Thinking to Believe

That’s a name I never thought I would mention on this blog!  No, I’m not a fan.  I’m male and 35 years old, so I’m out of his target audience by 20 years and one gender!  But I was pleased to read this morning that in his interview with Rolling Stone magazine Bieber came out candidly in favor of the pro-life position.  Bieber confessed, “I really don’t believe in abortion. It’s like killing a baby?”  When asked about cases in which rape was involved Bieber was a little less sure of himself, but still came out on the pro-life side: “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. ‘I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

It’s nice to hear a mega-star (especially a young one) voice his support for the pro-life side.  While I do not look to a 16 year old pop star for sound moral advice, there are millions of teenage girls who will bank on his every word.  I hope they hear about this interview and are influenced by his thinking in a good way.  

HT: Jivin Jehoshaphat

The Guttmacher Institute (leading authority on abortion statistics) recently released their data for U.S. abortions in 2008.  Not much has changed since 2005.  Here are some of the most important findings[1]:

• In 2008 there were 6.4 million pregnancies to the 62 million women of reproductive age.  Of those, 19% ended in abortion, 66% ended in live birth, and 15% ended in miscarriage.  That means there were approximately 1.21 million abortions.
• The abortion rate is 19.6 abortions per 1000 women, up 1% from 2005 (19.4).
• In 2008, women in their 20s obtained > half of all abortions.
• 61% of women who obtain abortions are mothers (i.e. they have previously given birth to at least one child).
• Chemical/medical abortions accounted for 17% of all abortions in 2008 (the rest were surgical).
• There are 1793 abortion facilities, representing a 3% decline from 2005.
• States with the most abortions: CA (214,190), NY (153,110), FL (94,360), TX (84,610), IL (54,920).
• States with the fewest abortions: WY (90), SD (850), ND (1400), VT (1510), AK (1700), ID (1800).
• States with the highest abortion rates: DE (40), NY (37.6), NJ (31.3), DC (29.9), MD (29), CA (27.6), FL (27.2), NV (25.9), CT (24.6), RI (22.9).
• States with the lowest abortion rates: WY (0.9), MS (4.6), KY (5.1), SD (5.6), ID (6), WV (6.6), UT (6.7).
• 24% of CA pregnancies resulted in abortion (representing 17.7% of all U.S. abortions) and 61% in live birth (15% miscarriage).

Some of you have probably heard the news that in 2009, 41% of all non-miscarried pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion (87,273 abortions, 26,774 births, 11,620 miscarriages.).  For every 1000 babies born, 688 are aborted.

This is staggering in itself, but when you break it down by race it gets worse.  Among white women, 21.4% of pregnancies ended in abortion (9,853); among Asians, 22.7% (5,212); among Hispanics, 41.3% (28,364); among blacks, 60% (40,798).  So for every 2 black babies born in NYC, 3 are aborted.  While this is a wake-up call for all communities, a special plea needs to go out to the black community to wake up to these statistics.  By killing more of your children than you allow to be born, you have become your own worst enemy.  As one commentator wrote in response to what’s going on in NYC, “The Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation are giving ‘fist bumps’ all around.”  Let it not be said.

Speaking of the debate on abortion, check out the pictures of a 10 week fetus below, still in its amniotic sac.  The mother was diagnosed with carcinoma of the cervix, so her entire uterus had to be removed, including the baby that was developing in it.  Simply amazing.  And to think that these babies are aborted on a regular basis in the name of choice.  Sickening.  

Check out Scott Klusendorf’s summary of his debate with PA State Senator Daylin Leach on the issue of abortion.  The substance of his rebuttals to pro-choice assertions, as well as his tactics in delivering that substance, is unparalleled.  This is why Scott is the best pro-life debater bar-none!

Antonia Senior wrote a short piece for The Times (London) on abortion titled “Yes, abortion is killing.  But it’s the lesser evil.”  Just as the title suggests, Senior admits that abortion kills a human being—and even that this is evil—but thinks this evil is justified to prevent the greater evil of women being unable to control their reproduction (which, on her view, is what allows women to be equal to men in society).

She ends her essay in the following manner: “The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.”  Do you hear what she is saying?  Feminism (or at least her understanding of it) justifies homicide.  Oh how dark the heart of mankind is!

A 34 year old anonymous journalist writes about her abortion experience in Salon.  Her description, like so many others’, makes it clear just how emotionally damaging abortion is for women.  Can you think of any other medical procedure that causes someone so much emotional pain?  I don’t know anyone who agonizes and weeps over the decision to remove their tonsils.  The sort of response described by the author cannot be explained in terms of prior moral sentiments against abortion because the author is clearly pro-choice, and expresses no regret for having an abortion.  Shouldn’t it be obvious that abortion is immoral when even those who think it is morally benign cannot convince their emotions that this is true?  

This is a painful, but good read (despite the very political ending which seems quite out of place and irrelevant).

HT: Jivin Jehoshaphat

Back in Marcy 2009 I reported on the fact that teen pregnancy rates were on the rise again.  The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) just released a report providing some details on this.  According to the AGI:

The teen pregnancy rate declined 41% between its peak, in 1990 (116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19), and 2005 (69.5 per 1,000). Teen birth and abortion rates also declined, with births dropping 35% between 1991 and 2005 and teen abortion declining 56% between its peak, in 1988, and 2005. But all three trends reversed in 2006. In that year, there were 71.5 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19. Put another way, about 7% of teen girls became pregnant in 2006.
…
Among black teens, the pregnancy rate declined by 45% (from 223.8 per 1,000 in 1990 to 122.7 in 2005), before increasing to 126.3 in 2006. Among Hispanic teens, the pregnancy rate decreased by 26% (from 169.7 per 1,000 in 1992 to 124.9 in 2005), before rising to 126.6 in 2006. Among non-Hispanic white teens, the pregnancy rate declined 50% (from 86.6 per 1,000 in 1990 to 43.3 per 1,000 in 2005), before increasing to 44.0 in 2006.

They also report that teen abortion rates rose 1% in 2006 as well.

Exodus 21:22 has been used by many pro-abortion advocates, Christian and non-Christian alike, to prove that the Bible is not opposed to abortion.  The passage reads, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” (KJV)

Greg Koukl has written a wonderful article demonstrating not only that this verse does not support such a conclusion, but that the pro-choice interpretation is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew as found in some English translations (such as the one above). 

A free registration at www.str.org may be required to view the article.

I have a question I would like to ask those who claim that they are personally opposed to abortion, but do not think it should be made illegal: “Let us suppose that the Supreme Court had not declared abortion to be a constitutional right, and let us suppose that a proposition was put on your state’s election ballot to legalize abortion in your state, and you have the opportunity to vote on it.  Would you vote in favor, or in opposition to it?”

The answer to this question is more telling than the simple affirmation that one thinks abortion should be legal even though they are personally opposed to it, because this question helps reveal why someone holds the position they do.  If someone says they would vote in opposition to such a proposition, it reveals that their real concern is not so much that they believe a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child, but rather that they should be able to keep the right once it has been granted to them.  Many people are uncomfortable taking away rights that have already been granted, but would vote against granting such rights in the first place.  If someone says they would vote in favor of such a law, it reveals that they either have a very idealistic view of liberty (that people’s liberty should be nearly autonomous, even when their liberty involves taking the life of an innocent and defenseless human being), they are relativistic when it comes to moral judgments, or they aren’t truly persuaded of the pro-life position and pro-life logic.

Lisa Harris, a feminist abortion doctor has written a journal article dealing with the emotional impact on abortion doctors from performing 2nd trimester abortions.  It is one of the most engaging, honest, moving, confusing, and appalling articles I have ever read.  I am amazed that a woman who can be so honest about the violence of 2^nd trimester abortions, and the effect it has on those involved, can still support the procedure.  Here are some key excerpts:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain – even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.
(more…)

Fox News picked up a story from The Washington Times reporting on recent drops in support of abortion rights:

Popular support for abortion rights has dropped seven points in the past year due in part to the election of a pro-choice Democratic president, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said Thursday.

(more…)

William Saletan of Slate once proposed some new rhetoric for abortion-choice politicians to use when they are debating pro-lifers.  His proposal was as follows: “My opponent and I both want to avoid as many abortions as possible. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn’t.” 

Pretty good!  It makes the abortion-choice candidate look sympathetic to the pro-life and abortion-choice positions, all the while making the pro-life candidate look like someone who doesn’t trust women to make their own choices.  But there are some serious logical problems with this approach. 

First, if you truly want to avoid as many abortions as possible then the ultimate goal should be to eliminate all abortions.  Why?  Because abortion is unnecessary, making it possible to eliminate the procedure altogether.  One might argue that some abortions are necessary, particularly when the mother’s life is at stake.  I can accept that qualification, but since that situation accounts for less than a fraction of 1% of all abortions we’re still talking about the real possibility of eliminating more than 99.9% of all abortions.  Does the abortion-choice candidate truly want to eliminate 99.9% of all abortions?  I highly doubt it.  I would advise a pro-life candidate to call his opponent on this.  Make him say he wishes to eliminate all elective abortions.  I’ll guarantee he won’t do it. 

Secondly, if you want to avoid as many abortions as possible, and you know there are women out there who are opposed to your desire, why would you trust them to work toward your objective?  If you desired to save more Jews during the Holocaust, would you say the difference between you and the Allies is that you trusted the Nazis to work with you toward that objective while they did not?  Of course not!  How about murder?  Would anyone say the difference between them and their opponent is that they trust murderers to work with them to eliminate murder while their opponent does not?  Of course not!  Then how can we trust women who want to murder their babies to work with us to avoid abortion?  We can’t.  We must legislate morality on them just as we do in every other area of the law.