If I am being anywhere close to honest, I have to admit that I use "confusion" disingenuously quite often to call people out in arguments or just in friendly sparring. Here, however, I am quite serious.
Recent statistics have been floating around about abortion rates -- apparently they are the lowest the US has seen since the time of Roe v. Wade. So of course all interested parties are asking why.
This little editorial summarizes the dominant theories quite succinctly. (I enjoy reading BioEdge, as it reports news with very little editorializing outside of the little editorials.) In general, pro-life people tend to attribute the difference to recent state-level legislation placing various restrictions on abortion -- strict requirements for doctors and facilities, mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, parental notification, and so forth. In general, those in favor of legalized abortion tend to attribute the difference to contraceptive practices. In general, each side believes that the other is wrong in its attribution.
(I haven't done the research. I don't know the actual causes.)
Here's the kicker though. When discussing the legislative restrictions on abortion, many of those in favor of legalized abortion claim that these restrictions will limit women's access to abortions. If women's access to abortions is restricted, then women won't be able to obtain abortions they should have, or will have to seek back-alley abortions.
I'm confused: is this a desire to keep from admitting any success to the other side, no matter how illogical it makes you seem; or is it a tacit acknowledgment that such arguments were wrong; or am I missing another explanation here?
I share your confusion on this. Childish unwillingness to admit success to the other team is the best explanation I can think of.
ReplyDelete