Stepping right away from partisan struggles for a moment, is there anything about these numbers that would suggest that abortion is becoming more like a problem that is "solved" to the tolerable satisfaction of all concerned by tinkering at the margins, like other health related government expenditures, or more like issues such as slavery or civil rights, where it was not possible to avoid a clash in which one or more moral viewpoints were delegitimized?

I rarely come across (potentially) mind-changing arguments on the issue of abortion, and so I rarely bother. But I did come across an interesting graphic about a month ago, included in the following article:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9205883

Don't read the article, at first, just scroll down to the map and see the difference between the countries that allow abortions (green) and those that do not (orange.) While there are some countries that allow abortions I would not want to emulate, there are almost no countries that ban it for which the reverse is true (a possible exception being Ireland.) Indeed, many of the green countries that I wouldn't want to emulate are at least trending in what I'd consider the right economic and political directions, while those that are orange tend to be political and economic hellholes.

Those are not absolute statements, but they are, to me, highly suggestive.

Now go read the article, and note that the map presented is a legal/political map. It talks about states where abortion is legal, and to what degree. It says nothing about states where abortion is performed. The text of the article speaks to that detail, noting that many of the highest abortion rates are found, paradoxically, in states where the practice is banned (at least insofar as the local conditions are even conducive to generating reliable data) and then gives the details of the awful consequences of illegal "back-alley" abortions vs safe, legal, professional ones.

But still, just look at that map. If someone showed me that map and didn't explain the color code, I could still tell you whether I'd rather be in a green state or an orange state without any hesitation at all.

Maybe that's not just blind luck, eh?

David, I'm curious. Do you think the pro-life organizations are any different (i.e. any less focussed on raising money and organizational success) ???

A.L.

#2 from Armed Liberal: "David, I'm curious. Do you think the pro-life organizations are any different (i.e. any less focussed on raising money and organizational success) ???

A.L."

Yes.

I also think anti-slavery campaigners were less focused on money than the slave-owning class was. Money corrupts all, but not with mathematical equality.

Now you: did you think I was taking a shot at pro-choicers for being greedy, with this post?

And do you have any thoughts on any of my questions?

I think you don't like abortion and would like to make it harder for people to have them.

Hard to see what else this post is about.

Marcus Vitruvius, thank you for the link to the article, which I duly read in the way you suggested, and thank you for the politeness of your effort to change my mind.

Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?

-

Paul Milenkovic, my post above was inspired by your posts 82 (link) and 83 (link) in the thread What's Left - Part One (link).

If you want to speak more on your ideas, this would be the time. I've provided what I think are reasonable, numerical hooks for the discussion.

#4 from talboito: "I think you don't like abortion and would like to make it harder for people to have them."

You are right, though that's not all I'd like. I'd like adoption to replace abortion as the culturally accepted fate of fetuses that are unwanted by some but wanted by others, for one thing.

#4 from talboito: "Hard to see what else this post is about."

It's about getting beyond opposition, hostility and dislike.

Paul Milenkovic, who I've just given links to, raised what seemed like hopeful thoughts, but he didn't react to my offer of a guest post, so I created this thread as a setting, with data and questions supplied up front, where the discussion he was pointing to could take place.

Looking at that thread, and his posts, can you see any more hopeful way to see if we could move from a "Plan A" to a "Plan B" discussion or dispute on this topic?

I don't have any strong convictions on abortion either way. I do find several things interesting though.

1. Movies aimed at a broad female audience do not have female characters who have abortions. Waitress, that movie set in a Wal-Mart or something, etc. all have female characters who are pregnant, by a man they loathe, yet don't have abortions.

Why?

IMHO the movies appeal to an older female audience who want pregnancy and children at a time in their lives when it's very difficult, requiring IVF or other reproductive assistance.

2. Those who are most concerned with the availability of abortions tend to be white, middle class women. Either aging feminists who have no personal stake in the matter but merely ideology, often anti-natalists (you won't get pregnant at age 65) or younger women, who are also white middle/upper class.

You rarely see Black or Latina or poor white women at abortion rights rallies. Why? It's probably not that important to them. For those women single motherhood is likely seen as an accepted fact of life, with no men as husbands part of their lives.

Whereas it would seem at least plausible on the outside of things that upper and middle class white women require the option of abortion to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Why?

Very likely they have significantly different views on single motherhood. One hypothesis is that single motherhood drags down their chances of landing an A-Lister man, the Alpha Male, high-status guy. So they want the option of abortion to keep their ability to pursue him open. While Black, Latina, and poor White women don't have the ability to pursue the A-Lister anyway so they pay no penalty for having the kid in their fertility window.

IF this is the case (I don't know that it is, merely offer it as a hypothesis) then the different attitudes towards abortion are driven by the different attitudes towards costs/benefits of single motherhood.

#7 from JimRockford:

"1. Movies aimed at a broad female audience do not have female characters who have abortions. Waitress, that movie set in a Wal-Mart or something, etc. all have female characters who are pregnant, by a man they loathe, yet don't have abortions."

That seems to be true. I don't know what to make of it though.

There are pretty big (or approved) movies that feature abortionists as sympathetic figures: Vera Drake (2004), with three Oscar nominations and dozens of other awards and nominations, and the star-studded The Cider House Rules (1999).

Anyway, do you see demand as steady and likely to remain so, and how does that fit the business data above? Are there any trends that you see or that you would expect given the class and race issues you see?

'Stepping back into the heated area of "values", is so small a number of human lives as 1,414 in any sense significant? What are these, that financial reporting should be mindful of them? Does it matter why they are no longer reported? Is it better or worse that reporting now omits a statistically irrelevant marginal issue and focuses on the main events? Are there any other issues of values or policy that may arise here?'

I believe non-profits usually like to show people what they are 'buying' with their charity dollars, hence the reporting of exactly what planned parenthood is doing. If they've stopped reporting adoptions, than presumably, they are no longer offering adoption services, or at least don't feel the need to show their donors that they do. Ditto with other things they do/don't report.

As for abortion, I don't think it's precisely stable so much as deadlocked. The pro-choice groups screwed up badly by trying to prop up partial-birth abortions and seem to be lying low right now. The pro-life groups for the most part are just working on fringe issues such as rights of the father, parental notifications etc. I think the general consensus seems to be that direct legislative efforts to outlaw abortion won't work, so the campaigns been taken down to the individual level, and they spend most of their effort talking up the value of life and convincing women to have their children and raise them/put the up for adoption on a one woman at a time basis.

As for long term, abortion strikes me as one issue that will probably be solved technologically. Either much better birth control technology, artificial gestation capability, or probably, both put together would wipe abortion out overnight. I doubt many women would want to terminate the pregnancy if their were an equally convenient method that didn't terminate the fetus, such as transferring the fetus to an artificial gestation device, followed by adoption.

Actually, while I'm dreaming, stick in a capability to freeze the fetal growth and delay birth for a few years and abortion'd be obsolete over night. And given how fast bio-tech is coming, none of this seems wildly improbable to me.

I'd be surprised if anyone still cares about abortion in 50-100 years.

Looking at the data above, doesn't it look as though Planned Parenthood is successfully focusing on its core business of abortions, providing more abortions and receiving more money from the government, while cutting costs by reducing unnecessary places of business?

That would be consistent with discarding adoption referral as an activity worth reporting, wouldn't it?

#9 from Treefrog: "I believe non-profits usually like to show people what they are 'buying' with their charity dollars, hence the reporting of exactly what planned parenthood is doing. If they've stopped reporting adoptions, than presumably, they are no longer offering adoption services, or at least don't feel the need to show their donors that they do. Ditto with other things they do/don't report."

That's a good point.

And it makes sense. You don't see garbage-men taking time off their rounds to offer counseling on ways to give away your garbage to the needy. The job of a garbage disposal business is to get rid of the garbage, so that's what they do.

#9 from Treefrog: "The pro-life groups for the most part are just working on fringe issues such as rights of the father, parental notifications etc. I think the general consensus seems to be that direct legislative efforts to outlaw abortion won't work, so the campaigns been taken down to the individual level, and they spend most of their effort talking up the value of life and convincing women to have their children and raise them/put the up for adoption on a one woman at a time basis."

That's my impression too, but I don't have any numbers to back it up, whereas one can look fairly objectively at the data above.

Most of the pro-life groups are essentially religious in nature, Christian to be precise. 94 was a victory for Christian political power in the short run, but the ensuing antics served mostly to remind most Christians of why religion and politics don't mix well, and a sort of loose consensus developed that the more productive approach was to solve the relevant social issues on a soul by soul basis.

Chritianity is at it's strongest when dealing with the individual level and at it's weakest on the political level.

After all, we KNOW our values are correct. I think people tend to romaticize the idea that truth somehow needs defending. If truth really is true, you don't need to defend it, it'll take care of itself.

Take the old house on sand/house on rock parable. From a certain point of view, there is no point in passing laws outlawing building on sand. Nature will take care of making the point for us nicely. Just don't let them invite you over for dinner on a stormy night.

In this case, it's Taranto's Roe effect. Those who don't take sex/marriage/love/life/children seriously will find themselves diminishing and going extinct. Leaving only those who do.

Time is very much on the pro-life side.

#9 from Treefrog: "As for long term, abortion strikes me as one issue that will probably be solved technologically. Either much better birth control technology, artificial gestation capability, or probably, both put together would wipe abortion out overnight. I doubt many women would want to terminate the pregnancy if their were an equally convenient method that didn't terminate the fetus, such as transferring the fetus to an artificial gestation device, followed by adoption."

How does this square with a right to an effective abortion, that is, killing? And for the pervasive human passions that lie under such a demand?

If people wanted merely to get rid of human fetuses, if to get rid of the baby without killing it was as good as to kill it, we would not have seen the practice of partial birth abortion.

And also how does it square with another side to technology, that is with increasing means to utilize babies and baby parts in one way or another? (link)

The laws forbids us to seize our (adult) neighbors, carve them up and sell the parts for good reason: if it wasn't forbidden, people would do it.

I have to say, before going on: I'll be overjoyed if some advance in technology does end abortion! :)

'If people wanted merely to get rid of human fetuses, if to get rid of the baby without killing it was as good as to kill it, we would not have seen the practice of partial birth abortion.'

Because it's easier to off the fetus late term than it is to go through with the birth and the adoption procedure. Not saying there aren't people out there who wouldn't still want to destroy the fetus, but I think they are few and far between.

'And also how does it square with another side to technology, that is with increasing means to utilize babies and baby parts in one way or another? (link)'

Don't make the common mistake of extrapolating temporary limitations/problems into grand social issues. That's what got Marx after all.

Even if we were perfectly fine with harvesting fetus parts for medical purposes, there be some pretty problematic economic issues involved, mainly a serious lack of supply, even if all abortions went automatically into use. A fetus doesn't exactly mass a whole lot in the first place...

All the research involving fetal tissues won't ever really escape the lab unless they come up with a better material source, preferably the ability to generate the needed tissues on demand.

And low and behold... Link

David Blue: 'If people wanted merely to get rid of human fetuses, if to get rid of the baby without killing it was as good as to kill it, we would not have seen the practice of partial birth abortion.'

#16 from Treefrog: "Because it's easier to off the fetus late term than it is to go through with the birth and the adoption procedure. Not saying there aren't people out there who wouldn't still want to destroy the fetus, but I think they are few and far between."

I think they are numerous, but there's no data to settle this, so never mind.

But, this is a good intro for an idea I'd like to raise.

At the present time, our approach to "unwanted" (by some) unborn babies is to kill them, to get rid of them as garbage.

I think the data above suggest that the human garbage disposal business may be growing more straightforward. If so, that can be a cultural opportunity.

In dealing with real garbage, we have council clean-up days, on the designated days, people take out their old furniture and similar items and park them on the sidewalk. Some of these as scavenged by other people - for them that "old" couch may be better than the one they have now. The rest are disposed on by the council workers.

There is no elaborate "adoption" procedure.

Would we be better off with human cleanup days and drip in centers, where pregnant woman who were inclined to have their unborn children disposed of could drop in and dump them, sell them or offer to bear them alive - for a price?

I think we might be better off with a system like that.

We are much, much better at giving old radios and wardrobes "a second chance" than we are at giving human beings a second chance.

Mr Blue, #5:

Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?

Not really. I don't share your conviction that abortion is something that needs to be minimized. Consequently, what percentage of their business comes from what procedure, and how their business practices vary from year to year is of very little concern to me.

The question that you raised that interested me was this:

How are societies, in America and across the world, being reshaped by the boom in reproductive rights and health?

And my response was as above-- given the set of countries we have to draw from today, would you rather live in one that allows abortion, or denies it? (Note that if I could, I would put China in its own very special third category due to its policies, which I think would make the choice even more stark.)

I'm curious what your answer is.

Oh, and the link - yes, that's marvelous, great, wonderful, magnificent news. :D

#5 from David Blue: "Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?"

#18 from Marcus Vitruvius:

"Not really. I don't share your conviction that abortion is something that needs to be minimized. Consequently, what percentage of their business comes from what procedure, and how their business practices vary from year to year is of very little concern to me."

A clear and rational answer.

#18 from Marcus Vitruvius:

The question that you raised that interested me was this:

"How are societies, in America and across the world, being reshaped by the boom in reproductive rights and health?

And my response was as above-- given the set of countries we have to draw from today, would you rather live in one that allows abortion, or denies it? (Note that if I could, I would put China in its own very special third category due to its policies, which I think would make the choice even more stark.)

I'm curious what your answer is.

I feel odd supplying an answer, because I am so very much an Aussie who couldn't be anything but an Aussie. This is the basis of a lot of where I'm coming from, on a lot of issues. I think we can't (and shouldn't try to) become something alien to what we are, like an Asian nation: we have to go on as who we are, and do or die on that basis. And if it's "die" - too bad, but this is us. Mateship, among other values, is not optional, it's how we know who we are.

So if the question is, will you accept a worse standard of living, like an Australian Great Depression standard of living, in return for a strongly traditional pro-life culture, great-grandma's values and limits on abortion as in the top category?, my answer is "yes of course".

However, if that means "goodbye to respect for battlers and a fair go for all, hello ..." - I see Iran, Iraq and Syria are in the "prohibited" category - "... hello hatred for Jews and other infidels" I've hit a limit. I can't do that. That's not me.

Is that a clear answer for you?

#13 from Treefrog: "After all, we KNOW our values are correct. I think people tend to romaticize the idea that truth somehow needs defending. If truth really is true, you don't need to defend it, it'll take care of itself.

Take the old house on sand/house on rock parable. From a certain point of view, there is no point in passing laws outlawing building on sand. Nature will take care of making the point for us nicely. Just don't let them invite you over for dinner on a stormy night.

In this case, it's Taranto's Roe effect. Those who don't take sex/marriage/love/life/children seriously will find themselves diminishing and going extinct. Leaving only those who do."

In sum, think of this as evolution in action?

#18 from Marcus Vitruvius: "I don't share your conviction that abortion is something that needs to be minimized."

Now I think of it, that puts in the clearest way the issue I am trying to get past in this thread.

I'm convinced that abortion is something that needs to be minimized, and you have no such conviction.

Now, is that a problem like Negro slavery or civil rights, where there was ultimately no other solution than for the sides to say to each other "your moral perspective is illegitimate" and to press their claims till a consensus arrived? (That would be a "Plan A" solution.)

Or is this difference of view something that can be organized away by technology or custom?

Is there an invention practically possible that would make it a matter of indifference whether judges and other lawmakers held to your view or mine?

Is there some plausible legal arrangement or custom, some idea of animal rights or property rights perhaps, that could organize the clash away? (That would be a "Plan B" solution.)

AL - Along with the map from the Economist article take a look at world reproductive rates.

Crude World Reproductive Rates

The story is that the replacement birth rate per woman (zero population growth) is around 2.1 births per woman. Once you fall below that rate population is declining. I will not make the total argument here but just deliver the conclusion, as I believe it to be.

High abortion rates are self limiting - for the general population and local population. I believe that large numbers in a population not wanting children is both selfish and illustrative of the health of a society - the direct effect is that the lower the faith in the future, the more abortions demanded and also the lower the voluntary birth rate. The term is malaise. Those that believe in abortion on demand will have fewer children and their population becomes self limiting - there just will not be many more of those who believe this way in the future. I won't make the argument to good/bad or moral/immoral.

Look at the graphics from the Ecomonomist article at the one I link to above, the conclusions are chilling, at least to me. Western Civ is digging it's own grave by not reproducing. Except for the highly Roman Catholic population in South America there are lots of kids being had by those who do not allow abortion and believe in a manifest destiny of their way of life to rule over the rest of us. Like Mark Steyn pointed out - it's the demographics stupid.

The Hobo

Oh, btw, you may agree with me or not, I really do not care.

Or is this difference of view something that can be organized away by technology or custom?

Sure, we could reduce our rate to around Dutch or Belgian levels, ie. half or one-third of ours with more investment in contraception and education programs. Wouldn't be the end of the issue by any means but certainly would take the wind out of its sails.

Western Civ is digging it's own grave by not reproducing...

This has more to do with many other things than just abortion. Also wrong to push the idea that population growth is, ipso facto, desirable. In any case, the decline of the West has a lot more to do with massive crippling wars than abortion rates (hint-- China's is through the roof).

Where I'm from (Bay Area, CA), most young couples (18-30) with kids look scared, tired, worried, and stressed. They often have little time to spend with their kids, leading to less kids and a poorer quality of life for kids. Where I am now (North Europe), there is currently a small baby boom going on. Yet all the couples look calm and relaxed and quiet happy.. almost no frazzled faces to be found anywhere.

Of course a lot of the measures the government could take to make having kids more attractive would sadly make a lot of us pro-life folks in the US very squeamish.

I have seen the same map used to advocate living in the Northern hemisphere. It was posited that more sunlight made people in the Northern hemisphere more likely to succeed. This map is almost identical to one showing the preponderance of wealth in the world. The point is that there is no point.

I am doubtful that a more sophisticated adoption system like the one made mention of in #17 would work. Where I live, I see large numbers of adopted children from other countries, China in particular. There is an ugly racial aspect to abortion and adoption in which a disproportionate number of aborted babies are black and I think they truly are unwanted. I can't see why people would go out of their way to adopt babies from outside the country if this were not the case.

The way to reduce abortion has to start with reducing unwanted pregnancies. If these unwanted pregnancies go to full term, I would anticipate a massive increase in the number of foster children.

There are strong parallels between the issue of slavery and the issue of abortion, but there are also some differences that complicate the issue.

In slavery, there is the question of whether one personn should be able to exercise total control over the life, family, and work of another person to the point of considering that other person as property. Ending slavery gave liberty to one person and imposed a minor inconvenience on another person who had to pay wages for what he once took by birthright.

Abortion on one hand involves the taking of a human life, a human life which we go to lengths to not define as a person. Forbidding abortion, in many cases, imposes a form of servitude on a person who is a woman. You would think that the unborn child is the "slave" over whom we have complete domination to the point of taking life itself while a woman contemplating an abortion is the murderous slave master. It is argued by some that abortion is merely a matter of selfish convenience for many women much as owning slaves served a selfish purpose than a genuine human need. Not being a woman, however, I I take the word of my mother, a Catholic, who nevertheless asked that compassion be held regarding women and the circumstances that lead them to have abortions.

So the slavery question in U.S. history is not the same as the abortion question in this day and age. But like the slavery question, society is split into two camps, and the two camps talk past each other because both pro-choice and pro-life bring the force of moral conviction to their side. The conflict has such a hold on politics that it seems to me it will come to a head some day.

There are very strong parallels between pro-life advocates and Abolitionists, and at the violent extreme, I suppose there is a parallel between Eric Rudolph and John Brown. Neither Pro-Life or Abolitionism is what the day-to-day Republican Party is about, but both are/were core constituent groups. Lincoln, famously, was not an Abolitionist, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation because the Civil War forced his hand rather than Abolitionism being his key aim.

There was some Atlantic magazine article about "what would Lincoln have done about abortion" suggesting that just as Lincoln sought some manner of compromise on slavery, a leader in Lincoln's tradition would seek one moderate course on abortion -- the usual deal popular in some circles about abhoring but not outlawing abortions and so on. But Lincoln was not as moderate as one would think on slavery -- think of the "house divided" speech. Just as we have a face-saving Grand Compromise on abortion in the form of the Hyde Amendment -- abortion is legal but no federal funds, there was a Grand Compromise on slavery that it would be restricted to south of the Mason Dixon line and it would be kept out of the Western territories. Only the Grand Compromise came apart with the Dred Scott decision. If a slave was property as recognized by law and that "property" sought sanctuary in a Northern State, didn't the people of that Northern State have a legal obligation to return that "property" to its owner? That slavery required the participation of the entire country in order to exist was at the heart of Lincoln's House Divided -- in the end no compromise in the manner of "if you are against slavery, don't own one."

The other matter is that a Human Life Amendment -- recognition of human life from conception forward as having the Constitutional protections of a person -- is something that was not even considered pre-1973. If you were observant Catholic, you adhered to views on both abortion and birth control that certainly weren't majority society nor the state of law.

The pre-1973 abortion environment was permissive in terms of what the current pro-life movement would accept. The aim of the law was not so much protecting pre-term human life as in outlawing "vice." For example, to my knowledge all states permitted "theraputic abortions", that is abortion not just to "save the life of the mother" but to prevent adverse health consequences.

The effect of this was that married women effectively had abortion-with-spousal-consent because just as rich kids could be excused by draft boards by having their doctor say that they had some obscure health problem, a doctor could always find some issue making a pregnancy a health risk and no one would ask questions; if the husband was notified and consented, who had legal standing to object? If this same doctor offered the same diagnosis to offer the same to a young unmarried mother-to-be, all manner of questions would be asked and this doctor could lose his medical license or worse. Laws regulating abortion were deemed necessary to maintain order in society, but the disorderly conduct of concern was not-married women getting pregnant, not the taking of the unborn human life.

The point I had raised earlier is that I am willing to support a Lincoln rather than a true Abolitionist on the matter of abortion. I have no use for Planned Parenthood advancing abortion in exclusion to adoption placement and for NARAL and for the politics of Ted Kennedy and the treatment of nominees for the Supreme Court. I guess a pro-life politician or voter doesn't have to take a stand on a Human Life Amendment absolute prohibition on abortion under all circumstances because one could argue that reasonable restrictions on abortion - proscription of certain abortion procedures, limits on late term, parental notification, spousal notification -- are all one can get under the current political climate. Even getting one more strict-constructionist on the Supreme Court seems impossible because enormous political forces will spring into action to try to prevent this, although I have expressed the view that the bogeyman of losing Roe as is just that.

The pro-choice camp has made Pro-Choice a stark moral choice of opposing a form of involuntary servitude of women or not, and middle-ground measures as I had listed are regarded as being on the slippery slope.

At the risk of switching metaphors, the Pro-Life movement, on the other hand, is bottled up in the Pusan Perimeter waiting for some hope. Supposing the Pro-Life movement ever breaks out, there will be the General MacArthur's who believe that anything short of reversing the Communist Revolution in China is the only outcome short of treason while there will be the Harry Truman's who will settle for an armistice line not far from the 38th Parallel. I guess I am placing myself more in the Harry Truman group and wondering whether the MacArthers of the world aren't going to call my soft on Communism.

David Blue: "Or is this difference of view something that can be organized away by technology or custom?"

#24 from SAO: "Sure, we could reduce our rate to around Dutch or Belgian levels, ie. half or one-third of ours with more investment in contraception and education programs."

Of course I'm all in favor of that.

#24 from SAO: "Where I'm from (Bay Area, CA), most young couples (18-30) with kids look scared, tired, worried, and stressed. They often have little time to spend with their kids, leading to less kids and a poorer quality of life for kids. Where I am now (North Europe), there is currently a small baby boom going on. Yet all the couples look calm and relaxed and quiet happy.. almost no frazzled faces to be found anywhere."

First hand observations are interesting.

#24 from SAO: "Of course a lot of the measures the government could take to make having kids more attractive would sadly make a lot of us pro-life folks in the US very squeamish."

Explain?

#26 from Scott: "I am doubtful that a more sophisticated adoption system like the one made mention of in #17 would work. Where I live, I see large numbers of adopted children from other countries, China in particular. There is an ugly racial aspect to abortion and adoption in which a disproportionate number of aborted babies are black and I think they truly are unwanted."

That's horrible, if true. And I don't see what's wrong with your reasoning.

#26 from Scott: "The way to reduce abortion has to start with reducing unwanted pregnancies. If these unwanted pregnancies go to full term, I would anticipate a massive increase in the number of foster children."

I am all in favor of abstinence and contraception, but not in favor of all means of reducing unwanted pregnancies. This is typical of pro-lifers.

The bottom line is to reduce killing of innocent and defenseless human beings, and the bottom line therefore is not to reduce the number of foster children.

There are ugly potential fights between pro-lifers and conservatives, depending on what trade-offs become politically possible.

Judging by what they say, some and maybe very many conservatives are serious about the aim of putting enough pressure on single mothers, poor women whose babies might burden the welfare system and women whose children would be at increased statistical risk of becoming criminals so that those women don't have those babies. How they not have them is irrelevant, the point is to eliminate preemptively enough undesirable people. That corresponds to the logic of a consolidated and efficient human garbage disposal system, which is where we came in (in this thread).

That's not the logic pro-lifers are following at all.

From a pro-life perspective, I think abortion needs to be such an inconvenient or unavailable option that when society puts pressure on people not to have babies, other means are chosen but not this one.

Wow, great post, Paul Milenkovic. I'm glad to have you in the thread.

I won't try to respond to all your good points at once. You make too many.

#27 from Paul Milenkovic: "At the risk of switching metaphors, the Pro-Life movement, on the other hand, is bottled up in the Pusan Perimeter waiting for some hope."

That looks right. And we can lose here. No hope comes.

Bad Republican leadership, which we are seeing, invites Democrat electoral victories. Democrat presidents will appoint pro-choice judges. Pro-choice judges will not "grow in office", they will remain loyal to their cause. If the boulder that has been rolled up near the top of the mountain rolls back down, it's going to be tough to get it back up again.

Still, let's think about the more optimistic alternative.

#27 from Paul Milenkovic: "Supposing the Pro-Life movement ever breaks out, there will be the General MacArthur's who believe that anything short of reversing the Communist Revolution in China is the only outcome short of treason while there will be the Harry Truman's who will settle for an armistice line not far from the 38th Parallel. I guess I am placing myself more in the Harry Truman group and wondering whether the MacArthers of the world aren't going to call my soft on Communism."

I think the logic of saving every innocent and defenseless human life that can be saved is broadly persuasive in the pro-life movement. It's simple to grasp, it's emotional, and it's compatible with Catholic moral reasoning - which you need because without the aid of Catholics, the pro-life movement would be too weak to count for anything.

It points to compromise, because legislation that can't be passed saves no lives, and legislation that will soon be overturned saves few lives. Legislation that saves lives can be accepted as a practical matter even when it has the unavoidable secondary effect of abandoning others.

If the most restrictive bill that can be passed and indefinitely sustained includes exceptions for rape, (blacklisted word) and the life of the mother, then to save lives the moral pressure to accept those restrictions is overwhelming. And if the exceptions have to be more extensive, as I assume they would, then that's possible.

Even if you are troubled by the ghosts of those you are writing off, consigning to death, you have something to say to them. "This is the best that we could do and sustain."

If pro-lifers were, as pro-choicers have often alleged, about punishing women for sexual freedom, then "we need to cut a deal to save lives" would not be persuasive. Those bad girls would still be going unpunished, and that would be the real issue. But it's not like that.

Also, what's going to happen if Roe is abolished and the power to decide this issue is returned to the states? My guess is, pro-lifers are going to get pasted in electoral politics at the state and local levels till they learn how to play them again.

If I'm right on that, and I'm very confident I am, that's going to be quite humbling, quite a lesson in moderation. The all-the-way absolutists, almost by definition, will be inept in the democratic game of give and take. They won't get the results that others will. And the unflattering comparisons that will follow will quiet them to tolerable levels.

Funny. I looked at my state's Planned Parenthood statistics and they lost money performing abortions and have an active adoption service. You shouldn't pass on every bit of crap you get. I'm glad you adopted but really, get over the hate for Planned Parenthood. Your Winds of Change are nothing but farts.

I think the logic of a human garbage disposal system to physically eliminate unwanted and defenseless human beings is one thing, and the logic of the tradeoffs we make in public funding decisions about health - where we all agree that we'd like everyone to be in good health forever, but that's not how human biology works and there's only so much money to go around - is something else.

They're as different as giving someone who've terminally ill and suffering a shot to relieve pain, and if it doesn't kill them you're happy and you continue to care for them, and giving the same person a shot to kill them, and if it doesn't kill them, you hit them again because you want them dead.

These things may look the same superficially, but they're completely different animals.

Nobody's going to pay for a police force that will eliminate all murder (much less live under its 24 hours a day, seven days a week supervision), and nobody's going to eliminate abortion either. There's not enough money in the world.

The most you can ask of the state - and I think we must ask for it - is an evenly benevolent attitude to innocent human beings through every stage of life, but with practical exceptions such as we make in drafting some people and putting them in harm's way for the good of the many.

If that is what's going on, then the time of system-wide moral crisis is at an end and we are in normal politics.

I can't see a lot of people bright enough to be useful as legislators in any context not grasping that once your starting point is life the rest is about practicality and trade-offs.

#31 from stardust: "Funny. I looked at my state's Planned Parenthood statistics and they lost money performing abortions and have an active adoption service."

That's good news. Relevant facts are always welcome. Link?

Jumping on the bandwagon late, there's alot of stuff I would like to get too, but I will get to the necessary responses...

"As for long term, abortion strikes me as one issue that will probably be solved technologically..."

Currently, the technology is out there to severely reduce abortions. Condoms, birth-control, (agressive birth control like norplant), the morning after pill etc., all of these things are safe, and effectively prevent pregnancy. Yet, the pro-life campaign is by and large against these devies, because it doesn't gel with their 'moral' beliefs. Every study has shown that abstinence training alone doesn't work, yet it's still being pushed, creating more teen pregnancies and (in effect) more abortions.

"Either much better birth control technology, artificial gestation capability, or probably, both put together would wipe abortion out overnight."

Sounds great, but I'm not quite sure where funding for these procedures are going to come from. I guess pro-life groups have enough funding that (someday) they could fund these solutions. But I doubt the pro-life groups are going to fund such procedures, and if they do, will generally limited by funding/availbility.

As a side note; adoptions sound like a great thing (and by and large they are). But what about teens/young professionals losing their college scholarships, losing their careers, losing their chance to become middleclass americans while they put their life on hold to adopt? It's a serious problem that only affects women, as the men in these affairs slink off to continue their life. (This opinion is based on seeing friends with exactly these problems).

Nobody's going to pay for a police force that will eliminate all murder (much less live under its 24 hours a day, seven days a week supervision), and nobody's going to eliminate abortion either. There's not enough money in the world.

You're right, but that doesn't stop some groups from trying. Look at the recent stories of pharmas (blacklist) that refuse to prescribe birth-control because it's "against their moral views". It's not hard to imagine a small town in a southern state where no pharma will hand out birth control. Then what do you do? You go to the next town of course. However, in some cases, you may have women driving hours every month to get something prescribed by their doctor (and, in cases of severe periods, medically required for the patient). How is that not screwed up?

Mr Blue, #20:

Apologies for not responding to this more quickly-- I actually had what I thought was a nice, coherent answer typed up yesterday, and then through my own clumsiness, closed the tab before submitting it. I was annoyed. On the other hand, between then and now another comment has been posted which I think will let me say what I wanted to say in a better and stronger way.

Is that a clear answer for you?

An honest answer to a very difficult question. If your opposition to abortion comes from where I think it does (namely, metaphysical differences of opinion that I'm not going to debate here... although I will remark that it would be nice if anti-abortionists would recognize that their metaphysical leanings are as much a matter of opinion as mine) then that was probably a painful answer to give.

The very difficult extension of that question, in response to your answer, is this: What if the economic performance and the political liberties are inextricably tied together? I cannot prove that they are, not mathematically, but I believe strongly that they are from my reading of history and my personal understanding of human nature. I'm simply but strongly dubious of the notion that one that one can pick and choose rights without weakening their entire structure. Yes, as a practical matter, no society will emphasize and prioritize different rights in the same way-- that's why they're different societies, and that's why the map I posted holds power: starting with the assumption that societal choices have consequences, it shows the result of the global experimentation of societies. Some are successful; some are hellholes; I cannot but believe that the treatment of women plays a role in this. What is the minimal cut of rights which entails a functioning, healthy society?

And there I would have been content to let it stand... but in the time between my accidental discard and now, Mr. Milenkovic, #27 made his lengthy and interesting post. I take the following lengthy quote to underscore my point:

The effect of this was that married women effectively had abortion-with-spousal-consent because just as rich kids could be excused by draft boards by having their doctor say that they had some obscure health problem, a doctor could always find some issue making a pregnancy a health risk and no one would ask questions; if the husband was notified and consented, who had legal standing to object? If this same doctor offered the same diagnosis to offer the same to a young unmarried mother-to-be, all manner of questions would be asked and this doctor could lose his medical license or worse. Laws regulating abortion were deemed necessary to maintain order in society, but the disorderly conduct of concern was not-married women getting pregnant, not the taking of the unborn human life.

I read the first part of that paragraph, and felt my eyebrow twitching upward. On the one hand, I very certainly do understand the position of husbands feeling as though they have a stake in the outcome of their wife's pregnancy. But that said, it's very elementary biology to know absolutely that until the delivery, the woman's stake in the pregnancy is much, much higher-- sociologically, it's almost certainly higher for the next twenty years as well. And through that first half of that passage, there is the distinctive aroma of the wife needing to ask the husband's permission to have a medical operation performed.... and there is no corresponding, counterbalancing situation for the man. The man never needs to ask permission for anything.

Now, it is possible, with the first half of that paragraph alone, to construct a somewhat coherent defense against that accusation-- it's not a male/female power issue, it's an issue of the sanctity of life. (Leaving aside the issue of metaphysics, which I will not surrendur.)

But in the second half of that paragraph, talking about the treatment of unmarried women, the distinctive aroma of masculine permission becomes an unmistakeable, deplorable odor. Without a man in the picture to give consent-- permission-- one would think that the decision would be the woman's to make. But, per Mr Milenkovic, it was not, nor has anyone here yet disputed that. Whatever else this issue may or may not be, it is inarguably a question of women's rights, simply based on the above excerpt and my following commentary, because no matter how the question was turned, nor what circumstances entailed, the right of choice was never given to the woman... who just happened to have the highest tangible stake in the outcome.

That being the case, we're back-- forcibly-- to my original conviction: that these rights cannot be simply subtracted from a healthy society and leave it just as healthy as before. Not so long as we are regarding women's rights as neecssary to a healthy society. I cannot but believe that the wholesale delegation of womens' medical rights, whether to their husbands or a well-meaning but overwhelming state, is anything but a very large step onto a very slippery slope that is utterly detrimental to women. Another charming thing about that map, by the way: it correlates fairly well to the treatment of women, in addition to being a simple index on economic and other political liberties. And the political treatment and standards of rights for women is most definitely correlated with economic strength and political liberty.

I do not believe you can pick and choose which liberties to grant so lightly.

PS: I asked a trick question, back up there toward the middle of the post. We shouldn't be looking for the minimal cut of rights for a functioning society, anyway. The East Asian former-mostly-autocracies are trying to figure that out right now. We should, rather, be looking for the maximal cut of rights for a functioning society.

#35 from Marcus Vitruvius: "We should, rather, be looking for the maximal cut of rights for a functioning society."

I think this maximal set of rights includes the right to life, the right of innocent and defenseless human beings not to be killed for the convenience of others.

Metaphysics, Mr. Blue. Metaphysics.

I've already told you several times I don't agree with your metaphysics or your definitions. Why bother to respond to the one part of the discussion which is not amenable to rational discussion, and to nothing else?

It's not even a discussion, at that point.

But here, since you are interested in technological solutions, even of the science fictional type: Perhaps a day will come when you can prevent an abortion by carrying someone else's child to term, yourself. (We'll make that part of the adoption process.)

#34 from alchemist: "Currently, the technology is out there to severely reduce abortions. Condoms, birth-control, (agressive birth control like norplant), the morning after pill etc., all of these things are safe, and effectively prevent pregnancy. Yet, the pro-life campaign is by and large against these devies, because it doesn't gel with their 'moral' beliefs."

These moral beliefs, by and large would be Catholic Christian beliefs, which I've already acknowledged are important on the pro-life side.

And on the other side, the pro-choice campaign wants "effective" abortion, that is killing even when there is no benefit in convenience to the mother, which is logical if, like Marcus Vitruvius, you simply don't prioritize the reduction of abortion.

So again: are we back to a "Plan A" problem, where a fight over the legitimacy of various moral views is inevitable?

Or, looking at the business of abortion, the practicalities, the policies and priorities and the yearly balance sheets, is there some way to get past that "Plan A" struggle and make this a normal political struggle (or collection of struggles) over who gets how much of what at the margins?

(Of course we do not agree on who counts as a "who", but you get the idea.)

What do you think? Is there any hope in the numbers, do you see any ideas?

-

#34 from alchemist: "As a side note; adoptions sound like a great thing (and by and large they are). But what about teens/young professionals losing their college scholarships, losing their careers, losing their chance to become middleclass americans while they put their life on hold to adopt?"

OK, could changes in university policies change that? Why not?

This is the sort of thing I'm thinking about - ideas that can save lives without first needing to win a moral revolution, and ideally, ideas that would be so effective in reducing abortion (and other lethal practices which are also part of the pro-life / pro-choice struggle) that the corrosive mutual damnations of this struggle would vanish as the meat of the dispute would have ceased to exist.

#37 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Metaphysics, Mr. Blue. Metaphysics.

I've already told you several times I don't agree with your metaphysics or your definitions. Why bother to respond to the one part of the discussion which is not amenable to rational discussion, and to nothing else?"

This is like saying: "if we are not boxing, why did you block my punch?" The obvious answer is: "if we are not boxing, why was there a punch to block?"

The part of the discussion in question, the effort by each side to knock down and deligitimize the moral stance of the other, is woven all through your posts. This is the point behind your points: that the pro-life side in this struggle ought to abandon its positions.

As I said from the first: thank you for the politeness of your effort to change my mind. But no thanks.

I am looking at some data and what ideas people can bring up to see what can be done to get past a fight where each side demands that the other side's moral commitments be abandoned.

And in a sense, I'm putting the resources of policy fudging to the test.

If, given our differing moral commitments, there is no real world practical policy to be be had that could get round them, then at least a part of Paul Milenkovic's concern is justified: this is inherently a "Plan A" struggle, as Negro slavery was. Despite the wishes of those who disliked slavery, Abolition and Abolitionists, the moral crux of the dispute couldn't be transcended, it had to be struggled through. And that may be the case now.

Mr. Blue, #39,

But it's sad that instead of engaging any point I made in my other lengthy post, you simply brush it aside in favor of a mantra. I'm not bothering to try and convince you that your metaphysics are wrong. They're metaphysics. They're unproveable. They're boring and unfruitful to discuss at best, and in point of fact they are infuriating when they're brandished about as though they were objective truth.

In point of fact, they are not. A large part of the intellectual heritage of what we like to call modernity is the realization that metaphysical arguments can't be settled objectively, make poor hooks to hang political laws on, and ought to be private and personal.

Which is why, as I said, I haven't bothered-- and won't-- to try and convince you that your metaphysics are wrong... but it would be nice if that courtesy were extended in my direction as well. And it is why I've argued indirectly.

It's why I brought up the economic and political points, because I believe they are very strongly correlated, and intertwined. You, sir, asked how abortion was shaping society. Having said yourself that there is a line you are not willing cross in that regard, intellectual honesty simply demands that you at least consider the questions I raised, and even if you do not do so publicly, demands something better than a mantra-like brush-off.

And it's why I brought up the gender issues in the way that I did. There are only so many varied and diverse ways to consistently arrive at the same conclusion-- that women should not be the arbiters of their health and bodies-- before I make the substantive claim that the conclusion is driving the logic. This need not convince you on a metaphysical level, though, because it's not a metaphysical claim. You, sir, asked whose rights were being served.

YOU, sir, have asked non-metaphysical questions. I've done you the courtesy of engaging you on that level, but you've retreated back to your safe ground.

In the end it is about responsiblity for your self. I always use a condom.

#40 from Marcus Vitruvius: "You, sir, asked how abortion was shaping society. Having said yourself that there is a line you are not willing cross in that regard, intellectual honesty simply demands that you at least consider the questions I raised, and even if you do not do so publicly, demands something better than a mantra-like brush-off."

OK, let's go back to some of the questions I asked in my post.

"If Planned Parenthood is correct, are the enormous strides it is achieving mostly to the benefit of the reproductive rights of men, the reproductive rights of women, the reproductive health of men, the reproductive health of women, the rights of younger males, the rights of younger females, the health of younger males or the health of younger females? How are societies, in America and across the world, being reshaped by the boom in reproductive rights and health?"

This was addressed to Planned Parenthood's claim that (in the fiscal year 2005-2006) it continued to make "enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide".

I was trying to sort that out, to make it more specific.

So, what enormous strides did you see this year, in what areas?

Can you put what you want to say in the context of the business of abortion: fiscal year 2005-2006?

#35 from Marcus Vitruvius: "The very difficult extension of that question, in response to your answer, is this: What if the economic performance and the political liberties are inextricably tied together?"

This is the only question I have found so far in your posts in this thread that I have not already addressed or that is not addressed to someone else, or that is not essentially rhetorical. It's based on a hypothetical, and it's unclear what is demanded by way of a reply, but you seem to be demanding something or other very urgently, so I can only suppose that this must be it.

So, here we go...

First, I grant the hypothetical. That is, rights and economic performance are tied together in some cases; and this has application to the business of abortion, 2005-2006, that is, this is a business, supported by a legal right, with economic implications.

An economic implication of a large abortion business is that you don't spend money to educate dead babies, or dead fetuses. You don't have to feed or clothe them either, and you don't need to pay for housing with room for them as they grow. It's great, temporarily. You can afford everything you want for yourself. The lifestyle difference is huge.

If your cultural / national fertility drops like a rock, in the direction of 1 (from a stable fertility of 2.1) your economy can go like gangbusters for a while, in the same way that if a research company sacks all its research staff and just sells what it's already built it can report a fantastic profit for a while.

Of course, this is unsustainable.

It may also be an error beyond recovery. After a while you have a society of mostly old people, unable to breed in great numbers and with healthy prospects even if they change their minds, and you have inadequate numbers of young people obliged to pay for the declining years of these elders. Those most able to earn well are also the most mobile (internationally), and they have good reason to flee the heavy obligation that an older generation put on them by spending too much on itself and not enough on the future.

The solution of mass immigration from countries where the religion is implacably hostile to the culture of the decadent elderly consumers has been tried on a colossal scale, and the results are not looking good.

Once we see these endangered countries with their unviable policies and collapsing unity and demographics get back to a fertility of at least 2.1 and solid cultural cohesion if they every do, then it will be time to discuss what the costs and benefits of this diversion into demographic unreality were, and whether a steady-as-she goes policy would have been better.

Till then - it's like passing judgment on the lifestyle of someone who's roaring drunk and selling or borrowing everything he can, without thought for tomorrow. All I can tell you is, he's having fun now. After the hangover, when the bills have all fallen due and the penalties have all been paid, ask me again. Maybe it will still have been worth it. Maybe not.

Re: #41 from Jonathan: Bravo.

Here's another set of facts and an argument. (link)

"... Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.

• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.

• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.

• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Some of this might seem contradictory. Why would both the number of abortions and of out-of-wedlock births go up? If there were more illegitimate births, why were fewer children available for adoption?"

The rest is an explanation that may (or may not) bear on our discussion.

As I mentioned before, my understanding is that the 'Roe' ruling also came during a time in which women were starting to move into the workforce in larger and larger numbers, which more or less explains the rise in abortions, decline in pregant marriages and decrease in adoptions.

Mr Blue, #43:

Ah, well now we're back to discussing something that can actually be reasoned about, instead of metaphysics that just aren't suited to rational debate one direction or the other.

That said, I find your arguments about replacement rate breeding unpersuasive for several reasons:

1) I am certain that there is some correlation between increased abortion and decreased fertility rates, but I am convinced it is not as strong as you might think. For example, the United States has very permissive abortion laws, and the TFR in 2000 was 2.06, and in 2007 is projected to be 2.09. Note, that's simple TFR from the link posted by Robohobo, #23, it does not add population growth due to immigration. That alone is sufficient evidence that permissive abortion is compatible with replacement rate breeding. (Nor does this appear strictly cultural-- I would have naively expected a more solidly Catholic hispanic population to have fewer abortions per person. Surprisingly, this turns out to be untrue.)

Further, Australia has more restrictive abortion laws (but is still generally permissive) while it has a TFR of only about 1.75. Ireland, on the other hand, is so draconian that abortions are verboten and local politicians will effectively imprison yong women in the country if they thing the woman might be heading abroad to have an abortion procedure performed. (I keep bring up the issue of rights because I would like to see if you'll actually acknowledge that women have some, on the one hand; and that restricting them does lead to political excess, as it certainly has in Ireland.) Ireland's TFR hovers around 1.9.

Abortion rates may be a symptom of one tyep of an unhealthy society, but they don't seem to be the root cause of the problem. Nor does restricting liberty and making other peoples' medical decisions for them seem to be a great road toward societal health.

2) Moreover, the argument rings hollow, because while abortion statistics can be collected relatively easily in places where abortion is legal, we have no way of knowing how many abortions are performed in places where the practice is illegal. We do know, absolutely, that the procedures are still performed, we just do not know in what numbers.

But, and much more importantly, what's truly difficult (if not outright impossible) to guage is the number of births that would have occurred without access to effective birth control. If the concern about falling birth rates is real, and the logic following it is consistent, one must necessarily be concerned not only with abortions, but with means of preventing pregnancies in the first place.

But, you are not.

Mr Blue, #28: Of course I'm all in favor of [#24, more investment in contraception and education programs.]

Mr Blue, #29: I am all in favor of abstinence and contraception....

#46, Alchemist:

Agreed, very much. One should also note that after the initial peak, the abortion rate in the United States has been falling, gradually but steadily. And that's a fall in absolute numbers, despite the rising absolute population. In relative terms, the fall is therefore slightly faster.

This conversation of population growth vs. industrialized nation reminded me of a very, very funny clip I found on the web a few weeks ago. It's from the movie Idiocracy (by Mike Judge, who made 'Office Space'). I've rented the whole thing but haven't watched it yet.

Anyway, if you need a laugh, watch this

Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977.

The simplest explanation is that prior to Roe (1973), abortions were generally illegal, so they went unrecorded.

There is obviously a problem surveying criminal activities. I believe the confidential Kinsey surveys and reports of abortion-related deaths showed that abortions were increasing significantly prior to Roe.

These same types of reports also show significant increases in abortions during the Great Depression.

BTW: the content of the attached video does make a compelling argument that the Qunatity of a population is not neccessarily a good indicator of future success.

I think I found the origin of the data. From the Center for Disease Control:

In 1972, 29 hospitals and agencies reported performing 586,760 abortions, which is a rate of 180 per 1,000 live births.

In 1977, 52 hospitals and agencies reported performing 1,079,430 abortions, which is a rate of 325 per 1,000 live births.

"Table 2":
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#top

This data shows the rate of abortions more than doubling, but the increase is due almost completely to the number of reporting entities. The average number of abortions for each reporting entity was 20,233 in 1972 and 20,758 in 1977. Maternal fatalities from abortions (legal and illegal) dropped from 65 in 1972 to 14 in 1976. I think this suggests the demand for abortions remained pretty constant during this period with the business moving from the unreported back alley to the clinics.

All in all, I think the article David linked to (#45) has got the tail wagging the dog. Roe didn't cause a substantial increase in abortions. Any increase was part of a longer trend dating back to at least "the pill." (1960) In fact, I would suggest that Roe came about as a result of elites becoming exposed to the increasing number and risks of abortions.

#47 from Marcus Vitruvius: "But, and much more importantly, what's truly difficult (if not outright impossible) to guage is the number of births that would have occurred without access to effective birth control. If the concern about falling birth rates is real, and the logic following it is consistent, one must necessarily be concerned not only with abortions, but with means of preventing pregnancies in the first place.

But, you are not.

Mr Blue, #28: Of course I'm all in favor of [#24, more investment in contraception and education programs.]

Mr Blue, #29: I am all in favor of abstinence and contraception...."

My priorities are consistent with a moral principle (not "mantra" that innocent and defenseless human beings ought not to be killed.

To desire at least replacement level fertility is not to demand completely unguided fertility for individuals. (The social goal might be a fertility number in the region of 2.5, not 10.)

So alternatives that do not violate the relevant moral principle can be preferred, and I do prefer them.

Obligatory on-topic comment: are there any number in the original post that if shifted a few percent either way would create significant room for policies to organize away the practical difference between those who think abortion is morally illicit and those who see no problem with it?

Mr Blue, #53:

Well, let me put it another way: If you're concerned with replacement population rates that fall below 2.1, why are you in favor of contraception and abstinence?

I can't see the logic there.

#47 from Marcus Vitruvius: "(I keep bring up the issue of rights because I would like to see if you'll actually acknowledge that women have some, on the one hand; and that restricting them does lead to political excess, as it certainly has in Ireland.)"

Women, like men, have rights, bounded by the rights of others. Your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins. That is not "political excess".

Obligatory on-topic comment: I think it would be reasonable to say that nothing like a "Plan B" solution is emerging.

We do not agree on what results are desirable. If Harry and Harriet are in a car in Houston, and Harry wants to drive to San Diego, California and Harriet wants to drive to Tampa, Florida, there is no cleverly chosen shared route that will keep them both going where they want to go.

That's the situation here. We have different values. We do not want the same things. We want incompatible things. So there is no value-independent "good policy" solution. Policy can be so bad that it frustrates everybody (for example the state randomly enforcing partial birth abortions for fetuses based on a coin flip at the time they were to be born would frustrate everybody), but policy cannot be good enough to give everybody reasonable satisfaction.

And there is not much evident desire to get to a set of policies that would satisfy the incompatible moral demands in play.

As usual when inherently inflammatory moral differences are in play, people go for Plan A, trying to win, doubting each others honesty and so on. This is the general tendency of the points and arguments raised. Though the aim of winning, of catching the other guy out, may be pursued indirectly, the impulse is there. The topic is too "hot" for this not to be so.

The pro-life / pro-choice, like Negro slavery, like Civil Rights, is a Plan A problem.

#54 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Mr Blue, #53:

Well, let me put it another way: If you're concerned with replacement population rates that fall below 2.1, why are you in favor of contraception and abstinence?

I can't see the logic there."

You just listed two compatible positions, and you say you can't see the logic. I have already explained the logic. I can't help you further.

Obligatory on-topic comment. There's no indication why breast exams dropped by 13.3 percent. It could be that women are going elsewhere for the service or that there's less demand for the service.

Mr Blue, #55:

Women, like men, have rights, bounded by the rights of others. Your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins. That is not "political excess".

It is most definitely political excess when the rights of pregnant women to travel abroad are curtailed, as they have been in Ireland. Specifically, "Miss D," who, upon learning that her unborn foetus suffered from anencephaly, e.g., would be born with no cerebral cortex, decided she would like to abort the pregnancy. Irish social services then responded by telling the Passport Office not to issue her a passport, and the police to arrest and detain her if she attempted to leave the country. That is not the first, nor will it likely be the last thuggish attempt by Ireland to restrain its women. (Note: Miss D was under age, at 17; however, her own mother as gaurdian supported her decision.)

I do think that counts as political excess, and certainly counts as on-topic for the matter of abortion policies shaping societies.

Mr Blue, #56:

I am still, honestly, baffled. Does contraception not logically lead to a falling fertility rate, just as much (if not moreso) than abortion? If so, and if you tihnk falling fertility rates are a problem, why are you all in favor of contraception?

[I've deleted my prior post as too much off topic --NM]

On further review, I see that Mr Blue has already answered Mr Vitruvius:

To desire at least replacement level fertility is not to demand completely unguided fertility for individuals.

Well said.

Nortius Maximus, #58:

It might be well said, but it's not entirely consistent. To offer up falling fertility rates as a reason to curtail only one form of fertility reduction is disingenuous at best, and suggests (among other possible interpretations) fear-mongering: scare people out of abortion by pointing to fertility rates and projecting a cultural apocalypse, but ignore the issue for other means of fertility reduction.

Justifying that position, if it is possible at all, requires much more careful reasoning than has been displayed here thus far.

Your "reasoning" (really your demands that he fit your measure) is redundant and becoming ingrown. You persist in pillorying non-adherence to (what you call) your metaphysics, after claiming to not wish to discuss such. The cloak of your current demand is balefully threadbare.

Quoting Monty Python:

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

You deny a premise of his, refuse to discuss it, claiming it's pointless to do so--then demand he suit your premises or be accused of faulty reasoning.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Looks like bad faith from here. Or Pythonesque flummery. Or a blind spot the size of a barn.

Can you not see that calling abortion "fertility reduction" adheres inextricably to the issue you claimed was metaphysical? And did not care to discuss--probably rightly?

Evidently not. What a pity it has to be pointed out so bluntly.
I'll avoid further comment on the matter. Mr Blue can handle his own muttons.

Well, interestingly, that sort of Monty Python style argument is precisely what I've been trying to avoid, because that is always what abortion discussions hinging on whether or not a small cluster of cells is a human being turns into.

I thought Mr. Blue and I were on the same page in that regard, in foucssing on other more practical issues-- specifically, the suite of issues he mentioned in his base post, relating to reproductive rights, health issues, and societal issues. Perhaps I misread his intent.

Now, as to the matter of abortion vs contraception, yes, it very well might be that this boils down inextricably to metaphysics for Mr Blue. That would be a consistent position (and one I won't bother to argue against) but that in turn is what I am trying to clarify, because if so, it turns the entire discussion of fertility rates into a red herring-- it's not the falling fertility rates that are important in that case (because if they were, there would logically be alarm over contraception methods) but the method itself.

A recapitulation.

My opening post The Business of Abortion: fiscal year 2005-2006 referred to business data for Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, asked what is going in here (is this going up, down, holding steady or what?), and asked questions about relatively neutral matters (the puzzling non-reporting of adoptions) and about possible common ground, based on the business realities as opposed to what I've called a "Plan A" fight over morality, with people delegitimizing each other's moral positions. And in doing that, I also by implication put to a test the hope that some more mundane, less revolutionary approach may show itself to be appropriate to the problem. (Which we do not all agree is a problem.) This was in response to Paul Milenkovic's excellent posts in another thread.

Again and again I've directed attention back to looking at the data, and whether the number suggest any possible common ground is opening up. (And finally I said: I see no substantial common ground, either in the business of abortion as it exists in the latest reporting or in any trend.) I haven't hidden where I'm coming from - I do see a problem, on the basis of an ethical view I hold - but I haven't gone after others for having different ethical views, instead, I've stuck the agenda of my thread, which looks beyond that kind of fight, or tries to.

Later, I in post #45, I linked another set of facts and an argument about how abortion has worked or not worked in numerical terms. I said this may be relevant, or it may not be. #50 from PD Shaw raise the possibility that the numbers were bogus: abortion may have been constant, with the numbers changing only in response to whether abortion was illegal, that is, this is a reporting issue, not a social issue. I haven't responded to that, because if true it suggests the link I provided in post #45 was indeed irrelevant. If you throw out the data, there's nothing else to talk about.

So that's where I've been going in this thread.

And I think it's main business is done. It seems to me this is inherently a Plan A social issue, even though it is deadlocked. There is no valid transcendence to be had. And for that reason, I don't see myself creating a lot of future posts on abortion.

#61 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Now, as to the matter of abortion vs contraception, yes, it very well might be that this boils down inextricably to metaphysics for Mr Blue. That would be a consistent position (and one I won't bother to argue against) but that in turn is what I am trying to clarify, because if so, it turns the entire discussion of fertility rates into a red herring-- it's not the falling fertility rates that are important in that case (because if they were, there would logically be alarm over contraception methods) but the method itself."

What you constantly say you won't "argue", you try to "clarify" in your favor.

Leaving aside the validity of that distinction, I agree that the issue is a red herring.

Let's see how this red herring swam into sight.

The thread started to get off topic in post #1, which I responded to:

#5 from David Blue: Marcus Vitruvius, thank you for the link to the article, which I duly read in the way you suggested, and thank you for the politeness of your effort to change my mind.

Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?"

Your reply speaks for itself:

#18 from Marcus Vitruvius:

Mr Blue, #5:

Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?

Not really. I don't share your conviction that abortion is something that needs to be minimized. Consequently, what percentage of their business comes from what procedure, and how their business practices vary from year to year is of very little concern to me."

I'll give you credit for having lived up to that stated lack of interest in the topic of the thread.

Instead you wanted to know my responses to your divergent agenda.

And then when I politely complied, which in retrospect was a mistake, in post #35, you wanted "(t)he very difficult extension of that question, in response to your answer..."

Oh boy. Imagine a road sign. Direction of the thread: straight ahead. Direction of your posts: right angles to the thread, directly into the kind of tendentious arguments "Plan A" delegitimization that focusing on the data of the business of abortion today might hopefully have transcended.

Further and further the roads diverge, from not too far apart though heading in the wrong direction in the first post, to the breeding grounds of red herrings.

You grew more emotional and more irrelevant, running on about metaphysics (which are not to be found in my thread topic, or in anyone apparent interests except yours), ignoring my invitations to discuss things within the scope of the thread, and playing more double games, arguing indirectly what you say you won't argue and making impolite implications:

#40 from Marcus Vitruvius:

Mr. Blue, #39,

But it's sad that instead of engaging any point I made in my other lengthy post, you simply brush it aside in favor of a mantra. I'm not bothering to try and convince you that your metaphysics are wrong. They're metaphysics. They're unproveable. They're boring and unfruitful to discuss at best, and in point of fact they are infuriating when they're brandished about as though they were objective truth.

In point of fact, they are not. A large part of the intellectual heritage of what we like to call modernity is the realization that metaphysical arguments can't be settled objectively, make poor hooks to hang political laws on, and ought to be private and personal.

Which is why, as I said, I haven't bothered-- and won't-- to try and convince you that your metaphysics are wrong... but it would be nice if that courtesy were extended in my direction as well. And it is why I've argued indirectly."

I'll give you credit: you have indeed been arguing in an indirect way.

Unfortunately I responded to your attention-getting behavior - the shouted "YOU" of post #40, and

"Having said yourself that there is a line you are not willing cross in that regard, intellectual honesty simply demands that you at least consider the questions I raised, and even if you do not do so publicly, demands something better than a mantra-like brush-off."

Who sir, me sir? Yes sir, YOU sir! (... sigh ...)

Shouting, repeated demanding, with typographical emphasis, the hook of misstatement of what someone else said - because I did not talk about being unwilling to cross a line - and of negative implications as above and elsewhere ... all this attention-getting, thread-derailing behavior made a poor impression.

But, unwisely, I answered your demand, which was, cleverly, not too far from the business of the thread, though actually off it.

Then came more attention-getting behavior: more dragging the thread off-topic, and more of baiting implications:

#47 from Marcus Vitruvius: "If the concern about falling birth rates is real, and the logic following it is consistent, one must necessarily be concerned not only with abortions, but with means of preventing pregnancies in the first place.

But, you are not."

Then came repeated requests that I resolve a nonexistent incoherency in what I said.

I wanted to say "in my position", but it's not really "my position", as in something I'm arguing, rather it's a weary response to a diversion piled upon a diversion.

So I explained the non-inconsistency of what I said (To desire at least replacement level fertility is not to demand completely unguided fertility for individuals.) - and Nortius Maximus certainly got it. (Thanks for that feedback, Nortius Maximus. It was good to see that my sentence was clear.)

And the calls to resolve a non-contradiction continued regardless, till Nortius Maximus spoke (and again, thank you Nortius Maximus, for finding a polite way to say what had to be said).

Then the "red herring" swam into view:

#61 from Marcus Vitruvius: "Now, as to the matter of abortion vs contraception, yes, it very well might be that this boils down inextricably to metaphysics for Mr Blue. That would be a consistent position (and one I won't bother to argue against) but that in turn is what I am trying to clarify, because if so, it turns the entire discussion of fertility rates into a red herring-- it's not the falling fertility rates that are important in that case (because if they were, there would logically be alarm over contraception methods) but the method itself."

This is not my red herring. It's yours.

To return the early days of this journey into irrelevance:

David Blue: Do you have any (more) thoughts on the numbers and facts I offered above, or any of the questions I raised?

#18 from Marcus Vitruvius: Not really.

Since this will be (a long) post #63, and that has been essentially the case all along, though you have baited your off-topic hooks cleverly and argued that you were being on-topic while trying to drag the discussion away from its proper focus, I'm not interested to chase your red herrings further.

Marcus Vitruvius, there's a kind of attention-getting that I think works best if the person who created the thread that you are trying to derail was being tricky and disingenuous, if they were not really interested in what they claimed to be interested in, if their true concern and purpose was somewhere else. In that case, if you bait them a few times, they start talking about what they really wanted to talk about, and the game is over.

It's the theory of A Few Good Men (1992): keep asking questions, bait the guy a little, keep him talking and he'll say what he wants to say. ("You're goddam right I ordered that Code Red!")

It's a strategy that works well on someone who's smart-talking and proud of it, loud-mouthed, and mainly who's twelve pounds of crazy stuffed into a ten pound bag.

It works less well on some cud-chewing guy who's put up a post on snails because he really is just fascinated with snails.

If the guy simply posted on the topic he wanted to talk about, chronic diversions are not cunning, they are boring.

It's easy to misunderstand where someone is coming from, especially when the topic is as fraught as emotion.

I think Armed Liberal misunderstood me early on. He seemed to think I was taking a shot at Planned Parenthood for being greedy. I wasn't taking that shot.

But, when it became obvious (I hope) that that was a misunderstanding, that the hidden agenda did not exist, Armed Liberal intelligently let it drop.

Somewhere before post 60-odd, it should have become obvious that till the question of whether the moral war on this issue can be transcended was settled (it can't), I was trying to get a discussion on this important, current, real-world issue, the business of abortion, not in "metaphysical" dreams but in numbers, dollars, outlets and operations, and official reports for the most recent fiscal years available.

The way to get a good conversation would have been to address the thread topic and play it straight, and not to "argue indirectly" and angle repeatedly for a contest on "metaphysics" and whatever else interested you and nobody else.

"How are societies, in America and across the world, being reshaped by the boom in reproductive rights and health?"

Well, then Mr. Blue, it is fairly easy to postulate that the increased abortion rate is improving the health of societies.

Lower birth is intrinsically tied to higher income and higher income is very strongly correlated - and some studies demostrate a strong causality - to better health and quality of life.

The underlying reasons are understandable.

Children are expensive. Those that delay parenthood are able to devote time and resources to the attainment of higher education, personal and carreer development, etc. They generally are able to lead more economically productive lives.

When the decision is made to have children, the children are brought into higher quality homes. The parents are better educated, wealthier, etc. There are fewer siblings and this means more parental attention and resources are dedicated to the children.

Furthermore, there are fewer children living in low income situations and relying on public assistance.

Schools are less crowded. Higher income parents pay higher taxes and place greater emphasis on education resulting in better schools.

All of this (and more) has been studied and proven, pretty much irrefutably, in numerous journal articles from the sociology field to economics to healthcare.

As for PP's profit margins, I can only say that organizations always strive to survive. PP provides a valuable societal function and they should be doing what they can to ensure their continued provision of services.

Given the societal benefit conferred by lower and delayed birth rates I would say that PP is probably creating a positive externality and they deserve more compensation than they are currently receiving.

I must say that for a post that you claim wasn't supposed to stir up a morality debate slanted against PP you sure put out a lot of irrelevat info.

Why not just ask, "what impact does abortion have on society?" and leave it that?

My opening post The Business of Abortion: fiscal year 2005-2006 referred to business data for Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, asked what is going in here...

Deceptively.

As a nominal abortion opponent, I have to say when I dug into this I found the results pretty astounding compared to my impression from blogs.

All one has to do is click through the links to the actual PP report rather than the blog headlines to discover that rather than PP making 55 million off abortions, their report says abortions represent 3% of their revenue.

Three. Percent.

Counld they be cheating on that? Sure...a few percent.

Could they be publishing annual reports that flat out misstate their business? No.

So whatever profit they're making off abortion, bloody as it is, is 3% of the total, so like 55 mil times .03, or 1.65 mil. Which is bad enough.

This is the sort of thing that makes blogs look bad.

Thanks, DW, you're a life-saver. I wish your post had been the first in the thread.

Full confession: my computer crashed twice opening the pdf. I gave up and just relied on the html commentary, omitting what seems to me to be the emotive stuff and zooming in on the data, but still not comparing it to the pdf - which of course is the the complete opposite of an excuse, it's a statement of inexcusable sloppiness.

OK, I updated the top post, now let's keep going with this. Let's look at that data.

It's important to do so, because it's kind of sneaky or at least ambiguous - it's not at all obvious to the naked eye what's really going on.

In getting that "3%" figure, were you looking at the pie chart on page 4 of the pdf? I can't see anywhere else in the report it could be from. (Unless I'm missing something?)

That's "services", as in number of "services". It's not revenue. Sell a condom, one "service", do a partial birth abortion, one "service". A "frequent flier" who got three abortions in a year and also picked up some contraceptive pills each time they were at the clinic would be adding three "services" in each column.

And it remains odd that adoption referral is not reported. You'd think that by even the most minimal standards of human decency that would be something to be proud of.

I think figuring this stuff out and dealing with the real story, when the official story and the visual impression the charts and numbers make may be skim milk masquerading as cream, is what blogs are good for.

Of course quickly owning up to faults in your original report is also part of what blogs are good for. The fault in this case is superficiality, or to say the same thing in other words sloppiness or laziness. I should have kept going till I could look at the numbers myself, and then I'd have been at them in the root post of the thread. Failing to do that, and having to start doing it at this stage, is lame.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL SERVICES page shows that PP actually loses money on their medical services. The medical services expenses exceeds the medical expenses revenue. True, this is not broken out by procedure, but it is probably safe to assume that the more complex and expensive procedures (e.g. abortions) would be the source of greater loss - think sliding fee scales for clients, etc.).

PP is only able to have revenues exceeding expenses because of grants and donations.

Given medical cost inflation, uncertain economic, political and employment conditions that can impact donation levels, as well as shifting demographics that impact service demand level it makes sense for PP to mantain a high level of residuals on reserve so as to ensure that they are able to continue their mission in leaner times.

Clealy the CNS article was an ateempt to do a slime job on PP.
Mr. Blue, hopefully lesson learned?

Summary of Financial Services: that would be page 14 of the pdf.

Again, though I should have checked it before I did, the CNS news report holds up.

"For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million."

That's right.

If you take in hundreds of millions of dollars each of donations and government funding, and wind up only a few tens of millions of dollars ahead for the year, somewhere else you are spending more than you take in, and this would be those "medical services". That's fine.

Given the accuracy of the report, and the importance of what it homes in on that the report does not make clear (and that may have tricked DW) I would describe the CNS report as good reporting, not as a "slime job".

However, it did get its quotes from the people willing to speak to it, and they were pro-lifers. This obviously gave a lean to the report, and added some emotionality, which I did not want and which I cut out in making my post, going for "just the facts."

The (non)issue of a "non-profit" making a profit was one I omitted. Though some people CSN talked to may have thought that was relevant, I had a different point of view. Since I was looking for ways the data might support "Plan B" solutions over a "Plan A" struggle of storming the moral beachheads (for decade after decade), I thought (and still think) an excursion into a petty verbal disagreement over the use of the word "profit" would be counterproductive.