Back Alley Abortions (1 Viewer)

[LeftyHenry]

Okay, I used to be radically pro-choice but one day it hit me. Isn't life garunteed under the constitution? So since then I've been considering arguements from pro-lifers and there are a couple things that I've been wondering about. First, couldn't abortion be justified for stem-cell research? and the topic of this thread, If abortions were banned, wouldn't there be back alley abortions like the ones there were before abortion was legal? your comments are appreciated.

 

[Loki]

In a day and age with almost universal birth control available to virtually everyone and healthy adoptable babies being worth more than their weight in gold.....I just can't see it.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

In a day and age with almost universal birth control available to virtually everyone and healthy adoptable babies being worth more than their weight in gold.....I just can't see it.

WTF??? What world do you live on?
1. Birth control fails. Nothing is 100%. Ever.
2. The foster care system is utterly overloaded; sure, a healthy white baby with pretty blue eyes in an upper class suburban area is quickly adopted, but that isn't the majority of babies offered for adoption, now is it?
3. Even if there were millions of families lined up for adoption, people don't get abortions because they don't want to put their child up for adoption; they get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant any more.

As for back alley abortions, yes, they would immediately increase, and come very close to matching the current rate of legal abortions. Laws banning abortion will not stop the procedure from happening, IMO; it has been too long a part of our society to be stopped overnight.

And yes, the right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution; however, the Supreme Court has found that the laws only offer that right to persons who have been born. A fetus is not a person, hence has no guarantee of the right to life, at least not legally. You want to argue that morally it has the right to life, go right ahead; that's been a topic of debate for decades.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The vast majority of "back alley abortions" were performed in the sterile offices of licensed and reputable physicians as a sideline to their legal medical services.

This is a bogeyman.

In any case, we are not talking about a particularly difficult surgical procedure. It doesn't require much more medical training than I've had, and it doesn't require intensive post-operative support like more invasive procedures.

If a body piercing is a 1 and "hot" neurosurgery is a 10... dilation & cutterage is a 2, at most.

 

[Loki]

WTF??? What world do you live on?
1. Birth control fails. Nothing is 100%. Ever.

The pill is just about 99.9% effective. Is there anything else in your life that's more reliable than that.

2. The foster care system is utterly overloaded; sure, a healthy white baby with pretty blue eyes in an upper class suburban area is quickly adopted, but that isn't the majority of babies offered for adoption, now is it?

Just how many americans are globe hopping right now trying desperately to adopt. I have a friend who went to cambodia and adopted two children. Hardly blond and blue eyed.

3. Even if there were millions of families lined up for adoption, people don't get abortions because they don't want to put their child up for adoption; they get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant any more.

People get abortions for a lot of reasons, some good; rape, incest, safety of the mother. Everything else is pretty much convience. Not a very good reason to kill your children.

As for back alley abortions, yes, they would immediately increase, and come very close to matching the current rate of legal abortions. Laws banning abortion will not stop the procedure from happening, IMO; it has been too long a part of our society to be stopped overnight.

Boogyman argument. Again, rely on the pill. It's more reliable than any abortion doctor. We've had 43 million abortions so far. How many more of our children have to die before we decide enough is enough?

And yes, the right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution; however, the Supreme Court has found that the laws only offer that right to persons who have been born. A fetus is not a person, hence has no guarantee of the right to life, at least not legally. You want to argue that morally it has the right to life, go right ahead; that's been a topic of debate for decades.

The supremes once decided blacks weren't people, just property. You'll have to pardon me if I want to make up my own mind on this one.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The pill is just about 99.9% effective. Is there anything else in your life that's more reliable than that.

99% is not 100%. 99% means that some women will become pregnant despite their best efforts to prevent it, which means an absolute law does not reflect reality. There are also women who are prevented from taking the pill due to health risks.

Just how many americans are globe hopping right now trying desperately to adopt. I have a friend who went to cambodia and adopted two children. Hardly blond and blue eyed.

And I read an article in my local paper about how overloaded the foster care system in Oregon is. Tell your friend to come to Portland; we've got extras here.

People get abortions for a lot of reasons, some good; rape, incest, safety of the mother. Everything else is pretty much convience. Not a very good reason to kill your children.

To call pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, in my opinion, belittling a very serious situation that still kills thousands of women every year, despite our modern medical science. Even without the risks involved, pregnancy is no laughing matter, and so the decision to terminate a pregnancy is more than "convenience."
Out of curiosity, why is it that pro-life people tend to insist that the most heinous emotional terms be applied to abortion -- "killing your children" instead of "terminating a pregnancy" -- but give this demeaning, contemptuous descriptor of "inconvenience" to the opposite situation, that of carrying the child to term? That seems a contradiction to me.

Boogyman argument. Again, rely on the pill. It's more reliable than any abortion doctor. We've had 43 million abortions so far. How many more of our children have to die before we decide enough is enough?

The pill is hardly more reliable than any abortion doctor; have any pregnancies lasted through an abortion? Besides, as the number you are so appalled by indicates, there certainly seem to be many cases of abortion despite the widespread availability of the pill. Why would that change if abortion were banned?
And I'll never decide "enough is enough." A woman's freedom to choose is too important. I have no idea if or when society's mores may again prevent premarital sex, but I doubt it will be anytime soon, and it won't be because of abortion.

The supremes once decided blacks weren't people, just property. You'll have to pardon me if I want to make up my own mind on this one.

Sure. And I'll make up mine as well. And as long as you don't get to impose your will on me, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Donkey1499]

I think that America (and the world) needs more influence from Family Values. There is no need for abortions, EVER! (except in a case with incest or disease). This is what columnist Juan Williams, Shelby Steele, and (my favorite) Bill Cosby are trying to get across; tho only in the black community at this time. But we can learn from their wisdom no matter what community we come from.

 

[Loki]

99% is not 100%. 99% means that some women will become pregnant despite their best efforts to prevent it, which means an absolute law does not reflect reality. There are also women who are prevented from taking the pill due to health risks.

Obviously you're young. 99.9% is about as good as it gets.

And I read an article in my local paper about how overloaded the foster care system in Oregon is. Tell your friend to come to Portland; we've got extras here.

Foster care represents children who, by and large, cannot be adopted.

To call pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, in my opinion, belittling a very serious situation that still kills thousands of women every year, despite our modern medical science. Even without the risks involved, pregnancy is no laughing matter, and so the decision to terminate a pregnancy is more than "convenience."

According to wiki the us has a maternal mortality rate of 17 deaths per 100,000. in the us. Lower in western europe higher in much of the rest of the world. I don't take this risk lightly, my wife risked possible paralysis to bear my son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Out of curiosity, why is it that pro-life people tend to insist that the most heinous emotional terms be applied to abortion -- "killing your children" instead of "terminating a pregnancy" -- but give this demeaning, contemptuous descriptor of "inconvenience" to the opposite situation, that of carrying the child to term? That seems a contradiction to me.

American liberals seek to dehumanize our progeny. I am simply trying to humanize them. Not a contradiction, just a difference in the value of human life.

The pill is hardly more reliable than any abortion doctor; have any pregnancies lasted through an abortion? Besides, as the number you are so appalled by indicates, there certainly seem to be many cases of abortion despite the widespread availability of the pill. Why would that change if abortion were banned?

You're correct, 100% as opposed to 99.9%. Below is a link indicating the number of maternal deaths resulting from complications with abortion.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

And I'll never decide "enough is enough."

In other words you've closed your mind.

A woman's freedom to choose is too important.

Otherwise known as a "women's right to kill". Tell me, why don't men have the same right?

I have no idea if or when society's mores may again prevent premarital sex, but I doubt it will be anytime soon, and it won't be because of abortion.

I suppose when segments of american society stops promoting irresponsible and or devient behavior.

Sure. And I'll make up mine as well. And as long as you don't get to impose your will on me, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

So...in the meantime you get to impose your will on mine. I just feel that americans deserve the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

 

[tecoyah]

Obviously you're young. 99.9% is about as good as it gets.

So..we all have sex, some of us many times a week. 99.9% of the time we wont get pregnant...pretty good odds, lets do the math:

as of 2000 total US population was 286,196,812

so....lets say we all have sex once a week

286,196,812 x 52=14,882,234,224

and 14,882,234,224 x .001=14,882,234.224

But wait....fertility lasts for only 3 days in a given month

so we say...10% of the time we Might have a pregnancy on our hands.

148,882 possibles....but wait....lets say 70% of these result in spontanious miscarrige.

Now we drop down to a mere 44, 664 possible births....How many do you want to adopt?....I'll take one...you can have the other 45 thousand some odd Kids.


Foster care represents children who, by and large, cannot be adopted.

Really....so what causes these Kids to be unaboptable, and can we add another couple thousand to your family....Please?




According to wiki the us has a maternal mortality rate of 17 deaths per 100,000. in the us. Lower in western europe higher in much of the rest of the world. I don't take this risk lightly, my wife risked possible paralysis to bear my son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Good for you....I would have made my wifes life the priority here. But I suppose thats just me, you know....that personal choice thingy.




American liberals seek to dehumanize our progeny. I am simply trying to humanize them. Not a contradiction, just a difference in the value of human life.

Again....that is your Personal Choice...notice a theme here?




You're correct, 100% as opposed to 99.9%. Below is a link indicating the number of maternal deaths resulting from complications with abortion.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

Good to know the risks in any Choice we make in life...oh wait, theres that word again.





In other words you've closed your mind.


Otherwise known as a "women's right to kill". Tell me, why don't men have the same right?

Uh....perhaps because we are not capable of becoming Pregnant?


I suppose when segments of american society stops promoting irresponsible and or devient behavior.

Yeah, I just hate it when people decide things for themselves...freakin' Kaos.





So...in the meantime you get to impose your will on mine. I just feel that americans deserve the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

This is the most ignorant thing you have typed (and thats saying something), No One is attempting to make you decide anything....they are instead, trying not too.

 

[Loki]

This is the most ignorant thing you have typed (and thats saying something), No One is attempting to make you decide anything....they are instead, trying not too.

So...you can only type in bold print? I suppose I've struck a nerve.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

So...you can only type in bold print? I suppose I've struck a nerve.

Ooooh, nice comeback!
By the way, I'm 32. Is that young?

And how can you believe there are children that cannot be adopted? Aren't all children precious? How can you be so cruel as to say that a child is not an innocent bundle of joy that deserves the best chance at happiness, just because it has fetal alcohol syndrome, or is addicted to methamphetamines?

As for this response:

Out of curiosity, why is it that pro-life people tend to insist that the most heinous emotional terms be applied to abortion -- "killing your children" instead of "terminating a pregnancy" -- but give this demeaning, contemptuous descriptor of "inconvenience" to the opposite situation, that of carrying the child to term? That seems a contradiction to me.

American liberals seek to dehumanize our progeny. I am simply trying to humanize them. Not a contradiction, just a difference in the value of human life.

You seem to have missed my point. When you say that women have abortions only for the sake of convenience, that means that remaining pregnant is merely an inconvenience. That seems to dehumanize our progeny as much as anything I have said. Can you explain that contradiction to me?


I think tecoyah responded perfectly well to your other points, but if you'd like me to reply as well, just let me know.

 

[Loki]

Ooooh, nice comeback!

I'm glad you approve.

By the way, I'm 32. Is that young?

I have boots older than you.

And how can you believe there are children that cannot be adopted? Aren't all children precious? How can you be so cruel as to say that a child is not an innocent bundle of joy that deserves the best chance at happiness, just because it has fetal alcohol syndrome, or is addicted to methamphetamines?

Parents have to allow adoption. Most don't.

As for this response:




You seem to have missed my point. When you say that women have abortions only for the sake of convenience, that means that remaining pregnant is merely an inconvenience. That seems to dehumanize our progeny as much as anything I have said. Can you explain that contradiction to me?

Death is pretty dehumanizing.

I think tecoyah responded perfectly well to your other points, but if you'd like me to reply as well, just let me know.

It's nice you like tecoyah's posts. You know where to find me.

 

[Ethereal]

99% is not 100%. 99% means that some women will become pregnant despite their best efforts to prevent it, which means an absolute law does not reflect reality. There are also women who are prevented from taking the pill due to health risks.

One's intentions does not absolve them of accepting responsibility for their actions. A known consequence of sexual intercourse is pregnancy, so participating in said activity is an implicit acceptance of the risks that accompany it just as driving while under the influence is an implicit acceptance that you're more likely to get into an accident.

And I read an article in my local paper about how overloaded the foster care system in Oregon is. Tell your friend to come to Portland; we've got extras here.

You're right. Those children would be better off dead.

To call pregnancy and childbirth an "inconvenience" is, in my opinion, belittling a very serious situation that still kills thousands of women every year, despite our modern medical science.

No one is belittling the situation, we're belittling the motivations behind terminating a pregnancy. Also, as Loki pointed out, those statisitics are grossly innaccurate.

Even without the risks involved, pregnancy is no laughing matter, and so the decision to terminate a pregnancy is more than "convenience."

Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years.

Statistics for The United States:

Want to Postpone Childbearing: 25.5%
Wants No (more) Children: 7.9%
Cannot Afford a Baby: 21.3%
Having a Child Will Disrupt Education or Job: 10.8%
Has Relationship Problem or Partner Does Not Want Pregnancy: 14.1%
Too Young; Parent(s) or Other(s) Object to Pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to Maternal Health: 2.8%
Risk to Fetal Health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Seems you were mistaken.

And I'll never decide "enough is enough." A woman's freedom to choose is too important. I have no idea if or when society's mores may again prevent premarital sex, but I doubt it will be anytime soon, and it won't be because of abortion.

No one has the right to choose whether or not they wish to murder someone.

 

[tecoyah]

One's intentions does not absolve them of accepting responsibility for their actions. A known consequence of sexual intercourse is pregnancy, so participating in said activity is an implicit acceptance of the risks that accompany it just as driving while under the influence is an implicit acceptance that you're more likely to get into an accident.

Thus...I do not drink and drive. But dont even think of telling me when to wet my willy.



You're right. Those children would be better off dead.

Likely true in rare cases.



No one is belittling the situation, we're belittling the motivations behind terminating a pregnancy. Also, as Loki pointed out, those statisitics are grossly innaccurate.

Yet, were abortion Illegal, belittle the difficulty you would, as you decide thru opinion....just how hard someone elses life should be.



Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years.

Statistics for The United States:

Want to Postpone Childbearing: 25.5%
Wants No (more) Children: 7.9%
Cannot Afford a Baby: 21.3%
Having a Child Will Disrupt Education or Job: 10.8%
Has Relationship Problem or Partner Does Not Want Pregnancy: 14.1%
Too Young; Parent(s) or Other(s) Object to Pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to Maternal Health: 2.8%
Risk to Fetal Health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Seems you were mistaken.

seems an accurate % ratio



No one has the right to choose whether or not they wish to murder someone.

Ah....and so we come to the standard full circle in this debate...back to opinion, and where we left off in a previous discussion....Do you wish to continue?...well good.

Using the term Murder cheapens your argument significantly, as Abortion is not Illegal. I do understand however, that you wish it to be....so we will use this term as the base of our debate even though it serves no actual purpose other than to inflame.
Now...were we in a court of Law (where this would be played out in reality) The plaintiff would need to prove a case was worth investing in before the courts decided to take it on, in other words the law is currently on my side, so I will be the defense (innocent until proven guilty)....please show the court your evidence , concerning the personhood required to make a murder charge against my client.

A Poll will be used to replace the judge in this situation, to decide the validity of moving this case forward....into the trial phase. I will post said Poll when we reach a point of mutual concensus on final remarks.

Agreed?

 

[ngdawg]

I would also add that the 5th amendment, which everyone refers to as our Constitution's 'right to life' argument, is a Crime and Punishment amendment, not a personal federal guarantee to live, so, people, quit using the 5th amendment to back your lame arguments.

 

[Loki]

Ah....and so we come to the standard full circle in this debate...back to opinion, and where we left off in a previous discussion....Do you wish to continue?...well good.

Thought I'd contribute. Yes, it's my opinion abortion is murder.

Using the term Murder cheapens your argument significantly, as Abortion is not Illegal. I do understand however, that you wish it to be....so we will use this term as the base of our debate even though it serves no actual purpose other than to inflame.

Not really, it is what it is.

Now...were we in a court of Law (where this would be played out in reality) The plaintiff would need to prove a case was worth investing in before the courts decided to take it on, in other words the law is currently on my side, so I will be the defense (innocent until proven guilty)....please show the court your evidence , concerning the personhood required to make a murder charge against my client.

So....I see you're into role playing.

A Poll will be used to replace the judge in this situation, to decide the validity of moving this case forward....into the trial phase. I will post said Poll when we reach a point of mutual concensus on final remarks.

Agreed?

Aren't you kind of old for this?

 

[tecoyah]

Thought I'd contribute. Yes, it's my opinion abortion is murder.



Not really, it is what it is.



So....I see you're into role playing.




Aren't you kind of old for this?

I am terribly sorry.....I must have completely forgotten I asked for your opinion.

Please show your ineptitude somewhere else, as is is rather out of place here.

 

[Loki]

I am terribly sorry.....I must have completely forgotten I asked for your opinion.

Please show your ineptitude somewhere else, as is is rather out of place here.

Sorry, I assumed this was a public forum and you were here to debate, not debase.

 

[tecoyah]

Sorry, I assumed this was a public forum and you were here to debate, not debase.

Which is why I prefer to Assu......it only makes an *** of You....not me

Tell me....what was the purpose of your post above.....Debate?

I highly doubt it. Ethereal and myself have however, an unfinished discussion to work on....which may actually involve a serious debate. If in any way I thought you capable of this....I would respond appropriately.


As it is this has proven not....to be the case.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

It's nice you like tecoyah's posts. You know where to find me.

You know where to find me? What are you, John Wayne?
You want your own replies? Sure.

Obviously you're young. 99.9% is about as good as it gets.

Actually, now that I have looked at the FDA's website, I found something interesting. See, I thought your use of "just about 99.9% effective" seemed, shall we say, less than accurate, but you're kind of right. And kind of wrong. It seems the "lowest expected rate of pregnancy" for the birth control pill is 0.1%, which means if someone uses it just right, it's as effective as the number I thought you made up. But then the "Typical use rate of pregnancy," you know, the actual figure, is 5%, so the pill is 95% effective in practice, though 99.9% effective in theory.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

Being a practical kind of guy, I'll go with 95%. So, how many women are there in the US having abortions each year? Over a million, isn't it? That means that if all of those women were using the pill, that only 5% of them would still have unwanted pregnancies. So instead of 1.3 million women who have control of their bodies taken from them, you'd only be making slaves out of 65,000?

My only point is that birth control cannot take the place of abortion. Birth control is not perfect and never will be, and considering how many people we are talking about, there are simply too many exceptions for any law to be absolute. If you leave loopholes in an abortion law, you really don't have a law at all, do you?

Foster care represents children who, by and large, cannot be adopted.

I replied to this with the fact that I was under the impression that you wanted all children to have the greatest possible chance at happiness, and your response was that they would be better off dead. I'm not sure what point you were making, though I assume you were sarcastically implying that I believed that to be true.

This started with your comment that there are many parents waiting around, eager to adopt children, and therefore abortion is unnecessary; clearly that isn't the case. There are many children waiting to be adopted. Will you still say that adoption should be a viable option for anyone who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy? After you have banned abortion and added potentially 1.3 million children a year to the mix? Don't you want those kids to have a happy life? Do you think all of them are better off alive?

According to wiki the us has a maternal mortality rate of 17 deaths per 100,000. in the us. Lower in western europe higher in much of the rest of the world. I don't take this risk lightly, my wife risked possible paralysis to bear my son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

According to this study, there were 67 million pregnancies in the US between 1981 and 1991.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/11/1025

6.7 million a year on the average, then, and 17 deaths per 100,000 is 1,139 annually. Pardon me for adding an "s" to "thousands." That is still a risk of death -- and remember that doesn't include any other health risk involved in pregnancy, such as your wife's risk of paralysis -- that should preclude anyone from calling pregnancy and childbearing a mere inconvenience.

American liberals seek to dehumanize our progeny. I am simply trying to humanize them. Not a contradiction, just a difference in the value of human life.

You added to my reply that death is pretty dehumanizing; I would disagree. All humans die. Death seems quite human to me. I would say that calling a pregnancy an inconvenience is pretty dehumanizing.

You're correct, 100% as opposed to 99.9%. Below is a link indicating the number of maternal deaths resulting from complications with abortion.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

This is from your link above:

In 2000, a total of 11 women died as a result of legal induced abortions, and none died as a result of illegal induced abortions

11 out of 857,475 reported abortions is just about 1.3 per 100,000. So abortion would be less dangerous than childbirth, then.
Was that the point you were trying to make?

In other words you've closed your mind.

While yours is wide freaking open.

Otherwise known as a "women's right to kill". Tell me, why don't men have the same right?

No babies inside them trying to control their bodies.

I suppose when segments of american society stops promoting irresponsible and or devient behavior.

Right, which would be never, IMO.

So...in the meantime you get to impose your will on mine. I just feel that americans deserve the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

In what way have I imposed my will on you? The Roe v. Wade decision was 1973, wasn't it? I wasn't even born yet -- though some of your boots had been. And since I have never forced you, or anyone else, to get an abortion when a woman wanted to bear a child, I don't see how I'm forcing my beliefs on you.

 

[Loki]

You know where to find me? What are you, John Wayne?

You don't like john wayne either?

You want your own replies? Sure.

Huh?

Actually, now that I have looked at the FDA's website, I found something interesting. See, I thought your use of "just about 99.9% effective" seemed, shall we say, less than accurate, but you're kind of right. And kind of wrong. It seems the "lowest expected rate of pregnancy" for the birth control pill is 0.1%, which means if someone uses it just right, it's as effective as the number I thought you made up. But then the "Typical use rate of pregnancy," you know, the actual figure, is 5%, so the pill is 95% effective in practice, though 99.9% effective in theory.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

Nice of you to do some research.

Being a practical kind of guy, I'll go with 95%. So, how many women are there in the US having abortions each year? Over a million, isn't it? That means that if all of those women were using the pill, that only 5% of them would still have unwanted pregnancies. So instead of 1.3 million women who have control of their bodies taken from them, you'd only be making slaves out of 65,000?

Responsible behavior is taking control of one's body body not relinquishing it.

My only point is that birth control cannot take the place of abortion. Birth control is not perfect and never will be, and considering how many people we are talking about, there are simply too many exceptions for any law to be absolute. If you leave loopholes in an abortion law, you really don't have a law at all, do you?

According to your own research using birth control properly we could reduce abortion to something like 10% of what it is now.

I replied to this with the fact that I was under the impression that you wanted all children to have the greatest possible chance at happiness, and your response was that they would be better off dead. I'm not sure what point you were making, though I assume you were sarcastically implying that I believed that to be true.

I did not make that assertion, I believe ethereal did.

is started with your comment that there are many parents waiting around, eager to adopt children, and therefore abortion is unnecessary; clearly that isn't the case. There are many children waiting to be adopted. Will you still say that adoption should be a viable option for anyone who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy? After you have banned abortion and added potentially 1.3 million children a year to the mix? Don't you want those kids to have a happy life? Do you think all of them are better off alive?

This is an article indicating there are 2.1 million childless couples in the us. They are persuing artificial insemination primarily because of dissatisfaction with adoption, in part because of long waiting lists.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/infertility-impaired-fecundity-statistics.html

According to this study, there were 67 million pregnancies in the US between 1981 and 1991.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/11/1025

6.7 million a year on the average, then, and 17 deaths per 100,000 is 1,139 annually. Pardon me for adding an "s" to "thousands." That is still a risk of death -- and remember that doesn't include any other health risk involved in pregnancy, such as your wife's risk of paralysis -- that should preclude anyone from calling pregnancy and childbearing a mere inconvenience.

Here are some statistics on accidental deaths in the united states. Note accidental poisonings.

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

You added to my reply that death is pretty dehumanizing; I would disagree. All humans die. Death seems quite human to me. I would say that calling a pregnancy an inconvenience is pretty dehumanizing.

So.....killing off our children is.....quite human. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


This is from your link above:

11 out of 857,475 reported abortions is just about 1.3 per 100,000. So abortion would be less dangerous than childbirth, then.
Was that the point you were trying to make?

Abortion has risks as well. Here are some more.

http://www.aaacpc.com/abortion_risks.html

While yours is wide freaking open.

Better my mind than my fly.

No babies inside them trying to control their bodies.

It does take both a male and a female to create a baby.

Right, which would be never, IMO.

Whatever.

In what way have I imposed my will on you? The Roe v. Wade decision was 1973, wasn't it? I wasn't even born yet -- though some of your boots had been. And since I have never forced you, or anyone else, to get an abortion when a woman wanted to bear a child, I don't see how I'm forcing my beliefs on you.

In a very real way you are. There are ramifications for all of us as long as we continue to kill off 1.3 million of us every year while some 1 million mexican nationals are crossing the border every day.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

You don't like john wayne either?

Nope.

Huh?

What?

Nice of you to do some research.

Thanks.

Responsible behavior is taking control of one's body body not relinquishing it.

Right, taking control of one's body by refusing to allow control to be usurped by a fetus. By making a choice whether or not one wants to have an abortion, the person has asserted control of her own body.

According to your own research using birth control properly we could reduce abortion to something like 10% of what it is now.

Yes, but in reality, that will not happen. Stupidity is, sadly, no reason to lose one's rights in this country. People too stupid to use birth control properly still have the right to choose.

I did not make that assertion, I believe ethereal did.

You're right; I apologize.

This is an article indicating there are 2.1 million childless couples in the us. They are persuing artificial insemination primarily because of dissatisfaction with adoption, in part because of long waiting lists.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/infertility-impaired-fecundity-statistics.html

Why aren't they coming to Portland?

Here are some statistics on accidental deaths in the united states. Note accidental poisonings.

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

And your point is what?

So.....killing off our children is.....quite human. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're welcome. You still haven't answered my question, you know: why is it acceptable for pro-life people to refer to a pregnancy as nothing but an inconvenience?

11 out of 857,475 reported abortions is just about 1.3 per 100,000. So abortion would be less dangerous than childbirth, then.
Was that the point you were trying to make?

Abortion has risks as well. Here are some more.

http://www.aaacpc.com/abortion_risks.html

So abortion has risks. Very well. Since I have not argued that abortion should be mandatory, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Better my mind than my fly.

Heh.

It does take both a male and a female to create one.

And only a female to bear one.

In a very real way you are. There are ramifications for all of us as long as we continue to kill off 1.3 million of us every year while some 1 million mexican nationals are crossing the border every day.

Mexican nationals??? WTF? Are we bringing any unrelated information into the debate now? Did you know it takes 904 licks to get to the Tootsie Roill center of a Tootsie Pop? Think about that.

I have never forced anyone to have an abortion. I have never encouraged anyone to have an abortion. I have never conceived a child that was aborted. I have nhever performed an abortion. Thus, the number of abortions that happen has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

It seems to me that the two of us are both too sarcastic to debate well together; I think I'll probably withdraw at this point. Feel free to reply to this; I'll read what you have to say, but I don't see a whole lot coming out of this.

 

[Loki]

It seems to me that the two of us are both too sarcastic to debate well together; I think I'll probably withdraw at this point. Feel free to reply to this; I'll read what you have to say, but I don't see a whole lot coming out of this.

Pity. :mrgreen:

 

[ngdawg]

This is an article indicating there are 2.1 million childless couples in the us. They are persuing artificial insemination primarily because of dissatisfaction with adoption, in part because of long waiting lists

Since that is from an adoption site, I call its statistics there a bit suspect in the regards to AI. As an infertility patient for 10 years, I continued that long because it was covered by insurance. Adoption is not-if you don't have money to lay out, you can't adopt except for the 'unadoptable' children. Once a couple discovers their infertility, it's simple enough to pursue both adoption and medical treatment at the same time as both procedures take time to come to a conclusion-most fertility clinics working from start to finish will take about a year at least before finding cause and treatments.
The waiting lists have dropped quite a bit for several reasons-the improvements of fertility treatments lessens the waiting couples numbers, less abortions are being performed, less couples seeking to start families. When we started all the processes(about 1985), we were given a window of 5 years to get an adopted baby -it is now two at least. If more couples were willing to take older kids or sibling groups, there'd be no waiting lists. But everyone doesn't-the majority want a newborn fresh from the hospital.

 

[Loki]

Since that is from an adoption site, I call its statistics there a bit suspect in the regards to AI. As an infertility patient for 10 years, I continued that long because it was covered by insurance. Adoption is not-if you don't have money to lay out, you can't adopt except for the 'unadoptable' children. Once a couple discovers their infertility, it's simple enough to pursue both adoption and medical treatment at the same time as both procedures take time to come to a conclusion-most fertility clinics working from start to finish will take about a year at least before finding cause and treatments.
The waiting lists have dropped quite a bit for several reasons-the improvements of fertility treatments lessens the waiting couples numbers, less abortions are being performed, less couples seeking to start families. When we started all the processes(about 1985), we were given a window of 5 years to get an adopted baby -it is now two at least. If more couples were willing to take older kids or sibling groups, there'd be no waiting lists. But everyone doesn't-the majority want a newborn fresh from the hospital.

Ok, denigrate the website. I feel abortion should be legal, (with some limitations) safe, and rare. 1.3 million abortions a year isn't rare.