Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[estesbob]

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.”

A statisitc that tells us nothing about how legalizing abortion impacted maternal deaths since all but ONE of the years in the study were BEFORE Roe was imposed. This is an absolutely meaningless statitic.

What we do know is that maternal deaths were not statisitically significant either before or after roe was imposed.We also know that there was never the carnage of the illegal back alley abortions that we are so often given as a reason for keeping killing our children legal.

 

[KarenNC]

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.

For the final time, I am not comparing Romanian health care to US health care. I point out Romania as it is an example showing maternal deaths from when abortions were legal to when they were then made illegal skyrocketed with no other changes in health care and after the advent of antibiotics. Here is what the report I referenced has to say:

"More instructive is what happens in a country when abortion is made illegal and access to safe abortion is taken away. Before 1966, Romanian women - like their neighbors in other Eastern European countries - had access to safe abortion through the country’s health care system. In 1966 Romanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu introduced pronatalist policies, outlawed abortion and contraception, and took measures to enforce the law. Mandatory pelvic examinations at places of employment were imposed on women of reproductive age. Informers for the security police were stationed in maternity hospitals. Doctors could be prosecuted for performing unauthorized abortions, and nurses were to make unannounced supervisory visits to new mothers to determine whether they were taking proper care of their infants.

 The consequences of this policy and its enforcement are presented in Figures 1 through 3, through data from the Romanian birth and death registration system and the nationwide, ongoing maternal mortality audit system. (World Health Organization site visits from 1991 to 1992 have found that these systems are comparable to those of Western Europe in terms of completeness of reporting and the reliability of data [2]. Romanian vital data systems and maternal mortality reports use ICD-9 CM definitions and diagnostic classifications.)  After a brief rise, the crude birth rate fell and continued to fall (Figure 1).  Thus the policy intended to increase the birth rate failed.

Before the 1966 law went in to effect, the Romanian maternal mortality rate was similar to those of other Eastern European countries.  Afterward, abortion-related maternal mortality increased to a level 10 times that of any other European country (Figures 2 and 3).  For the decade 1980 to 1989, the average Romanian maternal mortality rate was 150 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. [6] Many women obtained abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 otherwise healthy women of childbearing age died from postabortion hemorrhage, sepsis, abdominal trauma, and poisoning....

    After the December 1989 Romanian revolution, one of the provisional government's  first acts abrogated the 1966 law banning abortion and contraception.  This was done as an emergency public health measure to try to decrease maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion.  Since then, more and more induced abortions have been performed by qualified doctors in hospitals or clinics; the maternal mortality rate fell by 50% in the first year following the change in the law.  It continues to fall as more and more women avail themselves of safe abortion.  New admissions to children's institutions have decreased in spite of severe economic conditions. [9]"

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html
shows a graph of maternal deaths in Romania
Maternal deaths per 100,000 births

1965 (legal) 21 deaths due to abortion, 65 to other pregnancy related causes

1975 (illegal) 90 deaths due to abortion, 31 to other pregnancy related causes

1984 (illegal) 128 deaths due to abortion, 21 to other pregnancy related causes.

1989 (illegal) 142 deaths due to abortion, 28 to other pregnancy related causes

1990 (legal) 50 deaths due to abortion, 33 from other pregnancy related causes

These numbers remain true whether one believes abortion to be moral or immoral.

You continue to argue that modern health care makes the likelihood of maternal deaths due to illegal abortions irrelevant. You are ignoring the fact that by making abortion a crime, one effectively removes those women from the US health care system in terms of this procedure. Women with the wherewithal to travel will do so in search of a physician able to provide an abortion, or those with the money to induce a physician to contravene the law will do so. The poor will not have that option. History shows that they will seek others.

Understand that I do not like abortion any more than you do. It is always without fail a tragic choice. Argue that abortion is immoral, argue that it has long term negative effects on the woman but don’t argue that legal abortions are no physically safer for women than illegal ones. The numbers simply do not support that contention.

 

[KarenNC]

A statisitc that tells us nothing about how legalizing abortion impacted maternal deaths since all but ONE of the years in the study were BEFORE Roe was imposed. This is an absolutely meaningless statitic.

States gradually enacted legislation making abortion legal over a period of several years, beginning in 1967.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

“In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy on demand. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that “health” meant “psychological and physical well-being,” essentially allowing abortion on demand in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama allowed abortions in cases of the woman’s physical health. Thirty-one states still allowed abortion to protect the woman’s life only. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to states where it was legal.”

And
policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml

“1967 saw the first victory of an abortion reform movement with the passage of liberalizing legislation in Colorado. The legislation was based on the Model Penal Code. Between 1967 and 1973, approximately one-third of the states had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Code’s provisions allowing abortion in instances other than where only the mother’s life was in danger.”

 

[estesbob]

States gradually enacted legislation making abortion legal over a period of several years, beginning in 1967.

And the study started in 1952 . There is absoutley NO evidence that there would be a significant (if any) increase in maternal deaths if abortion were made illegal. There is no basis for claimng that abortion should reamin legal protect womens lives. You seem to recommending that we keep aboption legal on the off chance one of the 1.2 million women killing their child might be one of the dozen or so women who might die.

What we do know is that leaglizing abortion qudrupled the number of abortions. You want to base abortion policy on what you claim “might” happen. I think we should base it on what IS happening.

Btw-since we started this thread this morning nearly 4,000 children have been killed.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Btw-since we started this thread this morning nearly 4,000 children have been killed.

I pity anyone who does not get sick over that figure. There was an article in the paper yesterday written by someone who worked in an abortion clinic about how she was a virgin and longed to be pregnant just so she wouldn’t have to tell people she was a virgin. There was one part where she mectioned cleaning the vaccums that had been used in the abortion (the murder weapons) I thought about the vaccums in the dentist office and just about got sick. I didn’t pay attetion to most of the article, I just kept thinking “How can you condone murder let alone work there.” People like her make me glad I’m prolife. I don’t have innocent blood on my hands.

 

[estesbob]

I pity anyone who does not get sick over that figure. There was an article in the paper yesterday written by someone who worked in an abortion clinic about how she was a virgin and longed to be pregnant just so she wouldn’t have to tell people she was a virgin. There was one part where she mectioned cleaning the vaccums that had been used in the abortion (the murder weapons) I thought about the vaccums in the dentist office and just about got sick. I didn’t pay attetion to most of the article, I just kept thinking “How can you condone murder let alone work there.” People like her make me glad I’m prolife. I don’t have innocent blood on my hands.

One of the jobs of a nurse after an abortion is to reconstuct the child to make sure that nothing was left in the uterus. Can you imagine spending your day counting tiny limbs of a child just moments before ripped apart and sucked out of their Mothers womb.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

One of the jobs of a nurse after an abortion is to reconstuct the child to make sure that nothing was left in the uterus. Can you imagine spending your day counting tiny limbs of a child just moments before ripped apart and sucked out of their Mothers womb.

Oh lord. Now I’m glad I haven’t had breakfast yet. Now I know why there isn’t a an emotion for puking. It wouldn’t look good even as a cartoon.

 

[Apryl]

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, there are and always have been people engaging in activities for which they were not yet mature enough. Also, unfortunately, there are too many (particularly teens) who don’t have a realistic understanding of how sex works because they are getting their information from their friends or the media rather than competent sources. Misinformation about what exact practices can and cannot lead to conception, whether one can get pregnant the first time, how likely one is to get pregnant from sex (85% from unprotected sex), misinformation about what will prevent conception (a douche won’t do it, for instance), etc. There are also the ones who fool themselves into believing that if they don’t plan for sex (ie no birth control) and it happens it won’t be “their fault.”

But Karen… one of the things that is ‘giving’ misinformation is abortion! The attitude is that if someone ‘happens’ to get pregnant, and it’s ‘by accident’, just flush it, and forget it.

Crass, I don’t deny, but if you ask those that have had abortions, or that endorse abortions, many will tell you that abortion was there to ‘take care’ of the situation.

 

[Apryl]

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

Karen,

I am STAUNCHLY anti-abortion. I even don’t agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest (it doesn’t undo the rape or the incest, and the whole 'two headed baby thing… any one have ANY proof of that?)

However, once again, I commend you for your articulation and your stamina.

I don’t think ANY one came to your defense (of your arguments. I will defend your right to be spoken to with respect and compassion!)

However, you have done an excellent job imo of making your case.

I don’t agree with you. I don’t think that you have a leg to stand on, but you voiced it very very well.

Thank you for being open to discussion. I wish more who had opinions were so strongly supportive of their own opinions.

 

[KarenNC]

But Karen… one of the things that is ‘giving’ misinformation is abortion! The attitude is that if someone ‘happens’ to get pregnant, and it’s ‘by accident’, just flush it, and forget it.

Crass, I don’t deny, but if you ask those that have had abortions, or that endorse abortions, many will tell you that abortion was there to ‘take care’ of the situation.

Yes, to pretend that abortion is anything less than a tragic choice and one that has longterm consequences for all involved is indeed misinformation.

 

[KarenNC]

I don’t think ANY one came to your defense (of your arguments. I will defend your right to be spoken to with respect and compassion!)…I don’t agree with you. I don’t think that you have a leg to stand on, but you voiced it very very well.

Apryl,
As I stated several times, I never expected anyone to agree with my overall stance. That would a bit ridiculous in such a forum . I truly did not come to argue my stance.

What I hoped to accomplish was to get folks to think about their arguments and realize that those based on poor information make poor arguments. Make sure your argument is coherent and as accurate as possible. Question whether numbers thrown out (by either side) in any argument and the interpretations of those numbers are credible. Don’t accept it at face value. Ask for sources. Look it up for yourself if possible. Don’t let it be the weak link in your argument.

If there exists credible information that contradicts a part of your argument, admit it and adjust your arguments accordingly. This doesn’t mean you have to throw the whole thing out over one piece of misinformation. Anyone can make a mistake or have faulty information. It is how you handle those mistakes or respond to being shown that a certain piece of information is faulty that affect how others view your arguments. Know your sources, especially for arguments of fact rather than theology.

Take for example estesbob’s statement:
“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.”

This is a verifiable (or, as it turns out, unverifable) statement of fact. Either the number of deaths from abortions averaged the same before and after Roe or they did not. This has nothing at all to do with morality or immorality, religious teachings, etc. It is simply a matter of record.

So far as I can tell, there does not exist online a means to find out the number of deaths from abortion from the decades before Roe, the best I can find goes back less than multiple decades. He gives a source that I cannot readily verify, so I go to the part of the argument that I can. This does not mean his source is automatically wrong, just that I don’t have access to it.

From estesbob’s statement, one would expect that if one goes to the CDC statistics (which I can readily access), one would then find that, in recent years, deaths from abortions would be a bit less than 200 a year. Going to the CDC statistics shows that they are about a tenth of that, at least for 2002 and 2003 (later year’s numbers were not available). By making such a glaring misstatement (and then being unwilling to admit that it was in error when shown so), estesbob has damaged the credibility of any other statement of fact that he makes regarding the numbers of deaths from abortions.

There are many possible arguments that can be made against abortion. To persist in making one that legal abortions are no safer for the woman than illegal ones in terms of recorded maternal deaths or that more women do not die when aboriton is illegal than when it is legal when that cannot be supported by readily available evidence casts a shadow across every other argument one makes.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, to pretend that abortion is anything less than a tragic choice and one that has longterm consequences for all involved is indeed misinformation.

Even though we all agree its a tragic choice we gotta leave it legal becuase women need the right to kill the little buggers if they want to, right?

 

[DrPiano]

Apryl,
As I stated several times, I never expected anyone to agree with my overall stance. That would a bit ridiculous in such a forum . I truly did not come to argue my stance.

What I hoped to accomplish was to get folks to think about their arguments and realize that those based on poor information make poor arguments. Make sure your argument is coherent and as accurate as possible. Question whether numbers thrown out (by either side) in any argument and the interpretations of those numbers are credible. Don’t accept it at face value. Ask for sources. Look it up for yourself if possible. Don’t let it be the weak link in your argument.

If there exists credible information that contradicts a part of your argument, admit it and adjust your arguments accordingly. This doesn’t mean you have to throw the whole thing out over one piece of misinformation. Anyone can make a mistake or have faulty information. It is how you handle those mistakes or respond to being shown that a certain piece of information is faulty that affect how others view your arguments. Know your sources, especially for arguments of fact rather than theology.

Take for example estesbob’s statement:
“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.”

This is a verifiable (or, as it turns out, unverifable) statement of fact. Either the number of deaths from abortions averaged the same before and after Roe or they did not. This has nothing at all to do with morality or immorality, religious teachings, etc. It is simply a matter of record.

So far as I can tell, there does not exist online a means to find out the number of deaths from abortion from the decades before Roe, the best I can find goes back less than multiple decades. He gives a source that I cannot readily verify, so I go to the part of the argument that I can. This does not mean his source is automatically wrong, just that I don’t have access to it.

From estesbob’s statement, one would expect that if one goes to the CDC statistics (which I can readily access), one would then find that, in recent years, deaths from abortions would be a bit less than 200 a year. Going to the CDC statistics shows that they are about a tenth of that, at least for 2002 and 2003 (later year’s numbers were not available). By making such a glaring misstatement (and then being unwilling to admit that it was in error when shown so), estesbob has damaged the credibility of any other statement of fact that he makes regarding the numbers of deaths from abortions.

There are many possible arguments that can be made against abortion. To persist in making one that legal abortions are no safer for the woman than illegal ones in terms of recorded maternal deaths or that more women do not die when aboriton is illegal than when it is legal when that cannot be supported by readily available evidence casts a shadow across every other argument one makes.

Karen,

I just want to thank you for your overall goal of helping us to refine our arguments. I’m truly thankful for that (and for any other time I’m enabled to sharpen my apologetics about anything). I’m sorry that things here have gotten out of hand sometimes. Thanks again!

 

[estesbob]

Apryl,
From estesbob’s statement, one would expect that if one goes to the CDC statistics (which I can readily access), one would then find that, in recent years, deaths from abortions would be a bit less than 200 a year. Going to the CDC statistics shows that they are about a tenth of that, at least for 2002 and 2003 (later year’s numbers were not available). By making such a glaring misstatement (and then being unwilling to admit that it was in error when shown so), estesbob has damaged the credibility of any other statement of fact that he makes regarding the numbers of deaths from abortions.

.

So you believe that the difference between 10 deaths a year and 200 year is such a significant difference it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. The number are statistically insignificant regardless of whicht numbers you use. The one thing we do beyond a shadow of a doubt is maternal deaths did NOT decrease significanlty (if at all) in the immediate aftereffec of Roe beng imposed in the country.t . We agree , howver that abortions increase fourfold in the immediate after effect of Roe,** I guess your argument is that we should allow the killing of 1.2 million children a year on the unproven assumption that 190 more women a year will die otherwise.**

As far as trusting statistics you tried to prove maternal deaths decreased significantly after Roe by trumpeting a study that showed an 89% reduction in maternal deaths from 1950 to 1973. When confronted with the fact that 22 of the 23 yearsin thois study were BEFORE Roe was imposed you replied that some States has legalized abortion in 1965-the total believe was 6 out of 50 States and even then over 60% of the study was conducted PRIOR to abortion being legalized anywhere in the US.

Having been unable to make you case using US statics you tried to foist Romanian statistics on us as some indication of what would happen if abortion were made illegal again Well no one bought that either so now your latest tactic is to try and claim that the fact maternal deaths were now approx 10 a year that proved that somehow damaged my credibility.

I leave it to those in this thread to determine who has the most credibility on this topic.

2,000 children have died since this morning.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,

I just want to thank you for your overall goal of helping us to refine our arguments. I’m truly thankful for that (and for any other time I’m enabled to sharpen my apologetics about anything). I’m sorry that things here have gotten out of hand sometimes. Thanks again!

It works both ways, so I am not being entirely altruistic I get to clarify my position and sharpen my arguments (nothing like one with an opposing viewpoint working to poke holes to force one to tighten up) and theological debate is a lot more fun when it gets hard!

 

[estesbob]

It works both ways, so I am not being entirely altruistic I get to clarify my position and sharpen my arguments (nothing like one with an opposing viewpoint working to poke holes to force one to tighten up) and theological debate is a lot more fun when it gets hard!

So you come here for help in learning how to more effectively promote the continued killing of our children? Looks like we all have inavertantly gotten blood on our hands.

 

[KarenNC]

**So you believe that the difference between 10 deaths a year and 200 year is such a significant difference it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. **

It has a bearing if you are using the claim that they did not decrease as a basis for argument.

**The number are statistically insignificant **

Pretty significant to those that did not die.

The one thing we do beyond a shadow of a doubt is maternal deaths did NOT decrease significanlty (if at all) in the immediate aftereffec of Roe.

guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf p. 3

What do you consider “immediate”–1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

** We agree , howver that abortions increase fourfold in the immediate after effect of Roe,**

Increased, yes. Fourfold in the immediate aftereffect? I will agree that the data shows that legal abortions increased about that much from 1970 when 15 states had legalized abortion to 1973. Whether the total number of actual abortions (legal and illegal) did, I do not know. Again, it would help to define “immediate.”

guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf page 2 has a graph that may be informative.

infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html shows that the legal abortion ratio (number of legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births) was 180 in 1972 and 312 in 1976 (which seems pretty immediate) and peaked at 359 in 1980. It also shows that the abortion rate (number of legal induced abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44) was 13 in 1972 and 21 in 1976, also peaking in 1980 at 25 in 1980.

** I guess your argument is …**

Bob, you have been “guessing” my argument over and over and getting it wrong. You might try actually reading it.

**you tried to prove maternal deaths decreased significantly after Roe by trumpeting a study that showed an 89% reduction in maternal deaths from 1950 to 1973. When confronted with the fact that 22 of the 23 yearsin thois study were BEFORE Roe was imposed you replied that some States has legalized abortion in 1965-the total believe was 6 out of 50 States and even then over 60% of the study was conducted PRIOR to abortion being legalized anywhere in the US. **

It was 1967, not 1965. Also “Between 1967 and 1973, approximately one-third of the states had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Code’s provisions allowing abortion in instances other than where only the mother’s life was in danger.”

Are you arguing that the only deaths come from legal abortion? I thought we were looking at death rates of illegal abortion vs legal abortion. If one wanted to study the change in number of deaths from before to after legislation, does it not follow that one would look at data from before the passage of the legislation as well as after? Otherwise, how would one compare the two? Also, if one is looking at “immediate” effects, how far on the other side of the legislation does one need to go?

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html bottom of the page:

“In 1967, Colorado became the first state to reform its abortion law based on the ALI recommendation. The new Colorado statute permitted abortions if the pregnant woman’s life or physical or mental health were endangered, if the fetus would be born with a severe physical or mental defect, or if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest. Other states began to follow suit, and by 1972, 13 states had so-called ALI statutes. Meanwhile, four states repealed their antiabortion laws completely, substituting statutes permitting abortions that were judged to be necessary by a woman and her physician (see map). By 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe, abortion reform legislation had been introduced in all but five states.”

Note that it says “introduced” and not “passed” in the last sentence.

** you tried to foist Romanian statistics on us as some indication of what would happen if abortion were made illegal again **

I an unaware that citing an internationally published study constituted “foisting.” I pointed to the Romanian statistics as an example of what did happen in a country when the variable was legal abortion and contraception being made illegal then being made legal again, as opposed to the advances in medicine you proposed (all of this was after the introduction of antibiotics, which you stated was the turning point for the US). Is it exactly what would happen here? I do not know for a certainty, as we have not had that situation yet occur. It is certainly something to be considered.

now your latest tactic is to try and claim that the fact maternal deaths were now approx 10 a year that proved that somehow damaged my credibility.

I claim that it shows that you made a factually incorrect statement and that continuing to do so harms the likelihood of the acceptance of the rest of your argument.

 

[East_and_West]

HOLY COW!!! I cannot believe that this discussion has gone on this long! People, lets do a little exercise in logic.
Try and stay with me on this one. I know for some on this thread it may be difficult to follow.
Major premisis: Murder should be illegal.

Minor premisis: Abortion is murder.

and now for the conclusion… drum roll please…

Therfore Aborition should be illegal. Q.E.D.

I understand that some people had trouble in geometery classe in high school and thus logic and proofs are a challenge for you. But goodness gracious people. This is an easyone.

 

[KarenNC]

HOLY COW!!! I cannot believe that this discussion has gone on this long! People, lets do a little exercise in logic.
Try and stay with me on this one. I know for some on this thread it may be difficult to follow.
Major premisis: Murder should be illegal.

Minor premisis: Abortion is murder.

and now for the conclusion… drum roll please…

Therfore Aborition should be illegal. Q.E.D.

Depends on whether your minor premise always holds. Abortion is certainly the ending of an at least potential human life. Does the Church teach that all ending of life is automatically murder, without exception, regardless of circumstances?

If all ending of life is not automatically murder without possible exception then it does not necessarily follow that all abortion is murder rather than ending of life.

 

[East_and_West]

Depends on whether your minor premise always holds. Abortion is certainly the ending of an at least potential human life. Does the Church teach that all ending of life is automatically murder, without exception, regardless of circumstances?

If all ending of life is not automatically murder without possible exception then it does not necessarily follow that all abortion is murder rather than ending of life.

No, no, no. My minor premise is quite easy to see. The only way that I can think that some one would deny it is that they are lying to themselves. Are you honest with yourself?