A
Apryl
Guest
So… you are no pro-Abortion, just Pro-Legalized Abortion?
Is that what we are down to?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Is that what we are down to?
E
estesbob
Guest
You’ll have to visit your local Library** 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 penicillin and other antibiotics 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?
The “Vital Statistics of the The Unites States” , a Govt publication, Reported that in 1964 there were Reported there were 247 deaths from abortions.
You can read in read in deatil the obfuscation of deaths by abortion by the abortion industry in Germain Grisez" Abortion : The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments. Copyright 1970. It is an interesting read because it was written before Roe V wade was forced on the Country.
In Britain in 1965 the number of deaths from abortion was 65, In California it was 30
Mary S Calderone, a former director of planned Parenthood wrote this in 1960:
“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure.This applies not just to therapeutic abortions performed in a hospital but also to so called illegal abortions as done by physicians. in 1957 there were only 269 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind,”
And this from Dr Robert E Hilol. president of the Association for the Study of Abortion, also written in 1960:
If would quarrel with Nuswander on only one point , namely, his perpetuation of Tsassig’s thirty year old claim that 5,000 to 10,000 American Women die every year as a result of Criminal abortion. Whether this statistic was valid in 1936 I d not know, but it certainly is not now.There are in fact fewer than 1,500 hundred total pregnancy related deaths in this country per annum: very few other could go undetected and of those 1,500 no more than a third are the result of abortion. Even the "unskilled "
abortionist is evidently more skillful and/or more careful these days. Although Criminal abortion is of course to be decried , the demand for it abolition cannot reasonably be based upon thirty year old statistics.
H
hasikelee
Guest
Totally disagree. There are babies who survive abortion, with limbs torn off or serious defects due to the violent nature of an abortion.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.
E
estesbob
Guest
Generally when babies are born in spite of an attempt to abort them they are laid aside and left to die. I once read a heartrending story of a nurse who picked up one these abandoned babies and held it in her arms for several hours until it died. That was the only comfort that child would every know.Totally disagree. There are babies who survive abortion, with limbs torn off or serious defects due to the violent nature of an abortion.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I think that this discussion can be made simple real quick. Don’t want to die from an abortion? DON"T HAVE ONE! Its very simple. No women will die from abortions if no women have abortions. Those who choose to engage in the vile practice of murdering their unborn child put themselves at risk and that is their own fault. Its the same as the burglar who puts himself at risk for being shot every time he breaks into a house. Its his own fault.
NO ABORTIONS = NO DEATHS FROM ABORTIONS
NO ABORTIONS = NO DEATHS FROM ABORTIONS
K
KarenNC
Guest
No, I am in the “keep abortion legal as a medical option in a more restricted manner” camp.So… you are no pro-Abortion, just Pro-Legalized Abortion?
Is that what we are down to?
E
East_and_West
Guest
So keep the murder of infants legal, just in a more restricted fashion. Give me a break. Should we have also kept the Holocaust legal but in a more restricted manner?No, I am in the “keep abortion legal as a medical option in a more restricted manner” camp.
E
estesbob
Guest
So its ok to kill our children as long as it done in a more resticted manner?No, I am in the “keep abortion legal as a medical option in a more restricted manner” camp.
K
KarenNC
Guest
In some instances, yes.So its ok to kill our children as long as it done in a more resticted manner?
K
KarenNC
Guest
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.”
- 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.
E
estesbob
Guest
Why? Either abortion is moral or it is not. If abortion is the immoral killing of children then it should be banned in all cases. if it is not immoral then it should be allowed at any time up to the moment the childs head fully exits the womb. There really is no middle grounds and you really cant have it both ways.In some instances, yes.
E
estesbob
Guest
The first CPC I couseled at was three blocks from a large high school and about 50% of our cleintelle were teenagers. Over 80% of those who had a positive pregnancy test had been using contraception. You see the problem is not that they werent getting enough information-the probelm was they were being preached the “safe sex” mantra . They had been led to believe that if they just “followed” the rules there were absolutely no consequences ot having sex. Thus as long as their boyfirend used a condom or they were on the pill(of course being teens they often forgot to take them) they would be just fine. And our society takes it even a step futher-it (and i apeasr you do also) tells the preganant teen that there still are no consequences even if you get pregnant-you just kill your child and all is wellYou 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.”
K
KarenNC
Guest
A blanket ban on the procedure does not allow it as an option if continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health and the child is not yet viable. I see no moral reason to consider that abortion in that case should not be an option. I don’t see that the life of the non-viable child is inherently any more sacred than that of the mother. Some families might decide to continue the pregnancy regardless in that case, but not all would.Why? Either abortion is moral or it is not. If abortion is the immoral killing of children then it should be banned in all cases. if it is not immoral then it should be allowed at any time up to the moment the childs head fully exits the womb. There really is no middle grounds and you really cant have it both ways.
K
KarenNC
Guest
You see the problem is not that they werent getting enough information-the probelm was they were being preached the “safe sex” mantra .
No, the problem is exactly that they were not getting (or willing to hear, which is also a possibility) enough information, including information on the failure rates of even the best forms of birth control even if used perfectly (and most people don’t), the emotional and psychological effects of sexual activity (particularly outside of a committed monogamous relationship) regardless of the physical outcomes, etc to stand up against the information they were getting from their peers and the media. Ideally, their families will provide such, but I can tell you based on my experience, that not all families do and “abstinence-only” based programs often don’t either.
and i apeasr you do also
Appearances can be deceiving, then.
No, the problem is exactly that they were not getting (or willing to hear, which is also a possibility) enough information, including information on the failure rates of even the best forms of birth control even if used perfectly (and most people don’t), the emotional and psychological effects of sexual activity (particularly outside of a committed monogamous relationship) regardless of the physical outcomes, etc to stand up against the information they were getting from their peers and the media. Ideally, their families will provide such, but I can tell you based on my experience, that not all families do and “abstinence-only” based programs often don’t either.
and i apeasr you do also
Appearances can be deceiving, then.
E
estesbob
Guest
Im sorry-why would viabiltiy be an issue? Is the child not human if it cant live on its own? Do you subcibe to its “ok to kill the child until it looks like a child argument”?A blanket ban on the procedure does not allow it as an option if continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s health and the child is not yet viable. I see no moral reason to consider that abortion in that case should not be an option. I don’t see that the life of the non-viable child is inherently any more sacred than that of the mother. Some families might decide to continue the pregnancy regardless in that case, but not all would.
The “health of the Mother” is another strawman given Doe-vs Bolton that says a mothers health is threatended if she is doesnt want to bear her child regardless of the reason.
Even the Church, under the “double effect” priniciple approves of a unborn child dying as a result of taking procedures to save the Mothers life.
So tell me Karen -why is some life more sacred than others? Why should prosecute the mother who throws her newborn in a dumpster when she could leaglly have had the baby killed the day before?
K
KarenNC
Guest
Im sorry-why would viabiltiy be an issue?
Because if the child is at a point of likely viability, if I were in that position (as much as I can put myself in that theoretical position) then birth, even preterm, would be preferable to my mind.
** Do you subcibe to its “ok to kill the child until it looks like a child argument”? **
No, why would I?
The “health of the Mother” is another strawman given Doe-vs Bolton that says a mothers health is threatended if she is doesnt want to bear her child regardless of the reason.
Did I say I was using Doe vs. Bolton as a definition of that? There are situations that can arise in which the health of the mother is threatened. That is a question better decided by the woman’s physician, not me.
Even the Church, under the “double effect” priniciple approves of a unborn child dying as a result of taking procedures to save the Mothers life.
But which procedures? Why attempt to legally tie the hands of the doctors through a blanket ban? As has been pointed out to me in terms of ectopic pregnancy (which are known not viable and a threat to the mother’s health), the Church considers it okay to remove the affected Fallopian tube once problems occur, but not okay to use other methods or procedures that end the pregnancy while preserving the mother’s fertility as much as possible and can be done sooner, when there is less chance of harm to the mother.
**So tell me Karen -why is some life more sacred than others? **
I haven’t said that it was. I have said that I don’t consider the woman’s life to be inherently less sacred.
Because if the child is at a point of likely viability, if I were in that position (as much as I can put myself in that theoretical position) then birth, even preterm, would be preferable to my mind.
** Do you subcibe to its “ok to kill the child until it looks like a child argument”? **
No, why would I?
The “health of the Mother” is another strawman given Doe-vs Bolton that says a mothers health is threatended if she is doesnt want to bear her child regardless of the reason.
Did I say I was using Doe vs. Bolton as a definition of that? There are situations that can arise in which the health of the mother is threatened. That is a question better decided by the woman’s physician, not me.
Even the Church, under the “double effect” priniciple approves of a unborn child dying as a result of taking procedures to save the Mothers life.
But which procedures? Why attempt to legally tie the hands of the doctors through a blanket ban? As has been pointed out to me in terms of ectopic pregnancy (which are known not viable and a threat to the mother’s health), the Church considers it okay to remove the affected Fallopian tube once problems occur, but not okay to use other methods or procedures that end the pregnancy while preserving the mother’s fertility as much as possible and can be done sooner, when there is less chance of harm to the mother.
**So tell me Karen -why is some life more sacred than others? **
I haven’t said that it was. I have said that I don’t consider the woman’s life to be inherently less sacred.
E
estesbob
Guest
So why is it preferable to kill the child before it is viable?Im sorry-why would viabiltiy be an issue?
Because if the child is at a point of likely viability, if I were in that position (as much as I can put myself in that theoretical position) then birth, even preterm, would be preferable to my mind.
Based on what you said above that appears to be your position****Do you subcibe to its “ok to kill the child until it looks like a child argument”? ****
No, why would I?
But you know in the overwhelming majority of abortion their is no interaction betweeen a woman and her Physician . I also find it hard to beleive that its OK to kill your child if the Dr tells you so…The “health of the Mother” is another strawman given Doe-vs Bolton that says a mothers health is threatended if she is doesnt want to bear her child regardless of the reason.
Did I say I was using Doe vs. Bolton as a definition of that? There are situations that can arise in which the health of the mother is threatened. That is a question better decided by the woman’s physician, not me.
**So we have went from direct thrreat to the mother s health to less harm to the mother. Ss it ok to kill your the child so as to maintain your fertility? The doctine is preety simple-you can take procedures to save a Mothers life even if the end result is her child dies. a very, very rare instance, BTW **Even the Church, under the “double effect” priniciple approves of a unborn child dying as a result of taking procedures to save the Mothers life.
But which procedures? Why attempt to legally tie the hands of the doctors through a blanket ban? As has been pointed out to me in terms of ectopic pregnancy (which are known not viable and a threat to the mother’s health), the Church considers it okay to remove the affected Fallopian tube once problems occur, but not okay to use other methods or procedures that end the pregnancy while preserving the mother’s fertility as much as possible and can be done sooner, when there is less chance of harm to the mother.
**
**So tell me Karen -why is some life more sacred than others?
No one said it is.I haven’t said that it was. I have said that I don’t consider the woman’s life to be inherently less sacred.
M
maryj
Guest
O.K. I’ve read enough. Your statistics are wrong. You can stand and quote as many organizations as you wish, you are dead wrong and so are all of your statistics on this matter. Abortion is murder. There is a type of sin that is mortal, it kills your soul. It matters not if “mankind” thinks differently. God has told us so. So whether an abortion be legal or illegal, in the eyes of God, it injures and kills all souls. The souls of the earthly poor AND the souls of the earthly rich. Legal abortions are not saving anyones lives, they kill the soul. Let us not differentiate between the two, they are one in the same. Choose life.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.”
K
KarenNC
Guest
**Your statistics are wrong. You can stand and quote as many organizations as you wish, you are dead wrong and so are all of your statistics on this matter. **
In what way are my statistics wrong? The numbers are what they are. Do you have access to other studies whose results differed? I would be glad to take a look at them.
** Abortion is murder. There is a type of sin that is mortal, it kills your soul. It matters not if “mankind” thinks differently. God has told us so. So whether an abortion be legal or illegal, in the eyes of God, it injures and kills all souls. The souls of the earthly poor AND the souls of the earthly rich. Legal abortions are not saving anyones lives, they kill the soul. Let us not differentiate between the two, they are one in the same. Choose life.**
Sorry, none of the statistics addressed soul nor did they pretend to do so. They deal with the material, that which is measurable. As I have said, I did not come with the intent to change the Catholic Church’s position on whether abortion is a sin, mortal or otherwise. When asked (or when blatantly misrepresented), I have given my personal views on specific points. That those are not perfectly aligned with those of the Catholic Church is hardly surprising. All I have asked is that if one is going to base one’s argument on specific facts, it would help that those facts be as accurate as possible.
In what way are my statistics wrong? The numbers are what they are. Do you have access to other studies whose results differed? I would be glad to take a look at them.
** Abortion is murder. There is a type of sin that is mortal, it kills your soul. It matters not if “mankind” thinks differently. God has told us so. So whether an abortion be legal or illegal, in the eyes of God, it injures and kills all souls. The souls of the earthly poor AND the souls of the earthly rich. Legal abortions are not saving anyones lives, they kill the soul. Let us not differentiate between the two, they are one in the same. Choose life.**
Sorry, none of the statistics addressed soul nor did they pretend to do so. They deal with the material, that which is measurable. As I have said, I did not come with the intent to change the Catholic Church’s position on whether abortion is a sin, mortal or otherwise. When asked (or when blatantly misrepresented), I have given my personal views on specific points. That those are not perfectly aligned with those of the Catholic Church is hardly surprising. All I have asked is that if one is going to base one’s argument on specific facts, it would help that those facts be as accurate as possible.
K
KarenNC
Guest
So why is it preferable to kill the child before it is viable?
You may want to re-read what I actually said. Then we can talk about it.
Based on what you said above that appears to be your position
Really?
But you know in the overwhelming majority of abortion their is no interaction betweeen a woman and her Physician . I also find it hard to beleive that its OK to kill your child if the Dr tells you so…
That’s a problematic statement. By definition, any physician that treats a patient is that patient’s physician. Are you implying that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed by physicians or that in the majority of cases women are not consulting their primary care physicians?
Have I said I am discussing or support the “overwhelming majority” of abortions? I thought I had made it pretty clear I do not.
**So we have went from direct thrreat to the mother s health to less harm to the mother. Ss it ok to kill your the child so as to maintain your fertility? The doctine is preety simple-you can take procedures to save a Mothers life even if the end result is her child dies. a very, very rare instance, BTW **
I brought up the ectopic pregnancy example to discuss the choice of procedures, not outcomes, which are not in doubt. My argument was more regarding the attempts to use the legal code to restrict the options on the procedures available to the doctor to save the mother’s life. If it is a choice between a procedure that spares fertility and suffering for the mother and one that does not, when the end result and the motivation are the same, I would indeed opt for the former.
No one said it is.
Then, if no one said that one life is more or less sacred, why bother to ask me that question?
You may want to re-read what I actually said. Then we can talk about it.
Based on what you said above that appears to be your position
Really?
But you know in the overwhelming majority of abortion their is no interaction betweeen a woman and her Physician . I also find it hard to beleive that its OK to kill your child if the Dr tells you so…
That’s a problematic statement. By definition, any physician that treats a patient is that patient’s physician. Are you implying that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not performed by physicians or that in the majority of cases women are not consulting their primary care physicians?
Have I said I am discussing or support the “overwhelming majority” of abortions? I thought I had made it pretty clear I do not.
**So we have went from direct thrreat to the mother s health to less harm to the mother. Ss it ok to kill your the child so as to maintain your fertility? The doctine is preety simple-you can take procedures to save a Mothers life even if the end result is her child dies. a very, very rare instance, BTW **
I brought up the ectopic pregnancy example to discuss the choice of procedures, not outcomes, which are not in doubt. My argument was more regarding the attempts to use the legal code to restrict the options on the procedures available to the doctor to save the mother’s life. If it is a choice between a procedure that spares fertility and suffering for the mother and one that does not, when the end result and the motivation are the same, I would indeed opt for the former.
No one said it is.
Then, if no one said that one life is more or less sacred, why bother to ask me that question?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.