Abortion bans lead to higher sterilization rates

[Calm]

Just came across this.

I know there are some here who approve of strong limitations on abortion, even very strong (I believe Catholic doctrine allows it as a side effect of treatment, but not the primary goal…for example if a woman is pregnant, but has to have a hysterectomy due to cancer…that’s allowed, correct?).

Do you see more sterilizations as a good result of bans, an acceptable unintended consequence, or a backfire?  Or something else?

If you could influence government policy, what would you see as best result for that policy?

If that’s too political (I believe most see this as a moral issue, whether pro choice or prolife), then focus on cultural changes you would see as helpful.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2823625

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39761461/

https://publichealth.gwu.edu/study-reveals-rising-interest-permanent-contraception-after-roe-v-wade-was-overturned

https://publichealthwatch.org/newsletter/the-watch-more-women-sought-sterilization-after-fall-of-roe-v-wade/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/121103

Quote

More Women Opted for Sterilization After Roe Fell

— Rates doubled among women who had never given birth before

This is the most recent one, I believe.

I believe the strongest increases were in states that banned abortion, but need to doublecheck that.  (Can’t help reading AI summaries when I google.  It’s like having to read anything written on bathroom stalls or every last billboard on a road.  Drives me crazy sometimes.)

Edited 21 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just came across this.

I know there are some here who approve of strong limitations on abortion, even very strong (I believe Catholic doctrine allows it as a side effect of treatment, but not the primary goal…for example if a woman is pregnant, but has to have a hysterectomy due to cancer…that’s allowed, correct?).

Do you see more sterilizations as a good result of bans, an acceptable unintended consequence, or a backfire?  Or something else?

If you could influence government policy, what would you see as best result for that policy?

If that’s too political (I believe most see this as a moral issue, whether pro choice or prolife), then focus on cultural changes you would see as helpful.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2823625

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39761461/

https://publichealth.gwu.edu/study-reveals-rising-interest-permanent-contraception-after-roe-v-wade-was-overturned

https://publichealthwatch.org/newsletter/the-watch-more-women-sought-sterilization-after-fall-of-roe-v-wade/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/121103

This is the most recent one, I believe.

I believe the strongest increases were in states that banned abortion, but need to doublecheck that.  (Can’t help reading AI summaries when I google.  It’s like having to read anything written on bathroom stalls or every last billboard on a road.  Drives me crazy sometimes.)

I am not stridently opposed to abortion because my views align with the church, which allows it under certain circumstances.  But I would say that in terms of someone's use of agency, I would rather they choose to sterilize themselves than choose elective abortions.  Except in cases of rape, cohersion, or incest, women are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter and I don't believe the government or the voters can remove any of that responsibility from them.  

(I'm heart goes out to women who do end up pregnant in horrible conditions or circumstances.  I believe in God's mercy and I'm glad I don't have to judge anyone because I would be horrible at it)

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Just came across this.

I know there are some here who approve of strong limitations on abortion, even very strong (I believe Catholic doctrine allows it as a side effect of treatment, but not the primary goal…for example if a woman is pregnant, but has to have a hysterectomy due to cancer…that’s allowed, correct?).

Do you see more sterilizations as a good result of bans, an acceptable unintended consequence, or a backfire?  Or something else?

If you could influence government policy, what would you see as best result for that policy?

If that’s too political (I believe most see this as a moral issue, whether pro choice or prolife), then focus on cultural changes you would see as helpful.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2823625

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39761461/

https://publichealth.gwu.edu/study-reveals-rising-interest-permanent-contraception-after-roe-v-wade-was-overturned

https://publichealthwatch.org/newsletter/the-watch-more-women-sought-sterilization-after-fall-of-roe-v-wade/

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/121103

This is the most recent one, I believe.

I believe the strongest increases were in states that banned abortion, but need to doublecheck that.  (Can’t help reading AI summaries when I google.  It’s like having to read anything written on bathroom stalls or every last billboard on a road.  Drives me crazy sometimes.)

Hi calm.

I don't know about your first question.

The principle is that one always favors life both with regards to procreation and abortion. Catholics who understand these things (most of our bishops) that come up in our modern scientific world are always in favor of that which is healthy. This comes from the belief that everything that God created is good. First chapters of Genesis. If its good and works, leave it alone. The Church doesn't agree with anything that would "frustrate" good health. That means that we can't oppose nature. Nature is good. We are against abortion or sterilization unless it is the only option that allows for the most life. There are natural ways to limit pregnancies for many good reasons. We can't oppose nature. But we can use nature.     

But here is the problem. Unlike many Christians and virtually all non-Christians, Catholics believe that an immortal soul is supernaturally created simultaneously with natural human conception. So how can we approve of the destruction of a person with an immortal soul? Only be dehumanization. And I approve of that intellectual process! I don't believe that pro-choice folks believe in murder, praise God. There is no getting around it as a Catholic. But we would be wrong to think that secular folks who don't believe in immortal souls are guilty of murder. That makes it easier to love them. None of us are promoting murder.

So we aren't in favor of sterilization either. But we are "stuck", if you will, with our theology, while loving it, and seeing it as good. We cannot approve of the destruction of healthy organisms (sterilization). Nor can we approve of any abortions that would medically result in certain anticipated deaths, unless we are saving one (the mother or child), for the sake of the other. If two are going to die without medical intervention, and one can live with medical intervention, then intervention is the good and moral choice.  

Edited 19 hours ago by 3DOP
getting rid of a double nagative

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

. So how can we approve of the destruction of a person with an immortal soul?

What happens to the soul when an abortion or miscarriage occurs?  Is it the same thing if a baby dies shortly after birth?

If so, how do Catholics visual the soul (this applies to other nonLDS as well)?

LDS are taught the human spirit looks like a physical human body (generally with no imperfections, though what that actually means is undefined).  We aren’t precise about what age the spirit is.  With our spirits living eternally before mortal birth, we have the awkward version of an adult spirit fitting into an infant’s body…exactly how would that work?  Shrink in size or be able to fold over and over like a large piece of paper being folded to fit into a small pocket?  Or it simply morphs to look like the physical body it’s hooked up to.  No teachings there as far as I am aware, but the last one makes the most sense to me…which means it might be possible to alter the way we look eternally at will if the spirit controls the body and the spirit can be morphed.

[3DOP]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

What happens to the soul when an abortion or miscarriage occurs?  Is it the same thing if a baby dies shortly after birth?

If so, how do Catholics visual the soul (this applies to other nonLDS as well)?

LDS are taught the human spirit looks like a physical human body (generally with no imperfections, though what that actually means is undefined).  We aren’t precise about what age the spirit is.  With our spirits living eternally before mortal birth, we have the awkward version of an adult spirit fitting into an infant’s body…exactly how would that work?  Shrink in size or be able to fold over and over like a large piece of paper being folded to fit into a small pocket?  Or it simply morphs to look like the physical body it’s hooked up to.  No teachings there as far as I am aware, but the last one makes the most sense to me…which means it might be possible to alter the way we look eternally at will if the spirit controls the body and the spirit can be morphed.

Hi again, Cal.

It is undefined, but I believe in love. God isn't going to punish a baby, or a fetus, made in His image. One of my daughters has only four lovable children that have been born. She laments her many miscarriages. Gabriel was big enough and old enough to have a name and to have been buried. My unborn grandson has a grave. No one can accuse me of denying the Catholic faith for believing that he beholds the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in heaven this very moment. I used to tend to believe that he would be in what we call Limbo of the Children. That might be also. Even that is a pretty great deal, if you will, for never even having the chance to sin. But I now tend to think that I will see him, and know him, and love him someday, unless I apostasize. Gabriel is okay. But according to our faith, that hope doesn't give anybody the right to cut our little ones short, who can't even make a choice, short of having a longer mortal life.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by 3DOP

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

. But according to our faith, that hope doesn't give anybody the right to cut our little ones short, who can't even make a choice, short of having a longer mortal life.

Same with LDS belief that everyone will be able to receive a perfect, eternal body, whether that means preborn bodies are enough or those who die anytime before birth get another chance in another body.   Our debate as far as I can tell is around time the spirit links up with the body permanently.  And since we have Jesus appearing as a spirit the night before he is born in scripture, that might happen at birth.

I think the more common view is it happens not long before or at quickening, but I haven’t studied it.  

For those not familiar with the LDS official position….

I don’t think we think of it as a right as much as a responsibility (freedom to choose vs be accountable for one’s choices and the consequences), but that may just be me interpreting what others have said through my own filter.  We haven’t in the past talked much of body autonomy, for example, but a lot about the responsibility of sexual reproduction and making responsible choices (which typically does not include safe sex if outside of marriage, so “responsible” for us likely means different from how it’s often used in discussions about sex).

We do not have an official doctrine on when the spirit enters the body, so it’s not used as a justification against abortion in LDS official policy.  My read on official policy is more the power of life is a magnificent gift from God, have respect for it.  Avoid abortion if at all possible, but we recognize there are justifiable reasons (primarily of health) where abortion may be the inspired choice for someone.  When growing up, that was typically limited to severe physical health issues in mother or child and rape and incest.  Now significant mental health is considered as well.  That might even include overwhelming stress from finances.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abortion?lang=eng

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Except in cases of rape, cohersion, or incest, women are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter and I don't believe the government or the voters can remove any of that responsibility from them.  

I'm curious for yours and other Latter-day Saints thoughts. Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be permissible to protect the life of a mother. Some woman have been told by their physicians that any future pregnancy is very likely to be life threatening. My mother was told this after five c-section deliveries and chose tubal ligation. Given that no form of birth control is 100%, if these woman choose to continue to have sex with their partners, should they be allowed abortions? Since they are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm curious for yours and other Latter-day Saints thoughts. Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be permissible to protect the life of a mother. Some woman have been told by their physicians that any future pregnancy is very likely to be life threatening. My mother was told this after five c-section deliveries and chose tubal ligation. Given that no form of birth control is 100%, if these woman choose to continue to have sex with their partners, should they be allowed abortions? Since they are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter?

Health of the mother can be an acceptable reason to get an abortion according to the teachings of the church. But to answer your question, that is something that would be between themselves and God. I very much refuse to attempt any form of judgement on specific women.

I have also had a tubal after being told not to have any more children.  If I got pregnant I would have the baby because of my beliefs about motherhood. 

[Tony uk]

My own thoughts on this, are as a Catholic, rather than because of being a Catholic. I believe all life to be blessed from conception to death.

I was raised with the belief, that abortion being allowed in certain cases, such as rape, incest and the life of mother being at risk. That is the verbal teaching I was given from childhood and through to adulthood, felt this to be appropriate. And in my own reasoning would fit in with, and run parallel with the Aquinas 'Just War Theory'. Before people start posting there is a difference, yes I know. My own argument on the matter, people can not say a complete no to abortion, and on the other hand say there are excuses for war.

If I have upset or offended anybody with my post. Apologies in advance.

[cherryTreez]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm curious for yours and other Latter-day Saints thoughts. Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be permissible to protect the life of a mother. Some woman have been told by their physicians that any future pregnancy is very likely to be life threatening. My mother was told this after five c-section deliveries and chose tubal ligation. Given that no form of birth control is 100%, if these woman choose to continue to have sex with their partners, should they be allowed abortions? Since they are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter?

2 forms of birth control at all times.  And no a baby shouldn't due because of its parents choices. 

 

[3DOP]

45 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

My own thoughts on this, are as a Catholic, rather than because of being a Catholic. I believe all life to be blessed from conception to death.

I was raised with the belief, that abortion being allowed in certain cases, such as rape, incest and the life of mother being at risk. That is the verbal teaching I was given from childhood and through to adulthood, felt this to be appropriate. And in my own reasoning would fit in with, and run parallel with the Aquinas 'Just War Theory'. Before people start posting there is a difference, yes I know. My own argument on the matter, people can not say a complete no to abortion, and on the other hand say there are excuses for war.

If I have upset or offended anybody with my post. Apologies in advance.

Thanks for being forthcoming Tony. Cal talked about "quickening". When Mom feels the baby move. That is why, if I correctly understand, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. You followed what you were taught, and St. Thomas agreed. Before the Council of Nicea, St Justin Martyr, who died for the name of Jesus, and who we Catholics honor to this day, had some views that 150 years later, after Nicea, would have been questioned. More than me, you have submitted to what you thought the Church taught you.  In my eyes, and I think in the eyes of God, you are a very good son of the Church.

[Tony uk]

15 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

That is why, if I correctly understand, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception.

Of the Catholics that have the benefit of being on this dialogue. I know I can rely on your technical thought, to my practical thoughts.

 However, unlike Aquinas, I lean towards the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as declared in the 19th century. 🫣😉

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

That is why, if I correctly understand, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception.

What was his reasoning?  I can’t see what that has to do with sin. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'm curious for yours and other Latter-day Saints thoughts. Latter-day Saints believe that abortion should be permissible to protect the life of a mother. Some woman have been told by their physicians that any future pregnancy is very likely to be life threatening. My mother was told this after five c-section deliveries and chose tubal ligation. Given that no form of birth control is 100%, if these woman choose to continue to have sex with their partners, should they be allowed abortions? Since they are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter?

I personally think it is a massive emotional burden for a child to learn their mother died because of them.  I was told I caused my mother’s back issues due to guiding the toboggan over a dip and felt guilty about that for way too long.  I have no doubt it affected my self image, I was less because I had foolishly harmed my mother.  I was no more than five or six at the time it happened.  No way could I have been guiding the toboggan in any meaningful manner.  I can’t believe my dad actually thought I was responsible and have no clue why he thought that would be funny.  Or maybe he felt guilty and humor was a way to soften his guilt.  

Compare that to finding out, most likely when you are quite young, your mother died for you.  I suspect it would be told as a sign that your mother loved you so much, but I have seen those types (someone sacrificed so much out of love) of messages backfire drastically too many times to believe that most kids would be comforted by that enough to counter the huge burden of guilt.  And the mother isn’t there to constantly reassure the child it isn’t their responsibility that she chose that way as she should be doing for anything else.  I personally don’t think sacrificing in a way that causes harm should be expressed as a sign of love for any child who is not yet emotionally mature enough to understand how love can turn a sacrifice into an opportunity, to be able to focus solely on the positive instead of getting fixated on how they harmed their parent or another.

Even if it’s not death, but significantly harming her health…yeah, don’t see that as a good thing.  It’s not a scar you can lay aside even when you get old enough to intellectually recognize you were not responsible.  My mother was also told not to have children.  I was her fourth pregnancy in four years and when she looked to miscarry, my dad and grandparents apparently went out to celebrate my death (I suspect they just went out for an previously arranged meal, but it got a new label) while my mother stayed home and prayed I would survive.  Obviously I did.  My mother loved to share with me that I was her miracle baby, how important I was to her.  I fixated on my dad and grandparents preferring me dead rather than alive because of what it did to Mom (her health was crap by the time of her fifth child).  I wonder how much that affected my relationship with my dad (he was autistic and didn’t make emotional connections well, especially with kids, but that’s not how I interpreted his behavior back then).  I have a hard time imagining I am that unusual in my reactions in hearing how my mother was permanently harmed by me.

I believe life is hard enough that knowledge isn’t a burden a child should carry.  If a mother has done what she could with sterilization or birth control—though I agree using another form if possible is wise, not all women can afford sterilization or tolerate birth control hormones (that’s me) or IUds (me) or spermicides (thankfully not me, but I know some)—I don’t think because she chose to continue to have physical intimacy with her husband, she should risk a pregnancy if told by doctors it will significantly harm her.  We now know the uterus can affect a woman’s health in ways beyond reproduction, so even a hysterectomy has costs.

https://news.asu.edu/20240528-health-and-medicine-asu-research-finds-link-between-removal-uterus-brain-function

I believe the spirit of an aborted baby is given another chance at life.  I think there are too many miscarriages and stillborns that died without any harm done to them for God not to have a great plan arranged for those billions of spirits.  Why would it be different for an aborted spirit who had no part in that choice?

I also believe earlier abortions are much better than later ones, I would hope if that was the choice, it is done quickly.  I don’t believe abortions should be done for convenience or health issues that are likely to be temporary and not a major cost.  I also believe birth control should be free for those below a certain level of income at least if there are abortion laws earlier than the third trimester and always free maternal health care, pre and post natal as well as extensive nutrition support for families with children.  It is self defeating to deprive children of minimal nutrition  as that just limits their ability to function as an adult and contribute to the community and instead increases health care and productivity costs..  

And a less healthy parent is going to not be able to care for their children as well, more likely adding childhood trauma, which has major health risks for adults…again a unnecessary burden on the community.  

The best way to prevent an abortion is to lower the need and desire to have one.

Edited 3 hours ago by Calm

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 I think there are too many miscarriages and stillborns that died without any harm done to them for God not to have a great plan arranged for those billions of spirits.  Why would it be different for an aborted spirit who had no part in that choice?

This is something that I never thought of previously. It certainly has given me something to consider in the future. Thank you for the inspiration Calm. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

This is something that I never thought of previously. It certainly has given me something to consider in the future. Thank you for the inspiration Calm. 

What a lovely way to start the day (yep, just ate breakfast, woke up an hourish ago, takes me forever to get moving).  Thank you.