I am sure those figures are correct. It is also correct that in all these cases the Church would deny women the right to have an abortion, whether they agreed with the church or not.Baby might have health problem: 3%
Mother’s health: 4%
Incest or rape 0.5%
Source - Lawrence Finer, et. al, ‘Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives’ Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) page 110
What about the others?There is no such thing as a life saving abortion. All abortions murder an unborn child. Also, just about every medical condition in which a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother can be treated without brutally butchering and murdering the unborn baby.
I think the 13.1% number is greatly inflated. Recently in the UK Lord Hansard asked to be provided statistics about how many abortions were performed in England and Wales since 1967, and specifically how many were performed to save the life or prevent immediate permanent injury to the mother.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?
I think the 13.1% number is greatly inflated. Recently in the UK Lord Hansard asked to be provided statistics about how many abortions were performed in England and Wales since 1967, and specifically how many were performed to save the life or prevent immediate permanent injury to the mother.
Here are the stats:
6.4 million abortions performed.
143 performed to immediately save the life of the mom or to prevent immediate permanent injury.
That would be .006%
I find that to be a shocking statistic.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120719w0001.htm#12071972000444
This is their language “The infant will not survive long after this”. A mother may have a procedure done to save her life/they can deliver the baby to save mom’s life, even if the infant will die as a side effect. What they cannot do is actually abort the baby by killing him/her directly.Your link does not say this (the bit in red). Can you find anywhere that the Church does say this?
Again: does the Church teach this?This is their language “The infant will not survive long after this”. A mother may have a procedure done to save her life/they can deliver the baby to save mom’s life, even if the infant will die as a side effect. What they cannot do is actually abort the baby by killing him/her directly.
Why. You are as opposed to the 143 as to the others are you not?I think the 13.1% number is greatly inflated. Recently in the UK Lord Hansard asked to be provided statistics about how many abortions were performed in England and Wales since 1967, and specifically how many were performed to save the life or prevent immediate permanent injury to the mother.
Here are the stats:
6.4 million abortions performed.
143 performed to immediately save the life of the mom or to prevent immediate permanent injury.
That would be .006%
I find that to be a shocking statistic.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120719w0001.htm#12071972000444
Yes, please read the link in entirety. That is language from the link.Again: does the Church teach this?
I find it shocking because the rationale for abortions pre- Roe v. Wade was to protect the lives of mothers.Why. You are as opposed to the 143 as to the others are you not?
Through its teaching of the principle of double effect, yes.Again: does the Church teach this?
There are cases in the medical literature of abdominal ectopic pregnancies that have survived and yet abortions are done for ectopic pregnancyWhat about the others?
Kansas only allowed “late term” abortions if the mother’s health was in danger. Ever single woman that came in for a late term abortion was granted one due to her health being in danger. But then it was also found that being pregnant was a health issue.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?
Most of the “medical” reasons fall into to two classifications. The first being an abortion is medically necessary for the “health” of the mother. In Kansas late term abortions were allowed if necessary to protect the health of the mother. Not one woman seeking a late term abortion was denied - the mere act of being pregnant was a health concern. I’m sure some states have reimbursement programs for Planned Parenthood for all the “medically needed” abortions they perform. The second is the baby is possibly “defective” and is killed in the womb.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?
hokomia, you seem to assume the worst. The catholic church allows life saving abortions, the op is simply asking for reason why the number of saving abortions seem high about 13%, i believe a little foul play is probably happening somewhere.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?
An operation to save the life the mother that also results in the death of the fetus has always been acceptable to the Church. (Google “double effect” and read all about it.) What circumstance do you envision in which killing a fetus saves a mother’s life?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?
You have to be more careful about your words. In common everyday language, “an abortion”’ refers to what doctors call “induced abortion” and the Church calls “direct abortion.”hokomia, you seem to assume the worst. The catholic church allows life saving abortions, the op is simply asking for reason why the number of saving abortions seem high about 13%, i believe a little foul play is probably happening somewhere.
Peace