An HBO Film Makes Abortion Fun
Anti abortion sites are outraged about an HBO film. It is about a fictitious pregnant young woman who takes a fun road trip to get an abortion. The entire experience was fun and pleasant.
The right wing outrage is over inaccuracies. The young woman character, a minor, lives in Missouri and her parents are anti abortion Christians. Anti abortion critics point out a minor in Missouri can get an abortion there by calling the ACLU who will facilitate a obtaining a waver. In the movie the young woman assumes she has to drive to New Mexico. Lots of states do not require a waver for girls to get abortions. Parents should not have the power to force their religious views on their teenagers.
Yes, the movie is pro choice propaganda and to set up the story it needs to portray legal details incorrectly. Anti abortion operatives should have expected their own tactics of saying things about abortion that are false could be used by pro choice operatives as well. If you engage in dishonesty don't be surprised is the other side starts using dishonesty.
Anti abortion strategists have used so much dishonesty. Let's start with the claim abortions are psychologically and physically dangerous. There has never been any information to back this claim. Oh sure, there have been rare individual cases. Actual data is available on the safety of abortion. It's just that anti abortion zealots don't want people to know it is a safe procedure. Having an abortion is safer than extracting an impacted wisdom tooth.
A recent powerful study of women who had and did not have abortions shows no adverse psychological problems from abortions. In fact, it improved women's lives. The study included an ingenious way of measuring well being. Credit scores of women who wanted an abortion and did not receive it were compared to women who obtained abortions. Credits scored are objective third party evaluations of economic well being. Those who had abortions had better scores for several years.
Hopefully, this film will be a success and others will follow. Christians are already cranking out fictional propaganda movies so more enlightened ones are needed.
Jon, you seem like a frustrated male who would prefer to be a female for the sole purpose of getting pregnant multiple times and ending each by killing the baby within you. It upsets you to see the abortion rate drop. It upsets you that the majority of women choose life over death. I know you will try to refute my statements but your words in your blog postings paint a clear picture of your inner and outer self.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic mother of 7 children is likely to be the next Supreme Court Justice. If so, I pray a different America is on the horizon.
Matt --"...your blog postings point a clear picture of your inner and outer self."
ReplyDeleteAs so often happens, when anti abortion zealots here are losing an argument they resort to comments about me. I hope you will watch a movie that paints abortion in a positive light.
I haven't lost any argument. You are arguing with God, not me. Abortion is not something which has both a negative and positive light. It is pure darkness.
ReplyDeleteYou have your lapdogs which heap praise on you. I haven't seen you criticize them for 'resorting to comments about you'.
You try to deflect any criticism. It doesn't work. Those that know you, know your heart, know that you are in love with abortion, that you are in love with Satan. You embrace evil.
Matt-- I need to put a positive light on your remarks. You have made two posts and have not told one lie about abortion. Previously you lied constantly, abortion is dangerous, abortion harms women, science tells us that one fertilized cell is a human being, etc. etc. Perhaps you are sensing what happens in your faith's version of the afterlife, that lying is a sin and sin is punished.
DeleteIf you have turned over a new leaf and resolved to stop lying, good work.
In the presence of a master, you would think you would know a lie. Yet, nothing I've said is a lie. Your lying is profound and easy to spot. It's like the old joke, "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" Answer, his lips are moving. In your case, I would add 'Your fingers are typing.'
DeleteAbortion is dangerous. Abortion always kills at least one person and sometimes more than one. It certainly is an assault on the psyche of the woman and others in her life. You can have your fun debating and claiming what you think is a human being. Like Hitler, he dehumanized people who were Jews, gypsies, Catholics and the disabled. You dehumanize unborn life, pro-life people and Christians, in general.
Science (biology) tells the biologist, the physician and any halfway rational human being that once fertilization takes place, there is a human being created. H20 and other nourishment follows which grows the tiniest of persons into what we recognize as a person. Some of those people are black, some white, etc. Some are disabled while some are not. Some are female while others are male. The new person has unique DNA; different from his mother or father.
I accept that you deny science you don't politically agree with. I accept that you are an anti-theist who truly hates Christianity, Christians and even the God that claim you don't believe in. Perhaps you will wake up and believe some day. That is up to you and the Holy Spirit.
Matt -- "It certainly is an assault on the psych of the woman and others in her life."
DeleteSo, you are saying there is evidence for women generally of "an assault of the psych.." It would be helpful if you would cite a study done by secular research this has been found to be the case. The only study I have heard of that qualifies is the Turnaway study of a thousand women. Women who wanted abortions and had them were compared with women who wanted abortions and were turned away. Those who got the abortions had better mental health than those who were forced to give birth.
So, there you are lying again. Lying is such a common part of the anti abortion industry it is done without breaking a sweat.
Don't forget, any of us could die at any time and in your faith it is believed you will suffer in the afterlife. Best you recognize that now before it is too late.
The turnaway farce was ripped to shreds as a self-biased, low turn-out piece of academic malfeasance. Read about it here - https://www.ncregister.com/news/pro-life-advocates-criticize-study-claiming-most-women-don-t-regret-their-abortions
DeleteI'm happy you didn't try to refute the rest of what I called you on. It's all true. It paints you as the monster you are, I'm sorry to say.
Matt--I wrote there is not another study the quality of the Turnaway study. The sampling was the best available. That still stands. There seems to be unending amounts of money in the anti abortion industry. Why isn't some of it used to prove abortion is harmful to women? The answer can only be those in the industry are afraid they will find exactly what the Turnaway study found. Statistically abortion is not harmful to women.
ReplyDeleteIn you propaganda site there was one reference worth looking at, the one from Italy about suicide rates. I could see immediately there was a big flaw, that women who had abortions may have worse mental conditions before the pregnancy than those who gave birth. Finally at the end of the long discussion that flaw was noted.
You are left with no sound basis for claiming abortion harms women. You still have your religious views that abortion is sin--but it does not give you license to say false things. If I believe sin is punished in the after life like you do I'd be worried about the false statements you make.
Since you are academically not quisative about anything not named Turnaway, I'll give you a few. I'm sure you will dismiss them despite the academic 'chops' of the publishers and authors.
DeleteNote the amazingly high suicide rates of post-abortive women, 3-6 times (300%-600%) higher than women who carried their pregnancies to term.
What I found is that pro-abortion sources generally found nothing wrong, short-term or long-term, with physical or mental health of women. Pro-life sources found definite short-term and long-term consequences of abortion.
Neutral sources generally sided with the pro-life side.
The pro-abortion sources of information were quick to point out narrowly-defined outcomes in their favor while discounting or completely ignoring anything that might be considered negative about abortion.
I found little to nothing about the effect of abortion on men, especially men who wanted a child. I find it very alarming that pro-abortion people DO NOT want parents of minor females to have any say or even knowledge of the minor's abortion contemplation or decision.
https://afterabortion.org/
https://afterabortion.org/abortions-mental-health-risks/
http://www.epigee.org/the-long-term-effects-of-abortion.html
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/7419/20150930/worst-long-term-effect-abortion.htm
https://www.deveber.org/womens-health-after-abortion/
https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20051212/abortion-impact-long-term-stress#1
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201110/negative-mental-health-effects-abortion
The question is simple. What problem is so large and so grave that the solution to the problem is killing an innocent child in its mother's womb?
Matt--I'm not going to look up all those sources--I assume they say the suicide and mental conditions of women who had abortions were worse than those who had babies. There are two questions you might want to look at. Did the samples of the two populations come from the same pool of women? Second, what were the mental states or mental conditions of the women in the two groups equal?
DeleteSo far as I know, the Turnaway study is the only such study that found a way to equalize the two groups. If you can't say the same thing about any or all those sources you list they are not on the same level of quality.
Jon, "I'm not going to look up all those sources ..." You looked up the Turnaway study but refuse to look up any others. That sums up your objectivity to a tee.
DeleteJon, "So far as I know, the Turnaway study ..." So far as you know means you don't want to put forth the mental effort to look at anything else. Don't challenge me on anything anymore if you can't put in any effort other than to parrot a pro-abortion study you probably didn't even read.
Matt--The reason I'm reluctant to look up your references is that you lie about what they conclude. But OK, I was foolish enough to look at the first one. Sure enough you were lying again. It includes a quote from the American Psychological Society, "Women who have abortions may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems." The author then concedes this may be correct but obviously wishes it were not. He then goes on to cite several studies that do not control for this obvious problem and concludes abortion causes suicides.
DeleteMaking this same conclusion that there is not evidence abortion contributes to mental health problems including suicide are the U.K. National Collaboration Centre for Mental Health, U.K. College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This latter from Wikipedia.
Matt--I looked up the second site, Epigee. It is a Catholic propaganda site and claims abortion causes mental problems but gives no independent research. How about you read the things you refer others to?
DeleteMatt--"the academic chops..." Do you moonlight as a stand-up comedian. I looked at the other goofy references you posted. One, WebMD from way back in 2005 said, "Broen says it is not clear from the study if having an abortion contributed to higher anxiety or if women who had abortions were more anxious to begin with."
DeleteLet's keep going when we're on a roll here. Psychology Today from 2011, no reference comparing the mental states of the two groups of women. Some B.S. from the others you posted.
Perhaps you could post some results that included mental states of two groups of women, those who wanted abortions and got them and those who wanted abortions and were unable to get them? That would be helpful. That is what the Turnaway study did. Everything you post sets off the B.S. warning.
this would be fun if abortion were not the dark and tragic matter that it is. e.g. old Jon hitching his wagon to another throwaway study. if it is so definitive, why have we not heard anything about it in the virulent pro-abortion media? good question. that aside, how's about the "liar" thing? in that regard, I think that it's time to remind Preacher Jon that there is a difference between that which is objectively evil and culpability. is one guilty of lying if one really believes that he/she is speaking the truth? or is there a law "written on the heart" that tells one deep down that he/she is lying? does ignorance of the facts get one off the hook, so to speak? is the ignorance vincible or invincible? I could go on but suffice to say: the ethics of lying are complicated, liar a word/charge not to be thrown about carelessly or randomly. but not to worry: as Nietzsche would have it, there are no facts. only perspectives. guess that lets everybody off the hook. a final comment: apart from old Jon's unreasoning commitment to the Great Abortion Moloch there are other issues at stake: e.g. media bias (lying?), judicial overreach, political irrationality, politized violence, philosophical nihilism, cultural Marxism, etc. amen
ReplyDeleteUnknown re: use of the word liar.
DeleteMatt has used that word against me countless times. Thus it it fair to use in reference to statements he makes that he knows to be false. He knows they are false because I have given him the correct information.
Unknown: I applaud you for chiming in on Jon vs. the Truth. Funny how it took BLM to force Planned Parenthood to throw away the Margaret Sanger annual award. Apparently, the racism of their founder was un-PC for the PP people to stomach from fellow libs.
DeleteThe tragic statement on Jon's life is that he sits in an apartment in Iowa, throwing keyboard darts at Christians. He may actually have a following of 3 Christians on his blog, all that think his existence is an evil blot on the world. He refuses any help. But he loves the power of not publishing all our posts. It's his one bit of power he holds in his life. Very sad.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteLapdog? Matt is in another of his Pieta swoons.
The abortion rate, the birthrate, and the fertility rate in the USA all continue to trend lower. Is the primary objective of anti-abortion politics “replacement level” fertility rates? Nah! I suspect the ultimate objective is to “manage” the reproductive rights of American women to include discouraging the most effective contraceptive measures, criminalizing abortion, and legalizing compulsory delivery — birth control by another name. Abortion, spontaneous or elective, will never go away and reproduction of the human species will continue until we finish ourselves off. The roar of American women against being “managed” will continue to grow. They are rightfully claiming their due, jurisdiction over their bodies. Paradoxically there is an element of joy in every tragic decision. “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”, Oscar Wilde.
sed contra. low fertility rates/low birth rates are not something to sluff off as so much pro-life wishful thinking. true that in the short run a low incidence of young people means that we can spend less on education or whatever (please don't tell that to the education lobby). but eventually it catches up to you with labor shortages, etc. maybe the problem can be ameliorated by increases in productivity, automation, immigration (think Germany). or maybe not. and as the Mn state demographer told us some time back we can look forward to investing a lot in old folks (ring any bells in your thick skull?) besides aging populations tend not be as innovative, dynamic, creative as younger populations.
DeleteUnknown--"...it catches up to you with labor shortages, etc..."
DeleteWe've been over this a few times before, maybe you do not remember. By pointing to the problems of demographics heavily weighted by older people thus needing population growth from increased numbers of younger people you are ignoring the macro issue of population growth. When I pointed this out to you a couple of years ago and accused you of believing resources to support population growth to be infinite you agreed with me resources are not infinite but finite.
Now you are back to believing resources are infinite and that there is no limit to how large the world population can grow. The only hope for humans is there remain a few rational people who understand the world's resources are limited and population growth cannot be infinite. You will not find such smart people in the anti abortion community. As pro life visitors used to tell me in the Mayor's office decades ago, "The Lord will provide."
No, the Lord will not provide. We know that because he/she is not providing right now.
so the earth's resources are "limited" not infinite. kinda like saying that any number pulled out of a hat will be somewhere between plus and minus infinity. not terribly helpful, that. so what is limited? in 1798 old Thomas Malthus thought that the resources at that time were limited, that mass starvation lurked. guess what happened: the limits weren't that limited after all. remember the butterfly man (as I recall, he was an entomologist by trade) who told us that we all going to starve to death by 1975 or thereabouts? but he's a real trooper who, like you, is still sticking to his doomsday scenario. a bit dressed up for 21st century audiences of course. given your neo-Malthusian frame of mind, I can see why you are so gung ho for abortion. get rid of the kids and someday we can live on an earth whose one billion inhabitants are all over age 65. bet you are praying for more covid pandemics to boot. just might hurry things along a bit, eh? but who knows maybe God will provide by way of human ingenuity and rationality. .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUnknown--I have asked you this countless times before--I'll try again. Are the earth's resources limited or not?
DeletePlease answer this yes or no--if you launch onto another essay not relevant to the most important question, limited or unlimited resources, I will not post it.
of course they are limited. so what? how could you possibly miss the point that I made in my last post.
DeleteUnknown-- "of course they are limited."
DeleteWell done. Now we are getting somewhere. Thus, at some point in time we will have to slow or reverse population growth. We don't know if it is in the future or now. Of course, it may happen by people simply choosing to have fewer or no children. But if it doesn't happen voluntarily it will have to happen through some kind of agreement among people about laws, technology and birth control including abortion. Lofty discussions about religion and such will be set aside for more important concerns. Thank you for a good discussion.
but as I tried to point out, "limited" is a very elastic term. what was considered to be limited today may not be considered limited tomorrow. if we were to understand limited in your terms we would still be living in the stone age. and an FYI: with a relatively few exceptions, birth rates are declining worldwide. some counties are actually depopulating. population growth is expected to level off/ decline in the next several generations. wake up and smell the coffee, old chap.
DeleteUnknown -- re: "limited is an elastic term"
DeleteI agree it changes a litte--sometimes technology make resources last longer, sometimes the amount available is less than we thought. That the resources available to sustain life on the planet not measurable precisely does not make the concept useless. Those who promote endless increases in population consider resources limits a fictional concept.
As to leveling and/or falling fertility rates, yes they have fallen. You seem to think you know they will keep falling into the future. You are wrong. You don't know this--but you toss it out as though you do know to justify your anti abortion religious views.
of course I don't "know" what the birth rate will be in, say, 2050. I do know, however, that demographers point to a declining number of women in child bearing age, thus making any birth rate resurgence highly problematic. I suppose that fewer women could start having five children rather than 1.5. but right now that doesn't look like a good bet. so what about the 14th century? we came back from the Black Death didn't we? ah yes, but the demographic situation at that time was much different than the one that we are now experiencing. BTW do you know, as the climate alarmists claim to know, what the earth's climate will be like in 2050? they (the climate people) may have some good guesses based on current trends. but to say that they "know" is a real stretch.
DeleteAnd unless I overlooked it, you censored my post re the uncertainties intrinsic to social science research. maybe you just didn't like my comments about economists.
Ardy B "I suspect the ultimate objective is to 'manage' the reproductive rights of American women...The roar of American women against being 'managed' will continue to grow."
ReplyDeleteThat's the way I see it as well. And think of the millions of men who are unemployed with a wife who is employed. Both of them know that if she becomes pregnant and has to quit working they will be homeless.
Last night here in Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst debated her challenger. I saw only a news clip where Ernst, who claims to be against abortion and supports the anti abortion Supreme Court nominee, said "I don't think abortion rights will be overturned." She didn't say, "I think Roe should be overturned." Is she feeling the heat from abortion rights voters? I don't know--but she is trailing slightly in polls.
Jon, you tried to discredit the sources I provided, even pulling out a quote or two that you believe supports your pro-abortion bias.
ReplyDeleteAs you state in your first response where you actually read some of the sources, "It includes a quote from the American Psychological Society, "Women who have abortions may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems.""
How scientific is it to state, "... may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems."?
And women who have abortions may simply be fans of unicorns and graduates of Mankato State.
Nice try, Jon, but keep plugging away. I'll make a researcher out of you, yet.
Jon, you tried to discredit the sources I provided, even pulling out a quote or two that you believe supports your pro-abortion bias.
ReplyDeleteAs you state in your first response where you actually read some of the sources, "It includes a quote from the American Psychological Society, "Women who have abortions may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems.""
How scientific is it to state, "... may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems."?
And women who have abortions may simply be fans of unicorns and graduates of Mankato State.
Nice try, Jon, but keep plugging away. I'll make a researcher out of you, yet.
Matt: "How scientific is it to state, 'may simply be predisposed to higher rates of mental health problems.'"
DeleteActually, it is a powerful statement. It blows a hole in the argument that abortions caused suicides. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible:
Suppose you had a sample of 1,000 women who had years of treatment of mental illness. They all had unsuccessful careers and relationships with men. They described their lives as full of darkness, substance abuse and their futures seemed to them hopeless. They all got pregnant and all had abortions.
Suppose also you had a different sample of 1,000 women. They were all successful in their lives, had stable marriages and careers. They looked forward to raising children. They also were all pregnant. None had abortions, all gave birth.
Would anyone be surprised if none of the second group committed suicide but some of the first group did? And, when more of the first group committed suicide it would be very questionable to conclude "abortion caused women in the first group to commit suicide."
If one could find samples from each group who were similar in their social and psychological standing and then found those who had abortions had more suicides it would be plausible to conclude abortion causes suicide. The studies you posted did not do this. The study, Turnaway, did an honest attempt to find two similar populations. It did not find more suicides in the sample that had abortions. In fact in the total package of their lives those who had abortions did much better during the following five years. For example, none of the women who have abortions died during the next five years. Three of the women who gave birth died from complications of the pregnancy. The researchers did not claim the three deaths were typical of that size of population but it is a well known statistical fact that more women die of pregnancy than from abortions.
Energy comes from the sun. Renewable resources like crops are not infinite but tell me when they run out? Tell me about the resources available below the earth's crust - pretty extensive.
ReplyDeleteThe zero population growth people like arguments which call for death, i.e. abortion, euthanasia, war, etc.
The Christian people like arguments which call for life, i.e. large families, peace, etc.
In the span of a few decades, we started fracking. That's bringing trapped oil to the surface using innovative techniques. We went from rooms full of hundreds of transistors to billions of transistors on a microchip. We went from 1200 bits per second dial-up lines to Gigabit Ethernet cable.
You can't begin to fathom the innovations which will lead to a bright future with many more billions of people on earth.
Matt--"You can't begin to fathom the innovations which will lead to a bright future with many more billions of people on earth."
DeleteIronically, just before I read you post I read an article in The New Yorker about the effect of the pandemic on inner city elementary schools. The inevitable conclusion is that millions of children will become mostly illiterate and unemployed adults. They don't have access to the technology for on line learning or support at home. Teachers resist in-class instruction because of the risk, or perceived risk, to themselves.
In this state, considered one of those of the "bread basket of the world" states, the depth of the top soil has been declining for decades. There is some hope better farming technique can arrest it but so far have only slowed it.
To be a true conservative is to recognize high risk and avoid it. Promoting a larger world population is more risky than promoting a stable or smaller one. Avoiding poverty and misery is being conservative and responsible. Raising the odds for poverty and misery is not taking responsibility and reflects carelessness and foolishness.
P.S. talking about "limited" resources is not very helpful. it is to utter a truism, a glittering generality with little or no real substance. yours and Matt's recent posts are, in contrast, a bit encouraging. getting specific, some points for a real debate.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "limited resources is not very helpful. it is to utter a truism, a glittering generality with little or no real substance."
DeleteI force it into the discussion because economics does not allow one to ignore it. Nothing makes sense without limited resources. If you believe "the Lord will provide" limited resources is not a truism. It is not even in the room. If you believe as Matt does, that technology will solve any problem of population or scarcity, it's not in the room either.
Back in the day, I taught an economics class for students getting Master's degrees in planning. In one exercise I told them a neighborhood could raise X dollars to do one of three projects. I described the benefits of each project. And, I described the problems that would arise from not doing the other two. They were to pick one project and explain why it was the best one. I knew how the students reasoned, what they had been taught in their planning classes. So, I told them, "You cannot get a government grant to do the two projects you pass up."
Every year, some students would write up their decision and include a government grant so they would not have to face the consequences of not doing two of the neighborhood projects. Limited resources was not a "truism" to them. The Lord would provide, the Lord happened to be the government.
testing
ReplyDeleteNo need for the lecture re economics and limited resources. we simply can't produce everything that any and all might want or afford.. tho' the glut of products, many of them frivolous and/or wasteful in the so-called developed countries, comes close to reifying that state of affairs. and, of course, there are trade offs, opportunity costs, costs v. benefits, marginal costs, all that good stuff that influences/directs economic decisions. still, the notion of limited resources does not, by itself, really tell us much. and how can you plausibly say that Matt's thoughts re technological "rescues" is stupid/unrealistic, a kind of pipe dream? how many times have technological advances, many of them surprising (and many of them having a "dark side) allowed us to surmount seeming "dead ends") . why could something of the sort not happen again?
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "why could something of the sort not happen again?"
ReplyDeleteIt not only can happen again, probably it will. You are constantly pointing to doomsday predictions that did not happen. Guess what, we all know about them--that's why I don't post your comments some times.
It is not relevant that doomsday predictions have not happened nationwide or worldwide. We still have to lay out what assumptions we are using. If we make the wrong assumptions about broad issues we're all worse off. When thinking about policy, we have to decide if we are treating the land, labor, air, water, food etc. as infinite or finite. If we assume they are infinite and they turn out to be finite we are in worse trouble than the opposite. The Lord has not provided in those places of the world where people are staving. Neither has technology.
you are the Professional, self-identified skeptic here. don't you then get a tad fed up with all the doomsday predictions, the media hype. and don't you recall the old fool me once, fool me twice adage? I certainly do. or maybe the old crying wolf bit. if we had more credible ways of predicting the future, I might be more open to your foregoing observation. but if we make decisions on flawed or even dishonest assumptions we could end up with one helluva mess. with that I rest.
ReplyDeleteStanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich wrote the "Population Bomb" in 1968, predicting worldwide famine, disease and death. It was written in order to affect the 1968 presidential election. The author wrongly predicted “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
DeleteNothing of the sort of the predictions every became true. Ehrlich and those that followed him have become the laughingstock of the vast majority of academia.
AOC is the modern day equivalent of Ehrlich, predicting the end of the world by about 2030, if not sooner. This time, it's about the environment and climate change. Nonetheless, it is tied to birth rates, her warped views of overpopulation and a Marxist, communistic agenda.
Unfortunately, AOC is not alone in her overzealous reliance on lies. Some people actually think this stuff is real, i.e. Jon, for one. In Jon's case, he thinks religion is the root of all evil. Promoting abortion is one way to combat religion and overpopulation. Yeah, right. Perhaps what we need is adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ.