Do vans reduce abortions?

Title should be "Do bans reduce abortions? Autocorrect can kiss my ask. 😉

SkepticalOne wrote:

Title should be "Do bans reduce abortions? Autocorrect can kiss my ask. 😉

Yeah, autocorrect doesn't work on the title, and it can kiss my ass too.

At times it can be my worst enema.

SatanLucy wrote:

I don't support abortion under any circumstances other than certain death anyway.

I don't know about "any circumstances". let's not forget that last year, way back when you were from Korea, you supported a woman's right to choose.

SatanLucy wrote:

I don't know about "any circumstances". let's not forget that last year, way back when you were from Korea, you supported a woman's right to choose.

So? I can say things I dont believe in.

No shit, you are a random post generator.

Pointless.

Cool - do you have any thoughts on the subject of this thread?

SatanLucy wrote:

Cool - do you have any thoughts on the subject of this thread?

Yes, bans reduce number of legal abortions.

Then the issue, for you, isn't really about reducing abortions.

Also, abortion isnt banned in USA, so your study is a bit wack.

6 week bans are quite common and effective at making (legal) abortions difficult to obtain given the legal cutoff is only 2 weeks beyond a missed period.

tho if you want women to be a better baby factory, one must also ban contraception and healthcare. (edit: and education too)

Yikes. I have no interest in forced birth (and everything that is wrong with that suggestion). I am only interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reduced unwanted pregnancies = reduced abortions.

In case of USA, its enough to just travel about 100 miles where abortion is legal

Lol, Thats not true. The closest abortion clinic to me is 6 hours away, and I live in North Texas. Someone who lives further south in, say, Corpus Christi is driving 12 to 13 hours.

If I had a girlfriend and she wanted abortion, I would say I will leave her if she has an abortion, cuz I aint staying in a relationship with an abortionist abomination.

Imagine all the emotional abuse she would miss if she stayed with you! You really know how to woo a girl!

This does not by itself establish a causal relationship between abortion laws and birth rates, as birth rates are also strongly influenced by factors including education, contraceptive access, child mortality, income, urbanization, and age at marriage.

This disclaimer argues against the point you're trying to make...

Your example is a short term effect right after bans were anticipated to go into effect and people could easily go to other states for abortions. That's not really representative, and it indicates people got abortions they were planning to get anyway in anticipation of bans making them harder to get long term. In Northern Europe, the restrictiveness of abortion laws explains 72% of the variation in the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion). Pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade had dramatically lower abortion rates. States with legal abortion before Roe had reduced birth rates; in fact, legalizing abortion had a higher impact on pregnancy rates than contraception. Abortion rates by state of residence show that states with heavier abortion restrictions have lower abortion rates, even when accounting for women who cross state lines.

When policies are studied in isolation, these effects become much more pronounced. When Bulgaria liberalized its abortion laws, the abortion rate increased by a factor of over 30. Furthermore, abortion is measurably reduced, not simply “driven underground.” Restricting abortion in Bulgaria, when controlling for other factors, increased fertility rates by 12%.

If we just take your stat at face value, it's implying banning abortion in general makes people want it more, but how exactly does that work? Even "ineffective" bans on like alcohol and drugs tend to reduce the thing being banned. They just have trade offs.

I agree that other policies also reduce abortion though; it's not mutually exclusive.

Your president just enforced a ban on unwanted pregnant women trying to give wanted births in the USA.

That's not really representative, and it indicates people got abortions they were planning to get anyway in anticipation of bans making them harder to get long term

It seems like you agree with OP, unless youre arguing bans weren't pretty much in full effect in 2023?

In Northern Europe, the restrictiveness of abortion laws explains 72% of the variation in the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion).

It is unclear what this is supposed to mean ir how it is relevant.

Pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade had dramatically lower abortion rates.

Dramatically lower *legal* abortion rates. Meanwhile, legal abortions were dramatically increased:

"A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way."

Link

When Bulgaria liberalized its abortion laws, the abortion rate increased by a factor of over 30.

Explicitly temporary

If we just take your stat at face value, it's implying banning abortion in general makes people want it more, but how exactly does that work?

Thats a fair criticism. While the number of proceedures have gone up nationwide, the data also show shows drastic increases in non-ban states. For instance, in 2023 illinois had a 71% increase compared to 2020. Virginia had a 77% increase. North Carolina 44%. New Mexico had a 256% increase. The increases are generally due to travel across states lines.

Link

It seems like you agree with OP, unless youre arguing bans weren't pretty much in full effect in 2023?

I think people probably anticipated additional bans. So some people who were planning to get abortions anyway did it earlier. But other people planning to get abortions or who were on the fence likely decided it wasn't worth the increased effort. So the total long term number of abortions would be lower.

In Northern Europe, the restrictiveness of abortion laws explains 72% of the variation in the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion).

It is unclear what this is supposed to mean ir how it is relevant.

It's in reference to abortion restrictions decreasing abortions, specifically controlling by region.

Pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade had dramatically lower abortion rates.

Dramatically lower *legal* abortion rates. Meanwhile, legal abortions were dramatically increased:

The survey was just looking at abortions in general controlling for certain factors, not just legal or illegal.

Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way."

Legal abortions decreased and illegal abortions increased, I'm not disputing that. I think the overall effect is reduction though since the people getting illegal abortions would have gotten legal ones anyway, and illegal abortions are less appealing than legal ones. Unless you're saying no one would be adverse to breaking the law, then that deterrent would need to be offset somehow by some chunk of people getting abortions specifically due to them being illegal. Which seems pretty unlikely.

When Bulgaria liberalized its abortion laws, the abortion rate increased by a factor of over 30.

Explicitly temporary

Maybe it decreased later on due to other factors, but it sounds like the stricter laws had been capping it.

The data also show shows drastic increases in non-ban states. For instance, in 2023 illinois had a 71% increase compared to 2020. Virginia had a 77% increase. North Carolina 44%. New Mexico had a 256% increase. The increases are generally due to travel across states lines.

So it sounds like these are people who would have gotten abortions anyway, not people getting abortions just because of the ban?

Legal abortions decreased and illegal abortions increased, I'm not disputing that. I

So it sounds like these are people who would have gotten abortions anyway, not people getting abortions just because of the ban?

Yes, thats the point. Bans dont cause people to get abortions. People get abortions in spite of bans.

If the goal is to reduce abortions, bans are a demonstarably poor strategy.

Do bans reduce overall global population?

Less people less need for vans.

Kill two birds with one stone as it were.

Think green.

People get abortions in spite of bans.

I agree that some people do that (we agree there are a significant number who get them anyway). My point is that if some portion of them decide not to get an abortion because it's illegal, then the total number is still reduced. I'm not claiming 100% efficacy, just more than zero.

Banning the procedure doesnt remove the underlying need. That is what needs to be addressed. Abortion is a symptom of many things - ignorance, lack of contraception, inability to provide, etc. Under certain circumstances, it is a mercy or a necessity - maternal mortality, fetal abnormality, etc. Banning the procedure is like taking a northern route to get to a western destination. Undoubtedly, It is a lot of energy going in the wrong direction.

No, woman's body doesnt belong to woman, it belongs to humanity, and humanity cannot survive if women dont fulfill their role.

If humanity can't figure out how to survive without slavery, it doesnt deserve it.

Yeah no. It is such a ridiculous evil that needs to banned, and needs to be penalized more harshly than it is.

I can understand the problem of enforcement. But by all accounts, Savant has proven bans will stop some people. And that makes it worth it.

I understand the other factors causing people to want abortions. And some things can be addressed. I think the contraception thing is overstated, but the economics and ignorance are probably the best targets.

As for the idea of abortion being a mercy- who are you to do decide that? Who are you to say, an autistic person would be better off not living? That’s not your right to decide, that’s their right. Suicide is awful, but if one of them is unhappy, they can off themselves later in life. Not a preferred outcome, but better than murdering them in the womb. Meanwhile, if one would’ve been happy, you’re advocating we cut their life short because they *could* suffer. Life doesn’t exist for us to avoid suffering- that’s a childish approach. This is the type of argument people make to rationalize their selfish decisions- there’s nothing ethical about it.

Life exists for us to create good for ourselves and others. And many times, we have to suffer some to accomplish that. There is no mercy in any abortion- it is simply denying someone a chance at life, and a chance at joy.