Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[Zooey]

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

Oh, Karen!! Nothing that makes abortionists look bad ever makes the mainstream media.
No, as it happens, I happen to know the nurses. I got it straight from the horse’s mouth.
What was in the paper, was the announcement that said doctor’s visiting privileges in the hospital had been revoked. And the announcement that said hospital would have no more abortions performed there, regardless of the reason.

 

[Apryl]

Wow! This threaded was started just two days (about 54 hours) ago and already we are up to four pages!

I tried to skim, but I’m rushing on an abbreviated lunch break, and would like to touch on some items I don’t believe were addressed before (If they were, I apologize)

1. This IS a Catholic website. I hope that all those that identify themselves as Catholic are also posting negative responses to the idea of abortion. If you are Pro-Abortion, please do not identify yourself as Catholic, as that is a contradiction.
2. There has already been proof that the numbers used in the original Roe vs Wade case to try to illustrate how ‘common’ the back alley abortions were had been falsified. I can’t put my finger on it, but we’re all on the internet. If I’m wrong, someone will post that! But back alley abortions were never as common as these drugstore abortions are today. Most women that opted for abortions when they were not legal was in very extreme situations, or they really thought they were. Not the case today, and not that much of a threat to make abortion on demand so easy
3. The cries that those that are anti-abortion should adopt is not with merit, but it is a sound bite that those that want to discourage a life have used (that, along with ‘in case of rape or incest’) Yes, more people should be willing to back up what they talk about, but that doesn’t mean that abortion on demand should be used as a method of birth control, or that there are not currently waiting lists for people to adopt babies. Infants. Of every race. The children that are likely to find a hard time being adopted are children with medical problems or that are beyond the age of diapers. Abortion wouldn’t make a bit of difference in the case of the older children, and the ones that have medical problems just have medical problems, and those are challenges no matter how you slice it.
4. The FACT is that the decision to allow abortion on demand was brought about as the result of a series of lies. That has not changed. If abortion was so ‘all important’ and with it’s own merit, why couldn’t they (the Prosecutors in the case) have argued it based upon truths? Now, a generation later, women are fighting to keep abortion legal… not because they think it’s necessary, or good, but because they, too, have been lied to, and they want to keep it available for someone else.
   
5. You find me the person that didn’t know how to PREVENT her pregnancy (DON’T HAVE SEX!) and I’ll show you a person that is not mature enough to have sex yet.

 

[estesbob]

rates.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html

.

You are aware the the Alan Guttmacher Insitute is an arm of Planned parenthood are you not? Why should we trust ther statisitcs?

 

[estesbob]

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.

Yes and context provided by Planned parenthood is useless. She said what she said and no amount of spin can change that.

I am surprised anyone would soil themselves going to the website of this evil , despicable organization. Why would you trust anyone who brags about killing a quarter of a million children a year.

 

[Apryl]

First of all, Karen, I COMMEND you for articulating your position, and remaining civil.

(NOTE TO EVERY ONE ELSE: Remain Civil!)

I personally see this as a great opportunity to hear from the other side, and also, I am praying for you, and others like you, that you may see the ‘error of your ways’ - I used quotes because you probably don’t see any error in your thinking

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.

You have been able to quote sources - either by link, or in a few cases, just naming names. Could you please tell me where you are getting the notion that there are babies (infants, in particular) that are not be adopted?

Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

First of all, Karen, I COMMEND you for articulating your position, and remaining civil.

(NOTE TO EVERY ONE ELSE: Remain Civil!)

I personally see this as a great opportunity to hear from the other side, and also, I am praying for you, and others like you, that you may see the ‘error of your ways’ - I used quotes because you probably don’t see any error in your thinking

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”.

 

[Apryl]

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.".

Agreed. But, apparently, Karen, like a lot of others, lumps ALL babies in the same group, and sees killing the babies as a way to prevent the overflow.

Now, what better way to point out YOUR point of view, and how YOU take it than to speak to the subject, and give your rational? I believe that to not be civil would not be productive.

Karen has been in this thread, thrashing it out, and holding her own (Bravo! I disagree with you, but I LOVE your spunk) and doing it while remaining very civil. She has been quite eloquent on this topic.

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”.

True. But unless you can get to them physically and stop them from some action that is harming another human being, you only have your words to plead your case, and make a difference. A way to dillute your words, and prevent your being heard is to not be civil.

Which is more important: that you LET the world know your emotions on this issue, and not make a difference (you keep thinking as you think, she thinks as she thinks) …or would it be better to discuss this, rationally, on an intellectual level, remove your emotions from the discussion, and perhaps make a difference in the mindset?

Your behavior, and tone, could be the difference between Karen recruiting a bunch of women to help encourage abortions, or Karen becoming a great advocate for human life and the end of abortion on demand as we know it.

What’s it going to be?

 

[estesbob]

Your behavior, and tone, could be the difference between Karen recruiting a bunch of women to help encourage abortions, or Karen becoming a great advocate for human life and the end of abortion on demand as we know it.

What’s it going to be?

As a long time counselor at a Crisis Pregnancy center my tone comes from seeing the damage that this abject evil causes to women, their families and our culture. I have tried the sweetenss and light apporach-the result, IMO, is showing those who support this evil that it not nearly as bad as it really is. Abortion is an undescribable evil-it is not just another topic to debate, and one who supports this evil has given you a window into their soul.

Pointing this out to one who supports this evil in an act of charity.

 

[Bennie_P]

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

If that one didn’t this is one that shows were the heart of the abortionist lies.

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Coroner says baby at abortion business was born aliveReport also blames death of ‘moving’ infant on ‘extreme prematurity’

Police were called into the case back in July after an 18-year-old went for an abortion, but the baby was born while she waited, and she observed the little girl breathing before a business worker came and put the baby in a biohazard bag. An anonymous tipster told police about the situation, then later updated them that the body apparently had been stashed on the roof of the building to prevent officers from finding it, and returned to the building later. The report done by Satish Chundru, an associated medical examiner of the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department, noted in the biological mother’s history that the 18-year-old had had three pregnancies, “one abortion, one miscarriage and this birth.” The report was dated Oct. 31.

Separate the moral issue from the discussion of abortion, I don’t see how one can do that? Even when it is legal shame hangs over it:shrug:

A police search warrant in the case earlier confirmed the scenario. “The staff began screaming that the baby was alive; at which time Ms. Belkis Gonzales cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzales then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure,” the search warrant said.

Sometimes we can become wiser then God, so we think.

 

[Bennie_P]

Originally Posted by KarenNC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
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.

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html at a comparison of maternal death rates due to abortion in countries with and without access to legal abortion.

I still believe that the maternal mortality rates in the countries were abortion is restricted are more likely caused by poor health care availability, then the fact that abortion is restrictied. It is comparing nations with the best health systems in the world to the ones with some of the worst. And taking the the lie of omission futher inorder to push abortion into third world countries.

Abortion Lies v. Abortion Realities

Medical progress, not the legalization of abortion, reduced maternal deaths. The decrease in maternal mortality coincided with the development of better obstetric techniques – antibiotics, blood transfusions and better management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy-- and improvements in the general health status of women.3 In fact, even the United Nations Population Division and World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledge that there has been no substantial increase in maternal mortality since 1995,4 even though more women than ever had access to legalized abortion. Sadly, they acknowledge that 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in developing countries and that those deaths could be prevented with adequate basic health care and good obstetric care before and after births. WHO also supports the view that improvements in general health and the development of modern obstetric techniques would dramatically (WHO’s word) decrease maternal mortality in developing nations.5
Worldwide data does not support the conclusion that legalizing abortion is responsible for reduced maternal mortality. Ireland, with one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, has not legalized abortion. The United States, which “legalized” abortion in 1973 and has high general health standards, has a maternal mortality rate that is four times that of Ireland. In Finland, where abortion is legal, a study has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.6

1. 
   *]
   1. 
      *]Dr. Lenora Benning, M.D., "Abortionists Not Held Accountable for Mistakes, Post-Abortion Review, Vol. 8, Num. 2, June 2000, p. 8.
      *]Ibid.
      *]A. Macfarlane and M. Mugford, “Birth Counts: Statistics of Pregnancy and Childbirth,” HMSO, London, 1984. Data for the United States (1940-1971) comes from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and from 1972-1985 (the last year for which such abortion data are available) is from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
      *]World Mortality Report, UNDP, 2005; and also 57th World Health Assembly, Report by the Secretariat on Reproductive Health, 15 April 2004, p. 5.
      *]Maternal Mortality Global Fact Book, World Health Organization.
      *]Kevin Sherlock, Victims of Choice, Brennyman Books, Akron, Ohio, 1996, pp. 134-135.
      *]Donna Harrison, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., an obstetrician in the United States and Haiti.
      *]M. Gissler, et.al., “Pregnancy-Associated Deaths in Finland, 1987-1994,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).
      *]Mika Gissler, Elina Hemmiki. Jouko Lonnqvist, “Suicide After Pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94,” British Medical Journal, 313:1431-4, 1996.

 

[KarenNC]

Let me clarify a few points, in case there is any misunderstanding:

1. I am not Catholic and I do not claim to have the Catholic position on this issue nor have I posted the information with the intention of changing Catholic views on whether abortion is moral or immoral. I am simply trying to correct misstatements of fact. To borrow the words of one poster—“A way to dilute your words, and prevent your being heard is to” base your arguments on poor data or flat out incorrect or unsupportable statements. By challenging you to be sure you make supportable arguments, I am actually strengthening your position, whether you are able to see that or not.
2. I am not “pro-abortion.” I am not in favor of abortion, particularly not as a form of birth control or a matter of convenience.
3. I am not and have never been “recruiting a bunch of women to help encourage abortions.” Quite the opposite.
4. I believe that no abortion is without lasting negative effects on everyone involved nor would I ever counsel a woman to make that choice as it is not one I could ever see myself making, even in the case of birth defects. I spent my entire professional life (before becoming a stay at home mom) working with people with developmental disabilities, so this is not something I say naively. I suppose that some women may go into their first abortion for convenience, but I am not convinced that everyone or even most who has a repeat abortion did so for that reason. I don’t believe the majority of women who choose abortions do so blithely.
5. I prefer to work toward ending the demand for abortion through honest, realistic and thorough sex education (including abstinence) and availability of birth control (including natural family planning methods), preferably as effective as possible, so that women who are sexually active have a choice about timing of pregnancies to the best of their ability. I see this as the more morally desirable and longer lasting solution.

6)I do not advocate sexual activity between minors. I do not advocate promiscuity in adults. I do know these things happen, particularly as the age at first marriage in our culture gets older. People are living many more years as sexually mature individuals before marriage, which creates a different set of issues. In an ideal world, sexual behavior would only occur between adults who are able to understand and willing to accept the possible consequences of such behavior (and this is certainly something that I encourage), but we have never lived in such an ideal world, regardless of how much or which religion is taught or which laws are in place. Making available the knowledge about how to engage responsibly in sexual activity while minimizing the chances for sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy can help minimize those problems, though the issue of the emotional damage of sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship remain. I particularly would like to minimize those things among those who fool themselves into thinking that, because their religion teaches abstinence only, if they don’t think about it or plan it, it’s less of a moral problem, when in reality it only opens them up to more negative consequences. I have 6 stepnieces who were raised in very strict, abstinence-only, if we don’t educate them about sex they won’t do it, very conservative Christian households. Five of them were pregnant when they got married.

1. I do not “see killing the babies as a way to prevent the overflow.” I see preventing the unwanted pregnancies in the first place as the better way to “prevent the overflow.”
2. I do not see that the life of the non-viable fetus is any more sacred than that of the older child or the newborn with medical problems or disabilities or of the “wrong” race to be easily adopted, so yes, I suppose I “lump all babies in the same group.” I am not so naive as to believe that every unwanted pregnancy that comes to term is given up for adoption now or would be if abortion were illegal again. Some, yes. Some would become desired, loved and able to be adequately supported by their birth parents. Some of those children, however, are the very ones who end up in the foster care system months and years after they are desirable newborns, after they have been abused or neglected, assuming they survive.
3. The point I stopped here to make was that to say that women who choose an abortion and would/have done so any way regardless of the legality of it but are not affluent enough to either travel to a place where abortion is legal or pay a physician to ignore the law are not better served in terms of their survival and subsequent health by having a safe medically supervised procedure than trying to self-induce or going for a back alley septic procedure is factually incorrect and not supported by the research.

 

[KarenNC]

Could you please tell me where you are getting the notion that there are babies (infants, in particular) that are not be adopted?

Depends on when you define infancy to be completed. Some measures would say age 1 year, some not until the child is able to walk, which may be greater than 12 months even in a child without special needs. That means that the 1-5 year old range listed below can be a bit of a gray area.

statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

Based on data from 1999:
Who are the Children are Waiting to be Adopted?
117,000 children in foster care are waiting to be adopted.

1. Age of Waiting Children When Removed From Parents/Caregivers

• 29% were less than a year old, 42% were 1-5 years, 23% were 6-10 years, 6% were 11-15 years, and less than 1% were 16-18 years old when they were removed from their parents or caregivers.

1. Age of Waiting Children on March 31, 1999 - 2% were less than one year old, 35% were 1-5 years, 37% were 6-10 years, 23% were 11-15 years, and 3% were 16-18 years old.
2. Gender of children waiting to be adopted - 52% are male, while 48% are female.
3. Race/Ethnicity - Approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care are of minority background; 32% are White. 51% of all foster children waiting for adoption are Black, 11% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% are unknown/unable to determine.

5)Number of Months Waiting Children Have Been in Continuous Foster Care

• Approximately less than 1% of waiting children resided in continuous foster care for less than a month. 3% resided in foster care 1-5 months, 6% resided 6-11 months, 8% resided 12-17 months, 10% resided 18-23 months, 10% resided 24-29 months, 9% resided 30-35 months, 26% resided 36-59 months, and 27% resided 60 or more months.

6)Current Placement Setting of Waiting Children - 78% of waiting children reside in a foster home (57% non-relative and 21% relative), 15% in a pre-adoptive home, 1% in trial home visits, 3% in group homes, 5% in institutions, and less than 1% are runaways or in supervised independent living.

This site has further information:
adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html

 

[KarenNC]

I still believe that the maternal mortality rates in the countries were abortion is restricted are more likely caused by poor health care availability, then the fact that abortion is restrictied. It is comparing nations with the best health systems in the world to the ones with some of the worst. And taking the the lie of omission futher inorder to push abortion into third world countries.

You are certainly entitled to your own belief, but I don’t see how the statistics on changes within a specific country (Romania, for example) falls into that category.

 

[brianwalden]

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.

Karen you started out this post justifying legalized abortion to help “deperate and needy women.” You were very concerned about using statistics to back up your claim. Then I found the following statistics and no one seems to want to either disprove them or show how they represent desperate and needy women. Any thoughts:

Source: Wikipedia [my comments in bold]
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 [selfish]
21.3% Cannot afford a baby [this might be needy, but I don’t see how killing a baby is the best solution here]
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy [selfish]
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy [Abortion should be prevented at all costs if the mother is coerced into it by others. This kills the whole “pro-choice to kill babies” argument.]
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job [selfish]
7.9% Want no (more) children [selfish]
3.3% Risk to fetal health [huh? the baby’s life is in danger so you kill it?]
2.8% Risk to maternal health ****
2.1% Other [may be selfish]

So from the stats where are all these desperate and needy women abortion is helping? Instead I see a lot of selfish fathers, selfish family members, and I truly hope the smallest group is selfish mothers. I contend the OP is correct. Roe v. Wade is based on a lie.**

 

[Bennie_P]

You are certainly entitled to your own belief, but I don’t see how the statistics on changes within a specific country (Romania, for example) falls into that category.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen you started out this post justifying legalized abortion to help “deperate and needy women.” You were very concerned about using statistics to back up your claim.

No, everyone keeps telling me that I am “justifying legalized abortion.” I am not. I am simply pointing out statistics that do not support certain statements that have been made. Invalid statements weaken your argument against legal abortions.

My only “claim” is that fewer women who choose abortions die when abortion is legalized than when it is not, therefore those women are in a measurably better situation in regards to their physical health. They are not dead. This applies to desperate and needy as well as to affluent and unconcerned.

 

[estesbob]

1. The point I stopped here to make was that to say that women who choose an abortion and would/have done so any way regardless of the legality of it but are not affluent enough to either travel to a place where abortion is legal or pay a physician to ignore the law are not better served in terms of their survival and subsequent health by having a safe medically supervised procedure than trying to self-induce or going for a back alley septic procedure is factually incorrect and not supported by the research.

A myth but unfortunatley a myth that has cost the lives of millions of chidlren. per the CDC the number of deaths per year from illegal abortions in the years prior to Roe were less than 500. With the advent of penicilin and other antionboitcs the prime killer of post abortive women-infection-became curable.

We also should note that the number of abortions quadrupled in the years immediately after Roe V Wade was forced on the country. That somewhat destroys the argument that making abortion illegal wont lower the number of abortions

i know in your heart of hearts you think you are being compassionate and realistc BUT when 1.2 million children a year are dying we dont need rationalizations ot justificatiions-we need it to stop. You are standing in the way of those who want to bring this abject evil to an end. You are a very sincere & articualte woman-we need you on our side.

 

[brianwalden]

No, everyone keeps telling me that I am “justifying legalized abortion.” I am not. I am simply pointing out statistics that do not support certain statements that have been made. Invalid statements weaken your argument against legal abortions.

My only “claim” is that fewer women who choose abortions die when abortion is legalized than when it is not, therefore those women are in a measurably better situation in regards to their physical health. They are not dead. This applies to desperate and needy as well as to affluent and unconcerned.

Stat: 100% percent of female babies die during abortions.

Legalized abortion is not healthier for women. Using stats about just the mothers does not cover all the women involved in abortion.

 

[KarenNC]

** per the CDC the number of deaths per year from illegal abortions in the years prior to Roe were less than 500. With the advent of penicilin and other antionboitcs the prime killer of post abortive women-infection-became curable.**

I haven’t seen those numbers yet, could you post a link? Does it also give an idea of the ratio of maternal deaths to abortions and compare that ratio to current numbers? I think that would be the more telling number in this instance.

**That somewhat destroys the argument that making abortion illegal wont lower the number of abortions **

Have I ever made such an argument?

 

[Apryl]

. I have tried the sweetenss and light apporach-the result, IMO, is showing those who support this evil that it not nearly as bad as it really is. Abortion is an undescribable evil-it is not just another topic to debate, and one who supports this evil has given you a window into their soul.

Pointing this out to one who supports this evil in an act of charity.

I said nothing about ‘sweetness and light’.

I asked that you be civil.

No matter where you work, or have worked, or for how long, civility is still possible. Esp on these boards (when maybe you’ll find it won’t work face to face)

Please, remain CIVIL. Is that so hard?

(Or do I have to take you on myself?)