Coat Hanger Argument to Abortion

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

I’ve reflected on most every other angle of the issue, but the Coat Hanger angle is proving a little tricky to me right now. The Pro-Choice argument being that if abortions were illegal, women would seek abortions anyway, and particularly desperate women would go as far as using a coat hanger to get at the fetus, sometimes harming or killing themselves in the process. The argument then goes on to say that it is the state’s obligation to provide a safer, more available, regulated medical alternative to women for their own protection.

As a man, I am particularly nervous of this one, because I cannot deny that women will go the coat hanger route; ergo if I wanted to make abortion illegal, therefore I hate women, and do not want them to have a safe alternative, and prefer them to bleed to death. I know this is an angle of attack, I have seen it used.

Any thoughts on the issue?

 

[twofrog]

reminds me of government control thinking all cures are found in medication with being kept from the general public to control populastion control. leaving society with meds with at times sevear side effects times only an hour or so for people.

dont call me stupid science can obtain cloans in animals ect go to mars and so on we have cures im not stupid

 

[Fran65]

Using this reasoning, one could argue that as many people attempt or commit murder using knives or guns or other inefficient methods which can lead to pain, injury and distress, as a society we should provide access to lethal drugs at the correct dose in an easy to administer syringe. That would also go for suicide too. So many methods ‘fail’. Two wrongs…

I’m a woman. I can tell you that many women would not have an abortion if it were not available - especially those who are ‘forced’ by partners, husbands, family or society.

I don’t want women to bleed to death in agony and I certainly don’t hate my sisters, but I also don’t want babies murdered in their own mother’s wombs or for women to have the life long agony of having had an abortion.

There are so many couples desperate to adopt a baby I really don’t see why a woman should feel ‘landed’ with an ‘unwanted’ baby.

Its taken me a very long time and lots of thought and research to reach this conclusion, but the Church had it right all along!

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe we should make bank robbery safer by legalizing it, so that the poor bank robber won’t get shot by the guard and maybe bleed to death slowly and painfully in a back alley, too.

 

[yellowbicycle]

You will be happy to know that the droves of women which the Pro-Choice camp would have you believe would most certainly turn to desperate measures, is grossly exaggerated.

The founder of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, for the most part fabricated the numbers. He admitted as much.
I’ll see if I can find the link.
Also, in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, 39 women died from illegal abortions. That’s the number - 39. It’s from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, not a pro-life or pro-choice source. 21 women died from LEGAL abortions in 2006.

I’ll see if I can find all of those links again - I spent alot of time mulling over this very topic myself, too. What’s the use of banning abortions if the alternative is TWO people dying instead of one, right? This troubled me deeply. Then I looked at the numbers, and they just don’t bear this out.

Oh yeah, and the UN, certainly no friend to the pro-life movement, conducted a study internationally and found that legalizing abortion had NO impact on maternal mortality rates. That study was from 2005.
Again, I’ll see if I have time to find the link - but I think my babies are up, so it might be awhile…

 

[twofrog]

reminds me of this school started at the elemtary school down the road this month near the taxi station some people relate sorta piggy backing on religious peoples backs according to their works this is normally done because of greed at millions greeding towards a child or other some use the term taxi yet evil has one as well that the world can finally flag down their taxi i suggest the world keep the schools out of it

 

[Oscarthecat]

When people say this to me, I usually remind them that I want to save both lives, not sacrifice one for the other. People get hurt in the commission of crimes all the time- but that doesn’t mean we legalize a moral evil, it means that we do even more to prevent the occurrence of that moral evil.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve reflected on most every other angle of the issue, but the Coat Hanger angle is proving a little tricky to me right now. The Pro-Choice argument being that if abortions were illegal, women would seek abortions anyway, and particularly desperate women would go as far as using a coat hanger to get at the fetus, sometimes harming or killing themselves in the process. The argument then goes on to say that it is the state’s obligation to provide a safer, more available, regulated medical alternative to women for their own protection.

As a man, I am particularly nervous of this one, because I cannot deny that women will go the coat hanger route; ergo if I wanted to make abortion illegal, therefore I hate women, and do not want them to have a safe alternative, and prefer them to bleed to death. I know this is an angle of attack, I have seen it used.

Any thoughts on the issue?

Say that the reasons that caused the coat hanger abortions in the past aren’t present anymore: the shame of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, dire poverty for single mothers, etc. And that we can keep working to make it easier for them.

 

[thomfra]

I’ve reflected on most every other angle of the issue, but the Coat Hanger angle is proving a little tricky to me right now. The Pro-Choice argument being that if abortions were illegal, women would seek abortions anyway, and particularly desperate women would go as far as using a coat hanger to get at the fetus, sometimes harming or killing themselves in the process. The argument then goes on to say that it is the state’s obligation to provide a safer, more available, regulated medical alternative to women for their own protection.

As a man, I am particularly nervous of this one, because I cannot deny that women will go the coat hanger route; ergo if I wanted to make abortion illegal, therefore I hate women, and do not want them to have a safe alternative, and prefer them to bleed to death. I know this is an angle of attack, I have seen it used.

Any thoughts on the issue?

Well like it or lump it, this particular argument is based on fact, so I don’t think there is any hypothetical "well that’s like if I said… " which will counter it. This is what makes these issues difficult I suppose.

 

[buffalo]

Read what Dr Bernard Nathanson
CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

**
**

says - you will see the numbers were fabricated.%between%

 

[buffalo]

Former Abortion Provider:
Dr. Bernard Nathanson

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I’ve reflected on most every other angle of the issue, but the Coat Hanger angle is proving a little tricky to me right now. The Pro-Choice argument being that if abortions were illegal, women would seek abortions anyway, and particularly desperate women would go as far as using a coat hanger to get at the fetus, sometimes harming or killing themselves in the process. The argument then goes on to say that it is the state’s obligation to provide a safer, more available, regulated medical alternative to women for their own protection.

As a man, I am particularly nervous of this one, because I cannot deny that women will go the coat hanger route; ergo if I wanted to make abortion illegal, therefore I hate women, and do not want them to have a safe alternative, and prefer them to bleed to death. I know this is an angle of attack, I have seen it used.

Any thoughts on the issue?

Sure, the same as with any unsubstantiated assertion – ask the person making it to provide evidence.

Like this:

"Well like it or lump it, this particular argument is based on fact, …

"

”Wow, that’s really scary! Got any proof of such terrible occurrences ever actually happening?”

In reality, the “coat hanger abortion” claims originated with the abortion movement. Claiming it is a “clear & present danger” is only done through unverifiable stories that typically begin with “my friend knows someone….”

Since there has been little to no evidence of “coat hanger abortions” ever actually happening, it is incumbent on those claiming that it is a “terrible danger” to actually prove it. Morally corrupt ghost/horror stories may be emotionally compelling, but they don’t provide any rational evidence to support their premises.

Chris

 

[Scottgun]

especially those who are ‘forced’ by partners, husbands, family or society.

Yeah, people easily forget that it is rarely a between-her-and-her-doctor thing going on and that there is whole cast of contemptible characters in the background egging her on. Make those people face serious criminal charges and you will see cheerleading for abortion fizzle fast.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well like it or lump it, this particular argument is based on fact, so I don’t think there is any hypothetical "well that’s like if I said… " which will counter it. This is what makes these issues difficult I suppose.

The only reason that this seems to be a difficult issue is because of the way you are spinning it with the logical fallacy of misappropriating cause and effect.

Essentially, you are asserting as “fact” that if abortion were made illegal (CAUSE), then some women would attempt to get abortions in patently unsafe ways which can cause significant physical trauma and, in some cases, death (EFFECT).

Stated in this way, it would appear that the cause is that abortion is made illegal, and the deaths of some women who illegally procure unsafe abortions is the effect. But in reality, there are at two cycles of cause and effect in that scenario.

The first cause/effect is based on the fact that BIRTH, not abortion, is the natural end of pregnancy. Therefore, the only direct effect of a law prohibiting abortion is that more pregnancies would reach their natural end in birth.

The second cause/effect is based on the fact that illegal abortion is dangerous and might kill the mother. In this case, procuring an illegal abortion is the “cause,” and the subsequent harm to the mother is the “effect.”

Furthermore, the law itself is not compelling the woman to engage in an intrinsically evil act- quite the opposite.

So what it comes down to is that this argument weighs the moral justification of a law prohibiting an intrinsically evil act against the possibility that people might be injured or killed in the very act of breaking that law to engage in the intrinsically evil act it prohibited in the first place.

Very literally, it is the claim that two wrongs make a right.

 

[buffalo]

Sure, the same as with any unsubstantiated assertion – ask the person making it to provide evidence.

Like this:

In reality, the “coat hanger abortion” claims originated with the abortion movement. Claiming it is a “clear & present danger” is only done through unverifiable stories that typically begin with “my friend knows someone….”

Since there has been little to no evidence of “coat hanger abortions” ever actually happening, it is incumbent on those claiming that it is a “terrible danger” to actually prove it. Morally corrupt ghost/horror stories may be emotionally compelling, but they don’t provide any rational evidence to support their premises.

Chris

Dr Nathansen admits he made them up.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Well, I’ll be jiggered! This is gold, thank you, everyone! I am particularly tickled and pleased to learn that the ‘fact’ of women killing themselves trying to have abortions is fudged, cooked, and otherwise mythical.

I mean, even if it WERE a fact, and EVERY woman who got pregnant suddenly decided to go the coat hanger route, abortion would still be wrong, but it’s nice to know that this tragedy is mostly nonexistent.

 

[thomfra]

Very literally, it is the claim that two wrongs make a right.

Why do you think abortion was made legal?

 

[thomfra]

Well, I’ll be jiggered! This is gold, thank you, everyone! I am particularly tickled and pleased to learn that the ‘fact’ of women killing themselves trying to have abortions is fudged, cooked, and otherwise mythical.

I mean, even if it WERE a fact, and EVERY woman who got pregnant suddenly decided to go the coat hanger route, abortion would still be wrong, but it’s nice to know that this tragedy is mostly nonexistent.

“According to the World Health Organisation, unsafe abortions kill more than 66,000 women worldwide every year.”

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article3255912.ece

I don’t think this argument can be totally dismissed. I am not arguing whether it is “right” or “wrong”. But one needs to be realistic and accept facts should one engage in dialogue.

 

[mapleoak]

I’ve reflected on most every other angle of the issue, but the Coat Hanger angle is proving a little tricky to me right now. The Pro-Choice argument being that if abortions were illegal, women would seek abortions anyway, and particularly desperate women would go as far as using a coat hanger to get at the fetus, sometimes harming or killing themselves in the process. The argument then goes on to say that it is the state’s obligation to provide a safer, more available, regulated medical alternative to women for their own protection.

The “back alley” dope dealer performing abortions out of the tool box is really just a myth perpetuated by the pro-abortion camp as a fear tactic.

As a man, I am particularly nervous of this one, because I cannot deny that women will go the coat hanger route; ergo if I wanted to make abortion illegal, therefore I hate women, and do not want them to have a safe alternative, and prefer them to bleed to death. I know this is an angle of attack, I have seen it used.

Any thoughts on the issue?

The unborn child always dies, whether in a “safe” and sanitary environment or in the mythical “back alley” full of infection and death.

 

[thomfra]

The unborn child always dies, whether in a “safe” and sanitary environment or in the mythical “back alley” full of infection and death.

Well yes. An abortion by definition will have the same result. I guess the question people ask (and the OP asked) is whether it should result in physical damage to the woman as well. That’s what we are discussing.