Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[Bennie_P]

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.

So we can in reality control the population of the poor and/or minorities? There is no such thing as a safe abortion, a death occurs each time one is committed -

Keeping it legal just for the poor, is a form eugenics and genocide.

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

Pro-choice and Catholic

 

[Bennie_P]

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.

I want to appoligize again, I finding out what you mean:blush:

 

[brianwalden]

I went looking for statistics for abortions before it was widely legal in the US but unfortunately the CDC only keeps statistics on legal abortions.

But, what I did find was statistics on those “truly desperate and needy women” who have abortions:

Source: Wikipedia
Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[6] Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[7]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

Most of them don’t appear to be truly desperate to me. And I don’t know how killing a baby solves any of these problems.

 

[thistle]

Bella3502;2428647:

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?

I don’t believe there is ever a reason for an abortion. If the mother to be is too poor to look after the child or in other ways would be an unfit parent then the child can be put up for adoption or into the care of relatives.

 

[Bella3502]

Bella3502;2428647:

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? No I can’t. Perhaps you should find and ask a desperate woman why she is seeking an abortion

. And can you explain how the abortion solves these needs? **No, I cannot. If I became pregnant, I would not choose abortion. I HAVE A CHOICE. **

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? I have no idea what your are asking here. How are these needs met by the abortion? I don’t know.And I honestly don’t think about it.

Talk is cheap especially when it comes to anti-abortion rhetoric.Most talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

 

[Bella3502]

brianwalden;2428663:

I don’t believe there is ever a reason for an abortion. If the mother to be is too poor to look after the child or in other ways would be an unfit parent then the child can be put up for adoption or into the care of relatives.

I don’t think of adoption as a good alternative for these women. You don’t see many Catholics running to the overcrowded foster homes to adopt sick infants or 10 year olds or children. Some do, but not enough.

 

[Bennie_P]

Talk is cheap especially when it comes to anti-abortion rhetoric.Most talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

And what walk are we talking about?

My story… I am a post abortive mother. I suffer from the internal wounds that pierced my heart that day sixteen years ago when I chose to abort my baby. I was eighteen years old, single and starting college when I found out I was pregnant. Scared and confused I sought the advice of peers, the father and a women’s clinic. The “messages” I received from them and the lack of communication with my family left me more confused and scared. The clinic and peers supported the decision of abortion. My relationship with the father was already failing and I was trying to start a new life within the college scene. Terrorized of the future and the “real world,” I made the decision to terminate the pregnancy (as it was called then), in the hope that it would solve the crisis I was in and I could just go on with my life. I entered the clinic as a frightened child and left the clinic a few hours later wounded for life. There was so many things I was not informed about. Especially, the long lasting emotional and spiritual effects.
When the reality of what I had done sunk in, I turned to alcohol and drugs to ease the pain. I became depressed and buried myself in my academic studies at college. The emotional and spiritual wound that was left untreated grew in magnitude. …More

****Help,and Hope…are just a click away.

 

[Bennie_P]

thistle;2429191:

I don’t think of adoption as a good alternative for these women. You don’t see many Catholics running to the overcrowded foster homes to adopt sick infants or 10 year olds or children. Some do, but not enough.

I guess you haven’t been to Mass in my parish or you wouldn’t make such a comment…

 

[DrPiano]

I don’t think of adoption as a good alternative for these women. You don’t see many Catholics running to the overcrowded foster homes to adopt sick infants or 10 year olds or children. Some do, but not enough.

My (Catholic) Aunt and Uncle (and actually many family friends, both Catholic and non-Catholic) tried adoption first here in the states but ended up having to look outside the country to get their children because it was so hard to actually get a child here. My mom’s Aunt and Uncle were foster parents for years. I know if I can’t have children, my future husband and I will definitely be adopting (and perhaps even if we DO have our own children we’ll either adopt as well or be foster parents or both). I hear this argument a lot (adoption isn’t possible because people don’t want to take the children) but actually see the opposite. How many kids in the “overcrowded foster homes” have been offered up for adoption by their parents? I know some foster care families who have tried to adopt some of their foster children and the biological parents refused - even though those same parents didn’t want to take their own children back into their homes. How many of these were put up for adoption when they were born (as opposed to later in their childhood). What I think the person on the forum was advocating was putting the child up for adoption while in utero (or soon after birth) so that when the child is born, the adoptive parents would take custody almost immediately (or within a few months) - thus minimizing the time the child would spend in any foster home situation.

 

[Bella3502]

Bella3502;2429428:

I guess you haven’t been to Mass in my parish or you wouldn’t make such a comment…

Having been to more than one overcrowed foster care facility - I do know that one parish is not enough.

 

[KarenNC]

My (Catholic) Aunt and Uncle (and actually many family friends, both Catholic and non-Catholic) tried adoption first here in the states but ended up having to look outside the country to get their children because it was so hard to actually get a child here.

I’m curious, hard to get a child or hard to get the kind of child they wanted? There’s a great deal of difference in those two statements, and it is an important one.

This is not to cast aspersion on anyone who seeks foreign adoption, or who has specific understandings of their limitations in dealing with children with special needs or older children. Among those I know who have sought it, however, they have told me it is because they specifically wanted an infant or wanted to be sure that there was no risk of contact with the biological parents or issues with them. They were also more in hopes of getting one who had no special needs (though that can be rather a chancy thing in many foreign adoptions).

Were they willing to look at a child who was not an infant or toddler? Had special needs (medical, behavioral, emotional)? Was not of their own race? A group of siblings?

 

[Zooey]

There are more than enough homes for every baby who is murdered by abortion. The problem is, that women are being fed a line of propaganda by the pro-abortion forces, led by PP…An organization which was brought into being by a woman who advocated the pseudo-science of eugenics.
I would also like to point out that many women are receiving worse than “substandard” care in abortion facilities across the US. They are all wounded by abortion. We do not know the statistics as to how many of them die, from “safe legal abortion”, because it is PP policy to get butchered women out of the abortuary, and into the hands of others. If they die, they die.
The same is true for other abortionists. The local one aborted an** 8 month baby** by a D&C …and left the mother hemmorrhaging to death on the table. Her life was saved only because the nurses rebelled, & went for another doctor. He had to perform a total hysterectomy, in order to keep her from bleeding to death. When the surgeon who saved the mother approached the abortionist over this, the abortionist shrugged, and said, “She didn’t want to be pregnant. She’s not pregnant. What is your problem?”…and walked away.
The surgeon followed, demanding if the other knew the woman nearly died. His answer? ** “Well, if she had died, she wouldn’t have had to worry about getting pregnant again, would she?”**
This is the truth about “safe legal abortions”. They are not safe for anyone…except for the abortionist’s pocketbooks!!

 

[KarenNC]

There are more than enough homes for every baby who is murdered by abortion.

Given that there obviously not “enough homes” willing to take the children who are already born in the US, I find that hard to believe.

** The problem is, that women are being fed a line of propaganda by the pro-abortion forces, led by PP…An organization which was brought into being by a woman who advocated the pseudo-science of eugenics.
I would also like to point out that many women are receiving worse than “substandard” care in abortion facilities across the US. They are all wounded by abortion. We do not know the statistics as to how many of them die, from “safe legal abortion”, because it is PP policy to get butchered women out of the abortuary, and into the hands of others. If they die, they die.
The same is true for other abortionists. **

These are some incredibly sweeping statements. Do you have research studies that support them or links to the policies you are citing?

The local one aborted an 8 month baby** by a D&C …and left the mother hemmorrhaging to death on the table. Her life was saved only because the nurses rebelled, & went for another doctor. He had to perform a total hysterectomy, in order to keep her from bleeding to death. When the surgeon who saved the mother approached the abortionist over this, the abortionist shrugged, and said, “She didn’t want to be pregnant. She’s not pregnant. What is your problem?”…and walked away.
The surgeon followed, demanding if the other knew the woman nearly died. His answer? ** “Well, if she had died, she wouldn’t have had to worry about getting pregnant again, would she?”****

That must have made quite a splash in the local papers. Could you link me to the story?

 

[KarenNC]

PP…An organization which was brought into being by a woman who advocated the pseudo-science of eugenics.

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.

 

[DrPiano]

I’m curious, hard to get a child or hard to get the kind of child they wanted? There’s a great deal of difference in those two statements, and it is an important one…

Among those I know who have sought it, however, they have told me it is because they specifically wanted an infant or wanted to be sure that there was no risk of contact with the biological parents or issues with them. They were also more in hopes of getting one who had no special needs (though that can be rather a chancy thing in many foreign adoptions).

Were they willing to look at a child who was not an infant or toddler? Had special needs (medical, behavioral, emotional)? Was not of their own race? A group of siblings?

Depends on the parents that I know. Some did only want an infant or toddler - HOWEVER, if many of these infants being aborted were put up for adoption, those looking for only infants or toddlers wouldn’t have a problem finding them, would they? They wouldn’t HAVE to go out of the country to find infants/toddlers because there would be more in this country for them to adopt. With my aunt and uncle (and many of the other people I know who have done foreign adoptions), race was never an issue (although they’re caucasian, they have a beautiful Korean girl). They would have been willing to take a child with special needs. They, however, wanted an infant or toddler (my cousin was 9 months when they brought her home from Korea). She actually did have some special needs at the beginning, as the orphanage where she was living in Korea didn’t provide the best of care. A different Aunt is adopted (also a foreign adoption, she was 3 when my grandparents brought her home) and has a lot of special needs. Again, it was far easier for my grandparents to go outside the country to adopt her than to try to get biological parents in the states to release their kids in the foster system for adoption. While I know this is not true of all the kids in the foster system, it has been true for several families that I know (including my Mom’s Aunt and Uncle who I mentioned previously who successfully adopted one of their foster kids and COULDN’T adopt several others because of biological parents - instead, they cared for those kids until they aged out of the system and they’re STILL considered part of our family).

I’ve heard other stories (there were some on the news I think a few years ago) about parents who were denied adoptions of certain kids because the parents “weren’t of the right race” (I believe it was Caucasian parents trying to adopt African American children). So it isn’t necessarily just adoptive parents being choosy about race.

I, like some of the others here, dislike the information fed to people that their unborn children won’t be adopted - that they’ll just be put into the foster care system and be unloved. There are lots of people on multiple-year waiting lists just waiting to receive a child. Yes, our foster care system is in trouble - but it isn’t because lots of adoptable babies are being put into it.

However, my stories are certainly anecdotal at best - if anyone here wants to cite statistics (either of lots of babies up for adoption being put into the system and causing it to be over crowded or lack thereof) for either side, be my guest.

 

[Bennie_P]

Having been to more than one overcrowed foster care facility - I do know that one parish is not enough.

Of course one parish is not enough, but if more Catholics lived by the teaching of Church instead trying to justify murder of the innocent then we would have no problems you speak of, talk the talk - where is it that you walk? or is it just a dance?

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m curious, hard to get a child or hard to get the kind of child they wanted? There’s a great deal of difference in those two statements, and it is an important one.

quote]

I have just finished taking some classes with the head of two different agencies that work with adoptions of foster children with special needs and it is truly a twisted mess for many that want to adopt, some of the reasons are justified and others are just the way the system is set up.

Just as hard as they try to find adoptive parents for the children, they find the system working against them - but because a system isn’t perfect doesn’t justify the **murder **of millions.

There are people out there working to find homes and there are people out there offering homes. If the pro-abortion movement would quit putting some much time and effort in trying to offer “easy” and “quick” solutions, put thier efforts into humane solutions, these murders could stop. But it is hard to open the eyes of this be McQuick-for- me society.

 

[East_and_West]

Did you actually read the study? It separates out abortion-related mortality vs. that from other pregnancy-related causes. Are you missing the fact that illegal abortions are poor health care—that only the affluent in such a situation may be able to afford to persuade a medical practitioner to perform an illegal procedure rather than the poor woman, who will seek any means available-- regardless of the health care available otherwise?

"Of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million are illegal. As was the case with affluent U.S. women in the years before Roe, a small proportion of women living in urban areas in some developing countries may be able to afford the services of a private physician who can perform a safe, if still illegal, abortion. Not so, however, for the vast majority who live in extreme poverty, in rural areas or otherwise without access to emergency hospital care for the treatment of complications of an abortion induced by crude and often dangerous traditional methods.

According to the World Health Organization, about 13% of the 500,000 deaths worldwide from pregnancy-related causes each year are associated with unsafe abortion; in Latin America, the proportion is as high as 21%. In Egypt, abortion-related problems are responsible for about one-fifth of all obstetric and gynecologic admissions. Indeed, in some developing countries, women suffering from complications of illegal abortion account for two of every three maternity hospital beds in large urban hospitals, consuming as much as one-half of obstetrics and gynecology budgets.

In some parts of the world, lay practitioners’ use of noninvasive techniques and the increasing availability of antibiotics may be having a positive impact in lowering infection rates associated with clandestine abortion procedures. (In the United States, abortion-related maternal deaths declined sharply following the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s.) Experience in country after country has shown, however, that reducing the need to resort to unsafe procedures and untrained practitioners—through legalization and bringing the provision of services into the open—has a direct and immediate effect on reducing abortion-related mortality and, therefore, overall maternal mortality rates.

Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, for example, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country’s public hospitals. Another stark example is Romania, where abortion was legally available from 1957 until 1966. The Ceaucescu regime then outlawed abortion in 1966 as part of its pronatalist policy, which led to soaring maternal death rates. Maternal death rates than fell dramatically once abortion was relegalized in 1990 after Ceaucescu’s ouster (see chart)."

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.

The best way to not die of a botched abortion procedure: DON’T HAVE AN ABORTION! Has anyone considered that if you die from an aborition its your own fault for being ridiculous enough to have an abortion in the first place? I am so tired of this idea that abortion should be legal because then women won’t die in back ally abortions. Two problems with this. First, it suggest that we should make vile and disgusting crimes legal and safe for the perpatrator. Should we make burglary safe and legal so that a thief can practice his “right to choose” without the fear of being killed in a robbery. Should we make forms of murder (other than abortion) legal so that the murder can practice his/her right to choose with out the risk of being harmed? Second, It assumes that some people just have to have an abortion, cannot avoid it, and so we should make it safe for them. Silly, silly pro-death advoactes. Women do NOT have to have an abortion. If they choose to expose themselves to the risk of abortion, that is their own fault for choosing to participate in such a disgusting crime against humanity.

 

[Bennie_P]

A look at some of the context for quotes often attributed to Margaret Sanger
Context does matter.

Just what is that context? to your promotion of abortion into third world countries, which don’t have legalized abortion? are you one of the “fit” or “unfit”?

The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the "fit,"admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes.On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. - Margaret Sanger

more great stuff from MS Sanger.

There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean
forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that
there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations–unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.

Read her ideas on birth control. Why did she aim her efforts to the poor and African-American communitiy? Because of a lack of balance of the “unfit?” toward the “fit”, or the “feeble-minded” to the “high-minded”?

To see it in context - read the whole book -
The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger

 

[KarenNC]

**Depends on the parents that I know. Some did only want an infant or toddler - HOWEVER, if many of these infants being aborted were put up for adoption, those looking for only infants or toddlers wouldn’t have a problem finding them, would they? They wouldn’t HAVE to go out of the country to find infants/toddlers because there would be more in this country for them to adopt. **

Possibly true. Again, it would depend on the parents. cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/ad/301-310/ad306.htm

"This report presents national data on adoption and adoption-related behaviors among ever-married women aged 18-44 in the United States, according to selected characteristics of the women. Trends are shown in the prevalence of adoption and relinquishment of children for adoption. For 1995, the report shows demand for adoption and women’s preferences for characteristics of the child. Data are based on nationally representative samples of women aged 15-44 from the 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

Data Highlights:

The prevalence of adoption increases with age, education, and income. Adoption by black women has remained relatively stable, but data suggest that adoption by white women has declined.

In 1995, 9.9 million women had ever considered adoption, representing over a quarter of all ever-married women in this age range. Of these women, 15.9 percent (1.6 million) had ever taken steps toward adoption.

In general, preferences are strong about the characteristics of an adopted child with regard to age of child, disability status of child, race of child, and number of children. Preferences are less strong for sex or religious affiliation of child.

Between 1989 and 1995, just under 1 percent of babies born to never-married women were relinquished for adoption. Never-married black women have been consistently less likely than never-married white women to relinquish their babies for adoption, and this likelihood has remained very low over the decades."

I’ve heard other stories (there were some on the news I think a few years ago) about parents who were denied adoptions of certain kids because the parents “weren’t of the right race” (I believe it was Caucasian parents trying to adopt African American children). So it isn’t necessarily just adoptive parents being choosy about race.

True, there are definitely policies and practices in place in variuos areas of the US that prevent some folks who would like to adopt domestically from doing so—age restrictions, racial restrictions, sexual orientation restrictions, marital status restrictions.

There are lots of people on multiple-year waiting lists just waiting to receive a child.

I am sure that is true. I was challenging the idea that every child who was not aborted would be easily and immediately adopted if another choice were made. If I were aware of a clamor prior to Roe v. Wade to adopt babies regardless of race or health status, I might be more convinced. That white, healthy infants are more easily adoptable, I have no problem believing, but those are not the only children who would be born from those seeking abortions.

I did find a study by the Guttmacher Institute on the effects of abortion access on adoption rates.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html

“Our results indicate that adoptions, particularly of children born to white women and by petitioners unrelated to the child, decreased in the 1960s and early 1970s when states repealed their laws restricting access to abortion. Roe v. Wade also may have lowered rates of adoption of children born to white women. Legal reforms allowing small increases in access to abortion, such as allowing the procedure for women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, did not affect adoption rates of children born to white women.”

However, my stories are certainly anecdotal at best - if anyone here wants to cite statistics (either of lots of babies up for adoption being put into the system and causing it to be over crowded or lack thereof) for either side, be my guest.

The Adoption History Project
darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm has some information on the history of adoption in the US.