Sunday, January 22 was the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade

[themusgrat]

Post your thoughts on this information, and why?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Post your regrets, or happy thoughts, on this information, and why?

Only a troll would suggest that someone would "happy thoughts" about this subject. This thread needs to be locked.

 

[themusgrat]

Sorry, I was in a bad mood. Edited

EDIT: I still am.

 

[RichardE]

42million less potential welfare children :beer: for Roe vs Wade

 

[Meuge]

42 million less children who would be brought into life with incomplete/broken families, who'd be despised by their mother/parents, and who'd grow up knowing that they weren't wanted in the first place.

It's scary to even think of the torture that such a life would be.

 

[CycloWizard]

We have replaced our labor forces with Mexicans to fill the gaps left by those who have succumbed to what is now the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the United States. Now people wonder why the social security system is failing and we are plagued with many other problems related to a diminished population growth rate.

The why is to support the average American's demand for increased personal liberty at the expense of personal responsibility. I would argue that personal liberty always comes with increased responsibilities attached, but legalized abortion on demand flies in the face of this.

 

[themusgrat]

There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.

I'd agree with you, under 2 conditions:

1. If the medical science was advanced enough to either produce a 100%-effective contraception, or a means to support a first trimester fetus through the full term of development.
2. If anti-abortion advocates admitted that a woman who conceived through a sex act she did not agree to, was free to have an abortion.

As soon as both conditions are met, I will wholeheartedly support anti-abortion legislature.

 

[themusgrat]

If you mean rape and stuff like that, I won't disagree, though I won't agree. I'm not sure what I think about that stiuation, and as long as I am never personally affected by it, I never will. But contraceptives are 99% effective, and that is pretty close to 100%. Besides, they don't have to have sex. And even if they are that rare case, adoption is a much more valid option than killing.

 

[DaveSimmons]

What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
If you mean rape and stuff like that, I won't disagree, though I won't agree. I'm not sure what I think about that stiuation, and as long as I am never personally affected by it, I never will. But contraceptives are 99% effective, and that is pretty close to 100%. Besides, they don't have to have sex. And even if they are that rare case, adoption is a much more valid option than killing.

You can't force a woman to carry a parasite for 9 months, permanently scarring her body, if she does not wish it.

The life of an actual person, is more important than the life of a potential one.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

Exactly. We live in the real world. And in the real world abortions will happen, for the foreseeable future.

When abortion was legalized, the rate of abortion didn't significantly rise... only the rate of women who died from peritonitis dropped.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

That is certainly a big part of it. If you make it illegal, that doesn't mean people will stop doing it, it just means they will do it in a much less safe manner.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

A lot, but I am not talking about them. I left the OP open ended, maybe I shouldn't have, but I did not post my opinion in it. I will not stand in the way of potentially life saving abortions, but the vast majority of them are for convenience's sake. So that number would be much lower if that was the only legal abortion, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Rainsford]

You know what's interesting here...the number of abortions has been going down almost constantly since they were made legal. Certainly in the past 20 years or so, abortions have gone down almost every year. What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

Many burdens are placed on society that might have potential negative consequences for lawbreakers. For example, we could probably decrease the number of drug-related fatalities in this country by legalizing them. Does this mean we should legalize them? Or does it mean that the law is there and that people will break it regardless? I will argue that you cannot NOT have a law simple because people will break it. This is paramount to anarchy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

A lot, but I am not talking about them. I left the OP open ended, maybe I shouldn't have, but I did not post my opinion in it. I will not stand in the way of potentially life saving abortions, but the vast majority of them are for convenience's sake. So that number would be much lower if that was the only legal abortion, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You totally missed his point. It wasn't about life saving abortions, it was about women who will get abortions anyways, even if they are illegal, but since they are getting an illegal back-alley procedure done, it will be much less safe.

 

[themusgrat]

Well, here.

Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.

the MONTH, not day or days.

Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions.

Abortion has done nothing to reduce child abuse. Actually child abuse increased over 1000% from 1973, the year abortion was legalized throughout the United States, to 1986.

*Sources: National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 1994. Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1995.

Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.

Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population Council, p 103

Maternal Mortality Surveillance 1979-1986, Centers for Disease Control, M&M Weekly report July 1991, Vol. 40, No. SS-1.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
What was the fatality rate to mothers from back-alley abortions? How many hundreds of thousands or millions of women are not dead because of access to safer procedures?

Many burdens are placed on society that might have potential negative consequences for lawbreakers. For example, we could probably decrease the number of drug-related fatalities in this country by legalizing them. Does this mean we should legalize them? Or does it mean that the law is there and that people will break it regardless? I will argue that you cannot NOT have a law simple because people will break it. This is paramount to anarchy.

Indeed, but given other factors, it IS a powerful argument for legalization. Your drug analogy is a perfect example, making drug use safer IS a good argument for drug legalization. This doesn't mean it's the only argument in the debate, but it is still a perfectly valid argument.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Cute white babies with no health problems are easy to have adopted by nice middle-class families.

So the pro-life crowd have a valid argument for denying abortions to healthy, drug-free white girls who had healthy, drug-free white fathers for their child.

For the rest, most of the pro-life crowd seems to be happy to consign less adoptable babies to foster care and orphanages, while trying to cut funding for both because they are socialism. It doesn't matter how bad the child's life will be, since most also think it is G-d's Will.

If you think life is sacred, consider being consistent about your interference in a woman's choice and also push for better treatment of the babies after they are born. Yes it's socialism but it's also the consequence of your beliefs.

Also support contraception so unwanted babies don't happen in the first place: abstinence has never worked at any time in history and you probably didn't practice it yourself.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

Yes!!!

Do you know that US can probably drop the number of abortions 4-fold if the state offered free birth control pills to every public school student!

1.2 million abortions per year...

$50/month * 12 months * 1.2M = $2.4/year/person in the U.S.

Since the right places their moral opinions about sex, above paying $600/fetus saved, I have no qualms about condemning them as the ones to blame.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Well, here.

Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.

the MONTH, not day or days.

Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions.
Abortion has done nothing to reduce child abuse. Actually child abuse increased over 1000% from 1973, the year abortion was legalized throughout the United States, to 1986.

Wouldn't this be a GREAT reason to support better sex education and birth control instead of, or even in addition to, outlawing abortions? Yet I don't hear that from most pro-life folks, in fact I often hear the opposite...someone who is opposed to both abortion AND birth control.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's interesting here...the number of abortions has been going down almost constantly since they were made legal. Certainly in the past 20 years or so, abortions have gone down almost every year. What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

That's an entirely different debate. In a given situation, either abortion is wrong or it's not. Therefore, if one opposes abortion in said situation, it doesn't matter if the number is 100 or 1,000,000 - it's still wrong. Sure, there are things we can do to decrease the number, but these don't get at the root of the problem. Just like we can do things to decrease the number of murders that occur every year, but we still keep murder illegal because it's wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

Yes!!!

Do you know that US can probably drop the number of abortions 4-fold if the state offered free birth control pills to every public school student!

1.2 million abortions per year...

$50/month * 12 months * 1.2M = $2.4/year/person in the U.S.

Since the right places their moral opinions about sex, above paying $600/fetus saved, I have no qualms about condemning them as the ones to blame.

Like I said, I find it sickly amusing that the very folks who claim to be pro-life are often the same folks who oppose that kind of program. Or at the very least, you don't see them lining up behind it. No, the people who support those programs are often the evil pro-choicers. Yeah, I kind of wish kids would wait until they are older to have sex. But they are going to do it anyways, might as well make sure they are doing it safely and responsibly.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's interesting here...the number of abortions has been going down almost constantly since they were made legal. Certainly in the past 20 years or so, abortions have gone down almost every year. What about decreasing the number of abortions through means OTHER than making them illegal? Better access to birth control, better sex education, etc. I always find it interesting that the folks who claim to be against abortions seem totally fixated on Roe v. Wade, ignoring and often directly opposing other measures that might actually decrease the number of abortions in the US.

That's an entirely different debate. In a given situation, either abortion is wrong or it's not. Therefore, if one opposes abortion in said situation, it doesn't matter if the number is 100 or 1,000,000 - it's still wrong. Sure, there are things we can do to decrease the number, but these don't get at the root of the problem. Just like we can do things to decrease the number of murders that occur every year, but we still keep murder illegal because it's wrong.

That's cause the "moral majority" lives in a different world from the rest of humanity. As a future doctor, I support the doctrine of "harm reduction" as an alternative to impossibility.