a disciple, Glenpool (8/23/2009 5:37:11 AM)

I disagree with Ms. Pearson on many of her conclusions, but this statement may be the most disturbing: "Most disturbing of all, the new restrictions are disproportionately impacting low-income and minority women, while higher-imcome white women still have little difficulty obtaining abortions."

It's not a tragedy when more poor and minority children are welcomed into the world rather than having their lives taken unnecessarily before birth. Let's welcome those children.

billy8, Sand Springs (8/23/2009 10:10:54 AM)

I asked this many times, "If you don't want abortion legal, and you want all women to carry an unwanted child to term, then why don't you volunteer to take care of that child til it is an adult?" There are too many children waiting to be adopted now that will be in the system of foster care until they are 18. Think of what this is costing compared to the cost of an abortion. Then you will realize that what your religious views tell you to do concerning abortion are skewed to day the least. Open up you pocket books and wallets to pay more when you make abortions illegal again.

noise, (8/23/2009 1:15:59 PM)

billy8 - Maybe these woman should try to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Don't bother with the "birth control can fail" argument; birth control failure is infrequent. But promiscuous women will fail. Promiscuous women who don't bother with birth control will fail, repeatedly.

Don't bother with the "rape or incest" argument. The abortion debate is about choice, right? The rape and incest victims aren't part of the choice issue.

Abstinence is 100% effective if one does not want to assume any risk of pregnancy.

billy8, Sand Springs (8/23/2009 2:35:41 PM)

It's all about cost and what you're willing to pay, not abstinence or birth control. A one time cost for an abortion or a lifetime of payment for an unwanted child that will be in the system their whole life. Abstinence doesn't work either, it's human nature, and to deny a natural urge has never worked. Celibacy has never worked for the clergy either.

noise, (8/23/2009 3:58:48 PM)

billy8 - OK. So for you, the abortion issue is about money.

You compared the "one time cost for an abortion or a lifetime payment for an unwanted child that will be in the system their whole life." You failed to mention the option pre-intercourse: birth control and personal responsibility.

Abstinence does work. If the instructions are followed. Abstinence does not involve denying the sexual drive.There are many ways to satisfy that that drive, and I did not suggest you ignore it.

Responsible, self-respecting humans are selective. They weigh the risk, the responsibility, the choices, beforehand, not after.

maggie, Tulsa (8/23/2009 4:10:56 PM)

Where are the sperm implanters? There were two there when conception happened--why is no one advocating making the fathers take the child and raise it or advocating a bill that castrates/sterilizes any male with more than one child he is not supporting. The right to choice should not be denied any woman unless irresponsible men are denied choice--the choice to continue to spread sperm irresponsibly.

Bullhead, Nicut (8/23/2009 5:48:26 PM)

There will not be any health care available. I don't think anyone should have babies until this thing is straightened out. President keeps telling us we can keep our health care if we don't want to have universal health care but that is a bald faced lie.

noise, (8/23/2009 5:57:24 PM)

maggie - Likewise, why aren't the men given any rights when the woman decides to abort? Seems alittle one-sided.

And you said, "...why is no one advocating making the fathers take the child and raise it or advocating a bill that castrates/sterilizes any male with more than one child he is not supporting."

One question. Why don't you require the same for the female: why is no one advocating making the mother take the child and raise it or advocate a bill that sterilizes any female with more than one child she is not willing to carry to term/support?

Woofenburger, Hominy (8/23/2009 10:12:29 PM)

Noise, "But promiscuous women will fail. Promiscuous women who don't bother with birth control will fail, repeatedly"

This is the land of the free...women can be promiscuous if the so choose.

Abortion is legal...women can have an abortion if they so choose.

You make your choices and let other people make theirs.

Bullhead, Nicut (8/23/2009 10:51:27 PM)

If you have to MAKE the father or mother take care of an unwanted baby, you may as well do the abortion. Can you imagine what sort of life that child will live? I'm sure it would be a painful, short life.

Royce, Tulsa (8/24/2009 11:25:30 AM)

According to Slick Willie Clinton Democrats believe that abortion should be "both legal and rare".

This measure does nothing except, hopefully, to cause a woman to re-consider her decision to have her own child murdered by a killer for hire abortionist.

To that end it seems to me to be a step, all be it a short one, to make abortions rare. There's nothing in the bill that would, in any way, criminalize abortion.

It is, after all, a "Constitutionally Protected Right" as our committee of 9 sleaze bag lawyers have told us on several occassions.

noise, (8/24/2009 11:28:45 AM)

Woofenburger - Everyone makes their own choices. Except for the aborted babies.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (8/25/2009 3:45:19 PM)

Ms. Pearson is talking out of both sides of her month. She launches into this long rant about how restrictions on abortions have not lowered the abortion rate overall, but that better education produces better results. That is a load of horse manure. In a study done in 1994, it showed that California which has one of the most liberal curriculums in the country has an abortion rate per 1000 women that is three times higher than our conservative state. So which is it? How can a state with fewer restrictions and better education have a rate three times Oklahoma’s?
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, it’s really easy. Make abortions illegal except for cases involving rape, incest and endangerment to the mother. Seeing how those three exceptions make up less than 2% of all abortions, you would see a dramatic drop.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (8/25/2009 3:45:44 PM)

month = mouth...stupid fingers.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 9:27:31 AM)

You know what leads to fewer abortions? Sex education, access to birth control, and a system of health coverage, maternity leave, and daycare. Also, a healthy economy offering employment prospects helps.

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 1:01:21 PM)

>> You know what leads to fewer abortions? etc. etc.

The things you listed have been done in the UK. Their result was a big increase in single mothers followed some years later by a big increase in crime and decline in public education (sound familiar?).

If the arguments for teaching youngsters how to sexually satisfy themselves "responsibly" were valid, then it would make sense to begin teaching our youngsters how to drink booze, smoke cigarettes, and use dope "responsibly" too. Alright children, please take out your bong, bag of stuff, and bottle of bourbon, we're going to learn to be responsible.

Go back a couple of decades and consider all the education and public service commercials to reduce cigarette smoking. They didn't work as long as cigarette companies were able to freely advertise, and every movie and TV show had people constantly sporting a cigarette. Some genius eventually figured out that if you want people to stop smoking, the MSM must stop encouraging them to smoke.

Might there be anyone in the audience with the brains to draw a similar conclusion about sexual activity?

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 1:56:45 PM)

Exuse me, but at what period in UK history did all of those things happen at once, resulting in the supposed rise of single mothers? And even if it this data was accurate (and it's not), isn't a rise in single motherhood better than a rise in the abortion rate, for those who think abortion is murder?

Young people don't need encouragement to have sex. They have hormones! They had sex before tv shows and movies were invented. We teach them how to drive responsibly; why not how to have safer sex?

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 2:51:03 PM)

>> Exuse me, but at what period in UK history did all of those things happen at once, resulting in the supposed rise of single mothers?

You want me to give you play by play listing of UK history beginning after Margaret Thatcher left office? Get off your lazy tail and do some reading for yourself. I'll recommend telegraph dot co dot uk for a start.

>> why not how to have safer sex?

Why not how to booze it up safely? Use cocaine safely?

Answer: Because they do not have the emotional maturity to focus on the safe, and end up focusing on the other part (sex). As proven by actual experience in the UK.

If you want to debate about abortion, you have come to the wrong place. If it were up to me, free abortion clinics would be in every Wal-Mart.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 3:14:33 PM)

Thank you, but I was *in* the UK for a good chunk of that time, and what you are describing is incorrect. Even today, comprehensive sex ed is not nationwide.

Let's pretend we respect each other, and skip the namecalling, shall we?

I think children should be taught about how to use alcohol safely, too. (There's no way to use cocaine safely). That doesn't mean having booze in the classrooms anymore than sex ed involves having sex in the classrooms, but being taught about what alcohol does to the body and how to mitigate its effects. What would be wrong with that?

Oh, and I don't trust Wal-Mart to administer surgery.

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 3:35:25 PM)

>> but I was *in* the UK for a good chunk of that time

The Daily Telegraph is *in* the UK too. Perhaps you would like to write them and tell them their reporting is incorrect. Perhaps you would like to write the UK government and tell them their prisons are not really full.

Since you are too lazy to do your own reading, here's a handy quote from the first article that came up when I Googled UK teenage pregnancy. The quote comes from the BBC news. While you are writing the Daily Telegraph, you might pop off a note to the BBC and let them know they don't know what they are talking about either.

"The UK has the highest teenage birth rates in Western Europe - twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands."

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 3:57:48 PM)

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the political stance of the Daily Telegraph.

I am not sure why you think I am denying that there is a high rate of teen pregnancy in the UK (though lower than the U.S., of course). The social safety net I describe as part of a way to reduce abortions obviously make single motherhood a more attractive prospect. That's the part of the project that encourages women already pregnant to continue their pregnancies. What is lacking in many parts of the UK is comprehensive sex ed--you know, the part that prevents the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

And please drop the namecalling. If you think you can't win a debate without it, you must think your argument is pretty weak.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 4:21:13 PM)

A 2008 U.S. study suggested teens who received comprehensive sex ed were 60% less likely to get pregnant. Since comprehensive sex ed was instituted in Hackney, London, teen pregnancies have dropped 25%. Sex ed is not making teenagers run out and have sex, as if they'd never thought of it before--that is a myth, and a dangerous one.

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 4:28:36 PM)

>> comprehensive sex ed--you know, the part that prevents the unwanted pregnancies in the first place

Which should explain why teenage pregnancies were much lower in the USA prior to 1960. We must have had great sex ed prior to then. Please help me out here. At which point did the USA stop its "comprehensive sex ed" giving rise to the dramatic rate of teenage pregnancy. I've searched high and low and can't find where in the 1960s we took that sex ed biz out of the schools that was giving us those low teen birth rates prior to then.

I guess it also explains why you see low teenage pregnancy in places like UAE and Saudi Arabia. They must have great sex ed classes.

And Japan, what's the deal there? Why aren't they dumping out kids right and left?

>> That's the part of the project that encourages women already pregnant to continue their pregnancies

No, that's part of the Democrat party building a dependent client constituency at the expense of the working taxpayers.

>> And please drop the namecalling

And please stop being lazy and do a little of your own research.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 4:35:09 PM)

Actually, you are mistaken: the 1940s, 50s and 60s saw some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US. (79.5, 91.0, and 69.7 per thousand). In fact, by 1960, nearly one-third of U.S. females had their first child before reaching age twenty. So where are you getting your figures from?

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 4:41:15 PM)

As for Japan, the total fertility rate is extremely low, alarmingly below replacement levels. I don't know enough about Japan to address reasons for this, but I imagine the low rate of teen pregnancy is correlated.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 4:51:34 PM)

Also, Saudi Arabia's rate of teenage births (38 per 1000) is not that low--in fact, it's higher than the UK (20). And the UAE's rate of 51 is close to that of the US (58). So you're wrong again!

Which one of us is too lazy for actual research, again?

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 5:21:55 PM)

Anyone interested in the shifting demographic of teenage pregnancy in the US might enjoy Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe v. Wade, by Rickie Solinger. Some eye-opening stuff.

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 5:22:56 PM)

>> So where are you getting your figures from?

Are you differentiating between married and unmarried? Consider the age at which women married in those years. Also take a look at the ages at which those "teenage" pregnanicies occurred compared to now.

The general use of the term "teenage pregnancy" these days implies unmarried. Perhaps not strictly scientific, but I can't help that. If you want to muddy up a discussion by playing ignorant to the way terms are used, I can be more pedantic if you wish and specify unmarried teenage pregnancy which is the real problem. One sort of assumes that we're not dealing with someone so obtuse as to lump married 19 year olds in with unmarried 16 year olds. I hope that isn't the case here.

But let's look at that sex ed biz a little more. Granted, it's not a scientific study, but when I see section 8 trolls with multiple kids, I don't stand there and think: "Gosh, I guess she has multiple kids because she failed to figure out where the first kid came from." But your argument says that is exactly the case. If only someone would dole out a little comprehensive sex ed to multi-mom, that would fix the problem.

Since things have gotten a little muddy here, let me restate my initial point: The problem is not lack of sex ed. The problem (just as it was with cigarette smoking) is the MSM and society in general endorsing, encouraging, and normalizing the activity. Compounding that (and is the big reason for the mess in the UK) is government policy that financially rewards making a baby from that casual sex.

The BBC article I mentioned presents both sides of the argument (although favoring the liberal side). I subscribed to the comments toward the end beginning with "But Brook's position is vehemently disputed by think tank Civitas."

Any "study" which claims to prove that sex ed reduces unmarried (happy now?) teenage pregnancy should be reproducable and always hold. None does as it is simple to list numerous societies where there is little sex ed and little unmarried teenage pregnancy.

Just as with cigarette smoking, there might have been a slight reduction from "education" about the dangers of smoking, but no significant reduction until the MSM stopped telling people they should be doing it, and mainstream society considered it an undesirable activity.

Now that the pervasive encouragement to smoke has been removed, there are still plenty of smokers, but the reduction has far exceeded that gotten from previous attempts at "education."

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 5:28:56 PM)

>> Also, Saudi Arabia's rate of teenage births

Again, I made the (apparently erroneous) assumption that there was enough intelligence here to differentiate between the married 19 year old and the unmarried 16 year old.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 5:31:47 PM)

*sigh* You specifically said "teenage" pregnancy; if you meant something different you should have said so. Pregnant girls in the 1950s got married; that didn't make their pregnancy any less unwanted. (Seriously, read the Solinger book I recommended). And girls are married off, sometimes forcibly, in parts of the Middle East at 11 or 12; that doesn't make pregnancy at 13 less of a health problem.

The solution for unwanted pregnancy is better sex ed and better access to birth control. The solution for abortion is those plus a social network. The downside to the social network approach is an increase in teenage and low-income births.

Yes, it's true that we could also achieve this by replicating societies where women are not allowed to be around men they are not related to. Are you seriously suggesting this solution?

A Concerned Citizen, (8/28/2009 5:37:02 PM)

Also, the Solinger book addresses the issue of the normalization of out of wedlock births after the second world war (and does so in terms of race). Interesting stuff.

moogle, Tulsa (8/28/2009 6:30:52 PM)

One needs to recognize that US society is far from homogeneous. For example, those inner city areas where section 8 mentality and gang culture dominate need a lot more than compehensive sex ed. There, a major revision of their system of values is needed. (and we're talking all races and ethnicity here)

There has been some press on sex ed programs that place the emphasis on self-esteem rather than "safe sex". One can find examples of success and failures in almost any approach that has been tried, so I don't how successful the self-esteem approach has been. A lot of info out there, not enough time to read it all.

I think a lot of the "comprehensive sex ed" talk comes from fine, upstanding folk who assume their values and motives are shared by all but the insane. That is, since it would work for me, it should work for everybody. I believe the official term for this kind of mind set is "mirroring."

But I still hold that education of any kind will be nearly useless in the face of overwhelming and pervasive encouragement -- along with a financial reward from the government -- to engage in casual, irresponsible sex.

A Concerned Citizen, (8/30/2009 10:27:09 AM)

I am not sure how the government is rewarding *abortions* financially--and reducing abortions are the subject I was addressing.

H_Harl, (9/1/2009 11:10:36 AM)

is there something on the ultrasound that abortion doctors don't want women to see? as far as unwanted pregnancy is concerned, every woman on the planet knows how to keep from getting pregnant. i do think there are certain extreme situations where an abortion should be an option, but too many women use it as a form of retro active birth control.