You must first establish which of those abortion-related deaths would not have occurred if they were legal abortions. Like any invasive surgical procedure, abortion — legal or illegal — has a death rate, however small. No such procedure is risk free. Illegal abortions, like legal abortions, were outpatient procedures. They used the same techniques, the same equipment, and as Planned Parenthood’s medical director Dr. Calderone made clear, in most cases the same physicians who would conduct the procedure for therapeutic and legal reasons. Abortion-related deaths continue to happen in rare cases. Is this related to their legal status? No.
This death rate in pre-Roe v. Wade illegal abortions has been, and in some quarters, continues to be, wildly exaggerated for political gain. The incidences of this exaggeration have not been isolated. The have been fairly common in pro-choice rhetoric. Such statistical dishonesty for political gain would be soundly condemned if it were part of anti-abortion rhetoric.
This is meaningless without some idea of what it means to be “a new and distinct human individual” - what moral obligations we have to it, if any. Not every “new and distinct human individual” has the right not to be killed, especially under such a broad definition of the term.
In my experience, when someone talks about when “life” begins in regard to abortion, they’re not just talking about a living cell with unique human DNA, they’re talking about a person with rights. Genetics and embryology can tell us whether a fertilized egg is alive and has human DNA, but not what moral implications follow from those facts.
You are once again implying that the pre-Roe v. Wade mortality rate for abortions was caused by the abortions being illegal. And I am once again saying that that argument is unproven, and in fact specious.
I will say this a fourth time, because you don’t seem to have understood it the first three times.
Abortion related deaths happened before Roe v. Wade. Abortion-related deaths happened after Roe v. Wade. The fact that an abortion-related death happened before Roe v. Wade does not mean that it happened because the abortion was illegal. Illegal abortions, like legal abortions, were outpatient procedures. They used the same techniques, the same equipment, and as Planned Parenthood’s medical director Dr. Calderone made clear, in most cases the same physicians who would conduct the procedure for therapeutic and legal reasons. Abortion-related deaths continue to happen in rare cases. Is this related to their legal status? No.
If you want to imply that pre-Roe v. Wade deaths in illegal abortions occurred because the abortions were illegal, you need to prove that. For instance, by contrasting the mortality rate of pre-Roe v. Wade therapeutic abortions against the mortality rate of pre-Roe v. Wade illegal abortions. But you have not done that here.
I realize that the discussion has kind of moved past this point, but I think this needs to be said. (I’m surprised no one else mentioned this).
That question is rather biased. Of the four options, 3 are interpretable as pro life, and the only pro choice option is the most extreme pro choice opinion available. I agree that many people don’t agree with abortions “in all cases,” but the only option for a pro choicer who didn’t like partial birth abortion would have to choose (2) when that didn’t accurately represent their view. It would be similar to a poll with
where many people will be forced to choose whether they are willing to be polled as pro choice, or whether they want to be polled as denying abortions for rape/health/etc. Sure, some rape/health/etc people will pick 4, but some will go 3, weighting the poll to a pro-choice slant, similar to how the real poll came up with a pro life slant.
Zero, the same number as acceptable abortion-deaths for the unborn (for me, at least–except perhaps in an instance where the mother’s life is in danger, if such dilemmas actually exist). I think you’re trying to score a point with a false dilemma. I can be in favor of permitting qualified and tested people to drive automobiles without that meaning I’m fond of auto fatalities.
Ridiculous. As surely you must realize, any such statistics are impossible, being as there was very little in the way of people reporting their illegal abortions to some central data clearing house. It would be like trying to buy insurance for a stolen car!
Then the claims that there was a higher mortality rate for women during ILLEGAL (vs legal) abortions are of course specious. One wonders about the motives of people making such claims then.
This is such a waste of time, no one cares what happened 50 years ago or what happened in 71. Like most things, tech will render this conversation moot. If they manage to end federal protection of abortion, what’s going to happen is those states that have a more “liberal” approach to abortion will allow the various “abortion” pills to be used or there’s gonna be a blackmarket for them. Forget the scenarios of women struggling to cross state lines, forget the back alley abortions, or this debate of when life begins.
Forget about it. Instead focus on the black-market of pills, and the complications of people taking either tainted versions of it, fakes or overdosing on them. That’s the future. Get ready for having more criminalization of pills and an increase in the prison population for “dealers”. Invastive abortions will quickly become the sole domain of the in the case of the death of the mother crowd.
Once “you” get your wish and end federal protection of Roe, we’re all going to be on our own…as soon as a over the counter pregnancy test goes positive, women will take their pill and end the pregnancy. No doctors, no federal government, no nothing and you will never know about it.
All you will accomplish is pushing the end of the pregnancy sooner and strengthen the belief, that women are only aborting a mass of cells and the “ease” in which it’s done.
Saving the unborn…? Don’t think so, once you release the federal government the burden of keeping the peace and the restrictions thereof; you pretty much guarantee an increase in pregnancies being terminated and you won’t be able to stop it, cause you be able to influence the people who use this issue to maintain their power; this goes for the “pro” choice side too.
Furthermore, the US Bureau of Vital Statistics (a group that is by no means pro-life!) officially estimated that only 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade. Even if we allow for the possibility of underestimation, it still falls far short of the 5,000 to 10,000 per year that NARAL was claiming.
People should, if they want empirical support for their claim that thousands were dying from back-alley abortions, and that thousands more will die if abortion is banned.
Unless, of course, one adopts an attitude of “Forget about the facts! I’m right anyway!”
An ad hominem argument does not improve with repitition.
NARAL is one of many groups on the pro-choice side. They do not define the argument. If they state a falsehood, that reflects poorly on them, period. Full stop.
There are any number of utter assholes who declare themselves Christians. Their connsumate rectality has no bearing on the validity, or lack thereof, of Christianity.
The point is, basing a decision now, on technology that will no longer be an issue is a waste of time. If the only option to end a pregnancy was the invasive surgery of 20-30-40-50 years ago, I would agree that we should discuss it.
However this thread is about what will happen if abortion was banned, you don’t answer that question with the same old arguments, because IMO; those arguments have weakened due to time and technology; I mean this for both sides of the issue.
Your issue of conception, loses it’s power if I can abort the same day I find a positive on my pregnancy test. YOU may believe I’m killing the unborn, I believe I removing a clump of cells. The issue of back alley abortons falls apart in the same way.
This issue is quickly losing revelevance, except for the zealots on both sides…but ulitmately the “pro” abortion side will win.
And if this were an ad hominem argument, you would have a point. However, it is not. A NARAL official admitted that these figures were fabricated, which is by no means ad hominem argumentation.
If their claim was false, then other groups who make the same claim are also speaking falsehoods. It’s just that simple.
Which has no relevance to the subject at hand. We are talking about a very specific claim, after all – namely, that women were dying by the thousands due to illegal abortions. This claim has been demonstrated to be false.
I’m not about to claim – nor have I ever claimed – that all pro-choicers are lying bastards, simply because NARAL lied. I’m sure that a great many pro-choicers are simply misinformed. However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the claim of massive deaths caused by back-alley abortions – and that claim simply does not hold up under scrutiny. It is not supported by the statistics at hand, and the testimony of key individuals on the pro-choice side shows it to be false.
…and even Ellen Goodman quoted in our very own back yard.
That’s part of their whole schtick…thousands of women died in “back alley” abortions, NARAL will swoop to the rescue to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Interesting read that “no one cares what happened 50 years ago or what happened in 71”.
Well, I care what happened, it happened to people I know.
One is tempted. The argument that technology has advanced to the point where clandestine abortions would no longer be dangerous has considerable merit. One is tempted to throw up one’s hands and say “To Hell with it! Let them have thier silly little unenforceable laws, if only they will shut up and go away!”
But the principle remains: the state has no more right to tell a woman what she can do with her uterus than it can tell her what to do with her appendix. The dogma that a fetus is a human being with all attendent rights is just that: a dogma, without basis in fact, it is a “just-so” story, believe it or not, swallow it or spit it out.
We’ve already cited testimonies to the contrary, from some of the world’s foremost experts in genetics and embryology. In fact, among all the experts who testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, all except one of them attested that the unborn is indeed a fully human being. The only exception was one person who refused to take a stand one way or another.
A dogma, without basis in fact? It seems to me that it’s the people who deny the humanity of the unborn that are making claims without any factual basis.