Thread: A brilliant response to anti-abortion harassment

Originally Posted by flame

I support the ban of abortions after a time period. Texas has gone with 20 weeks which is very close to that 23 week potential survival number. If it is an unwanted pregnancy it should be ended quickly. After seeing sonograms of my son at 20 weeks, we could tell he was sucking his thumb and that he was a boy. He was definitely more than a few cells. He was alive and making independent actions. Our son was unexpected, not planned at all and very bad timing for our current place in life. My life is forever changed and I could not imagine ending the pregnancy. Abortion is a very bad form of birth control. I strongly support education and availability of various forms of birth control, but I dont think abortion should be used for that.

I want to add to that and say that I have never met a woman who didn't later regret the decision to terminate a pregnancy. I've known more than one who had to get therapy to deal with it later. I mean heck we put warning labels on cigarettes or make it so people can't buy Big Gulps in order to save them from themselves but somehow asking a young woman to get all the facts, see that sonogram Flame is talking about before deciding to end her baby's life, and suddenly we're horrible human beings.

I hate this issue of abortion because I am an adopted child. I was born in 1969. If my birth mother were pregnant with me only a couple of years later, God only knows whether I might have been a statistic. Gives me pause every time I think about it. We give mothers way too much power in that decision and the right of the unborn to be born and live a life on this earth is not even part of the equation - this makes me sad when I think about it.

Abortion is horrible. It eliminates potential life and is a traumatic experience for the women. And it must remain legal. Abortion is not birth control. It's a desperate act by desperate women who are afraid of raising a child, afraid of the impact a child will have on their lives, afraid of cuckold husbands and afraid of overbearing fathers. Outlawing a desperate act doesn't make it go away. It just makes them go to illegal sources where their desperation will be taken advantage of. And without proper medical care they will be butchered.

I don't think there is much argument over abortion in situations where the pregnancy endangers the mother or for victims of rape. (despite what ignorant politicians may say about legitimate rape)

A problem with the debate is that the same people who want to outlaw abortion are the same people who want to limit access to birth control and eliminate all sex education. More contraception and education equals less unintended pregnancy which leads to less abortions. I am sure we all want less abortions.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Gumby

Abortion is horrible. It eliminates potential life and is a traumatic experience for the women. And it must remain legal. Abortion is not birth control. It's a desperate act by desperate women who are afraid of raising a child, afraid of the impact a child will have on their lives, afraid of cuckold husbands and afraid of overbearing fathers. Outlawing a desperate act doesn't make it go away. It just makes them go to illegal sources where their desperation will be taken advantage of. And without proper medical care they will be butchered.

I don't think there is much argument over abortion in situations where the pregnancy endangers the mother or for victims of rape. (despite what ignorant politicians may say about legitimate rape)

A problem with the debate is that the same people who want to outlaw abortion are the same people who want to limit access to birth control and eliminate all sex education. More contraception and education equals less unintended pregnancy which leads to less abortions. I am sure we all want less abortions.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I agree about wanting less abortions, but do you have a problem with requiring a woman to go through a government or insurance sponsored counseling session with a licensed physician including a review of a sonogram before being allowed to undergo an abortion procedure? What is wrong with that idea and why do organizations like Planned Parenthood fight it so hard? My thinking is that they do want more abortions to happen because they follow the same maxim started by Margaret Sanger regarding eugenics.

Furthermore your comment about how if abortions were illegal it would be a bloodbath for women... Isn't supported by the actual statistics pre-roe v. wade at all. That part is based on a lot of hype and some flat out lies from the left.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I agree about wanting less abortions, but do you have a problem with requiring a woman to go through a government or insurance sponsored counseling session with a licensed physician including a review of a sonogram before being allowed to undergo an abortion procedure? What is wrong with that idea and why do organizations like Planned Parenthood fight it so hard? My thinking is that they do want more abortions to happen because they follow the same maxim started by Margaret Sanger regarding eugenics.

Furthermore your comment about how if abortions were illegal it would be a bloodbath for women... Isn't supported by the actual statistics pre-roe v. wade at all. That part is based on a lot of hype and some flat out lies from the left.

Because they would never do just what your describing. They would try to sway you on what you want to do. Plus theres the whole puppy in the window thing. Seems like a good idea to buy at the time but turns out to be a disaster later.

As for whats supported for statistics pre roe v wade well its hard to get any reliable stats on illegal act or acts performed by an average person. The very same reason we dont have legitimate stats on illegals, criminal gun owners, and that list can go on and on. You simply can not try to use stats as a verification on something like that.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Which statistics? Would you mind showing us, or should we just take your word on it?

Here you go:

The Straight Dope: Before <em>Roe</em> v. <em>Wade</em>, did 10,000 women a year die from illegal abortions?

There's more to discuss but this is a good starting point. I mean the CDC numbers in the years before Roe are telling:

For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) That figure is low, thanks to underreporting, but in any case the number of deaths had been dropping sharply for the previous few years. A statistic perhaps more typical of the pre-Roe era was reported in a 1969 Scientific American article cowritten by Christopher Tietze, a senior fellow with the Population Council: "The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000."

The notion that mass amounts of women would die if abortion on demand were not legal is a myth.

Originally Posted by phidan

It IS supported by statistics pre-roe v. wade. Please tell me more about these lies without backing up your point at all.

The Guttmacher institute estimates there were around 1.2 million abortions yearly prior to roe vs. wade. There was about a 50% increase in the number of abortions in the decade after Roe vs. wade, but that has decreased over time to 1.21 million abortions in 2008. Based on population increases, this is actually less per capita than before it was legal.

Pre Roe vs Wade many of these abortions were done at home, and hospitals back then actually had a special room in the ER just for treating women who fucked up an abortion at home and had pierced their uterus or had some other bad injury. So yes, it would be a bloodbath.

If you want to reduce abortions, teaching contraception is the answer. Only 13-14% of the women who receive an abortion report using birth control correctly at the time they got pregnant.

Whatever man, this is a subject we will not agree on at all I suspect, but the numbers are the numbers. Abortion on demand via Roe v. Wade wasn't the lifesaving legislation that liberal progressives touted it to be at all. That premise was based on mythological numbers and is constantly regurgitated today.

Whether or not it should be legal can be argued if we must, but let's base the arguments on the facts and not bullshit is all I'm saying.