Ok, say RvW is reversed...

I think we can ALL agree that this would not stop abortions, right? It would just make them harder to come by and more dangerous to the mother.

Right.

So, my question is this: What is to gain by putting the woman's life at risk by denying her a safe abortion? You would stand to lose two lives instead of the one. How does this work into being prolife?

I believe I addressed this in the other thread. Restricting abortion to life-threatning cases will greatly drop the number of abortions. They may not completely end, but education and law enforcement can keep them at a minimum, thereby lowering the overall death toll.

Prove it.

Prove that prior to RvW there were 'few' abortion related deaths.

What IS few? Only about ten thousand a year?

Not only deaths, but women who have lost their plumbing as well due to infection and botched abortions.

Anyway, PROVE IT.

Making abortion illegal is not going to stop unwanted pregnancies. So long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be women desperate to divest themselves of them. So long as there are desperate women, there will be abortions. So long as there are no safe, legal abortions there will always be drugs, coathangers and back alley abortions. So long as there are drugs, coathangers and back alley abortions there will be injury and death were there should have been none. So long as this is going on... how many MORE people have died in this two for one deal vs. the deaths of only fetuses in legal abortion? For all that, what is the price of life?

Prove it, eh?

Interesting request seeing as both of our positions are inherently theoretical.
Don't believe me?

Try to prove that the death rate will rise (this "two-for-one deal" theory). Not gonna happen.

We could draw comparisons to countries which outlaw abortion (and those are...). But the validity of those comparisons are doubtful due to the number of considerations.

Not to mention the accuracy of records of the number of abortions before RvW are likely to be inaccurate seeing as the procedure was illegal and therefore not exactly advertised.

MM, you are assuming that when abortions become illegal, that most pregnant mothers would choose to do a self-abortion rather than carry the baby to term. By abortions becoming illegal, the opportunity of an easy abortion is taken away, so most likely what they'll choose to do is carry the baby. And foresighted people would also consider that engaging in sex could cause a pregnancy and then choose to use appropriate precautions.

I can't say whether or not abortions will decrease if Roe vs. Wade is repealed, but I do want to note that while some girls may not choose the back alley abortion route, there are a lot of girls, even now, who try to induce miscarriage by hurting themselves. I think that actions like this would definitely increase, because there are going to be girls who get themselves in trouble, and they have no real solution that doesn't involve confiding in their parents who may or may not be supportive.

That is certainly a possibility, hopefully it could be helped with education and counseling, something that is in short supply and should certainly be increased should abortion restrictions pass.

However, such pain ,emotional and physical, is still not a reason to kill a human being (fetus) who had no choice in it. In this situation life comes first.

Education and counseling would be nice even without abortion restrictions. We have programs now, but I feel that they need improvement, and I don't have faith that these types of programs will be implemented in a more effective manner after the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade (if that happens), especially considering the current administration's views on condoms and abstinence.

And who's going to supply this education and counselling? The very people who oppose Roe v Wade are the ones lobbying - successfully - to eliminate all but abstinence-only sex education from our PUBLIC school system.

The goal of the majority of anti-choice campaigners seems to be a return to the medieval worldview where women are punished for sinning by being forced to carry children and endure a painful labor. A reversal of Roe v Wade would do nothing to guarantee education and counselling - if anything, it would simply strengthen the sexual ignorance lobby.

I disagree the focus as, I have seen it ,is on protection of life more than some sort of "punishment" for women who become pregnant. I can ultimately only speak for myself, This is not my goal. I doubt it is the goal of most pro-life organizations. It is unreasonable to attempt to narrow the position of pro-life organizations to punishment. It is also unreasonable to narrow education and counseling to abstinence vs. birth control. How about education about the dangers of illegal abortion and counseling to reconcile pregnant teens with their parents?

The question of who would provide counseling is just another problem to be solved. I firmly believe it is possible to supply such counseling.

Turnea: You are probably right that my opinion of the anti-choice lobby is colored both by history (especially the history of the Catholic Church) and by the more extreme members of the movement (like those willing to take lives to demonstrate how "pro-life" they are).

I quite agree that it is unreasonable to narrow education and counseling to abstinence vs. birth control. I was suggesting that the sort of "education" currently being advocated by most (i'm presuming again, but I suspect on firmer ground this time) anti-choice types be expanded to include birth control education. I would not suggest for a moment that any aspect of sex education be eliminated or reduced. There is definitely a place for encouraging abstinence - but there should be at least equal space devoted to those who choose not to abstain. I would also endorse education about the dangers of illegal abortion and alternatives such as putting unwanted children up for adoption. Counselling to reconcile pregnant teens with their parents should be encouraged regardless of the status of Roe v Wade.

However, none of the above makes up for removing the option of choice. No amount of education or counselling can do that.

It is true that counseling and education cannot totally solve the problems that often come with pregnancy. However, no amount is choice will bring back the lives of those human beings who are killed in abortions. Our priorities as a nation are the most arguable issue in the abortion debate.
In other words is the option to choose to end a pregnancy worth a human life?
In most cases, I would say it is certainly not.

That, in my opinion, is the heart of the abortion debate.

Is the lack of option worth possibly two lives?

I think not.

Of course, "possibly" is the key word in your argument. You seem to set the probability of the "two-for-one deal" at quite a high percentage. Why make this assumption? Why kill a person over so vague a possibility?

"Lack of option" is not the only thing at stake here. Human lives are not something to forget.

Because abortions will still happen, although of the unsafe variety. Perforated uteri, raging infections, left over fetal matter, bleeding and so on can happen after an abortion that was not done right. All of those things can lead to, you guessed it, death.

Even moreso because a woman would be wary of going to the hospital fresh after an abortion no matter how great her danger or pain... wouldn't want to go to jail, be fined or labeled some kind of vicious murderess.

Tell me this won't happen. Tell me this didn't happen before Roe vs. Wade.

Tell me the woman's life is worth a reversal of RvW.

Again with the "two-for-one deal" possibility? At what percentage do you set the possibility of such an occurence and why?

There is a 100% probability a human life will end in a "sucessful" abortion.

I have already expressed my doubts about the availability and accuracy of pre-Roe v Wade abortion records, but I'll look anyway.

In the mean time would you elaborate on the probability of the "two-for-one deal" theory and explain why it is likely enough to continue a policy of legalized human killing?

I don't have a percentage to offer you. Even if it were a lowly five percent, that is still too many women dying needlessly.

Also, that's not 'theory', that's fact.

Women DO DIE from botched abortions. There will be more botched abortions if RvW is reversed. With more botched abortions will come more injury and death of women seeking illegal abortions. No theory.

Link #1
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/..._27.asp#illegal

Link #2
http://www.roevwade.org/illegalmyths.html

Link #3
http://www.ippf.org/regions/sar/rl/issue6/...eliminating.htm

Link #4
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Numbrs.htm

First two are pro-life, last two pro-choice. Number 3 discusses world wide rates rather than those in the US. All US statistics suggest that your vision of hundreds of death per year from "back-alley abortions" if abortion is restricted, is highly unlikely.

Still avoiding the issue of the fetus....

That's the difference between a lot of lifers vs choicers. You focus on the fetus, I focus on the woman. I'm not avoiding the issue, it is a nonissue to me.

MadMax: False characterization of my position...

I focus on both lives involved, but the fetus' concern is a certain life-and-death issue in an abortion. This takes precedence over non-life-and-death issues. Priorities: Human life comes first.

But don't forget, I've delivered your stats

I'm reading your links and will respond to them once I've gone over them well. So far, I think the first too are way too biased to be taken seriously, I'm interested in the third to compare numbers since you listed it as well.

Obviously it'll take me a bit to respond to the four links, so don't think I'm ignoring you.

I disagree with this because there should be some idea if the following, from the same article, is true.



I also disagree with this because there are also women with complications that do not die.



I disagree with this because I believe it would be proportionately inaccurate. Example pulled from the air:

One woman died from an illegal abortion. Ten women died from a legal abortion.

Seems that 'safe' abortions are more dangerous or at least as much so, yes?

Not if you add that there were ten illegal abortions total and one hundred and twenty legal abortions total.



This would ONLY be true if the same number of women were abortion before and after legalization. Which, according to this article, cannot be known. This type of fact twisting makes this entire article null to me.

I could go on, but it would be more of the same for that first article, Why Can't We Love Them Both, Chapter Seven, Illegal Abortions

I would suggest you pay special attention to link #4. A pro-choice article with remarkably similar statistics.Two sources which would most likely be at odds are concurring with each other, which increases my faith in their accuracy. Of course lets not forget, what you requested where pre-roe illegal abortion deaths. What objection do you have to those particular stats? Take them from link #4 if you'd like...

This chart Deaths From Legal Abortions pulled from your second link, Myth of Mass Back-Alley Abortion Deaths has the same problem as your previous link.
They show deaths from legal abortions, but not the total numbers of legal abortions. The chart at first glance would lead you to believe more women are dying, but is, again, proportionately inaccurate.

This type of fact reporting greatly reduces the believability of the rest of the article.



This man has no credibility in my book either. He is prolife now, correct? If he were willing to lie for the choice cause, surely he'd do the same for the life cause.



Well, the World Helath Organization says:



So?



Well, according to the chart in your first link, the abortion related deaths in the 40s were at a high at over 1300, coming down with the introduction of sulfa for a total of 1000. Coming down again to between 400 and 500 with the indroduction of Penicillin. Those are the 40s for you.
The high in the 50s is between 200 and 300. High in the 60s between 200 and 300. High in the 70s at a little over 100. High in the 80s almost non existant.
The discovery of antibiotics seem to have a lot to do with it, but there was a drop after RvW as well. Also remember there will be more of a behavior if it is legalized, so for that the chart is proportionately innacurate (surprise!). I'd imagine the change was much more significant than this slanted article or slanted chart.



Which goes to show many women were still having unsafe abortions, their lives were saved by better medical care... but that doesn't mean less women (or more) were having them.



There are risks to one's life with ANY procedure. To make the above argument is slanted and ignorant.



Again, ignoring proportion.

I'd go on with this one, but as with the last one, its more of the same.

If you wanted me to read the 4th one first, you should have linked them in that order. Otherwise I will continue to work my way down.

This post addresses your third link, Eliminating Unsafe Abortion

It doesn't seem the stats from this article jive with the stats of the first two, FYI.



Not a fifth, but a third. Not just in 3rd world nations, but world wide.



Five percent is still 1,000,000 for developed countries. One Million.



One in a hundred thousand seems safer than childbirth. Your first article reported childbirth deaths at 7-11 in a hundred thousand.

World-wide estimates versus US statistics, you must admit there are most likely a number of factors to be taken into account before comparing these statistics.

This puts down the prolife theory that there were NO abortions by coathangers, eh? Remember, this is from your fourth article.

I'll come back later and respond to what I quoted... but I'm tired, need a smoke and my brain is partially fried from all these conflicting numbers.

I can only respond to the links you posted. If you have some problem with my response... then you need to post better links.

Also, to the statistics. I think world wide would be pretty accurate, especially since they differenciated between developed and undeveloped nations. Safe and unsafe abortions as well as stated what constituted an unsafe abortion. Yes, I'd say it'd be fairly accurate. Not entirely, but never is an average entirely accurate. That is why it's an AVERAGE.

MadMax:
I suppose to get to the point it would be best to explain what is at stake.

Your theory is that abortion restrictions would put women at great risk by encouraging them to seek illegal abortions. It seems your challenge is to prove this:


Is not a wildly high estimate.

My question:

Seeing as I have provided statistics can you "prove" prior to legalization there were a high number of deaths due to illegal abortion?

Or anyone for that matter...

If a birth could kill the mother, I'm all for abortion, same thing for rape victims, but just to say, "oh crap, I'm pregnant, I guess we need an abortion" is not right.

CP

Turnea, I trust your statistics about as far as I can throw them. They are for starters coming from an EXTREMELY biased source, and secondly, they are extremely short on citations.

One of the articles talks about Poland; but there is no mention of the source. To further draw ridicule on this 'evidence,' it states that there isn't a single death reported from an illegal abortion when earlier on the page the argument is made that statistics reported when abortions are illegal are completely useless. They are contradicting themself to justify evidence which has no source. That is some of the worst "research" possible!

Ultimatejoe:

1. If you had read the earlier pages of the thread you would note that I myself have expressed doubt as to the validity of Pre RvW stats...

2. You may also want to note that I gaithered sources from both sides of the abortion debate, if you wish to re-check pay special attention to link #4. All links are on page two of this thread.

3. If you wish to provide reliable stats from a non-biased source, I'm all ears.