• 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

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

Seems like pretty thin semantics to me. You feel comfortable with the fact that killing a baby right before birth and killing a baby right after birth is really that different?
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.)Seems like pretty thin semantics to me.
2.) You feel comfortable with the fact that killing a baby right before birth and killing a baby right after birth is really that different?

1.)not semantics at all its fact
2.)thats actually not a fact in this country,
A.) killing a baby is no abortion
B.) abortions do have some limitations, hence roe vs wade and the LEGAL abortions that happen after that are super rare and involve special circumstances that allow them

illegal ones are still illegal

if it was up to me roe vs wade would stay standing but id be willing to move the soft cap of when one can have an abortion for any reason to 20weeks but 21 weeks (viability) would be my pick and id never go below that because viability will never go below that.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.)not semantics at all its fact
2.)thats actually not a fact in this country,
A.) killing a baby is no abortion
B.) abortions do have some limitations, hence roe vs wade and the LEGAL abortions that happen after that are super rare and involve special circumstances that allow them

illegal ones are still illegal

if it was up to me roe vs wade would stay standing but id be willing to move the soft cap of when one can have an abortion for any reason to 20weeks but 21 weeks (viability) would be my pick and id never go below that because viability will never go below that.

So you are in favor of restricting abortions and taking the choice away from the mother. That's your call.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.)So you are in favor of restricting abortions and taking the choice away from the mother.
2.) That's your call.

1.) yes i do favor restricting when abortions can and can not be preformed, this is because understand their are TWO lives involved. Unfortunately there no possible way to treat them equally and give them equal rights. One of them will always have their civil, legal and or human rights violated, no way around this fact. One of them will always be the lesser.

So I TRY to get as close to in the middle as possible and id like a soft limit at 21 weeks viability and basically half the pregnancy.

before 21 weeks abortion for any reason
after 21 weeks its restricted, immediate life of the mother, deformities etc.

2.) yes it is my call as its my views and opinions based on some facts

so what are you in "favor" of?
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.) yes i do favor restricting when abortions can and can not be preformed, this is because understand their are TWO lives involved. Unfortunately there no possible way to treat them equally and give them equal rights. One of them will always have their civil, legal and or human rights violated, no way around this fact. One of them will always be the lesser.

So I TRY to get as close to in the middle as possible and id like a soft limit at 21 weeks viability and basically half the pregnancy.

before 21 weeks abortion for any reason
after 21 weeks its restricted, immediate life of the mother, deformities etc.

2.) yes it is my call as its my views and opinions based on some facts

so what are you in "favor" of?

My position isn't quite so nuanced. I'm against abortions, but it is none of my business.
 
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

I can see that you didn't even look at the link, so thanks for showing off your intellectual honesty.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Bunch of hooey.

Never thought abortions back then were carried out in an alley, did you, really?


I think it was widely known that most people performing abortions had some medical training. Ummm, is that the standard you seek for YOUR medical procedures, really? Some medical training??? Seriously?

Given the fact that back then the population was about half of what it is an people got married WAY earlier, and one person could support a family, I would think a million people going for illegal unsafe abortions was a gross overestimate....did you think it was a million or more?

In terms of safety, don't you think that we can do pregnancy tests much earlier and there are an incredible amount of very early abortions, makes no sense that they are claiming safety profiles are similar. No sense.

Don't you think a big issue would be actually STERILE instruments??

In terms of actual stats...you think there are any reliable specific stats?

It seems that the actual stats that my link provided are much more reliable than the conjecture that you've provided. :roll:
 
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.

Absolutely. I have seen first hand what a back alley abortion can do to a woman.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

My position isn't quite so nuanced. I'm against abortions, but it is none of my business.

nothing wrong with that stance, many people who self identify as pro-life have that stance, not saying thats how you identify just saying in general

as far as none of your buisnes (to each his own) if you had a choice to outlaw abortions at 8 months and 29days you would pass on this and let it be legal?
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

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.

Facts prove otherwise as I have already posted.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Facts prove otherwise as I have already posted.

well that didnt take long to be told you are trying to post like me again, this is cute, to bad you fail at it

so what facts did you post and what do you think they prove

because medical abortion is in fact safer for the mother than medical birth

you link from lifenews did nothing to change that fact
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

well that didnt take long to be told you are trying to post like me again, this is cute, to bad you fail at it

so what facts did you post and what do you think they prove

because medical abortion is in fact safer for the mother than medical birth

you link from lifenews did nothing to change that fact

Trolling I see? That being said, you must not have actually read the article, or the peer-reviewed study referenced within the article.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Trolling I see?
2.) That being said, you must not have actually read the article, or the peer-reviewed study referenced within the article.

1.) no trolling but your deflection is noted, read the rule, responding to a post and pointing out facts and its inaccuracy is not trolling. sorry
2.) yes i read them both

now please answer the question instead of dodging it

"so what facts did you post and what do you think they prove
because medical abortion is in fact safer for the mother than giving birth"
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.) no trolling but your deflection is noted, read the rule, responding to a post and pointing out facts and its inaccuracy is not trolling. sorry
2.) yes i read them both

now please answer the question instead of dodging it

"so what facts did you post and what do you think they prove
because medical abortion is in fact safer for the mother than giving birth"

Medical abortion is not the only abortion. People die from medical abortions too by the way.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

1.)Medical abortion is not the only abortion.
2.)People die from medical abortions too by the way.

1.) yes im aware, never claimed otherwise, the stuff you try to make relevant is hilarious, of that but if people are preforming their own surgeries and medical procedures thats on them

taking out my own wisdom teeth could kill me too thats not to be included in dentistry or wisdom teeth deaths
2.) yes it has happened, nowadays super super super rare even more so than giving birth

again i ask the questions you dodged twice now

"so what facts did you post and what do you think they prove
because medical abortion is in fact safer for the mother than giving birth"
 
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
The problem is the women who get abortions when their lives are not in danger. That's the part that is wrong about Roe v Wade.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

nothing wrong with that stance, many people who self identify as pro-life have that stance, not saying thats how you identify just saying in general

as far as none of your buisnes (to each his own) if you had a choice to outlaw abortions at 8 months and 29days you would pass on this and let it be legal?

I believe that once you decide that a woman has the right to choose and that it is none of your business, then dates, timing and reasons are irrelevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom