not.
Abstinence education, despite the difficulty it has, seems to work.
“It is 100% effective! (Not counting the Virgin Mary.)”
Yep, it’s 100% effective.
The 2nd most effective type of birth control is sterilization or IUD.
Next comes hormonal (pill, ring and shot). Then condoms. It goes way downhill from there.
“abstinence from sexual activity.” That’s not quite true. One can engage in plenty of types of sexual activity with no risk of pregnancy.
One can engage in plenty of types of sexual activity with no risk of pregnancy.
Well, almost no risk. I learned that on Scrubs.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » By Any Means Necessary