• 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

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
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Abortions are safer than child birth...

The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.
 
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.

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?
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.

Abortions are safer for the mother, than having to go through childbirth.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.
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.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

-- makes me wonder if that kind of attitude isn't the reason a lot of women have abortions.

I was wholly with you till right there.

I'm not (by the way) anti-abortion; it's generally a woman's decision and completely a woman's right what to do with her own body until we get to 25 weeks when the baby / child / foetus / human being / zygote inside her begins to gain its own rights. (I am not one of those people who get hung up about calling the baby a baby)
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

I was wholly with you till right there.

I'm not (by the way) anti-abortion; it's generally a woman's decision and completely a woman's right what to do with her own body until we get to 25 weeks when the baby / child / foetus / human being / zygote inside her begins to gain its own rights. (I am not one of those people who get hung up about calling the baby a baby)
Since I didn't mention anything about trimesters let alone viability, I don't believe you were "wholly with me" at all. In fact, you helped to confirm what I said.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Since I didn't mention anything about trimesters let alone viability, I don't believe you were "wholly with me" at all. In fact, you helped to confirm what I said.

I was clarifying my position in the second paragraph - abortion threads usually degenerate into a discussion of whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc. I've even once been picked up for using the English expression "back room abortion" by an American who thought calling it a back ally abortion would help him prove abortion was evil.

Anyhow - I was simply trying to say (and maybe shouldn't have) that your last sentence could be (and probably will be) deliberately misconstrued as women having abortions simply because of men's attitudes.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

I was clarifying my position in the second paragraph - abortion threads usually degenerate into a discussion of whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc. I've even once been picked up for using the English expression "back room abortion" by an American who thought calling it a back ally abortion would help him prove abortion was evil.
Which of course explains why you're the first and only one on this thread to bring up "whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc."

Anyhow - I was simply trying to say (and maybe shouldn't have) that your last sentence could be (and probably will be) deliberately misconstrued as women having abortions simply because of men's attitudes.
Thats what I said and now that you've clarified yourself I have absolutely no idea what you're really trying to say.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Which of course explains why you're the first and only one on this thread to bring up "whether the baby is a human / zygote / foetus etc etc."

Thats what I said and now that you've clarified yourself I have absolutely no idea what you're really trying to say.

Meh. Serves me right for agreeing everything you said but the last sentence.

Good bye.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The citation used is some kind of blog? Where is it from? :confused:

Also, another member has pointed out that much of the information provided is misleading. For example no one thought people were having abortions in alleys, or that they were being done primarily by little old ladies with coathangers. People knew they were being done by midwives, nurses and doctors of varying skill levels. :naughty

Sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is the one being deceptive. :twocents:


OH. I found it...it's an anti-abortion website After Abortion

Small wonder, it's propaganda. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

I don't think you can fairly equate abortion vs. childbirth because every woman has different mitigating circumstances, risk factors, etc. Botched abortions for sure happen that damage the uterine wall because the doctor was not skilled. But there are also unskilled child deliveries as well. Statistically speaking, pregnancy carries a higher risk of death, especially as the pregnancy progresses to full term.

Backalley abortions did literally happen during prohibition, but mostly it was women inventing their own implements to scrape the uterine wall or suck out fetal tissue. Without access to medical services, the general risk is much higher should a woman desperately attempt to figure it out on her own; and yes, it will happen.

The wealthy will just hire their expensive underground doctors or bribe attending physicians to do it anyway. It's the poor who will have to endure higher risk conditions either way, whether they have the baby or try to get rid of it.

Most of the people who argue against abortions are people of privilege, and they will just never understand certain socioeconomic realities.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The vast majority of babies subjected to childbirth go on to live long, healthy lives. It is the rare baby who is subjected to an abortion and is not directly killed by the procedure. That doesn't sound very safe at all, to me.

It all depends on whom you mean the procedure to be safe for. Lobster dinner is safe for me. But don't ask the Lobster.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The intent of havig an abortion isn't to have a baby.

No, it's to kill a baby, which is why he rightfully says it isn't safe at all. Hiring a hit man isn't safe. Certainly not for your victim, but not really for you either. They're willing to kill for money, and they're going to do it again and again - that means they have no respect for human rights by definition.

Of course, the entire concept we're talking about here is contingent upon the notion that we should care when hiring a hit man turns around and bites the client on the ass. I certainly don't.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The citation used is some kind of blog? Where is it from? :confused:

Also, another member has pointed out that much of the information provided is misleading. For example no one thought people were having abortions in alleys, or that they were being done primarily by little old ladies with coathangers. People knew they were being done by midwives, nurses and doctors of varying skill levels. :naughty

Sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is the one being deceptive. :twocents:


OH. I found it...it's an anti-abortion website After Abortion

Small wonder, it's propaganda. :coffeepap

Yup, the article is either based on myths no reasonable person even believed happened with any regularity or based on crap intentionally squewed false "research".

G
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

Even if you're against abortion don't deny reality. Abortion just goes underground with no regulations or oversight.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

No, it's to kill a baby, which is why he rightfully says it isn't safe at all.
I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.

Hiring a hit man isn't safe. Certainly not for your victim, but not really for you either. They're willing to kill for money, and they're going to do it again and again - that means they have no respect for human rights by definition.

Of course, the entire concept we're talking about here is contingent upon the notion that we should care when hiring a hit man turns around and bites the client on the ass. I certainly don't.
I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

The citation used is some kind of blog? Where is it from? :confused:

Also, another member has pointed out that much of the information provided is misleading. For example no one thought people were having abortions in alleys, or that they were being done primarily by little old ladies with coathangers. People knew they were being done by midwives, nurses and doctors of varying skill levels. :naughty

Sounds to me like whoever wrote this article is the one being deceptive. :twocents:


OH. I found it...it's an anti-abortion website After Abortion

Small wonder, it's propaganda. :coffeepap

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
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.

I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.

You know, I've read quite a few of JayDubya's posts, but I don't recall his ever expressing an interest in gruesome billboards. It's one thing to disagree with another's point of view but quite another to go low with a personal insult.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

From this article:

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

< SNIP>
I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure,
done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

< SNIP>
The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion.
It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/h...=1&adxnnlx=1337817945-qUmxUKfKUDcWQfT4MEbi5A&
-------------------------------------------
The illegal abortions that took place before Roe are unfortunate not only for woman who were injured but for the doctors and nurses who ended up repairing the damage.

Each abortion that occurs is decided by an individual woman ..possibly with input
from her husband/lover and maybe her doctor.

This is about a woman or a couple having the right to privacy to decide whether or not to have a child at this time in her life, how many children to have and how far to space them apart.

Roe vs wade was also very much about doctors being able to take the best care of their patients as they could and as many wanted too like the doctor in the article I posted.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

I prefer to think of it as preventing a baby before it actually becomes one.

I suppose that means you prefer to think of things in a way that does not represent how things are.

I know you don't. You prefer to look at billboards of gruesome 30 week old miscarriages that were stolen from emergency rooms and butchered and then photographed by anti-abortionists so you can feel good about yourself.

Uhhh what?

Yeah, no.

Not even touching this slanderous garbage. Just don't do it again. Ugh.
 
Re: The Back Alley Abortion Myth

You know, I've read quite a few of JayDubya's posts, but I don't recall his ever expressing an interest in gruesome billboards. It's one thing to disagree with another's point of view but quite another to go low with a personal insult.
Well, I find him extremely offensive and I'm sorry that you don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom