[Luis Dias]

Very well. So the comparison is between "abortion is legal but cumbersome" countries and "abortion is not even a legal question" countries? Because that scatter plot seems to conflate a lot of third issues (developing vs developed nations, culture and so on), and does not seem very reliable. What is reliable is that for every instance that I know of that some country has liberalized abortion in some fashion, it skyrocketed.

[karajorma]

Given that we have no data and only your recollection of this, it's not very reliable at all.

[Luis Dias]

See USA, see Portugal, see every single european nation that has liberalized abortion recently. I am a portuguese and this discussion is not novel to me.

[The E]

Very well. So the comparison is between "abortion is legal but cumbersome" countries and "abortion is not even a legal question" countries? Because that scatter plot seems to conflate a lot of third issues (developing vs developed nations, culture and so on), and does not seem very reliable. What is reliable is that for every instance that I know of that some country has liberalized abortion in some fashion, it skyrocketed.

Now, I don't know about Portugal, but from what I can gather, there's one issue here where the US stands alone. The reason why Canada has overall lower abortion rates is partially due to better education, but another big factor is overall availability of health care. In the US, having a child is a big decision in financial terms, bigger than in Canada or most european states, simply because of the costs associated with providing adequate health care to Children. If you have to pay through your nose for every infection, every broken bone, every checkup you have to do, then it's much easier to make a decision for an abortion. When health care is free, Women no longer have to factor that in, and so the decision rests solely on other factors.

TL;DR: Free Health care = More babies.

[Luis Dias]

Now that is an argument that is much more compelling than the ill-conceived argument of "no laws means less abortions". As I said, there's a lot of third issues that aren't being plotted in that "research", and it strikes me as very suspicious the way nations are "grouped" there. (There's also something to say about how qualitative characteristics on "how liberal" a legal system is is turned into a quantitative measurement, and then a p<0.05 graph is squeezed out of it).

It's this kind of social studies that give the field such a bad name.

[MP-Ryan]

That's one graph from an entire piece published in the freaking Lancet.  Considering I see absolutely no data from your side of the argument, I'm inclined to trust the study published in a highly-respected medical journal.  Just sayin'.

So, Luis:  citation required.

[Luis Dias]

Again, read the numbers of abortions in every single country the year before liberalization and the year after. Or, if you prefer, ten years before and ten years after. The notion that "liberalization" mean less abortions is prima facie nonsensical, a logical aberration, something utterly demanding an impressive explanation, something that wasn't given at all.

Now, if you "add" other variables like healthcare, education, economic issues, etc., then it makes sense. Notice however how these very important variables are logically separated from abortion law. You can have a country with a proper single payer healthcare, good sex-ed, a good economic outlook and so on, and still not be liberal about abortion. Prima facie, it's quite obvious that in such a country the abortion numbers would be even lower than in Canada.

[NGTM-1R]

logically separated from abortion law.

They're not.

[NGTM-1R]

Or to elaborate, this idea that abortion legislation exists in a vacuum unrelated to the other factors involved in the existence of the abortion rate is, at best, naive. All the things you cite as separate aren't separate matters from deregulated abortion if you bother to look at for/against comparisons and under what conditions such a proposal could be made and passed as law.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Citations imply data, Luis, not you blathering on.  I was kind enough to provide a citation for my claim, so if you'd like to be taken seriously then kindly do the same for yours.  I don't even expect a medical journal reference, any reputable source will do, but bonus points if you find one.

[karajorma]

I'll go further. Since Luis specifically asked for a citation to back up your point, his next post better be him providing a citation for his point of view or him dropping the subject.

[666maslo666]

Here is the study in question:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf

If you read the discussion, you will find out that they think that increased availability of contraception in liberal countries is responsible for their lower rate of abortion. No mention of abortion laws. Remember, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I cannot imagine how a law against abortions would actually increase them.

[Flipside]

Personally, I think trying to seperate out the various factors into individual effects is a pointless exercise, it could be argued that the availability and acceptance of birth-control is as much a side effect of the liberal attitude towards sex as the abortion laws themselves.

I think the cornerstones of this are Education and tolerance, a country that has good awareness of the risks of unprotected sex, access to protection without judgement, and a health system that respects the rights of individual women to choose will lead to less problems with regards to unwanted pregnancies and STI's.

Those systems have to be balanced with a system that helps people make the right decision regarding terminating the pregnancy, but the first step to dealing with a social problem has always been to accept that problem exists not because people are 'bad' or 'sinful' or 'wanton', but because they are people.

[Aardwolf]

I remember reading something on HLP about abortion laws and abortion rates, which basically said "abortion laws don't stop abortion", and the way it was presented suggested (at least to me) that it was a case of "here are the abortion rates before it became illegal, and here are the abortion rates after"

or something like that?

[666maslo666]

I remember reading something on HLP about abortion laws and abortion rates, which basically said "abortion laws don't stop abortion"

Even tough I am pro-choice, I dont find this kind of argument to be good, if you want to argue that abortion should be legal. Abortion is similar to murder from the point of view of those who want it banned. And you dont legalise murder just because there are problems with high murder rates. The same logic should apply to other crimes, including illegal abortion.

[Apollo]

Even tough I am pro-choice, I dont find this kind of argument to be good, if you want to argue that abortion should be legal. Abortion is similar to murder from the point of view of those who want it banned. And you dont legalise murder just because there are problems with high murder rates. The same logic should apply to other crimes, including illegal abortion.

I think there are some circumstances where I would legalize something because it's going to happen anyway (drug use, for example), but in general I agree with you. These people view abortion as murder, and statistics won't change that.

On a slightly different note, these doctors are ****ing terrible people for what they did. I'm no expert on Irish law, but if it's true that an abortion would be allowed in these circumstances, they're all ****ing murderers. I'd like to throw those bastards in prision for manslaughter.

Man, I'm sick of all this fundamentalist bull****. If these people are opposed to abortions that's their decision, but they shouldn't force their religious beliefs on other people.

EDIT: And this is coming from someone who isn't strongly pro-choice (though I'm definitely not pro-life). I'm actually rather uncertain about the issue in general, but there are some circumstances where I think the mother absolutely has a right to an abortion (death, rape, incest, teenage pregnancy, etc.)

Wait, I'm allowed to curse, right?

[Nuke]

im all for legalized murder.

[Mars]

Apollo, either a fetus is not a person, as basically any measure of a person would conclude, or it is a person and entitled to be viewed as such and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. You can't really go halves with that. Or 3/5ths.

Also, first trimester fetuses are not people.

[Apollo]

I know that. I've just always been uncomfortable with abortion and that probably makes me take a fairly weak stance.

If I think about it rationally, I can conclude that abortion is acceptable as long as the fetus is not viable and hasn't developed enough to feel pain. After that, it has to be limited to cases where the mother's life is at risk.

A lot of my discomfort comes from the fact that I haven't done much research on the subject, so I have little idea when the cut-off point would be (though I imagine a first trimester fetus wouldn't have developed that far).

[Mongoose]

Or 3/5ths.

I see what you did there.