Why Outlawing Abortion is a Bad Idea

[Blackrend]

Name some prominent people on the far-left who agree that those two methods are vile and extreme. NARAL and other abortion peddlers don't believe that it should have been banned. What does that say about them?
[/size][/size][/font]


What is the time frame here and where did you come up with those figures?

Although Al Gore flipflopped several times on whether or not Partial Birth Abortion should be banned, he definitely opposes it. Also, Howard Dean stated that PBAs should only be used to protect the life of the mother.

Sadly I can't think of any more than that. I know more hardcore liberals in person who oppose the act, but I dont think 'personal affiliations' count in a debate. :\


Regarding your second question:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742811,00.html

5th paragraph down. Time frame was roughly around 1932, when abortions were still illegal.

 

[Libre]

I see that both sides of this are predictably involved on this thread. The catch phrase, Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare" is acutally the best way to frame this. I too remember botched abortions back in the day. I knew a girl who nearly died from one. We don't want to go back. And we won't, for the roe v wade decision is now considered precident and will not be reversed. Even the newest conservative Justice would not vote against it, for that very reason of 40 years standing as precident. It might be a good idea to research the legal reasoning behind roe. And to consider the convention that says a woman's wishes and life take precedence over the unborn.

It is possible to be pro-choice, and promote life. Most Democrats are of that persuasion. We extend it to capital punishment, too. But conservatives only seem interested in being pro innocent life. Criminals are not innocent. And women who become "accidentally" pregnant are not considered innocent either, in their way of thinking.

But controlling reproductive processes carries with it some very threatening baggage. It is best left to the woman and her doctor, and/or husband/partner. I firmly believe the state needs to stay out of the bedroom and the womb. And the church, for that matter. And church/religion needs to stay out of these as well. We should follow the dictates of our consciences and our religion if we so choose. But it must never be compelled.

Pat

 

[oldbetang]

Regarding your second question:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742811,00.html

5th paragraph down. Time frame was roughly around 1932, when abortions were still illegal.

Abortions were still illegal in 1972. So, why the need to go back so far? I'm always skeptical when I hear mortality figures for "back alley" abortions. The Taussig figure was a little different, in that it was much higher than any other. It was even higher than the Taussig figure published in Time in 1936. It was 10,000 then.

Here's something that deserves consideration (It addresses the Taussig Report):

Just about anybody that's paid attention has heard the claim that "thousands" -- or, more specifically, "5,000 to 10,000" maternal deaths a year in the United States from criminal abortions back in the bad old pre-Roe days. In fact, Planned Parenthood's amicus brief filed with PP v. Casey still cited this bogus "fact".

Let's start with the numbers. Where did they come from? Here's an interesting exercise: when you see the 5,000 - 10,000 claim, check and see who they cite. Odds are it will be Lawrence "Larry" Lader or some other late 1960's early 1970's abortion guru. This gives the impression that Lader (or whoever) looked at whatever the then-current situation was and wrote up his findings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The 5,000 - 10,000 claim is one of the standard abortion promotion tricks: misleading citing. Often you'll see abortion advocates citing some recent (or relatively recent) "research". But when you check their source, you'll find that the source cites an even older source. And when you check that source, you'll find that it cites yet another, older source. You'll go round and round. (I've often joked that tracking down pro-choice original source material gives me motion sickness.) Eventually, you'll find the original source. If you're persistent. And lucky.

In the case of the 5,000 - 10,000 claims, the original source was a book -- Abortion, Spontaneous and Induced -- published in 1936 by Dr. Frederick Taussig, a leading proponent of legalization of abortion. Taussig calculated an urban abortion rate based on records of a New York City birth control clinic, and a rural abortion rate based on some numbers given to him by some doctors in Iowa. He took a guess at a mortality rate, multiplied by his strangely generated estimate of how many criminal abortions were taking place, and presto! A myth is born!

Even if Taussig's calculations, by some mathematical miracle, had been correct, they still would have been out of date by the end of WWII. Antibiotics and blood transfusions changed the face of medicine. And you will notice that abortion proponents are all too aware of how dated Taussig's numbers are -- why else would they play Musical Cites instead of simply citing Taussig in the first place? But not only are the Taussig numbers dated, they were never accurate to begin with. At a conference in 1942, Taussig himself appologized for using "the wildest estimates" to generate a bogus number.

Although it took Taussig six years to reject his own faulty calculations, at least he did admit that he'd been wrong. Other abortion enthusiasts lacked Taussig's compunctions. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, admitted that he and his associates knew that the claims of 5,000 to 10,000 criminal abortion deaths were false. They bandied them about anyway, Nathanson confessed, because they were useful. This, too, is old news -- Nathanson came clean over twenty years ago.

How many criminal abortion deaths were there, then? An excellent question, and a tricky one to answer. Before the Centers for Disease Control began Abortion Surveillance Activities in 1968, and began looking at abortion mortality in earnest in 1972, all abortion deaths were typically counted together: legal (or "therapeutic"), illegal, and spontaneous (miscarriage). However, even without the CDC's intervention, public health officials were watching maternal mortality in general, and abortion mortality in particular, very carefully. After all, abortion itself was a crime, and an abortion in which the mother died could well result in a homicide investigation. This was not petty crime; the police, coroners, funeral directors, and hospital administrators were very attentive to possible criminal abortion deaths.

Peer-reviewed articles published in the decades before Roe gave varied estimates of the number of abortion deaths annually. One study determined that there were approximately 1.3 criminal abortion deaths per year in Minnesota from 1950 through 1965. Commentary on that study pointed out that if researchers combined known criminal abortion deaths with suspected criminal abortion deaths, 4.4 women were dying from criminal abortions per year in Tennessee from 1955 through 1965. A study in California reported 30 total abortion deaths per year during a period studied from 1957 through 1965, and as many as 87% of those abortion deaths were due to criminal abortions. This meant a maximum death rate in California of 26 women per year during that period.

But what can that tell us about mortality nationwide? In 1975 (the first year for which complete numbers are available), Minnesota reported roughly 1.6% of all legal abortions, Tennessee reported about 1.7%, and California about 22%. It is reasonable to assume that the proportion of illegal abortions in each state before legalization would be similar to the proportion of legal abortions in each state after Roe. If each of those states had been representative of the nation at large, that would put the national death rate at 78, 225, and 104, respectively. If we combine the totals, we find 31.7 criminal abortion deaths per year in three states, which represented roughly 26% of abortion deaths. This would mean approximately 123 criminal abortion deaths annually in the decades just before Roe.

Are these numbers realistic at all? Mary Calderone, who was then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, reported on a conference studying abortion in America. She indicated that in 1957, there were 260 abortion deaths nationwide. That number included all abortions: legal, illegal, and spontaneous. The caluclations based on state maternal mortality investigations are fairly close to Calderone's numbers based on national data. These numbers were based on alerting doctors, law enforcement, coroners, and hospital administrators, along with public records officials, of their responsiblity to report these deaths. Taussig's estimates of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths would have meant that Minnesota authorities should have found 80 to 160 deaths per year when all their efforts could only find one or two. Tennessee should have been finding 85 to 170, rather than 4 or 5. And California should have been finding 1m100 to 2m200, rather than roughly 26.

Once more, with feeling:

• In 1936, Frederick Taussig announced that there were 5,000 to 10,000 maternal deaths from criminal abortion annually in the United States.
• In 1942, Taussig admitted that his calculations had been wrong, and that there was no way as many as 5,000 women were dying, much less 10,000.
• From 1940 through 1970, abortion mortality fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100 (see table).
• In 1972, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 39 women died from criminal abortions. (This number was determined by sending out letters to health officials, hospitals, and doctors throughout the country, in addition to the usual reporting methods.)

• Year Death
• 1940 1,407
• 1945 744
• 1950 263
• 1955 224
• 1965 251
• 1965 201
• 1970 119

Source: "Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v. Wade" JAMA, 12/9/92, vol. 208, no. 22, p. 3231-3239.

MORE...



​

 

[LittleNipper]

The woman should not be victimised because someone thinks a collection of cells has the same rights as she does. This is what I meant about differing definitions of "good", and it's what makes abortion very much a spectrum. Everyone agrees human beings deserve a right to life. Everyone agrees a baby, once born, is a human being. Everyone agrees that an unfertilised egg or sperm is not a human being. At every point in between there is disagreement. One thing I do know is that religion should have no part in public policy - your church's belief should only influence the life of someone outside it if you can defend the belief on secular grounds.

She (the woman) is but a collection of cells then also. Why should we worry about her? You are correct about the "church" and public policy; however, the offices maybe held by the religious. And religion or seeming lack of it is what shapes the character of individuals. The women who are raped have already been victimized, her body doesn't need additional traumatization to make her clean, or "modern." Those that do choose to have sex risk having babies. That is part of being a woman. They should not do that nor hang with guys who what nothing but. That is also a choice. One that I'd love to see "modern" women apply to both their credit, maturity, and advantage.

 

[LittleNipper]

There are basically two reasons abortion should not be criminalized:

1. it's not any of the government's business.

2. Criminalizing abortion does more harm than good.

If is isn't the government's business, why "legalize" it? Commercials against smoking have reduced the numbers of people smoking. It is not so much a matter of legalization, it is more a matter of not sponcering it nor funding it.

 

[cantata]

If is isn't the government's business, why "legalize" it? Commercials against smoking have reduced the numbers of people smoking. It is not so much a matter of legalization, it is more a matter of not sponcering it nor funding it.

But it's already legal, as is smoking.

The government is very welcome to have adverts against abortion (although I'd prefer ones about safe sex and avoiding unwanted pregnancy) if it wants to. But I wouldn't want smoking outlawed, and nor would I want abortion outlawed.

 

[jcook922]

I see that both sides of this are predictably involved on this thread. The catch phrase, Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare" is acutally the best way to frame this. I too remember botched abortions back in the day. I knew a girl who nearly died from one. We don't want to go back. And we won't, for the roe v wade decision is now considered precident and will not be reversed. Even the newest conservative Justice would not vote against it, for that very reason of 40 years standing as precident. It might be a good idea to research the legal reasoning behind roe. And to consider the convention that says a woman's wishes and life take precedence over the unborn.

It is possible to be pro-choice, and promote life. Most Democrats are of that persuasion. We extend it to capital punishment, too. But conservatives only seem interested in being pro innocent life. Criminals are not innocent. And women who become "accidentally" pregnant are not considered innocent either, in their way of thinking.

But controlling reproductive processes carries with it some very threatening baggage. It is best left to the woman and her doctor, and/or husband/partner. I firmly believe the state needs to stay out of the bedroom and the womb. And the church, for that matter. And church/religion needs to stay out of these as well. We should follow the dictates of our consciences and our religion if we so choose. But it must never be compelled.

Pat

You get a hooah for that, I fully agree.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is not so much a matter of legalization, it is more a matter of not sponcering it nor funding it.

Nobody sponsors abortion. It's only funded by healtcare and should not be treated any different from any other medical procedure.

 

[TooCurious]

A more inaptly named group there never was.

No? I can name you plenty more inaptly-named groups off the top of my head: Focus on the Family, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Discovery Institute, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Remember, "religious tolerance" includes more religions than just Christianity.

If is isn't the government's business, why "legalize" it?

That's the thing -- because it isn't the government's business, there shouldn't be laws against it. Everything starts out as legal by default until the government chooses to intervene and make a law against it. The government should only do so if there is a good reason for the government to get involved. In this case, there isn't (see also: it isn't the government's business). Thus, it should remain legal.

 

[MarcusHill]

She (the woman) is but a collection of cells then also. Why should we worry about her?

You seem not to have read the post to which you are replying, in which I said:

"Everyone agrees a baby, once born, is a human being. Everyone agrees that an unfertilised egg or sperm is not a human being. At every point in between there is disagreement."

Which part of that failed to make an impression? Or do you not think that a woman is a post-birth human? The whole, entire point which whizzed past you is that an embryo goes from a couple of disparate cells (definitely not a human being with rights) to a post-birth baby (definitely a human being with rights) - which, by implication, means that the mother is a human being with rights. The whole source of the debate is that there simply isn't a stage of development where we can draw a line and say "prior to this you have a bunch of cells, after this it's a person" - at least, not one where you'll get broad agreement. The matter is further complicated by those who claim a fictional "soul" has anything to do with the process.

 

[cantata]

"Human right" is such a confusing notion. No one's ever really explained to me what a human right is.

 

[LittleNipper]

But it's already legal, as is smoking.

The government is very welcome to have adverts against abortion (although I'd prefer ones about safe sex and avoiding unwanted pregnancy) if it wants to. But I wouldn't want smoking outlawed, and nor would I want abortion outlawed.

There are presently harsh restrictions on smoking, and smoking kills the smoker outright.

 

[cantata]

There are presently harsh restrictions on smoking, and smoking kills the smoker outright.

There are indeed, but people are still allowed to do it - and quite rightly.

Smoking does not kill the smoker "outright". It kills them slowly, or not at all.

 

[LittleNipper]

There are indeed, but people are still allowed to do it - and quite rightly.

Smoking does not kill the smoker "outright". It kills them slowly, or not at all.

Oh, it eventually kills them, unless they die of something else first... In the case where a delivery goes terribly wrong, the likelyhood is that the baby's life would be sacrificed to save the life of the mother if necessary. That would still be an abortion. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. So see, abortions would still happen. The event would be only restricted.

 

[cantata]

Oh, it eventually kills them, unless they die of something else first... In the case where a delivery goes terribly wrong, the likelyhood is that the baby's life would be sacrificed to save the life of the mother if necessary. That would still be an abortion. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. So see, abortions would still happen. The event would be only restricted.

I think you are stretching the analogy beyond breaking point, LN.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

I'm pro-life but I tend to agree. Outlawing abortion would only criminalize hurting people and make life, and death, more dangerous.

 

[LittleNipper]

I think you are stretching the analogy beyond breaking point, LN.

Not really, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

 

[flicka]

Everyone is prochoice, some just like to be defined by the choice they would make.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm pro-life but I tend to agree. Outlawing abortion would only criminalize hurting people and make life, and death, more dangerous.

I believe the abortionist is the one who is the criminal. He/she earns his wage performing the act... To end general abortion would put him out of work. The idol manufacturers didn't like it one bit when Paul's preaching caused a drop in the statue market... (see Acts 19:23-41

 

[cantata]

Not really, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

Actually, I would prefer that there weren't the same restrictions on smoking. But I dare say you'd have thrown a strop about that too, so I didn't get into it.

The fact is that the issue of where you are allowed to smoke, and the issue of when and for what reason you can have an abortion, are worlds apart.