Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[estesbob]

In what way are my statistics wrong? The numbers are what they are. Do you have access to other studies whose results differed? I would be glad to take a look at them.
.

Actually every so called statisitc you have posted has been refuted-from your contetion that thousands of women died in back valley abortions, to your contetion that abortion did not increase after Roe was imposed, to you assertion that children dont get adequate sex education, etc, etc, etc. You even deny Roe was based on a lie-even though Roe claimed she was pregnant because she was raped-which was not true… Even Roe has come to see the evil she was suckered into to. Too bad you cant.

You have cast your lot with the forces of evil. Nothing we can say will change your mind. 16,000 children have died since this thread began-we mourn those children-you rationlize that their deaths were necessay.

 

[KarenNC]

Actually every so called statisitc you have posted has been refuted-

Have we been reading the same posts?

from your contetion that thousands of women died in back valley abortions

I posted the statistics that listed the number of women who have died from abortion-related causes, which is based on reports from health-care providers in various states. If you contend that their numbers are incorrect, I suggest you take it up with them or provide other reputable studies which refute them.

to your contetion that abortion did not increase after Roe was imposed

Please quote the post in which you claim I said this. I have not, to my knowledge, ever said such. Now the CDC report I referenced cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf did indeed say that the ratio and rate are both less than they were at their peak in the early 1980’s.

"The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from
196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas
reported) to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable
through 1981 (Figure 1, Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364
per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally
steady decline. In 2003, the abortion ratio was 241 per
1,000 in 49 reporting areas and 243 for the same 47 reporting
areas for which data were available since 1998 (Table 2).

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14
per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000
in 1980. The rate remained stable at 23–24 per 1,000 during
the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20–21 per 1,000 during
1994–1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per
1,000 during 1998–1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000–
2002, both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. In
2003, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per
1,000 and decreased to 15 per 1,000 in the 47 reporting areas."

to you assertion that children dont get adequate sex education

If their education does not include the information that no method of birth control practiced by sexually active people is 100% effective or that there are emotional and psychological consequences of sexual activity regardless of whether one gets pregnant, then I certainly do say that they have not received an adequate sex education.

** etc, etc, etc.**

Afraid you’ll have to provide a bit more specific information than that. Please post the specific statistics and quotes from me in this thread that you contend are incorrect and we can address them individually.

**You even deny Roe was based on a lie-even though Roe claimed she was pregnant because she was raped-which was not true… **

I have never denied that Roe says she lied when she claimed she was raped. She would be the only one who knew about that.

I did say, in response to the second post on this thread, “That she did not realize in the beginning that there were others who would later abuse the right does not mean that it made it untrue that desperate and needy women would be better served with access to legal and relatively safe abortions compared to the backstreet septic illegal ones they were already pursuing, with a very high rate of maternal mortality and complications.” I consider not dying to be worth calling “better served.”

we mourn those children-you rationlize that their deaths were necessay

Please show the post in which I have said that I consider every abortion performed in this country as necessary or even desirable. I thought I had been at fairly great pains to say just the opposite.

 

[maryj]

**Your statistics are wrong. You can stand and quote as many organizations as you wish, you are dead wrong and so are all of your statistics on this matter. **

In what way are my statistics wrong? The numbers are what they are. Do you have access to other studies whose results differed? I would be glad to take a look at them.

Abortion is murder. There is a type of sin that is mortal, it kills your soul. It matters not if “mankind” thinks differently. God has told us so. So whether an abortion be legal or illegal, in the eyes of God, it injures and kills all souls. The souls of the earthly poor AND the souls of the earthly rich. Legal abortions are not saving anyones lives, they kill the soul. Let us not differentiate between the two, they are one in the same. Choose life.

Sorry, none of the statistics addressed soul nor did they pretend to do so. They deal with the material, that which is measurable. As I have said, I did not come with the intent to change the Catholic Church’s position on whether abortion is a sin, mortal or otherwise. When asked (or when blatantly misrepresented), I have given my personal views on specific points. That those are not perfectly aligned with those of the Catholic Church is hardly surprising. All I have asked is that if one is going to base one’s argument on specific facts, it would help that those facts be as accurate as possible.

Material will not be measured on judgement day. To be aligned with the Catholic church is to be aligned with God, they are one in the same. My “argument” is based on the facts. Legal and illegal abortion kills the soul, this is not a personal view it is the view of God. To seperate the legal from moral issues of abortions is like trying to seperate the body from the soul. Do that and what do you get…death. Choose life.

 

[Zooey]

The problem is she is comparing older children taken away from their parents and place in foster care to new born Children. There is a problem placing the former-their is a long waiting list for the latter.
As far as being civil I will to the best of my ability BUT I believe there is no difference between those who support their views on Abortion based on Planned Parenthood and those who support their view on Jews based on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

I totally agree!! If we were to follow the position Karen propses to its logical conclusion, we would have to also argue, that Hitler was “mistaken”, rather than evil, and that killing Jews is just fine & dandy, as long as you catch them before they breathe outside the womb.

Actually every so called statisitc you have posted has been refuted-from your contetion that thousands of women died in back valley abortions, to your contetion that abortion did not increase after Roe was imposed, to you assertion that children dont get adequate sex education, etc, etc, etc. You even deny Roe was based on a lie-even though Roe claimed she was pregnant because she was raped-which was not true… Even Roe has come to see the evil she was suckered into to. Too bad you cant.
You have cast your lot with the forces of evil. Nothing we can say will change your mind. 16,000 children have died since this thread began-we mourn those children-you rationlize that their deaths were necessay.

Thank you!! This is precisely where we need to lay the emphasis: on the victims. Not on invented statistics from PP.
Bless you for being there for women who are truly in need of help, in order to escape the clutches of the pro-aborts.

 

[KarenNC]

I totally agree!! If we were to follow the position Karen propses to its logical conclusion, we would have to also argue, that Hitler was “mistaken”, rather than evil, and that killing Jews is just fine & dandy, as long as you catch them before they breathe outside the womb.

Wow, not sure how you get from—

1. there are unfortunately cases in which it is necessary to end a pregnancy before the child is viable in order to save the mother. While this is never something to be hoped for, it is sometimes a question of trying to save at least one of the lives involved. Abortion is one of tools that may need to be used to do so as safely as possible and a blanket ban on abortion that does not acknowledge this will be detrimental to the ability of physicians to care for their patients as well as possible. We have seen this to be the case with marijuana, where a blanket ban on it prevents its appropriate supervised use in terms of medical treatment as well as the growing of hemp (which is not hallucenogenic) for industrial uses such as rope, clothing, etc.

The reality, as proven throughout history, is that there are going to be some women who will, when faced with unwanted pregnancy, choose an abortion, whether there is a safe, legal way to do so or not. That there are more deaths of women associated with illegal abortions than with legal ones, particularly when there is not adequate access to health care (as is the case with poor people even in this country), is a known fact. Abortion is certainly abused in this country and, as unwanted pregnancy is the root issue, I believe that working to help people reduce unwanted pregnancy, including through education and availability of birth control that is as safe and effective as possible, is the best means of reducing abortions, as this is the more moral option in my view.

—to—

2)Hitler’s killing the Jews as an act of genocide to achieve racial purity was “fine and dandy.”

**Thank you!! This is precisely where we need to lay the emphasis: on the victims. Not on invented statistics from PP.
**

Sorry, guys, the statistics from the CDC are not “invented statistics from PP.” If you are going to argue effectively against the abuse of abortion, you need to do so in a cogent fashion that recognizes and includes the reality of abortion worldwide and in this country rather than your stereotyped vision of it. Honestly, doing such can only strengthen your position and your arguments.

 

[Philothea53]

You have absolutely every right to be here, but I have to wonder: In your 'public profile you state your religion is “Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist.” Why are you here? Are you trying to understand Catholicism or ???

 

[estesbob]

1. there are unfortunately cases in which it is necessary to end a pregnancy before the child is viable in order to save the mother. While this is never something to be hoped for, it is sometimes a question of trying to save at least one of the lives involved. Abortion is one of tools that may need to be used to do so as safely as possible and a blanket ban on abortion that does not acknowledge this will be detrimental to the ability of physicians to care for their patients as well as possible. We have seen this to be the case with marijuana, where a blanket ban on it prevents its appropriate supervised use in terms of medical treatment as well as the growing of hemp (which is not hallucenogenic) for industrial uses such as rope, clothing, etc.

Other than dierct threat to the life of the mother where else do you support a mother killing her unborn child

The reality, as proven throughout history, is that there are going to be some women who will, when faced with unwanted pregnancy, choose an abortion, whether there is a safe, legal way to do so or not. That there are more deaths of women associated with illegal abortions than with legal ones, particularly when there is not adequate access to health care (as is the case with poor people even in this country), is a known fact. Abortion is certainly abused in this country and, as unwanted pregnancy is the root issue, I believe that working to help people reduce unwanted pregnancy, including through education and availability of birth control that is as safe and effective as possible, is the best means of reducing abortions, as this is the more moral option in my view.

It is not an either or option. We can make abortion liiegal and continue to educate them about the value of life and that Contraception is immoral, unhealthy and does not gurantee one will not get pregnant.Our children need to do ther is no such thing as a safe sex and that their is absolutely no upside to premarital sex.

If one took youtr theory to its logical concludion we would provide our children with low tar and nicotine cigarettes unitl the time we were able to educate them that smoking is harmful.

Sorry, guys, the statistics from the CDC are not “invented statistics from PP.” If you are going to argue effectively against the abuse of abortion, you need to do so in a cogent fashion that recognizes and includes the reality of abortion worldwide and in this country rather than your stereotyped vision of it. Honestly, doing such can only strengthen your position and your arguments.

The CDC statisitics proved our point-that leaglizing abortion cause a fourfold increase in the number of annual abortion in this country and that making it illegal will not endanger womens lives.

 

[Philothea53]

A look at some of the context for quotes often attributed to Margaret Sanger

plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-founder.htm

Context does matter.

You really should find others sources for research about Margaret Sanger to get the broader picture of the eugenics she advocated for. She is not the savior that PP makes her out to be.

 

[East_and_West]

In some instances, yes.

Disgusting!

 

[KarenNC]

Other than dierct threat to the life of the mother where else do you support a mother killing her unborn child

I don’t advocate it other than in that instance.

It is not an either or option. We can make abortion liiegal and continue to educate them about the value of life and that Contraception is immoral, unhealthy and does not gurantee one will not get pregnant.Our children need to do ther is no such thing as a safe sex and that their is absolutely no upside to premarital sex.

Oh, I never said that I believed contraception is immoral or necessarily unhealthy. In some instances (mine, for example) it is much healthier to practice contraception than to risk being pregnant, which is why my husband has had a vasectomy. I would instead say that there is no absolutely safe sex, but there is safer sex. I couldn’t say without lying that “there is absolutely no upside to premarital sex” but I could say that the pleasures do not outweigh the potential costs for sexual activity outside a committed monogamous relationship.

The CDC statisitics proved our point-that leaglizing abortion cause a fourfold increase in the number of annual abortion in this country and that making it illegal will not endanger womens lives.

I agree that it shows that legalized abortion increased the number of annual abortions in this country. Which part specifically shows that making it illegal again will not endanger women’s lives?

 

[estesbob]

I agree that it shows that legalized abortion increased the number of annual abortions in this country. Which part specifically shows that making it illegal again will not endanger women’s lives?

The number of deaths from abortions was averaged less than 200 a year in the decades before Roe became law. They reamin about the same.Abortions have not been a serious threat to womens lives since the advent of antibiotics.

 

[KarenNC]

You have absolutely every right to be here, but I have to wonder: In your 'public profile you state your religion is “Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist.” Why are you here? Are you trying to understand Catholicism or ???

As you can see from my profile and post history, I have been hanging out on the Non Catholic religions board for about 6 months now. I originally came to CAF because of learning about an article published in “This Rock” entitled “Anti-Neopagan Apologetics.” The article was at best moderately ignorant of the reality of the Neopagan community. Someone I knew had done a point by point analysis of it, showing the realities rather than the stereotypes and misinformation that were being put forth in the article, and was posting it for discussion in the forum. Honestly, having accurate information will make your arguments stronger and more likely to be persuasive (or at least give them a shot at trying to be heard). Trying to convert a Neopagan based on things s/he doesn’t actually believe or do is pretty useless, regardless of how many of your co-religionists are utterly convinced that all Neopagans believe and do those things. Sort of like claims that Catholics worship statues and worship Mary. Hard to have a dialogue with someone who will not be convinced otherwise regardless of what you say.

After that, I have hung around to hopefully help dispel misunderstandings and misinformation in discussions about which I have some knowledge, either through personal experience or research. Having someone work to poke holes in one’s argument also helps with apologetics practice–for both sides. It shows up the weaknesses in one’s argument and helps to clarify one’s position and ability to articulate that position. I also find comparative theology fun (when both sides can be civil). After all, in comparative religion, which is more useful—to actually talk with someone who practices and believes the other religion or to sit around with one’s co-religionists reinforcing your group’s stereotypes of what that other religion believes and does?

I happened on this thread accidentally, as I was scrolling down the list of forums (fora?) and saw the title. It caught my eye and I started reading. As I said early on, my intent has never been to try to persuade anyone to change their stance regarding the morality of abortion. I am not a Catholic (never have been) and don’t pretend to have a place in dictating your morals, as I don’t accept that the Catholic Church has a place in dictating mine. I was pointing out flaws in reasoning and lack of accurate data to support arguments.

I had not intended to get into my personal views on the subject here but confine myself to statistics (as I said early on), but my position kept getting misrepresented as worse and worse, so I caved. I suppose it is a weakness and a bit of vanity in wanting to be understood properly rather than stereotyped. Life is usually a lot more complex than stereotypes would suggest.

 

[estesbob]

I I was pointing out flaws in reasoning and lack of accurate data to support arguments.

You did ? Where?

I had not intended to get into my personal views on the subject here but confine myself to statistics (as I said early on), but my position kept getting misrepresented as worse and worse, so I caved. I suppose it is a weakness and a bit of vanity in wanting to be understood properly rather than stereotyped. Life is usually a lot more complex than stereotypes would suggest.

I dont thnik its that complicated at all-you rationalize killing children-we dont.

 

[KarenNC]

The number of deaths from abortions was averaged less than 200 a year in the decades before Roe became law. They reamin about the same.Abortions have not been a serious threat to womens lives since the advent of antibiotics.

Ah, I see. I thought you when you said,
“The CDC statisitics proved our point-that leaglizing abortion cause a fourfold increase in the number of annual abortion in this country and that making it illegal will not endanger womens lives” that you meant that that information was actually within the CDC report, and that I had missed it.

The CDC report covers primarily information from 2003 with some info for the years from 1969 (when they began reporting abortion related info) to the present, so I would be surprised to see it address the number of abortion deaths in the “decades before Roe became law” (1973).

What it does say:

“By using data from the National Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance
System, CDC identified 19 maternal deaths for 2001
and 21 maternal deaths for 2002 that were thought to be
potentially related to abortion. These maternal deaths were
identified either by some indication of abortion on the death
certificate or from information such as a news report associated
with the death. Investigation of the 2001 cases revealed
that six of the 19 deaths were related to legal induced abortion
and one to illegal induced abortion (Table 19). Seven
deaths were attributable to spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage
or stillbirth), and four deaths were determined not to
be abortion related. The pregnancy outcome for one case could
not be determined from available data. Investigation of the
2002 cases revealed that nine of the 21 deaths were related to
legal induced abortion. No deaths attributable to illegal induced
abortion were identified (Table 19). Five deaths were
attributable to spontaneous abortion, and seven deaths were
6 MMWR November 24, 2006 determined not to be abortion related. Numbers of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion were highest before the 1980s, with few deaths occurring during 2001–2002. Possible abortion-related deaths that occurred during 2003–2005 are being investigated.”

So, for 2001, it was 7 (possibly 8) deaths and for 2002, it was 9. This is not the same as 200. If there were 200 deaths per year in the decades before Roe v. Wade, then a reduction to less than 10 per year would seem like a very substantial and applaudable reduction.

 

[estesbob]

So, for 2001, it was 7 (possibly 8) deaths and for 2002, it was 9. This is not the same as 200. If there were 200 deaths per year in the decades before Roe v. Wade, then a reduction to less than 10 per year would seem like a very substantial and applaudable reduction.

You make my point. Making abortions illegal will not pose a credible (10 out of 1.2 miilon-my calculator doesnt have enogh decimal points to quintify that)risk to women. So claiming that we must keep abortion legal lest women risk death by going to back alleys to get an abortion is not credible either. And of course given the advances in medicine the last 40 years it is no suprise that maternal deaths have decreased/…

 

[KarenNC]

You make my point. Making abortions illegal will not pose a credible (10 out of 1.2 miilon-my calculator doesnt have enogh decimal points to quintify that)risk to women. So claiming that we must keep abortion legal lest women risk death by going to back alleys to get an abortion is not credible either. And of course given the advances in medicine the last 40 years it is no suprise that maternal deaths have decreased/…

No, the 10 is an approximate figure for legal abortion, which does not support your assertion that illegal abortion is therefore safe. That would be similar to saying that because we only have a few cases of polio per year in the US and those are usually related to the polio vaccine itself, it would not be a problem to stop allowing it, ignoring the fact that without the vaccine, there would be a very reasonable expectation of a resurgence of the polio epidemics that existed before the advent of the vaccine, costing thousands of lives and crippling more.

A better model to look at for comparative rates from legal to illegal would be the ones from Romania.
cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/ftp/pro-choice/romania.1992

 

[estesbob]

No, the 10 is an approximate figure for legal abortion, which does not support your assertion that illegal abortion is therefore safe. That would be similar to saying that because we only have a few cases of polio per year in the US and those are usually related to the polio vaccine itself, it would not be a problem to stop allowing it, ignoring the fact that without the vaccine, there would be a very reasonable expectation of a resurgence of the polio epidemics that existed before the advent of the vaccine, costing thousands of lives and crippling more.

A better model to look at for comparative rates from legal to illegal would be the ones from Romania.
cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/ftp/pro-choice/romania.1992

LOL-you want to ,look at Romania??? You want to compare the Romanian medical system to the US? This is the most absurd thing I have run across in this thread yet.

Why would we look at Romania???. We KNOW that **40 YEARS **ago illegal abortions in the US accounted for less than 200 maternal deaths a year.Do you really think that , given the advances in medicine in the last 40 years, that these numbers would increase(as you absurd comparison to Romania would lead us to believe). .

The argument that we must keep abortion legal to keep legions of woemn from dying in back alley abortion has no basis whatsoever…

The mental matrubation necessary to juslty the slaughter of 1.2 million chidren a year is a terrible thing to behold.

 

[KarenNC]

LOL-you want to ,look at Romania??? You want to compare the Romanian medical system to the US? This is the most absurd thing I have run across in this thread yet.

Why would we look at Romania???. We KNOW that **40 YEARS **ago illegal abortions in the US accounted for less than 200 maternal deaths a year.Do you really think that , given the advances in medicine in the last 40 years, that these numbers would increase(as you absurd comparison to Romania would lead us to believe). .

The argument that we must keep abortion legal to keep legions of woemn from dying in back alley abortion has no basis whatsoever…

The mental matrubation necessary to juslty the slaughter of 1.2 million chidren a year is a terrible thing to behold.

As you consistently refuse to actually discuss anything remotely connected with what I am saying, I will leave you to continue the debate with whomever you are actually addressing.

 

[estesbob]

As you consistently refuse to actually discuss anything remotely connected with what I am saying, I will leave you to continue the debate with whomever you are actually addressing.

I must have been addressing you as you are the only one who claimed we should judge the estimated maternal deaths from abortion being made illegal based on Romania.

I have shown you the CDC statisircs both in the years immediately before and immediately after Roe was imposed. There was no increase in Maternal deaths while abortion , by even your own admission, increased fourfold. You countered that by saying we should look to Romania!

 

[KarenNC]

I have shown you the CDC statisircs both in the years immediately before and immediately after Roe was imposed. There was no increase in Maternal deaths while abortion , by even your own admission, increased fourfold.

I am probably an idiot for trying to make myself understood one more time, but here goes.

You are right. They decreased after abortion was made legal even with the increase in the overall number of abortions. This means that the procedures were safer for women. Why in the world would you expect an increase? I certainly have never suggested there was one.

The CDC does not seem to agree with you that there was no change attributable to legalizing abortion.
iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
“The legalization of induced abortion beginning in the 1960s contributed to an 89% decline in deaths from septic illegal abortions (15) during 1950-1973.”

The footnote (15) is to “National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United States, 1973. Vol II, mortality, part A. Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977.”