Not much else to say but AMEN.


Paul Rankin | 01.30.03 - 3:25 pm | #

Pitiless like rushing water,
My fear ripped from under my heart,
The life of my child.

John Hearn | 01.30.03 - 4:01 pm | #

The article is silly. You cannot infer a change in doctors' moral beliefs about abortion from a change in the number of abortion providers.
Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 5:01 pm | #

Well, of course not, Mr. Peters.

You probably missed it in your excited haste to scorn pro-lifers, but Dr. Smith examined several factors involved, including (1) the safety (for the woman) of abortions, (2) the high profitability of the procedure, (3) declining threats/"harassment" to abortionists, (4) universal training in abortion techniques, and (5) developments in medical technology and obstetrical knowledge.

Instead of noting the above, you led with "silly." And followed up with nothing else.

Telling. Like bad films, every bad post contains its own review.


Dale Price | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 5:21 pm | #

Please, let's not refer to the ill-informed as "mushrooms" - they may not understand what you are talking about. I believe "pizza topping" is a more descriptive term.
Paul Scheibmeir | 01.30.03 - 5:26 pm | #

Maybe this is how the prayers of the faithful to end abortion will be answered.
Jim | 01.30.03 - 5:30 pm | #

You cannot infer a change in doctors' moral beliefs about abortion from a change in the number of abortion providers.

But you can infer a huge amount about the Triumph of Rationalism from a (dubious) poll indicating a change in the number of Christians?

The more I read you, Jon, the more I recall Chesterton's remark that it was the atheist's defence of rationalism that made him begin to doubt whether Reason was of any use whatever.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 5:43 pm | #

Dale Price:

Dr. Smith examined several factors involved, including (1) the safety (for the woman) of abortions, (2) the high profitability of the procedure, (3) declining threats/"harassment" to abortionists, (4) universal training in abortion techniques, and (5) developments in medical technology and obstetrical knowledge.

She did not demonstrate that abortion is highly profitable. She did not demonstrate that threats from opponents of abortion do not deter potential abortion providers. And she did not demonstrate any link between the safety of abortion, abortion training, or advances in medical knowledge/technology and the number of abortion providers. That's what makes the article so silly. It's just anti-abortion propaganda.

The way to determine how doctors feel about the morality of abortion is to ask them. Show me such a poll.

Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 5:48 pm | #

Mark Shea:

But you can infer a huge amount about the Triumph of Rationalism from a (dubious) poll indicating a change in the number of Christians?

No, not necessarily. But you can infer it from a poll indicating a change in the number of people who profess no religious beliefs.
Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 5:50 pm | #

Maybe those people who profess no religious belief increased because now there are fewer abortion providers?
C. Matt | 01.30.03 - 5:56 pm | #

That's just gainsaying, Mr. Peters. You offered no facts yourself, of course--just contradiction. That, and an additional comfortable label with which you can dismiss uncongenial facts: "propaganda."

Impressive.
Dale Price | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 6:20 pm | #

Dale Price:

That's just gainsaying, Mr. Peters.

I'm saying that the facts she cites do not justify her claim. In fact, some of her inferences are laughable. For example, she says that "serious harassment" of large clinics by anti-abortionists is "declining." But the mere fact that it is "declining," if that is a fact, does not mean that the risk of such harassment does not deter, or has not in the recent past deterred, significant numbers of doctors from becoming abortion providers. Similarly, she infers that abortion "has the potential to be cash cows" for doctors from facts that are clearly inadequate to support that conclusion. Whether abortion is economically attractive to doctors who are not already abortion providers obviously depends crucially on other factors that she did not mention, such as the existing balance of supply and demand for abortion services, and the relative economic benefits of abortion versus other medical specialties. In the final paragraph, she abandons all pretense of objectivity and makes her own opposition to abortion abundantly clear. In short, the article is just anti-abortion propaganda.
Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 6:39 pm | #

Mark: >

That's not the half of it. There was an article not too long ago saying that PP was protesting the use of 3D ultrasound technology in crisis pregnancy centers, ostensibly because it was "insulting to women, suggesting that they don't know their own bodies well enough."

John: >

Propaganda by who? This isn't an article in Focus on the Family or the American Life League newsletter. It's from a non-religious technical web site, Tech Central Station. But hey, if calling anything that you disagree with "propaganda" helps you sleep at night, then go for it.
Stephen | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 6:55 pm | #

Stephen:

Propaganda by who?

Its author.
Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 7:06 pm | #

Come one Steve, it's all propaganda - nevermind the fact that it is true.

I think you forgot the classical definition of propaganda - "any information that might support the claims made by social conservatives."

I mean really Steve - haven't we proved over the last two days that truth is not a relevant part of the conversation when abortion is being discussed?


Paul Scheibmeir | 01.30.03 - 7:22 pm | #

Of course, Jon, your not about propaganda, because everything Planned Parent says it true, starting with Jane Roe's rape induced pregnancy.
C. Matt | 01.30.03 - 7:24 pm | #

Sorry, that's Planned ParentHOOD (as in "criminal").
C. Matt | 01.30.03 - 7:25 pm | #

Objectivity is subjective...wow, reading that it sure looks objective to me. Do you honestly think we are going to see the light, Jon? We are fanatics to you. What you can't stand is that a lot of americans see people on your side as more than fanatics, but supporters of an evil institution that degrades human life and potential, even people who do see an early trimester child as a 'zygote' or 'embryo' are starting to find it hard to justify terminating 'it's' inevitable potential, especially when there are so many reasonable alternatives.
on your question in a previous thread about the raped 18 year-old...if abortion were illegal, and she would know this...yes, I would prosecute her under the extent of the law with respect to her circumstances. find that objectionable? tough. There's no middle ground or compromise here...I find your positions objectionable. Pro-life sees unborn children as having the same rights as you do, evil acts done because of evil acts are not justifiable.

chuck | 01.30.03 - 7:28 pm | #

I found the article interesting and I linked to it on my site.
I do have a concern - I am pretty sure that the actual number of abortions done is underreported. Many private docs (i.e. not is a health center or clinic practice, but possibly in a small group or solo practice) will do early ABs for their pre-existing patients without advertising the fact. To my knowledge, there is no mandatory reporting for such.
alicia huntley | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 8:05 pm | #

Jon - Propaganda by who? Its author.

Since you evaded what I said last time, I'll ask again: why would a secular technology web site publish mere anti-abortion propaganda? Especially if it had no basis in technological developments?
Stephen | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 8:21 pm | #

chuck:

Do you honestly think we are going to see the light, Jon?

I don't know. Obviously, people do change their minds, even about issues like abortion.

What you can't stand is that a lot of americans see people on your side as more than fanatics, but supporters of an evil institution that degrades human life and potential, ...

I think that kind of talk, like the harassment and intimidation of abortion clinic workers and clients, serves only to further damage your movement.

... on your question in a previous thread about the raped 18 year-old...if abortion were illegal, and she would know this...yes, I would prosecute her under the extent of the law with respect to her circumstances.

That would be the crime of murder, right? You think an 18-year-old rape victim who takes the morning-after pill should be prosecuted for murder, right?
Jon Peters | 01.30.03 - 8:23 pm | #

No, Mr. Peters:

The issue is that *you* find the facts do not support her claim, and you put your own convenient spin on them. Given the high and specific thresholds of proof you require in all of your dialogues, and your refusal to accept uncongenial evidence ("if it is indeed a fact"), this is not surprising. As well as your unwillingness to regard pro-life arguments as legitimate ("makes her own opposition to abortion abundantly clear"--oh, the temerity).

Labelling it "propaganda" is no doubt soothing and reassuring, but it does not objectively engage the facts.

Good night.
Dale Price | Homepage | 01.30.03 - 9:51 pm | #

It is not surprising that those performing abortions sometimes have clear insight into what they are doing.
TomM | 01.31.03 - 10:05 am | #

Most men and women don't go into medicine in order to destroy human fetuses. The city of New York is comtemplating forcing OB/GYN residents at public hospitals to take "elective" rotations in which they would learn and perform abortions. The number of residents who voluntarily take such electives has dropped precipituously; why would the abortion lobby push such a draconian measure (with Mayor Bloomberg's help)? We can only speak anecdotally about such things, because we will probably not see a "mainstream" poll on the attitude of physicians toward abortion. No one in the abortion lobby wants one for the obvious reason that they are afraid of the results. The abortion industry has become the home of 1)marginalized professionals in it for the money, and 2) true believers. You can try to find all types of other reasons, John, but remember William of Occam.
Mike | 01.31.03 - 11:35 am | #

Mike:

We can only speak anecdotally about such things, because we will probably not see a "mainstream" poll on the attitude of physicians toward abortion. No one in the abortion lobby wants one for the obvious reason that they are afraid of the results.

Then why hasn't the anti-abortion lobby conducted one? Answer: Because they rightly fear that the results would not support their claims.
Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 3:37 pm | #

Dale Price:

... and your refusal to accept uncongenial evidence

The problem is not that the evidence she presents is "uncogenial," but that it is not evidence for her claims at all, as I explained in my earlier post. The mere fact that the average cost of an early abortion is $372 tells us nothing about the economic attractiveness of becoming an abortion provider. In fact, what the author doesn't know, or is deliberately withholding, is that the cost of abortion in real terms has declined significantly over the past several decades. That is obviously an economic disincentive to becoming an abortion provider. Her other arguments are similarly flawed. The whole article is just worthless propaganda.
Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 3:46 pm | #

Your unsupported claims do not constitute evidence (if you going to back it up--no "propaganda"). Likewise, your refusal to engage the "cash and carry", as opposed to provider-approval, nature of the procedure does nothing to bolster your argument. Finally, the most telling aspect of your style of argumentation is your continuing ascription of base motives to those who present uncongenial information ("if it is indeed a fact"; "or is deliberately withholding").

You have quite the nice propagandistic touch yourself.
Dale Price | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 4:02 pm | #

Dale Price:

Your unsupported claims do not constitute evidence ...

Huh? The author of the article made the unsupported claim that the average cost of an early abortion is $372. You apparently accept that as evidence. So make up your mind. Do you accept unsupported claims as evidence or don't you? You can't have it both ways.

Likewise, your refusal to engage the "cash and carry", as opposed to provider-approval, nature of the procedure does nothing to bolster your argument.

I didn't engage it because it's irrelevant to my point.
Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 4:41 pm | #

Pro-life groups poll politicans all the time. Only the pro-life politicians will respond.

If you poll doctor's, the only one who will complete the survey will be pro-life doctors. Most, on both sides of the isle, will not bother to respond.

-----


Paul Scheibmeir | 01.31.03 - 5:22 pm | #

I agree that polls are not helpful generally. If the well funded Guttmacher Institute, the not for profit arm of Planned Parenthood, had objective evidence that physician attitudes toward abortion had changed they would produce it. If pro-life groups had evidence they would produce it also, to less acclaim. My point, before being caught in the web of sophistry being spun, was that anecdotal, empiric, and intuitive evidence on this question is all we have; there is no more. If one cares to generally understand why less doctors are doing abortions, you have to go with your best hunch. My best hunch is in agreement with the author of the article
Mike | 01.31.03 - 6:10 pm | #

Mike:

My best hunch is in agreement with the author of the article

Your "hunch" is worthless, but at least you admit that that's all it is.
Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 6:47 pm | #

There's such a thing as a *probable* argument, i.e. one that is not proved scientifically. It's made by positing a number of not-absolutely-proved-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt factors, for instance: an abortionist can make far more dollars, at less hassle, than most doctors other doctors, but fewer dcotors are performing them. Why is this? There don't seem to be many disincentives, while at the same time there has been a phenomenal increase in our knowledge and experience of the unborn. (The fact (unsupported, of course) that abortions have gone down in price in real dollars doesn't take away from the fact that abortion is still a cash cow.) What's the probable conclusion? That fewer doctors are performing abortions because of the knowledge about the unborn (and their subsequent qualms about the procedure).

Does this mean that there are no other factors at work, or that no other explanation possible? No one has claimed that this is the *absolute* truth. How would we find it in this case anyway? We could ask the doctors, but then how would we know they were telling the truth, or that there were hiding something? It's a simple fact that that some abortionists and their helpers have stopped doing the procedure because they realized more and more what they were doing. So the thesis of the article is not improbable at all.

The other possibility is that there have been no, or almost no doctors who have quit or never started for any reason BUT the incredible knowledge we have of unborn human life. It could be a complete and utter coincidence that this has happened to coincide with the fact that more doctors have not joined the ranks of abortionists.

The most probable scenario is that (like most things in life) there are a number of factors at work, none of which should be excluded because of ideology.

As for the writer's own views, she has a blog of her own. After she posted her article, she got a response from a reader arguing against it from a economic standpoint, and she offers her response here:

http://medpundit.blogspot.com/ 20...e.html#90233421
Sam Schmitt | 01.31.03 - 7:22 pm | #

Jon, I have given my opinion on the question raised by this article: are there less abortionists now because physicians have become more appreciative of the humanness of the fetus? Thus far on this thread you have taken segments of arguments, italicized them, and critiqued them. I would like you to step up to the plate and actually favor us with a declarative opinion on this question. The only two factual aspects of this question that I can see are 1)less physicians are willing to do abortions and 2) less obstetrical residents are seeking training in abortion. Considering the vast realm of empirical evidence that surrounds this question, the article's author concludes that physician attitudes are changing. Do you think that is likely, and if not, what do you think explains the drop? Please don't just criticize what you see as the failings of the article; if you don't have an opinion, just say so.
Mike | 01.31.03 - 8:24 pm | #

I asked you to support this assertion:

"In fact, what the author doesn't know, or is deliberately withholding, is that the cost of abortion in real terms has declined significantly over the past several decades."

You didn't. Moving on.

Declining costs are hardly a bar to doctors from entering certain fields or offering certain services, especially considering the glut in medical specialists:

http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs...17/ pu80024x.htm

Let's see: the fact that an abortion doctor would not have to wait for a third party payer to flyspeck and partially approve/deny payment, followed by either resubmitting to the provider, or pursing the patient for the balance, is a factor in assessing profitability in the real world.

It's only "irrelevant" to the point if you are, well, a "propagandist" yourself.

Saying "silly" and "propaganda" over and over is, at best, "evidence" only of an odd variant of Tourette's.
Since you refuse to support *your* claims with any other evidence, for my part this discussion is ended.

I mean, the notion that abortion doctors could suffer moral distress about what they do is ludicrous:

http://www.fnsa.org/apaw/
[Don't bother: it's heavily-footnoted pro-life propaganda]
Dale Price | Homepage | 02.01.03 - 11:27 am | #