• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Back Alley Abortion Myth [W:63]

Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

No, the analogy would be that only slaves have standing to talk about slavery. I'm not surprised that you mixed that up, though.

Actually, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Slaves were the victims of slavery, not its practitioners.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

And I'm also quite welcome to continue protesting the fact that hiring a hit man is legal when it should never be, and I'm quite welcome to get that practice abolished.

But please do tell us more about how you feel that gender should dictate the ability to have and express a political opinion.
Why don't you tell us the real reason behind your hatred and disdain for women?

No, I don't enjoy attacking anyone, and I don't attack anyone on the basis of their gender or their age. Their actions are another story. I certainly do condemn violent killers, because I should - everyone should. I don't enjoy it. I'd rather these awful things not happen. It's tragic that people that horrible exist and do things like that.

Case in point, the violent killer and vile hypocrite you talked about in that thread.

Do you think that someone doing something bad to you entitles you to do something worse to someone else, yes or no?
I don't know if you realize it or not but your hate speech is a lot more violent than any legal abortion. You want to kill or see people get killed who don't agree with you. What do you think that makes you? A potential murderer in the making, perhaps?
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

No, the analogy would be that only slaves have standing to talk about slavery. I'm not surprised that you mixed that up, though.

correct this type of common sense will go ignored though
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Actually, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Slaves were the victims of slavery, not its practitioners.

yes it does and it shows why your analogy is retarded, it fails everytime you bring it up

trying to liken abortion to slavery as if they are equal will always be complete dishonest failure

why is it a failure, a ZEF is inside a person, boom thats the end of that, slaves were not and this simple fact destroys any uneducated and anology to slavery
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
But please do tell us more about how you feel that gender should dictate the ability to have and express a political opinion.



The complete inability to suffer the harm that you are advocating be permitted to befall others does make your opinion on the subject pretty worthless.

1) You're taking no risk on yourself;

2) giving up absolutely nothing;

3) Your freedom is not on the line at all;

4) You have no real vested interest in the outcome;

5) You have no standing to employ a legal concept.


It is easy and callous to attempt to strip rights away from someone else. If you were facing a loss of rights yourself, then your assertion that they should be taken would be worth listening to.

Well stated Pasch...and worth repeating.

Thanks...
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Why don't you tell us the real reason behind your hatred and disdain for women?

Uh-huh.

Just as soon as you tell us all if you've stopped beating your wife. :roll:

I don't know if you realize it or not but your hate speech is a lot more violent than any legal abortion. You want to kill or see people get killed who don't agree with you. What do you think that makes you? A potential murderer in the making, perhaps?

I'm sorry, you seem to have me confused with one of the pro-abortion posters on this site who have actually said something like you just stated, and recently.

I have never and would never.

But we're well past me simply asking you nicely to stop this churlish, trolling nonsense.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

nota bene goggled the wrong Elliott

Thanks. I didn't check her website citation, I simply took her word for the relationship. In either case, my original comment still stands...the "blog" is propaganda and incorrect in it's "facts." :)
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Who are you quoting? Not me.
Say whaaaa? You're the only here accusing people of being baby killers...so it must be you. So who are accussing of being "baby killers"?

"My ilk?" According to you "my ilk" is alleged mutilators of the dead, and I take "pleasure" at viewing mutilated corpses??? Alright, that's it. Enough of this...`Just blatantly off-topic personal attacks and you've tripled down on them...
Well, if you didn't see the anti-abortionists violent graphic propaganda and I don't know how you could've missed it, then how do you explain your violent graphic language?

Here's something for you to think about Jaydubya.......

"...A July 1992 LIFE magazine article, The Great Divide, reported that Reverend Robert Schenk, member of anti-choice coalition Operation rescue, attended a demonstration outside an abortion clinic in Buffalo, NY, with "Baby Tia", a 7-inch, gray-tinted and formaldehyde-soaked dead fetus. In the escalating madness of the crowd, the fetus was dropped onto the sneaker-trodden street. Authorities arrested Schenk and confiscated the fetus, which was taken to a coroner, only to be identified as an approximately 20-week-old stillborn....read...

Life and Liberty for Women - Abortions's Silenced Legacy

"...The [stillborn] fetus was dropped on the sneaker trodden street." Where's your outrage now, Jaydubya? It's mighty interesting how you don't seem to mind the pro-lifers exploiting, descrating and mutilating dead fetuses for theirs and your twisted agenda...but heaven forbid a 12 year old rape victim should have an abortion. Thats a real hard act to follow.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Thanks. I didn't check her website citation, I simply took her word for the relationship. In either case, my original comment still stands...the "blog" is propaganda and incorrect in it's "facts." :)

I agree.
It is a Pro life propaganda blog.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

nothing like reading a well reasoned rational debate where people don't come off their hinges and start acting like animals towards one another....

I think i'll go find one...'cuz it sure as **** isn't in this thread.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Is it? I'd never heard of the Elliott Institute, so I Googled. Looks like a group of therapists and special ed. teachers who mainly focus on autism: Dr. Alicia Elliott

That is too bad. My son has a form of autism and It skeeves me to no end to think his therapists/etc would be intellectually dishonest.:doh Luckily, I think his therapists are a bit morehonest and perceptive than the person(people) who wrote that article.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The Truth About “Back Alley” Abortions « After Abortion

No, things are not safer now that it's legal. In fact, now that it is more widespread, more women are harmed.

ABORTION MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY

The replacement of unsafe, illegal abortions by safer, legal procedures meant that women experienced fewer serious complications. Studies performed at the national, state and local levels revealed that hospitalization of women with complications from illegal abortion decreased gradually after Roe v. Wade.17 Estimates from the National Hospital Discharge Survey between 1970 and 1977 also demonstrated a general decline in the number of women treated for complications of illegal abortions; a disproportionate decrease occurred in the year of Roe v. Wade.18 Moreover, reports from individual hospitals on the East and West Coasts documented similar declines in abortion complications.19

Roe v. Wade also stimulated research into how to perform legal abortions even more safely. The main vehicle for assessing the outcomes of different abortion procedures was a multicenter cohort study—the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion (JPSA)20—which the Population Council began in 1970 and the CDC continued in 1971. Over seven years, the CDC collected detailed clinical data on more than 160,000 abortions induced legally through a variety of procedures in more than 30 U.S. institutions.

The study represented an early effort to practice evidence-based medicine, and its findings transformed the way in which legal abortions were performed in the 1970s. The researchers concluded that use of vacuum aspiration to terminate first-trimester pregnancies was faster and safer than dilation and sharp curettage, which was until then conventionally used to perform first-trimester abortion and to treat incomplete abortions.21 Consequently, suction curettage replaced sharp curettage as the main method of abortion: In 1970, suction and sharp curettage accounted for 54% and 46% of abortions, respectively;22 by 1998, suction curettage was used for nearly all abortions (96%).23

The JPSA findings also showed that dilation and evacuation (D&E) was safer than intra-amniotic instillation of abortifacients to induce abortion at 13 weeks' gestation or later;24 hence, the strict concept of "trimester threshold" that underlay the Roe v. Wade decision became irrelevant.25*After Roe v. Wade, JPSA concluded that surgical evacuation was the safest method of abortion after 12 weeks' gestation. The proportion of second-trimester abortions that were performed by D&E subsequently rose, to more than 90% by the 1990s.26 D&E not only has made abortion safer, but also has lowered costs, minimized inconvenience and made second-trimester abortion less traumatic emotionally for women.

According to JPSA, physicians' skills also improved during the 1970s. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion methods were generally not included in obstetrics and gynecology training.27 Gynecology residents typically encountered uterine evacuation only when performing sharp curettage on a nonpregnant woman for diagnostic purposes or when removing tissue after a spontaneous abortion. Even then, surgical techniques used in these two situations differed from those used in induced abortion. Roe v. Wade allowed physicians to learn not only the appropriate methods, but also how to manage associated complications. Improved training was one factor that helped to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality in the first decade of legal abortion. Other factors included development of more effective methods of local and general anesthesia, use of osmotic methods of cervical dilation such as laminaria tents (seaweed sticks), physicians' greater willingness to reevacuate a uterus that might not be empty and abandonment of hysterotomy for abortion.

As the availability of legally induced abortion increased, mortality due to abortion dropped sharply: The number of abortion-related deaths per million live births fell from nearly 40 in 1970 to eight in 1976.28 The trend was caused mainly by a decline in the absolute number of deaths from illegal abortion—especially after Roe v. Wade—from 39 in 1972 to two in 1976.29 After 1975, mortality due to legally induced abortion also fell—from more than three deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1975 to about one in 1976 and even fewer thereafter.30

The main reason for the reductions in both morbidity and mortality is that legally induced abortion is markedly safer than illegally induced abortion. Moreover, legal abortion is safer than the third choice available to pregnant women—continuing a pregnancy to term.31 For example, in 2000, 23% of births were abdominal (cesarean) deliveries, whereas fewer than 1% of suction curettage procedures required intra-abdominal surgery.32 Therefore, a woman carrying a pregnancy to term has several hundred times the risk of requiring major surgery of a woman undergoing suction abortion. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the risk of death related to induced abortion at 16 weeks' gestation or earlier was one-seventh that related to pregnancy and childbirth, even after adjustment for study year, age and race.33 Today, legal abortion is less likely than an injection of penicillin to cause death.

The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later


So I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you that legal abortion is not less safe than illegal abortions.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Moderator's Warning:
Enough with the personal comments and baiting. This is a zero tolerance warning. Any further comments about anything other than the topic, which is not each other or each other's posting history, will bring about thread bans and possibly infractions.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

ABORTION MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY

The replacement of unsafe, illegal abortions by safer, legal procedures meant that women experienced fewer serious complications. Studies performed at the national, state and local levels revealed that hospitalization of women with complications from illegal abortion decreased gradually after Roe v. Wade.17 Estimates from the National Hospital Discharge Survey between 1970 and 1977 also demonstrated a general decline in the number of women treated for complications of illegal abortions; a disproportionate decrease occurred in the year of Roe v. Wade.18 Moreover, reports from individual hospitals on the East and West Coasts documented similar declines in abortion complications.19

Roe v. Wade also stimulated research into how to perform legal abortions even more safely. The main vehicle for assessing the outcomes of different abortion procedures was a multicenter cohort study—the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion (JPSA)20—which the Population Council began in 1970 and the CDC continued in 1971. Over seven years, the CDC collected detailed clinical data on more than 160,000 abortions induced legally through a variety of procedures in more than 30 U.S. institutions.

The study represented an early effort to practice evidence-based medicine, and its findings transformed the way in which legal abortions were performed in the 1970s. The researchers concluded that use of vacuum aspiration to terminate first-trimester pregnancies was faster and safer than dilation and sharp curettage, which was until then conventionally used to perform first-trimester abortion and to treat incomplete abortions.21 Consequently, suction curettage replaced sharp curettage as the main method of abortion: In 1970, suction and sharp curettage accounted for 54% and 46% of abortions, respectively;22 by 1998, suction curettage was used for nearly all abortions (96%).23

The JPSA findings also showed that dilation and evacuation (D&E) was safer than intra-amniotic instillation of abortifacients to induce abortion at 13 weeks' gestation or later;24 hence, the strict concept of "trimester threshold" that underlay the Roe v. Wade decision became irrelevant.25*After Roe v. Wade, JPSA concluded that surgical evacuation was the safest method of abortion after 12 weeks' gestation. The proportion of second-trimester abortions that were performed by D&E subsequently rose, to more than 90% by the 1990s.26 D&E not only has made abortion safer, but also has lowered costs, minimized inconvenience and made second-trimester abortion less traumatic emotionally for women.

According to JPSA, physicians' skills also improved during the 1970s. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion methods were generally not included in obstetrics and gynecology training.27 Gynecology residents typically encountered uterine evacuation only when performing sharp curettage on a nonpregnant woman for diagnostic purposes or when removing tissue after a spontaneous abortion. Even then, surgical techniques used in these two situations differed from those used in induced abortion. Roe v. Wade allowed physicians to learn not only the appropriate methods, but also how to manage associated complications. Improved training was one factor that helped to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality in the first decade of legal abortion. Other factors included development of more effective methods of local and general anesthesia, use of osmotic methods of cervical dilation such as laminaria tents (seaweed sticks), physicians' greater willingness to reevacuate a uterus that might not be empty and abandonment of hysterotomy for abortion.

As the availability of legally induced abortion increased, mortality due to abortion dropped sharply: The number of abortion-related deaths per million live births fell from nearly 40 in 1970 to eight in 1976.28 The trend was caused mainly by a decline in the absolute number of deaths from illegal abortion—especially after Roe v. Wade—from 39 in 1972 to two in 1976.29 After 1975, mortality due to legally induced abortion also fell—from more than three deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1975 to about one in 1976 and even fewer thereafter.30

The main reason for the reductions in both morbidity and mortality is that legally induced abortion is markedly safer than illegally induced abortion. Moreover, legal abortion is safer than the third choice available to pregnant women—continuing a pregnancy to term.31 For example, in 2000, 23% of births were abdominal (cesarean) deliveries, whereas fewer than 1% of suction curettage procedures required intra-abdominal surgery.32 Therefore, a woman carrying a pregnancy to term has several hundred times the risk of requiring major surgery of a woman undergoing suction abortion. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the risk of death related to induced abortion at 16 weeks' gestation or earlier was one-seventh that related to pregnancy and childbirth, even after adjustment for study year, age and race.33 Today, legal abortion is less likely than an injection of penicillin to cause death.

The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later


So I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you that legal abortion is not less safe than illegal abortions.

Thank you for posting the very informative article about the legal impact of abortion.
I agree legal abortions are much ,much safer than illegal abortions were.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Thank you for posting the very informative article about the legal impact of abortion.
I agree legal abortions are much ,much safer than illegal abortions were.

I completely agree with you on that one.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Thank you for posting the very informative article about the legal impact of abortion.
I agree legal abortions are much ,much safer than illegal abortions were.

agreed very informative
and all it takes is some simply looking into and the reality is clear what is safe or more safe.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Abortions are safer than child birth...thanks to modern medicine and Roe V Wade.

The mortality rate was pretty high prior to Roe V Wade. It was the SCOTUS majority opinion that the state had a vested interest in making sure abortions were safe to protect the health of the woman, rather than criminalizing them and forcing women to undergo back alley abortions where there were no safety standards at all.

From SCOTUS majority opinion on Roe V Wade...

"...Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. 44 Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain. [410 U.S. 113, 150] The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy....read Roe V Wade...

Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision | Parts 9-10

Typical pro-choice liberal spin.

:spin: :alert

You do realize giving birth is also much safer since the time of Roe V. Wade due to medical advancements? Women still die from abortions, women still die from pregnancies and giving birth, can't really use that as an argument favorable to abortion practices.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Typical pro-choice liberal spin.

:spin: :alert

You do realize giving birth is also much safer since the time of Roe V. Wade due to medical advancements? Women still die from abortions, women still die from pregnancies and giving birth, can't really use that as an argument favorable to abortion practices.

Is pregnancy and childbirth safer for the mother than abortion?

Yes or No.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Safer for both people absolutely.

Safer for the mother was the question.

Is pregnancy and childbirth safer for the mother than abortion.

Yes or no.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Is pregnancy and childbirth safer for the mother than abortion?

Yes or No.

Yes,it much safer for the woman.
After being very ill all during my first pregnancy ...so ill my life was at risk...
And having a daughter who almost lost her life late in pregnancy when a seemly normal pregnancy took horrific turn and she developed HELLP syndrome, I know first hand just a couple of the dangers pregnancy and child birth can bring.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Safer for the mother was the question.

Is pregnancy and childbirth safer for the mother than abortion.

Yes or no.

medical abortion is safer for the mother than medical birth
many links have been posted to support this
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The intent of havig an abortion isn't to have a baby. :roll: The fact is that abortions today are safer than giving birth for women. But I found it very telling that your comment made no mention of women or their safety at all and that is what the OP is about. You act as if they don't exist except as baby mills. Unfortunately, it's that total disregard and lack of concern for women as human beings in their own right by some men, makes me wonder if that kind of attitude isn't the reason a lot of women have abortions.

The purpose of an abortion is to have a dead baby. Now Kermit Gosnell comes along and gives the women what they wanted and now he's in jail.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The purpose of an abortion is to have a dead baby. Now Kermit Gosnell comes along and gives the women what they wanted and now he's in jail.

your sentence proves yourself wrong
gosenell is in jail because he wasnt giving abortions, he was putting the woman to sleep and or inducing labor then killing the born baby afterwards

saying the purpose of abortion is to have a dead baby is factually false
 
Back
Top Bottom