"Life saving abortions" and statistics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr.Blank1.5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr.Blank1.5

Guest
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Well we had a family member that had to have an abortion to save her life. It does happen and it is not voluntary on the part of the mother in that case. Most abortions are done for economic reasons.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
So, Mr.Blank - let us say there is only one woman a year in the entire world who would die were she not to have a direct abortion. As a Catholic you would deny it to her, would you not? And let her die? What have numbers go to do with it from the Catholic point of view?
 
So, Mr.Blank - let us say there is only one woman a year in the entire world who would die were she not to have a direct abortion. As a Catholic you would deny it to her, would you not? And let her die? What have numbers go to do with it from the Catholic point of view?
Click to expand...
Irregardless of what my religious beliefs are, one cannot terminate the life of an innocent individual to save the life of another.

A doctor must do everything in their power to save both lives.

But I have a feeling this response won’t be good enough. Those for abortion see the unborn child as expendable instead of seeing the life of both the mother and child as equally worth saving.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’m sure there have been some where doctors felt it was medically necessary and wasn’t. However, there are also many where the mother would die if she carried the baby to term. For example, a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and has to decide whether to wait on chemo to deliver a healthy baby and likely die because the cancer will progress or to abort and seek treatment. Either way, a life is lost. Another might be a woman with a heart condition is finding that the pregnancy is putting severe strain on her heart.

Overall, I would like abortion illegal, but I don’t think it would be wrong to allow doctors to discern “medically necessary” abortions. I could be wrong, but hasn’t that always been legal, even before anyone could get an abortion?
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
Irregardless of what my religious beliefs are, one cannot terminate the life of an innocent individual to save the life of another.

A doctor must do everything in their power to save both lives.

But I have a feeling this response won’t be good enough. Those for abortion see the unborn child as expendable instead of seeing the life of both the mother and child as equally worth saving.
Click to expand...
You are in extreme grey area. Is the mother more expendable than the child?
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
Irregardless of what my religious beliefs are, one cannot terminate the life of an innocent individual to save the life of another.

A doctor must do everything in their power to save both lives.

But I have a feeling this response won’t be good enough. Those for abortion see the unborn child as expendable instead of seeing the life of both the mother and child as equally worth saving.
Click to expand...
Of course the doctors should try to save both. But if they can’t and the choice is between both the mother and child dying or just the child, then the doctor should make the choice that is open to life— even if that includes abortion.
 
Okay, so it gets into a technicality of procedure. The Church does not ban a Dr. from choosing to deliver a baby early (even if death would be certain).
  1. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother—s health or a child—s disability?
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother—s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother—s life. It is not a direct abortion.

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother—s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp
 
There are situations where both the mother and fetus will die if the fetus is not aborted. An example is the woman whose amniotic sac breaks prematurely and she develops a severe infection. It would be very hard to sit and watch both die when one can be saved. The fetus in this case is too premature to live outside the womb. Can someone explain the Catholic Church’s current teaching on this and why?
 
Genevieve_II said:
There are situations where both the mother and fetus will die if the fetus is not aborted. An example is the woman whose amniotic sac breaks prematurely and she develops a severe infection. It would be very hard to sit and watch both die when one can be saved. The fetus in this case is too premature to live outside the womb. Can someone explain the Catholic Church’s current teaching on this and why?
Click to expand...
Please see my post right above yours. 😉 Directly killing the baby in an abortion is wrong, but delivering a baby so premature it will die if medically necessary to the mother is not.
 
You are in extreme grey area. Is the mother more expendable than the child?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Would doing everything to save BOTH mean that the mother was more expendable than the child?
I’m sure there have been some where doctors felt it was medically necessary and wasn’t. However, there are also many where the mother would die if she carried the baby to term. For example, a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and has to decide whether to wait on chemo to deliver a healthy baby and likely die because the cancer will progress or to abort and seek treatment. Either way, a life is lost. Another might be a woman with a heart condition is finding that the pregnancy is putting severe strain on her heart.
Click to expand...
Overall, I would like abortion illegal, but I don’t think it would be wrong to allow doctors to discern “medically necessary” abortions. I could be wrong, but hasn’t that always been legal, even before anyone could get an abortion?
Click to expand...
From this, it almost seemed like you were advocating direct abortion. I am well aware of ectopic pregnancies and how they are not considered direct abortions.
Is delivering a baby so prematurely that it will certainly die acceptable by the Church? Isn’t that what the doctors at the Arizona hospital did and led to their excommunication?
 
So did 6 million direct abortions occur in the US in order to save the lives of mothers?

Certainly the Church wouldn’t be simply fine with 6 million women dying from pregnancy complications would it?

How can pro-lifers defend against abortion advocates who state that we want to deny women “life-saving” abortions?
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Can’t win that discussion.
You present 1000 arguments and they will give 1001 replies.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons (threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Aside from my obvious opposition to abortion, I do take issue with the statistics you found.
  1. What constitutes a threat to health?
2)WHO data indicates less than 1% of all abortions are done due to the threat of death of the mother so where do the other 12% plus represent?
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
In discussions about the legality of abortion, pro-choice advocates often claim that pro-life supporters would be fine with denying women “life-saving” abortions.

Almost 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone since 1970 according to the CDC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

**I’ve heard that around 13.1% of those abortions were done for medical reasons **(threats to maternal health?).

If this is true, does that mean that around 6 million abortions were done out of medical emergencies?
How many of these abortions were done out of actual emergencies and not because doctors assumed the worst?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
So did 6 million direct abortions occur in the US in order to save the lives of mothers?

Certainly the Church wouldn’t be simply fine with 6 million women dying from pregnancy complications would it?

How can pro-lifers defend against abortion advocates who state that we want to deny women “life-saving” abortions?
Click to expand...
You have made a huge jump from medical reasons to saving the life of the mother. :eek: In addition you are not using proven numbers, just what you “have heard.” :rolleyes:

I have a number of medical conditions that cause me to be very careful about getting pregnant. My conditions would qualify me, according to some medical personnel, to have an abortion for “medical reasons.” But the abortion wouldn’t be to “save the life of the mother.”
 
maryjk said:
You have made a huge jump from medical reasons to saving the life of the mother. :eek: In addition you are not using proven numbers, just what you “have heard.” :rolleyes:

I have a number of medical conditions that cause me to be very careful about getting pregnant. My conditions would qualify me, according to some medical personnel, to have an abortion for “medical reasons.” But the abortion wouldn’t be to “save the life of the mother.”
Click to expand...
This is the other side of the coin. When is a mother simply having a “high risk pregnancy” versus “in danger of dying”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top