Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[hasikelee]

You may claim what you want, and I have comapssion for your blindness.

But it is a pro-abortion organization that wants to spread its evil to all ends of the earth.

Now, in all honesty I have to say that the Guttmacher can be a very helpful aid when speaking out against abortion.

Many of their studies, statistics and reports directly contradict a lot of the miseducation used by those who support abortion.

Furthermore, with it’s reputation and connection with PP, this makes it an enjoyable tool.

Reminds me of the time I used PP’s own report on money to make a point. Of course, that didn’t bring about any further change in the other person, but it was pretty funny to see them squirm, then change the subject.

 

[Bennie_P]

Now, in all honesty I have to say that the Guttmacher can be a very helpful aid when speaking out against abortion.

.

It was introduced into this thread to promote legal abortion, so I guess you agree with the poster that introduced it that abortion should be legal? or we shouldn’t look at the issue of abortion in the context of morality? It is being used to debunk that Roe VS. Wade was not based on a Lie.

Your post confuses me

 

[Bennie_P]

Roe Vs. Wade was based on and lie.

and most justification for abortion is also;

**

MYTH:

Women really need abortion for health reasons.
FACT: An Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.
FACT: Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother’s physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions.
FACT: Nationally, 82 % of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. The statistics strongly suggest abortion is used as birth control.

hasikelee, I appoligize for sounding harsh in my previous post -
But many try to confuse the issue with the “health” concern myth.**

 

[KarenNC]

It was introduced into this thread to promote legal abortion, so I guess you agree with the poster that introduced it that abortion should be legal? or we shouldn’t look at the issue of abortion in the context of morality? It is being used to debunk that Roe VS. Wade was not based on a Lie.

Bennie, I never said that abortion should not be looked at in the context of morality.

I said in my original post:
“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.”

This does not change whether or not she lied about having been raped. I am not “debunking” that she lied, simply the interpretation that therefore the main issue in the case was also untrue.

I then said:
“This is an entirely separate issue from the morality or immorality of an abortion. It is about the likelihood of fatal consequences in a relatively safe and medically sound procedure vs. a septic, backstreet one. The key is to reduce or eliminate the need/desire for abortions by reducing the factors that lead to it as much as possible.”
and
“Whether abortion itself is desirable, moral, etc is an entirely separate question.”

Yes, I do think that overall abortion is better legal than illegal for the safety of the woman who is desperate enough to seek one and cannot afford to pay a physician to ignore the law. I have no wish to “promote” abortion. As I said:
“I, too, would love to see a world in which there was no demand for abortion.”

 

[KarenNC]

**MYTH: Women really need abortion for health reasons.
FACT: An Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.
FACT: Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother’s physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions.
FACT: Nationally, 82 % of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. The statistics strongly suggest abortion is used as birth control. **

And even if only for those 6%, I would keep it legal.

Here’s the report from the Guttmacher Institute that lists some f the numbers listed above, so that one can see the source and in context.
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I fully agree that abortion is not a desirable means of birth control. I fully agree that better access to and education about how to use effective means of birth control would dramatically reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. I don’t, however, think that the Catholic Church is going to agree with me that that would be a desirable means.

Yes the ratio for unmarried women is indeed 8.6 times higher in the US than for married women. I am a strong advocate for reserving sex for a committed relationship involving two adults who understand the possible consequences of and are prepared to accept them, as no method is infallible.

cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf will provide more statistics on the who and how and when about abortions in this country for anyone interested in such. It does not address the why or the socioeconomic status. The good news is that something is working as the rates have been declining for a number of years.

 

[Bennie_P]

I then said:
“This is an entirely separate issue from the morality or immorality of an abortion. It is about the likelihood of fatal consequences in a relatively safe and medically sound procedure vs. a septic, backstreet one. The key is to reduce or eliminate the need/desire for abortions by reducing the factors that lead to it as much as possible.”
and
"Whether abortion itself is desirable, moral, etc is an entirely separate question

You cannot separate the issue of the morality of murdering the unborn from the discussion, you cannot say murder should be legal until we reduce the root causes, that is illogical and that type of logic has cost the lives of over 47 million human beings in the US since 1973.

Do You Know?

For every two babies born

another baby dies in an abortion.

That’s 1.3 million babies each year;
That’s over 3,600 babies every day;
That’s 1 baby every 25 seconds;
That’s over 47 million babies since 1973;
And that’s just here in America…

Except when noted, the following statistics are based on research published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America–the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion. AGI has not published detailed figures on the total number of abortions since 1992, though it did give an estimate of 1,435,000 abortions for 1994 to USA Today in August of 1996. Estimates for 1993 and 1995 through 1999 are based on trends from previous years.

This is the link to the Statistics

And you are not even addressing the issue of how abortion hurts the victim, known as the woman whom is duped into believeing that abortion will solve her problem and/or problems.
ABORTION COMPLICATIONS

All life is equal and the innocent should not recieve capital punishment for the sins or bad choices of her or his parents.

 

[KarenNC]

**You cannot separate the issue of the morality of murdering the unborn from the discussion, you cannot say murder should be legal until we reduce the root causes, that is illogical **

Advocates of capital punishment use exactly that argument all the time, many of whom also protest abortion under any circumstances. I do understand that the Catholic Church does not advocate the death penalty either, so that they, unlike some others, are at least consistent.

For more updated numbers, check out the CDC link below:
cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf

“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).”

And you are not even addressing the issue of how abortion hurts the victim, known as the woman whom is duped into believeing that abortion will solve her problem and/or problems.

No, as that was not pertinent to the discussion. I am well aware of the aftereffects of abortion and that is one reason I advocate reducing the demand through helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, through contraception and responsible sexual behavior. I know of no one who considers an abortion to be an ideal, happy choice. I am well aware that the Catholic Church is not in favor of contraception, but then, I am not Catholic. That is why I was restricting my comments to statistics rather than the moral interpretation of them.

I agree that life is sacred, human and otherwise, and not to be taken lightly. I disagree that the life of a child who may or may not come to term under the best of circumstances is inherently more sacred than that of the woman.

 

[brianwalden]

I, too, would love to see a world in which there was no demand for abortion.

What is your definition of a world with no demand for abortion? Even if you got rid of all the excuses people use for abortion, how what would stop the rich married couple who just doesn’t feel like raising another kid?

Do you advocate making other immoral activities legal so that if people chose to do them at least they can perform them more safely? We’ve already made the murder of innocent babies legal, why don’t we make all murder legal. After all, murdering these days is a very dangerous business. Just look at all the would-be murderers who are injured or killed when their victims fight back in “self-defense.” I mean, I would love to see a world in which there was no demand for murder, but in the mean time we should just make sure murderers are able to do it as safely as possible.

 

[Ruthie]

KarenNC wrote:

I said in my original post:
“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.”

End quote.
Emphasis mine.

I used to believe as you do, exactly as you do - knowing that abortion is wrong, but wanting to keep it safe for those that will choose it anyway.

That is moral relativism, and it is wrong. After I swam the Tiber, I grew spiritually, and have made that hard choice to put women’s *spiritual *welfare ahead of their “safety.”

Those desperate and needy women would be better served by spiritual counseling and access to adoption services.

We are pilgrims and members of the Church Militant. Our job is to get as many souls as possible to Heaven. The physical health of women choosing abortion has to take a back seat to their spiritual health.

Your sister in Christ,
Ruthie

 

[KarenNC]

We are pilgrims and members of the Church Militant. Our job is to get as many souls as possible to Heaven. The physical health of women choosing abortion has to take a back seat to their spiritual health.

Yes, you are by virtue of your choice of religion. I am not. That is neither my job nor my primary concern. I do, however, have a great respect for accuracy.

I am not suggesting or asking you to change your views on whether abortion is moral or not. I only interjected to offer accurate information on specific statements when I stumbled across the title of the thread, it caught my interest, and I noted an inconsistency. It helps no one’s cause to make arguments based on faulty information. That is also why I tried to offer information separate from the morality/immorality argument and confine my remarks to actual statistics. My views on what is moral are not those of the Catholic Church.

 

[brianwalden]

Karen, here are three quotes that you made:

I am not a proponent of abortion, nor do I advocate its use for birth control. I have never had one, nor do I believe that I ever could or would. However, if women are going to use it, I would rather see a medically sound avenue for that for all women who choose to use it, not just the affluent ones.

Making inaccurate statements does nothing but weaken your position and hence your cause.

I understand that. I am only trying to provide accurate information. Differentiating between facts and dramatic hype in an argument and acknowledging those facts even if they are not 100% in support of one’s cause is not condoning.

You’re very concerned with discerning fact from propaganda, which is a good thing. But you haven’t noticed that there’s a piece of accurate information missing from your argument: successful abortions always kill an innocent human being; sometimes they kill more than one person. The statistics you need to compare are how many people (babies and mothers) are killed when abortion is illegal vs. how many people (babies and mothers) are killed when abortion is legal.

Your case for providing safe abortions for women who kill their babies rests on the belief that abortion doesn’t harm another person. It denies the humanity of the baby. That baby has just as much of a right to safe medical treatment as the mother does. And the last time I checked no abortions are being performed in a way that is safe for the baby.

 

[KarenNC]

Even if you got rid of all the excuses people use for abortion, how what would stop the rich married couple who just doesn’t feel like raising another kid?

Nothing. Making abortion illegal manifestly does not do that either or there would be no abortions in areas where it was illegal and women would not travel to areas where it is legal to seek one or search out back alley methods. It only makes it more likely that poor women who seek to do what the wealthy can afford to do safely will die.

 

[KarenNC]

Your case for providing safe abortions for women who kill their babies rests on the belief that abortion doesn’t harm another person. It denies the humanity of the baby. That baby has just as much of a right to safe medical treatment as the mother does. And the last time I checked no abortions are being performed in a way that is safe for the baby.

Abortion harms everyone involved to some extent.

I truly did not come here to argue about my views vs. yours on the morality or desirability of abortion. I am not Catholic and have no place telling you whether an action is moral or immoral according to the precepts of your religion. I merely wanted to correct misinformation when I stumbled across it. Having accurate information can only strengthen the likelihood that your argument will be heard rather than dismissed out of hand.

If you want to debate my personal views on abortion and effective ways in which we can work to prevent it further, I welcome you over at the Non-Catholic religions thread.

 

[brianwalden]

Even if you got rid of all the excuses people use for abortion, how what would stop the rich married couple who just doesn’t feel like raising another kid?

Nothing. Making abortion illegal manifestly does not do that either or there would be no abortions in areas where it was illegal and women would not travel to areas where it is legal to seek one or search out back alley methods. It only makes it more likely that poor women who seek to do what the wealthy can afford to do safely will die.

So why do we have any laws at all? They obviously don’t prevent all crimes. Your argument sounds a little absurd.

And what are the things you’ve been refering to that fuel the demand for abortions? It seems like you think poverty is one of them. How does murding innocent babies solve poverty? What are your other causes that lead to abortion, and can you explain how murdering innocent babies is a solution to those social problems as well?

Poverty, single motherhood, teenage pregnancy, and whatever other excuses you want to cite don’t cause abortions. Selfishness causes abortions. The selfishness of people who pressure these women into killing their child rather than helping them causes abortion. And, sadly, sometimes the mother herself is selfish.

Abortion should be illegal because it kills an innocent baby. At the same time we need to provide all the resources (monetary, social, medical, spiritual, etc) we can for both the mother and her child.

 

[brianwalden]

Your case for providing safe abortions for women who kill their babies rests on the belief that abortion doesn’t harm another person. It denies the humanity of the baby. That baby has just as much of a right to safe medical treatment as the mother does. And the last time I checked no abortions are being performed in a way that is safe for the baby.

Abortion harms everyone involved to some extent.

I truly did not come here to argue about my views vs. yours on the morality or desirability of abortion. I am not Catholic and have no place telling you whether an action is moral or immoral according to the precepts of your religion. I merely wanted to correct misinformation when I stumbled across it. Having accurate information can only strengthen the likelihood that your argument will be heard rather than dismissed out of hand.

If you want to debate my personal views on abortion and effective ways in which we can work to prevent it further, I welcome you over at the Non-Catholic religions thread.

Karen, the point I was making is that your statistics no matter how valid, do not properly support your claim of using legalized abortion to protect people.
You use statistics to claim that abortion kills and injures less people when it is legal than when it is illegal. But your statistics don’t look at all people involved in abortion, only the mothers. You’re essentially making your argument around the lie that babies aren’t people.

This claim is false. Legalized abortion may or may not kill less mothers than illegal abortion, but legalized abortion certainly kills far more people (babies and mothers) than what abortion is illegal.

I, like you, am very concerned about good statistics. Does anyone have statistics on how many people (mothers and babies) were killed by abortion in America when it was illegal vs. when it was legal? I would love to see them.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, the point I was making is that your statistics no matter how valid, do not properly support your claim of using legalized abortion to protect people.
You use statistics to claim that abortion kills and injures less people when it is legal than when it is illegal.

No, I use statistics to claim that abortion kills and injures fewer women when it is legal vs. illegal. You are choosing to expand that beyond the scope of the statistics cited.

I have made no claims whatsoever regarding abortion and children. I have confined myself to the discussion at hand—that Roe v. Wade was based on the lie that it would not assist “truly desperate and needy women.” Such a statement is inaccurate because it does assist such women. Accuracy in word choice and usage, including not changing the terms of discussion midstream, is also important.

See my first post:
“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.”

 

[brianwalden]

No, I use statistics to claim that abortion kills and injures fewer women when it is legal vs. illegal. You are choosing to expand that beyond the scope of the statistics cited.

I have made no claims whatsoever regarding abortion and children. I have confined myself to the discussion at hand—that Roe v. Wade was based on the lie that it would not assist “truly desperate and needy women.” Such a statement is inaccurate because it does assist such women. Accuracy in word choice and usage, including not changing the terms of discussion midstream, is also important.

See my first post:
“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.”

Fine. Let’s discuss only women.

How many mothers and female babies were killed by abortion in the US in 1996? How many mothers and female babies were killed by abortions in the US in 2006?

So tell me again how legalized abortion helps “truly desperate and needy women?” And what are the desperate needs of these women that are solved by abortion?

 

[KarenNC]

**Fine. Let’s discuss only women.

How many mothers and female babies were killed by abortion in the US in 1996? How many mothers and female babies were killed by abortions in the US in 2006?**

I have already cited the CDC report on abortion statistics. You are welcome to read that.

 

[Bella3502]

**So tell me again how legalized abortion helps “truly desperate and needy women?” And what are the desperate needs of these women that are solved by abortion?/**quote]

I think the answers to these questions can only come from the women involved. “Desperate and needy” to one woman may not be the same for another.

What I do know is that desperate and needy women with money have the option of going to a doctor and having an abortion that is safe. And they can do this even if abortion is illegal. Poor women do not have this option. For that reason alone, abortion must remain legal.

And yes, I am a pro-choice Catholic.

 

[brianwalden]

brianwalden;2428559:

So tell me again how legalized abortion helps “truly desperate and needy women?” And what are the desperate needs of these women that are solved by abortion?/

quote]

I think the answers to these questions can only come from the women involved. “Desperate and needy” to one woman may not be the same for another.

What I do know is that desperate and needy women with money have the option of going to a doctor and having an abortion that is safe. And they can do this even if abortion is illegal. Poor women do not have this option. For that reason alone, abortion must remain legal.

And yes, I am a pro-choice Catholic.

Bella, I understand that there are many complex reasons for having an abortion. Can you give me a few examples of maybe the most common desperate needs of women seeking abortion? And can you explain how the abortion solves these needs?

Also, (feel free not to answer this one if you don’t want to) what are the desperate needs of a female baby in an abortion procedure? How are these needs met by the abortion?