Abortion restrictions do they reduce abortions

things like required sonograms waiting periods, consoling and so on and so forth.

Also if you please could cite some data, I’m trying to find some data that supports restrictions or requirements like mandatory ultra sound or sonogram. Waiting periods. If at all possible cite from reputable sources.

Also should we do these to try and slow abortion, or should we only focus on the ultimate end overturn RVW.

I can’t link on this. Go to pub Ed.gov and search Impact of state restrictions on abortions.

I can’t link on this. Go to pubmed.gov and search Impact of state restrictions on abortions.

Unfortunately I don’t have any info regarding what you want, but obviously restrictions lessen abortion - there weren’t 1.2 million abortions per year before RvW.

Also, I think we should hold Ireland up as an example, abortion is illegal there, and it has one of, if not the, lowest maternal mortality rate in the world - WHO stats can provide further input.

Not completely illegal.
Abortion is legal if it is determined that the life of the mother is in danger by the pregnancy being continued.

let me make it more clear

the abortion restrictions I’m taiking about aren’t making it illegal

I’m talking about ultrasound laws
waiting periods

and so on and so forth.

I don’t have stats, but this one can be answered from reason and logic. First, pro-life people should fight constantly for life issues, if there is still a single abortion being performed on this earth. At the same time, this nasty little piece of particular immorality has been stubbornly fighting back with all guns blazing for over 4 decades, so in real world terms, we should take what we can get at any turn, and continue pounding forward. The more difficult it is to obtain the abortion, and the more steps involved, the better the chance that the woman considering the abortion will change her mind. The ultrasounds prove life, and imprint the image of life in mind of the potential abortion victims mother, hopefully igniting the God given instincts of motherhood, however briefly, or perhaps letting the potential victims mother see the “mass of cells” that the abortionist tells them about as a real, living, human being. It would take a pretty hard heart to abort after coming face to face with this reality. So this is a good law. I’m sure statistics would bear this out. I’d check with at least 2 sources in each state where this practice has been implemented. I think Texas is one.

Then, yes, we also continue plugging on to the overturn of R vs W.

Also, if the abortionists ever put forward the "incest, rape, save the life of the mother, in the form of a bill, I think pro-lifers should be all over that, and accept that. Then keep moving forward. With life, it took a long time to get this fouled up, and it will take a long time to right itself. The rest of the world has pretty much given in. The U.S. is the last battleground. We must approach each battle with our eyes wide open, and take every small victory we can.

Each new idea which will make the mother stop and think. Each little few minutes of thought and wonder that we can get, is a victory. Every extra form, every ultrasound, every required counseling session by a pro-lifer, etc. are huge victories, which when combined with prayer will turn this around, and perhaps restore the U.S. in the eyes of God, so that we may not suffer as Sodom and Gamorrah. Every little bit helps, and if stats don’t show it, they will. They would have to. People are NOT murderers by instinct. The only way a mother kills her child is simply not understanding that she is killing her child. If that connection can be made in the mother, then the case is won, because nobody wants to kill their babies. The ones who do, honestly don’t believe their babies. A mental shield has been created in their heads.

Anyway, I’ll read the rest of the responses here with interest and see if any studies have yet borne out the logic and reason of prolife stumbling blocks as a tool.

Blessings,

Steven

Do murder restrictions reduce murders? I am almost 100% positive they do. Let’s not make it legal just to find out. Oh wait, we’ve already made murder legal. Oops.:rolleyes::frowning:

Let’s use common sense. Do you guys think 50,000,000 abortions and counting would occur if abortion was illegal? I doubt it.

I would think so. My guess ia sometimes abortions are based on emotion where a person has convinced themself that the child is nothing more than some cells. Time to reflect on the reality that the child is a child and actually seeing the living child I’m sure would decrease the amount of abortions.

Legislation with at mile high loophole will do nothing. Every woman will simply be asked “will you be sad if you have this baby?” and the abortionists will call that depression and slap a “life of the mother” exception on the file.

There were, just not in the US. Note also that in the few decades before RvW the safety of the abortion procedure increased by an order of magnitude, making it a much more attractive option.

So abortions are fine as long as they are illegal and the mothers stay healthy?

Ireland may not be the best example as I imagine the number of ‘back street’ abortions are vastly reduced due to the fact they many women travel to England for abortions.

Sheesh. Every country has neighbouring countries. What example would satisfy you then if you’re going to set that parameter?

I can point to the stats from post-Communist Poland which gives the lie to the oft-repeated claim that “once abortion is fully legal, putting restruictions on it won’t reduce the rate of abortions”. They reduced dramatically in poland.

I had a discussion in which someone suggested that Polish women were going to neighboring countries to have abortions. I looked up the statistics of one neighboring country–their annual number of abortions had been going down and continued to go down after Poland criminalized abortion; there was no sign that Polish women were going to this neighboring country to have abortions.

First of all, the number of abortions is an incorrect metric. One should look at the rate of abortions compared to the number of births. This controls for changes in demographics and contraceptive use.

pregnancies = birth + abortions + miscarriages, but since miscarriage rate is low (< 1%) you can safely approximate that pregnancies = births + abortions. (Early pregnancies have >50% spontanous termination rate, but the woman usually does even not know she was pregnant, so we don’t count these.) The abortion rate is usually given us abortions/births, although technically it should be abortions/(abortions+births), as the latter is simply a probablity that a randomly chosen pregnancies will be aborted. Anyway, whichever way you use, the lesson here is to use relative numbers. Absolute numbers are largely useless (except for shock value).

That someone was me (hi :slight_smile: ), and that was not what I suggested. The argument starts around here: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=596167&page=8

What I was actually arguing is that after Poland outlawed abortion, while the neighboring countries did not, Poland did not record the expected increase in number of births. I.e. if 20% of pregnancies were aborted pre-pan, then the birth rate should have jumped 20% post-ban – it did not, even worse: it continued falling. (Technically, I was comparing fertility rates, i.e. number of children per woman, to control for demographic changes). Further down the thread, I controlled for % of Catholics, GDP per capita, sexual activity and contraceptive use – showing that none of these can be blamed for discrepancy and all countries used in the comparison are similar.

The fertility rate in Poland is about the same as in very similar neighboring countries – where 10-20% of pregnancies are aborted. All other factors being the same, this indicates that roughly 10-20% of pregnancies in Poland are aborted anyway, despite the ban. As St. Francis noted, the Polish abortion tourism is not apparent in the data, hence, these abortions are performed illegally in the country. (Anectodal experience gathered by me while living in Poland agrees here.)

Also, the long-term trend in abortion rate seems to be down. Probably has more to do with better contraceptives and better understanding of what abortion is, then actual legislation.

The abortion rate in the US, for example, peaked in 1984 (under Reagan) and has been declining ever since (under Bush I and Clinton) until 2007 or so (Bush II). Since then, it hovers around 20%. Abortion rates in European countries are generally below that and continue to fall.

No, they simply stopped being reported!

Such things are likely to help, because they can influence a woman to reconsider her decision.

Simply making access to abortion obnoxious (e.g. illegal) is only going to make the woman more determined to obtain the procedure. That’s basic psychology.

You’re confusing two separate issues. Restricting abortion reduces the abortion rate. That does NOT automatically mean increasing the birth rate! Birth rates are influenced by many other factors.

And you know this, because you’ve got some secret dossier of reports of abortions which were reported to you and not to the government? :rolleyes:

Great! Then we’ve got a simple solution to reduce the rates of all crimes. Just make them all legal, and then people will be less determined to commit them!:rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.