Abortion

These court rulings made it possible for women to obtain safe, legal abortion care. Before abortions were legal in the U.S. and Canada, thousands of women jeopardized their health or died by seeking back-alley or self-induced abortions.

Myth, and the man who made up the lie about thousands of women dying due to back alley or induced abortions admitted that it was a lie. CDC statistics tell an entirely different story. In the years before roe, less than 10 women per year were dying due to back alley or self induced abortions.

Abortions were being performed by doctors in safe and sterile environments, and the doctors who were doing them were the very same doctors who closed up their practices and opened abortion clinics the day after roe was decided.

Once again, a position based on faith, rather than reality.
 
Werbung:
The Celebration is about no longer being forced to the coat hanger. The truth is ending choice doesn't end abortion. It only means a few less abortions and a lot more dead and seriously infected women.

Women were never forced to the coathanger. It was a lie, and the man who made up the lie has admitted it. At this point, people who perpetuate the lie are deliberate liars. Bernard Nathanson, who founded NARAL, has publicly admitted that he lied when he said that thousands of women died of illegal abortions. They needed an image that would stick in people's minds and create a fear of roe ever being overturned. The coathanger was a brilliant marketing scheme, but it was a scheme and nothing more. Who else says the back-alley coat hanger abortions were a myth? The Centers for Disease Control and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

You want abortion facts? Here are some abortion facts. Not the made up sort that you, in your faith, like to call fact, but actual fact supported by statistics.


  • Making abortion illegal has never affected the number of women who die of abortions.
  • Deaths due to illegal abortions did not drop dramatically the year abortion was legalized.
  • Abortions are now safer, not because they are legal, but because medical technology in general has improved. Everything is safer.
  • Illegal abortions were not performed by filthy back-alley butchers, but by doctors in their nice clean offices.
  • Hundreds and thousands of women dying of botched abortions are simply the invention Barnard Nathanson and NARAL who were trying to make their case stronger.

Until then we have to deal with the reality we have now. The Supreme Court has done that.

Your faith has made you into a blatant liar. Even when you talk about the supreme court, you tell a lie of omission. The court said that if the personhood of the unborn were ever established, that roe will collapse because they (unborns) will be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. NEWSFLASH!!!!! Legal precedent for the personhood of unborns has been established and the body of precedent is growing all the time.

The supreme court made a decision way back in the 70's based on the medical technology, and the body of legal precedent that existed way back in the 70's. Things have changed. Technology has shown us beyond doubt that we are human beings from the time we are concieved, and the body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn is undeniable. If you are going to point to the supreme court, then at least try and do it honestly and admit that the underpinnings of roe v wade are becoming very shaky.
 
Again, mom doesn't lose complete control and suggesting that she does is intellecutally dishonest.

I didn't say "complete control" - now you are being intellectually dishonest. But she loses all control except for the ability to save her own life. She loses free will - free choice concerning the most intimate ownership she can have: her own body and life.

She still has the right to defend her life, she can still do pretty much every thing she did before she got pregnant, she is not imprisoned, and she doesn't have a keeper who denies her the freedom to make her normal daily decisions.

If the pregnancy is unwilling
then it is no different from a prison and her daily decisions are arbritrated by what she carries within her and an external body of people representing the law.

If you doubt this, hell, ask your mom if she became a prisoner to you during the time she carried you?

My Mom carried me willingly.
At best, you were a mild to moderate inconvenience, but she did not forfiet control over her life to you.

I don't believe I have resorted to this argument before or use such strong words - indeed, I don't like to - but this statement forces it. Only a man or someone who had never been pregnant would say this. Some people get very sick during pregnancy - have a hard time carrying it to term and suffer multiple health problems through out it. It is not an insignificant number of people who suffer at least some problems during and after pregnancy. To call it a "mild to moderate inconvenience" is the equivelent of "emotional handwringing" and is a statement of profound ignorance and indifference. I would surely hope (and suspect you did) that as a husband you did not refer to your wife's pregnancies as "mild to moderate invonveniences" and rather, that you supported her and her needs through out. My mother did not forfiet control over her life to me - but there was a key difference. I was the product of love - not rape and I was carried willingly. When free will is removed - no matter you argue it - you no longer have control.

So you believe that during the time of her pregnancy, she is unable to continue living her life and becomes an inanimate object sitting on a foundation, able to do nothing but gestate a child. Your suggestion that she becomes "NOTHING" more than a housing unit paints that picture for me, and the picture is a dishonest one.

The degree to which she can continue living her life depends on the degree to which the pregnancy affects her: financially, physically, emotionally.

And my picture is no more dishonest then your portrayal of a pregnancy as a "mild" inconvenience.

An honest assesment of the situation is that she will be mildly to moderately incovenienced for less than a year so that an innocent human being will not have to wrongly forfiet his or her one, and only one life. Try and paint any other picture and you are doing nothing but making a dishonest appeal to emotion.

By the way, good to talk to you again.

You too - and I hope you had a great holiday and New Year! :)
 
No, requiring a mother to carry a child to term against her will - when she had no say in it's conception is not "limited rights" - it's absolute rights by an outside agency over her body for 9 month with her ONLY right in that period of time being the right to defend herself - assuming she can. And it does nothing to address what she may be left with - physically, financially, emotionally and medically when all is said and done (what I think you term "inconvenience").

Pale pretty much covered what I wanted to say, except for some minor details.

Will, as it pertains to the natural rights of man, includes all biological functions that define human life. One, therefore, cannot talk of natural processes occuring within our bodies as 'against her will'. Conversely, one cannot talk of 'absolute possession' of one's own body given the multitude of bodily functions one is neither conscious of nor is 'willfully' doing.
 
Pale pretty much covered what I wanted to say, except for some minor details.

Will, as it pertains to the natural rights of man, includes all biological functions that define human life. One, therefore, cannot talk of natural processes occuring within our bodies as 'against her will'. Conversely, one cannot talk of 'absolute possession' of one's own body given the multitude of bodily functions one is neither conscious of nor is 'willfully' doing.

It sounds as if you are talking about her as an animal. Will is conscious choice. Free will is something that defines humans and seperates us from other animals isn't it?

This sounds rather like a contradiction. If pregnancy is a natural process (which it is) and it goes on whether she wills it or not then she is no different from any other animal in regards to free will.

Possession. All bodily functions end when life ends. A person has control of their life and can willfully choose to end it. That would be total possession.
 
Women should NEVER have to die or be injured because of a back alley abortion. Anyone who tells you that an unregulated illegal procedure is as safe a practice as a regulated and legal one is either a fool or an lier or both.

If one still thinks this is just not true I encourage you to contact me the next time you have an abscessed tooth. There's a guy down the street that flunked out of Dental School and he will work on you on the cheap. He drinks a little but that's just to calm his nerves. No worries!

The Supreme court has not reversed it's decision... abortion has been legal in the United States for 35 years... still legal as we speak.


There used to be a Draft. To this day it's the law that young men have to sign up for Selective Service. This is in place so that if politicians want to implement a Draft they have a list to call up these young men to fight and die. And there are always, always those who do not want to kill or be killed that are FORCED to kill or be killed or go to jail.

Often these battles are fought and young men die long after the politicians know that they will not prevail cannot prevail... as in Vietnam and comments now on the record of President Johnson & President Nixon.

These battles aren't to stop an invading force into the United States. These battles are often fought for nothing more than the call of Nation Building.

If the Government can EVER FORCE an 18 year old young man to die for something he does not believe in, surely a women can have control over her internal bodily functions... and 2 microscopic cell on cannot dictate her decisions and control her life forcing her to be an incubator for the government against her will.

It's an imperfect world. Women should have the choice. My hope is they do the best they can in the particular situation they find themselves to be in.

This is one kick butt clip though... women can be very powerful when united behind a common cause. We're already seeing the huge turnouts on the Democratic side. Women take this VERY seriously... and they'll vote!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5ef8G3ajU
 
It sounds as if you are talking about her as an animal.

No.

Will is conscious choice.

No. At least not in political philosophy.

Free will is something that defines humans and seperates us from other animals isn't it?

Correct.

Understand that the concept of free will in political philosophy is ultimately dependent on natural law. Denying the operation of natural law is tantamount to denying free will altogether.

This sounds rather like a contradiction. If pregnancy is a natural process (which it is) and it goes on whether she wills it or not then she is no different from any other animal in regards to free will.

Not at all.

The difference comes from discerning the reason for natural law - hence acting according to principles rather than instincts.

Possession. All bodily functions end when life ends. A person has control of their life and can willfully choose to end it. That would be total possession.

When one acts without reason, one is going against his rational nature - hence not free but a slave to appetites and inclinations.

On the one hand, we are inclined to a comfortable existence and on the other, we are obliged to uphold the principle of life in ourselves and others as a pre-requisite to such an existence.
 
[
If the Government can EVER FORCE an 18 year old young man to die for something he does not believe in, surely a women can have control over her internal bodily functions... and 2 microscopic cell on cannot dictate her decisions and control her life forcing her to be an incubator for the government against her will.

An 18 year old couldn't possibly have enjoyed the benefits of polity (for 18 years) without believing in it - hence obligated to defend the polity WHENEVER it is threatened.

Does your citizenship apply ONLY when recieving benefits from the political association?

Or does the interest of the political association reside in the opinions of the individual?

Hmmm?
 
Women should NEVER have to die or be injured because of a back alley abortion. Anyone who tells you that an unregulated illegal procedure is as safe a practice as a regulated and legal one is either a fool or an lier or both.


Anyone who continues to promolgate (that means to tell) a statement as if it were true, when the ones who fabricated the statement have long since admitted that it was a lie and never contained any truth is the liar and the fool. The fact is that the death rate did not go down when the supreme court said that abortion was legal. You can check the figures with the CDC and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The founders of NARAL (who invented the coathanger myth) and the CDC, and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology freely admit that prior to roe being decided, abortions were performed in qualified doctor's offices. Illegally, but in doctor's offices none the less. The very doctors, in fact, who closed their family practices on the day after roe was decided and became abortion clinics.

The inventors of the coat hanger myth also freely admit that the drastic decline in deaths due to both legal and illegal abortions happened long before any court decision was made with regard to abortion. The decline in deaths was due to the advent of sterile operating theaters and advances in the use of antibiotics.

Your position is a lie, based on admitted lies by the liars who made them up.

If one still thinks this is just not true I encourage you to contact me the next time you have an abscessed tooth. There's a guy down the street that flunked out of Dental School and he will work on you on the cheap. He drinks a little but that's just to calm his nerves. No worries!

You are funny when you are losing. The people who invented the coathanger myth admit that it was a lie and that prior to roe, abortions were performed in the sterile operating theaters of perfectly qualified doctors. The death rate did not go down when roe was decided.

The Supreme court has not reversed it's decision... abortion has been legal in the United States for 35 years... still legal as we speak.

The supreme court has reversed itself some 200 times since it began. Quite a few of those reversals happened much longer than 35 years after the original decision was made. And in case you didn't notice, the court just upheld the partial birth abortion ban which was made legal by a supreme court decision about a year after roe was decided. That is known as a reversal.

There used to be a Draft. To this day it's the law that young men have to sign up for Selective Service. This is in place so that if politicians want to implement a Draft they have a list to call up these young men to fight and die. And there are always, always those who do not want to kill or be killed that are FORCED to kill or be killed or go to jail.

The panic is evident in your writing. There used to be slavery, but not any more. It used to be that women weren't allowed to vote, but not any more.

IT USED TO BE LEGAL TO HAVE A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, BUT NOT ANY MORE.

Often these battles are fought and young men die long after the politicians know that they will not prevail cannot prevail... as in Vietnam and comments now on the record of President Johnson & President Nixon.

This discussion is about abortion, not the draft. Dragging the discussion away from abortion isn't helping your case.
 
If the Government can EVER FORCE an 18 year old young man to die for something he does not believe in, surely a women can have control over her internal bodily functions... and 2 microscopic cell on cannot dictate her decisions and control her life forcing her to be an incubator for the government against her will.

Your logic is faulty, once again. You are screaming that the government can force you to go to war and die against your will and then saying that because the government can do that, it can't deny a woman the right to kill her child?

The argument that the government can force you to go to war and die against your will is testament to the power of government and the control it can exercise over your "free will". If it has the power to send you off to die against your will, it has the power to protect the right of a child to live.
 
The people who invented the coathanger myth admit that it was a lie and that prior to roe, abortions were performed in the sterile operating theaters of perfectly qualified doctors. The death rate did not go down when roe was decided.

How accurate is this really? Illegal abortions would have been expensive because of the risks involved. That would mean that the safer procedures would have been available for those with enough money to pay for it. But what about poor women? What would have been available to them? And, how many times do you think cause of death might have been fudged because of the illegality and social consequences of the act (the same way cause of death by suicide or cancer was often fudged).

I think accurate statistics here are dodgy because it was illegal - no one is going to be completetely up front. I did a bit of searching and found the following.

20 years ago in Perspectives - illegal abortion statistics - Brief Article
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, May-June, 2002


Source: Binkin N, Gold J and Cates W, Jr., Illegal-abortion deaths in the United States: why are they still occurring? Family Planning Perspectives, 1982, 14(3):163-167.

In the May/June 1982 issue of Perspectives, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control reported that 17 U.S. women had died after having illegal abortions between 1975 and 1979. About half of these women had reduced their own abortion, and most of the rest had had a procedure performed by someone other than a licensed physician; the majority of the deaths--10 of the 17--had resulted from refection. Six of the women had sought an illegal abortion primarily because legal services were too costly or were not accessible; another four were motivated mainly by the desire to keep the abortion a secret. The researchers estimated that an average of 11,300 illegal abortions took place each year from 1975 to 1979--far fewer than the 130,000 estimated for 1972, before abortion became legal in the United States. They concluded that the number could undoubtedly be reduced further "if legal abortions were made financially and geographically accessible."


According to Catholic.net:

How many illegal abortions were there?

No one knows. Why? For the obvious reason that illegal abortions are not reported. No one reports the illegal actions that they have done. In this case neither the abortionist nor the woman report the deed. Because of this, there are no records. There are no statistics, no numbers anywhere to report.

No one knows! Therefore, if anyone tells you that there were X numbers of illegal abortions somewhere in a certain time, they are guessing.

The pro-abortion leader may guess 1,000,000. Your pro-life spokesman may guess 100,000, but both are guessing.
 
If all the numbers are guesses, then neither side should be bringing them up. The statistics, however, are more credible than the wild claims of the pro choice side of the argument. Their numbers are substantiated by exactly nothing, and the people who originally provided the numbers have admitted that they pulled the numbers right out of their hineys and had no basis in any sort of fact at all.
 
[

An 18 year old couldn't possibly have enjoyed the benefits of polity (for 18 years) without believing in it - hence obligated to defend the polity WHENEVER it is threatened.

Does your citizenship apply ONLY when recieving benefits from the political association?

Or does the interest of the political association reside in the opinions of the individual?

Hmmm?

It's just so very sad the hate that is shown against women by yourself and palerider. I actually feel a little sorry for you both.

Seriously you guys need to take that dog and pony show somewhere else because there is no doubt at all that wire coat hangers as well as many other household items were used to create abortions when abortion was illegal.

And you are just wrong about the Service issue as well. Many fled to Canada to save their own lives. There are large numbers of young men that even went to the extreme of trying to invoke conscientious objector status here in the United States that were FORCED to go to war and be killed against their will. I know... I grew up through the Vietnam era. I had a cousin that did all that, went to court the whole deal, and was still forced in.

If the government feels so strongly that they can take lives of full grown young men against their will. Certainly a woman can have control of her own internal bodily functions containing 2 microscopic cells forward until it has developed to where it could survive outside the womb.

You can't just pick and choose for a convenient argument... Oh, over here to help my arguement I'll say No Killing not even 2 microscopic cells... but wait... over here I'll say forcing an Innocent person to be killed in the draft is perfectly OK??????? It's not a perfect world my friend.

Banning Partial Birth abortion was just a clarification on the interpretation of viability. By the time it's "Partial Birth" it's very late on in development. I do not disagree with the interpretation. The life of the mother is still protected.


I'll follow up with a history... too many words for one posting. But I can post this here...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4SaD-fEwJs
 
An era of tragedy for women
When abortion was illegal
October 21, 2005 | Pages 6 and 7

ABORTION WAS criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway.
Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.

The right wing has gone on an organized campaign to discredit such statistics, going as far to claim that deaths from illegal abortion were “just” a few dozen a year--and that the anecdotes of items such as coat hangers being inserted into women’s bodies to cause an abortion are false. In reality, coat hangers were just one horror among many during the years of illegal abortion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHILE ABORTION was illegal for decades, not all eras of illegality were the same.
In the 1930s, for example, abortion was widespread and extremely common. There was still tremendous risk involved, given that penicillin and antibiotics were not available until the Second World War. But even at this time, abortion was increasingly safe, relatively speaking.

The Great Depression produced an economic crisis that sharpened the need of women to control childbearing. Due to the 1920s campaign to make birth control available, by 1937, 80 percent of American women approved of using birth control. Moreover, the labor movement and socialist movements of that era produced an environment that largely supported women’s reproductive rights. The fact that Russia following the 1917 revolution had been performing safe, legal abortions influenced radical doctors in the U.S.

In 1939, 68 percent of medical students in the U.S. reported that they would be willing to perform abortions if they were legal.

Many did. As Leslie Reagan describes in her excellent book When Abortion Was a Crime, clinics operated in open defiance of the law, and were often run by trained doctors, nurses and midwives. One such clinic in Chicago performed about 2,000 abortions a year between 1932 and 1941.

For these and other reasons--such as the availability of sulfa drugs--maternal mortality declined in the 1930s. Illegal abortion accounted for 14 percent of maternal mortality.

But by the early 1960s, the situation had reversed dramatically. In New York, for example, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of the maternal mortality rate. There were fewer abortionists in 1955 than there were in 1940. Across the U.S., larger and larger numbers of women died from illegal abortion after the Second World War than before.

In the post-Second World War era in the U.S., there was a backlash against women’s rights, and women working outside the home and living independent lives. Central to this was a crackdown on illegal abortion that drove it underground and ushered in an era of tragedy and horror for women.

Clinics and midwives’ homes and offices were raided and their patients’ lives exposed publicly in show trials that mirrored the worst of the anti-communist witch-hunts of the McCarthyist era. Women were accosted by police detectives outside clinics and forced to testify against those who performed abortions. Anyone who didn’t cooperate was likely to wake up the next morning with details of their personal lives splashed all over the pages of the newspaper.

As a result, most illegal abortions were increasingly self-induced by women, or performed by a back-alley butcher.

Both were nightmares in their own right. Women often tried to induce abortion or cause a miscarriage by throwing themselves down stairs or inflicting violence on themselves. They ingested, douched with or inserted into themselves a chilling variety of chemicals and toxins--from bleach to potassium permanganate to turpentine to gunpowder and whiskey. Knitting needles, crochet hooks, scissors and coat hangers were all among the tools used by women who had no choice but to resort to these means.

Thousands of women died from poisoning and injury. Thousands of others lived, but with the pain of permanent injuries and disfigurement.

Women who sought abortions from back-alley butchers encountered similar horrors. Because of the crackdown, the clandestine nature of illegal abortion meant that women who sought them were often blindfolded, driven to remote areas and passed off to people they didn’t know or couldn’t see. Leslie Reagan’s book contains stories of women forced to get abortions from drunk abortionists, using unsanitary tools in filthy rooms and even the backseats of cars.


The humiliation and isolation imposed on women because of the illegal nature of abortion meant that many women, after receiving one, feared going to a doctor when they suffered complications.

In Reagan’s book, one woman recalled how a fellow college student who had an illegal abortion “was too frightened to tell anyone what she had done. She locked herself in the bathroom between two dorm rooms and quietly bled to death.”

Some women didn’t suffer this fate--because of their class. Nearly all middle- and upper-class white women who sought abortions were able to obtain one in hospitals or outside the U.S.

But the vast majority of women faced deplorable conditions, and women of color suffered the worst. Nearly four times as many women of color died from illegal abortions as white women. Before 1970, when abortion was legalized in New York City, Black women accounted for 50 percent of deaths due to illegal abortions. Puerto Rican women accounted for 44 percent.

The history of back-alley abortion is full of countless horror stories.

In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone.

Meanwhile, after Roe legalized abortion, every restriction passed has meant that more women die.

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, banning federal Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women. Shortly after the law went into effect, Rosie Jimenez, a 27-year-old student and single mother, couldn’t afford a private abortion. She obtained an illegal one and died from infection. A decade later, 17-year-old Becky Bell got a back-alley abortion because of restrictions under Indiana’s parental notification law. She suffered a horrific infection and died as a result.

And these are just a few of the better-known stories of the victims of the war on women’s reproductive rights.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE MASS social movements of the 1960s and early 1970s--in particular the movement for women’s liberation--created the context for the Supreme Court to uphold abortion as a constitutional right for women in 1973.
After Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, women’s health improved significantly. Entire wards of hospitals dedicated to aiding women suffering from complications from botched abortions could be devoted to other uses. In New York City, after abortion was legalized in 1970, maternal mortality dropped by 45 percent. Women were finally freed from the terror of the back alley.

The legalization of abortion was a shining moment in the struggle for women’s liberation. For one, the shame and nightmares that often accompanied illegal abortion had been overcome. But also, by winning abortion rights, the women’s movement placed the demand that women alone must control their own bodies at the center of the broader fight for liberation.

Under capitalism women cannot be equal to men without having control over reproduction. Ultimately, women bear the physical, emotional and financial burden of bearing and raising a child. And women--working-class women in particular--bear a “double burden” of both wage labor at work and domestic labor at home. This dynamic drives the sexism that permeates our society.

Any fundamental challenge to the inequality faced by women must have the struggle for women’s reproductive rights at its core.
 
Werbung:
If all the numbers are guesses, then neither side should be bringing them up. The statistics, however, are more credible than the wild claims of the pro choice side of the argument. Their numbers are substantiated by exactly nothing, and the people who originally provided the numbers have admitted that they pulled the numbers right out of their hineys and had no basis in any sort of fact at all.

I disagree - both sides are just guessing. No one really knows exactly. Even this pro-life site I quoted from says it: The pro-abortion leader may guess 1,000,000. Your pro-life spokesman may guess 100,000, but both are guessing.
 
Back
Top