This assumes that pregnancy and brth have no risks associated with them for the woman. She has a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in the USA during or as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.
If all women, are required to contiue all pregnancies, then eventually a rape victim will die because of the policy.
There’s no “eventually” about it for the thing being aborted, rape or not.
How many abortion patients cite “Because I might die if I go through with the pregnancy” as their reason for wanting the procedure? Also, what’s the risk associated with abortion? Just for info.
A hell of a lot lower now than it would be if people succeeded in criminalizing it.
Is it? I think with RU-486, back alley abortions would be pretty rare today.
(not that I’m in favor of criminalizing abortion!)
Using RU-486 without medical supervision available would, I imagine, be somewhat more dangerous than using it with medical supervision, even if that supervision consists only of being able to call a doctor without fear of being reported to the police if something goes wrong.
RU-486 is NOT quick, it’s not easy, and it still requires a doctor’s supervision until the bleeding has stopped - which may be more than a month, but is at least 2 visits - one to get the scrip and one to check the uterus and verify that everything came out. How is that going to be safe if abortion is made illegal?
I don’t disagree, but I think abortion would be safer now if criminalized than it would have been thirty years ago.
Did anyone deny that? Not sure of the relevance of that, though.
So, if someone thinks that abortion is murder, do you think that would change the person’s mind?
n.b.: I’m pro-choice, but I’m just saying that I don’t think your argument would be persuasive to someone who is pro-life. Why would that person agree to kill X number of babies to hypothetically save Y number of women, when Y << X?
Once the chemically-aided miscarriage starts, would it be distinguishable from a “natural” miscarriage?
I don’t know.
I’m guessing pretty easily with a blood test.
No, not easily distinguished clinically from an incomplete miscarriage and one would have to have patient consent to take blood and then test it for Mifepristone. As 25-30% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, that’s an awful lot of investigation.
Whynot Medical terminations of pregnancy do not have to use Mifepristone (RU-486). Misoprostol alone, either by mouth or vaginally works well too and is often used in developing countries because it is cheap and the drug is easy to store. Anyone with persistent bleeding after medical TOP should be assessed for retained products of conception and offered a surgical evacuation of the uterus.
Personally, I’m a realist.
Abortion will always be there, so it had better be safe and legal, otherwise 25% of the world’s women will be in jail and hundreds of thousands of women will die every year.
I provided links to information about Mifepristone specifically because **Fiveyearlurker **brought it up by name as an alternative to “back alley abortions” should abortion become legal. My point is that it still requires physician supervision to be safe - it’s not like EC (emergency contraception) which can be taken at home with little risk, even if you never see a doctor about your pregnancy scare.
A back alley RU-486 abortion is scarcely safer than a back-alley D&C abortion, in my book.
I agree.
Maybe not safer, but maybe more easily swept under the spontaneous abortion rug while getting the necessary care.
Without medical supervision it is possible to bleed to death from a miscarriage, never mind an abortion. There is a reason surgical evacuations are classed as emergencies and occur at all hours of the day and night.
A safe termination is safer than delivering, an unsafe termination is more dangerous. Pregnancy is risky full-stop.
Since it is your life, your body (and if you believe n these things, your soul), I think it gets to be your choice. You have to deal with the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences of that choice, so you get to be the one who makes it.
In GD it’s acceptable to respond to a request for information with tub-thumping? :dubious:
But if the risk of dying from pregnancy is 0.01%, and you multiply that by the risk of being raped in the first place, and the risk of being impregnated by that one instance of rape, I wouldn’t have thought that most women needed to lie awake at night fretting about the danger of dying from a rape-induced unwanted pregnancy.
Ah, yes. I remember just how it used to be before Roe vs Wade. The streets are a lot more crowded now those women are out of jail, though.
That’s a rather broad claim for which I have yet to see any evidence. Quite the contrary; statistics suggest that allowing nature to take its course is safer than abnormally terminating the pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood was fond of extolling the high safety record of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade. Other evidence supports this claim as well. It wasn’t until much later that they started complaining about the alleged dangers of these illegal abortions.
Well, i’m not entirely sure i’d call one person’s opinion “PP being fond of extolling”, nor would I take the word of one man as “other evidence”. And you rather appear to have overlooked that your first cite includes deaths from “not only medical problems but also suicide, homicide, and accidental deaths.”
But i’m willing to believe the death toll was probably pretty much lower than thought; if it was doctors in good standing who gave them, certainly I can imagine that the successful ones would be kept secret. My problem with that is this; presumably you would like stringent rules to stop doctors perfoming abortions, were they made illegal. I would think that the stronger the punishment, the more effective they would be, and so the less likely that doctors are willing to risk it. What amount of abortion-related deaths is an acceptable figure, and how would you reach that number?
She’s not in the US.