Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp230h [2020/07/22 15:24] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp230h [2024/07/20 13:11] (current) – [Will the foster care system be "overrun"?] Turnaway Study data mmccann
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== PBP230H: Objections to Anti-Abortion Legislation ====== ====== PBP230H: Objections to Anti-Abortion Legislation ======
 +<note>This needs to be updated in light of Dobbs. It's no longer theoretical in an American context.</note>
 +FIXME denial of care for ectopic pregnancies, or for miscarriage treatment? (Does this belong here or under health of mother?) https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-check-state-pro-life-laws-explicitly-protect-lives-of-pregnant-women/ 
 +FIXME master-list from Secular Pro-Life on many of these questions https://secularprolife.org/index/#Effects_of_Abortion_Restrictions
 +
 +FIXME "women will be investigated for Miscarriages" (argument from investigation)
  
 ** "If abortion is illegalized, then..." ** ** "If abortion is illegalized, then..." **
Line 28: Line 33:
     - Historical analysis:     - Historical analysis:
       - Many illegal abortionists then became legal abortionists after its legalization...e.g. Henry Morgentaler       - Many illegal abortionists then became legal abortionists after its legalization...e.g. Henry Morgentaler
 +      - Consider that in 1960 — nine years before abortion was legalized in Canada and thirteen years before abortion became legal in the United States — Mary Calderone, then-medical director of Planned Parenthood in the United States, stated, “abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”((American Journal of Public Health, July 1960.
 +))
       - Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), confessed that he lied about the number of women he said were dying from illegal abortions. He wrote,       - Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), confessed that he lied about the number of women he said were dying from illegal abortions. He wrote,
  
Line 33: Line 40:
  
 ===== Will the foster care system be "overrun"? ===== ===== Will the foster care system be "overrun"? =====
 +The objection: unwanted children who are born instead of aborted will be put into the broken foster care system and would be unlikely to be adopted by a loving family.
   - **Proactive response**:    - **Proactive response**: 
     - Common ground: There are many issues with the foster care system, and it is in desperate need of reform.     - Common ground: There are many issues with the foster care system, and it is in desperate need of reform.
Line 44: Line 51:
       - https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/foster-care-fallacy/ : "This problem is one of the most straightforward concerns a pro-life advocate can respond to because it is simply based on a misunderstanding of how newborn adoption works. Children who are in foster care are usually waiting to be returned to their biological parents, placed with another family member, or, in some cases, to be permanently adopted from their foster home. Children in these situations often have complicated family environments, which results in them being in and out of the foster care system for years.       - https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/foster-care-fallacy/ : "This problem is one of the most straightforward concerns a pro-life advocate can respond to because it is simply based on a misunderstanding of how newborn adoption works. Children who are in foster care are usually waiting to be returned to their biological parents, placed with another family member, or, in some cases, to be permanently adopted from their foster home. Children in these situations often have complicated family environments, which results in them being in and out of the foster care system for years.
         - However, when a woman during her pregnancy chooses to place her newborn child with an adoptive family, it is a completely different process. Women arrange private adoptions through agencies which help them choose from multiple families to pick the best option for them and whether they want an open or closed adoption. Newborn children in these situations do not go into the foster care system, but are placed with the new family right away."         - However, when a woman during her pregnancy chooses to place her newborn child with an adoptive family, it is a completely different process. Women arrange private adoptions through agencies which help them choose from multiple families to pick the best option for them and whether they want an open or closed adoption. Newborn children in these situations do not go into the foster care system, but are placed with the new family right away."
-      - https://adoption.com/foster-vs-adopt "Perhaps the main difference between adoption and foster care is that foster care is temporary. Your agency or social worker has the goal of repairing the problems in your child’s home that led to their removal. When biological parents are able to prove that they can support their children financially, emotionally, and socially, then the child will be able to return to them."+      - (https://adoption.com/foster-vs-adopt "Perhaps the main difference between adoption and foster care is that foster care is temporary. Your agency or social worker has the goal of repairing the problems in your child’s home that led to their removal. When biological parents are able to prove that they can support their children financially, emotionally, and socially, then the child will be able to return to them.") 
 + 
 +FIXME (Maria) I have heard counter-examples of babies waiting to be adopted who were still temporarily put in foster care
  
   * example from //This Is Us//: newborn adoption of Randall was simple, relatively speaking, because his parents relinquished parental rights, versus difficulty in adopting Deja because she was in the foster care system and her mom's parental rights had not yet been relinquished. Deja couldn't be adopted until her mom decided    * example from //This Is Us//: newborn adoption of Randall was simple, relatively speaking, because his parents relinquished parental rights, versus difficulty in adopting Deja because she was in the foster care system and her mom's parental rights had not yet been relinquished. Deja couldn't be adopted until her mom decided 
   * 2a. Percentage of women who actually place children for adoption = very low   * 2a. Percentage of women who actually place children for adoption = very low
 +    * FIXME data from the Turnaway Study ➡️ re: women who sought an abortion but could not get one (I.e. were turned away), of those who gave birth, 91% declined adoption and raised the baby themselves. https://secularprolife.substack.com/p/what-kind-of-mothering-do-you-expect?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2PEWx5OvnyaZLmtpK72jWvrzseM56VHAEbHiTvHyweWW-_hTlRQeL8HFY_aem_vIhi4wk7PQVpNoAZYOgYHg 
     * e.g. Laura Klassen from Choice42 said that she's had maybe 1 woman want to place her child for adoption     * e.g. Laura Klassen from Choice42 said that she's had maybe 1 woman want to place her child for adoption
     * http://www.canadaadopts.com/adopting-in-canada/adopting-canada-faqs/: FAQ's: "//Why are there so few newborns available?//     * http://www.canadaadopts.com/adopting-in-canada/adopting-canada-faqs/: FAQ's: "//Why are there so few newborns available?//
 Many reasons: While the pool of adoptive parents has steadily grown, partly because couples are starting their families later in life, the number of birth mothers has shrunk, partly because of the growing acceptance of single parenthood and our generous social programs." Many reasons: While the pool of adoptive parents has steadily grown, partly because couples are starting their families later in life, the number of birth mothers has shrunk, partly because of the growing acceptance of single parenthood and our generous social programs."
 +
 +
 +FIXME https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=812860016830120&id=17841406461011758&eav=AfafEv0pbqYWR06uF_wLEKyx9RQku3a2lg_CLPvZqhdBis4NmSUoXaLV6jydgLEOjHU&paipv=0&wtsid=rdr_0KBxDcLIDSHPWErjk&_rdr --> multiple points, including Turn away study: most women who were denied abortions ended up parenting their children, not placing them for adoption, and bonded emotionally well to their kids
  
 ===== Will crime rates increase? ===== ===== Will crime rates increase? =====
Line 65: Line 78:
 ==== The Response ==== ==== The Response ====
   - **Proactive response**:    - **Proactive response**: 
-    - Common ground:+    - Common ground: We should definitely all work for a society where children can be raised in safe, loving, healthy environments. 
     - Analogies and questions:      - Analogies and questions: 
       - even //assuming// the Freakonomics thesis is 100% true, does reducing future crime justify killing babies who might be criminals in the future? Wouldn't it follow that crime could be reduced //even more// if we killed newborns who weren't aborted but were still in prime crime-producing scenarios? Shouldn't we kill newborns or toddlers in that same scenario then if it will reduce crime further?        - even //assuming// the Freakonomics thesis is 100% true, does reducing future crime justify killing babies who might be criminals in the future? Wouldn't it follow that crime could be reduced //even more// if we killed newborns who weren't aborted but were still in prime crime-producing scenarios? Shouldn't we kill newborns or toddlers in that same scenario then if it will reduce crime further? 
       - This is a classic trot out the toddler case -- even //if// legalized abortion reduces crime, that isn't a justification for killing if pre-born children are human beings, otherwise it would also be a justification for killing toddlers.       - This is a classic trot out the toddler case -- even //if// legalized abortion reduces crime, that isn't a justification for killing if pre-born children are human beings, otherwise it would also be a justification for killing toddlers.
-  - **Citation?** It might not even be true. Donohue/Levitt have been fending off substantively academic criticisms of their findings since 2001.((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#:~:text=Critics%20have%20argued%20that%20Donohue,Supreme%20Court%20case%20Roe%20v.)) The data is messy and incomplete. There //might// be a correlation between legalized abortion and reductions in violent crime, but when controlling for other crime-associated factors, that effect seems lessened, or some argues even disappears entirely. Point is: it's not entirely clear to what extent, if any, legalized abortion actually reduces crime. It might. It might not. There is open debate happening on the question.+  - **Citation?** It might not even be true. Donohue/Levitt have been fending off substantively academic criticisms of their findings since 2001.((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#:~:text=Critics%20have%20argued%20that%20Donohue,Supreme%20Court%20case%20Roe%20v.))  
 +      - Ex. "[Christopher] Foote and [Christopher] Goetz also criticize Levitt and Donahue's use of arrest totals rather than arrests per capita, which takes population size into account. Using Census Bureau population estimates, Foote and Goetz repeated the analysis using arrest rates in place of simple arrest totals, and found that the effect of abortion disappeared entirely." ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#:~:text=Critics%20have%20argued%20that%20Donohue,Supreme%20Court%20case%20Roe%20v and https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2005/12/01/oops-onomics?story_id=5246700)) (Because if the overall population is bigger simply because fewer people are being killed by abortion, then you might have net more crimes, but not more crimes per capita.) 
 +    - The data is messy and incomplete. There //might// be a correlation between legalized abortion and reductions in violent crime, but when controlling for other crime-associated factors, that effect seems lessened, or some argues even disappears entirely. Point is: it's not entirely clear to what extent, if any, legalized abortion actually reduces crime. It might. It might not. There is open debate happening on the question. But in any case, we shouldn't be trying to reduce the crime rates of adults by increasing the killing of babies.
 --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  
Line 78: Line 93:
 Effects of anti-abortion legislation on lowering abortion rates -- need to review these:  Effects of anti-abortion legislation on lowering abortion rates -- need to review these: 
  
 +FIXME Texas, 10k more live births (you can hide an illegal abortion but not a birth) https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/30/texas-abortion-johns-hopkins-study/
  
   * FIXME https://lozierinstitute.org/how-the-legal-status-of-abortion-impacts-abortion-rates/   * FIXME https://lozierinstitute.org/how-the-legal-status-of-abortion-impacts-abortion-rates/
Line 91: Line 107:
   * FIXME http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/07/more-evidence-that-abortion.html?m=1  and  http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/07/more-evidence-that-abortion.html?m=1   * FIXME http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/07/more-evidence-that-abortion.html?m=1  and  http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/07/more-evidence-that-abortion.html?m=1
  
 +FIXME article where Josh Brahm from ERI responds https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/joshs-abortion-dialogue-with-a-reader-from-tangle/ 
 +
 +
 +FIXME "should post-abortive women be prosecuted?" Scott Klusendorf's response https://www.scottklusendorf.com/should-we-prosecute-a-mother-who-has-an-abortion/?fbclid=IwAR2nTShQFwhR9_4gAhoX3wk6ih9IvJHcHqxAcuafEIsZ7zytxQegsNL8tKU