Abortions before 1973

[JerryL]

Per LE's request, this thread is started to try to answer a few questions. I am against abortion, let's get that out of the way first. If People here keep bringing up that we are killing 1.4 million a year and killing maybe a "mozart" or a "president" or a doctor that will cure cancer. I refuse to play on these "emotion" tatics. Let's be honest, no one is reporting statistics before the decision,there were 1.2 illegal abortions a year before 1973. We are just playing on numbers. There is a difference of 200,000 a year before and after.
Answering TT from the other thread, There isn't really a big a number as you would have people believe. We really do have to answer serious questions like "What about the women that will go back to back alley abortions?"

Actually, if all the aborted babies were born since 1973, there would be enough working bodies to support the burden the boomers put on social Security!

If it wasn't for abortion, Social Security would not be in trouble!
But we killed off the generation that supports the boomers!

Pre-Roe: When Abortion was Illegal
Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in nearly two-thirds of the states except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother. In those states it was legal, it was only available under very limited circumstances. Women who wanted to terminate their pregnancy often sought illegal, back-alley abortions. It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion yearly and that botched illegal abortions caused as many as 5,000 deaths a year (NARAL). During this period, illegal abortions were often performed by an untrained physician in unsanitary conditions using primitive methods (NAF).
Abortions before 1973

 

[dragonfly]

Per LE's request, this thread is started to try to answer a few questions. I am against abortion, let's get that out of the way first. If People here keep bringing up that we are killing 1.4 million a year and killing maybe a "mozart" or a "president" or a doctor that will cure cancer. I refuse to play on these "emotion" tatics. Let's be honest, no one is reporting statistics before the decision,there were 1.2 illegal abortions a year before 1973. We are just playing on numbers. There is a difference of 200,000 a year before and after.
Answering TT from the other thread, There isn't really a big a number as you would have people believe. We really do have to answer serious questions like "What about the women that will go back to back alley abortions?"

If it would reduce the amount of abortions you would think that the right-wingers here would be all for it. I believe the problem is that if we did this, who would the right-wing leaders have as an enemy? Why people like Limbaugh and the like would be out of a job!

 

[StefanM]

Oh it's just 200,000?

That's not that big of a difference

 

[JerryL]

It's a pipe dream to think that the figures before 73, as some claim, was around 100,000, then magically went to 1.4 million the year after. Statistics show that there were 1.2 million a year before that. That is an easier figure to believe, knowing that it went to around 1.4 million in the next year or two.

 

[JerryL]

Oh it's just 200,000?

That's not that big of a difference

Another one going up in space. The point was, if the numbers were basically the same, is it better to go back to the "back alley" days with the quack doctors doing them unsafe? There has to be a honorable solution to this problem and I don't think the Republicans or the Democrats are going to come to a good solution. We need to study this honest and quit trying to play on emotions and the Republican agenda.

 

[StefanM]

To be perfectly honest, I don't care how many back-alley abortions there were.

I don't care that women tried to kill their children in unsanitary conditions.

Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. People circumventing the law to murder their unborn children is not reason to legalize murder.

Now, I think we should do everything we can to help these mothers. I'm willing to expand social programs to help them. I will not, however, condone the murder of a child. If a woman dies in a back alley abortion, the blood is on her own hands (and on the "doctor's"). It is a tragic occurrence, but it is still a heinous crime against humanity, IMO.

 

[LadyEagle]

Why are you using NARAL and other feminist organization figures? Like they don't have an agenda. Like I said in the other thread, Abortion is BIG BUSINESS!

 

[LadyEagle]

Good Post, Stefan.

As far as the back alley argument, there are risks and deaths with legal abortions as well. Check this out:

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Botched_Abortion/

 

[JerryL]

Why are you using NARAL and other feminist organization figures? Like they don't have an agenda. Like I said in the other thread, Abortion is BIG BUSINESS!

Because their figures jive more with how much the numbers were one year later. Before and after Roe. It's believable to say they went from 1.2 to 1.4 in one year. It is not believable to say they went from 100,000 to 1.4 million in a year.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would like to see sources for these figures. However, The women who have back alley abortions are not victims. Why have more consideration for the mother than we do the child? They are equal in value to be sure.

 

[JerryL]

I would like to see sources for these figures. However, The women who have back alley abortions are not victims. Why have more consideration for the mother than we do the child? They are equal in value to be sure.

That is why I said we need to just be honest and conclude that maybe there are more answers than just a total banning of abortions if these numbers are true. We can't just ban them and go back to doing the same thing with basically the same number when it was illegal. About the same number of babies will still be dying. If these numbers are correct, and by the previous posts where I showed the logical reasoning why I think they are, if this isn't approached honestly, about the same number of babies die. And if we are REALLY worried about the babies and not just a political agenda, it has to be discussed rationally. Babies still die at about the same rate. Are we really worried about the babies?

 

[JerryL]

To be perfectly honest, I don't care how many back-alley abortions there were.

I don't care that women tried to kill their children in unsanitary conditions.

Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. People circumventing the law to murder their unborn children is not reason to legalize murder.

Now, I think we should do everything we can to help these mothers. I'm willing to expand social programs to help them. I will not, however, condone the murder of a child. If a woman dies in a back alley abortion, the blood is on her own hands (and on the "doctor's"). It is a tragic occurrence, but it is still a heinous crime against humanity, IMO.

So you really don't care about the babies? All you really care about is the legal aspect of it?

 

[just-want-peace]

This whole concept of saying how many abortions "back when" is ridiculous.

Reminds me of an old enviro argument I've heard from the past; (loosely quoted) "There are hundreds of species of animal & plant life going extinct every year that we have not discovered yet."

My question is, if they have gone extinct before they have been discovered, how did they ( enviros) know about them??????

Same question here - if they are "back-alley", just how do you get any similance of a reasonable estimate?????

As was noted earlier, this type of statistic is colored by who is doing the estimating, and who this particular statistic serves.

As the old saying goes, "Figures don't lie, but liars DO figure."

 

[LadyEagle]

How about the moral aspect of it or try God's Law: "Thou shalt not murder."

 

[Revmitchell]

Boxer, a Democrat, claimed that repeal of Roe “means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die” from illegal abortions. But that's a 69-year-old figure dating to a time before penicillin and the birth-control pill. Experts say nowhere near that many women were dying from abortion complications even in the years just before Roe made abortions legal nationwide.

On the other side of the abortion debate, Republican Santorum says that suicides by women, and also crime, "got worse, much worse" after Roe. But in fact, the female suicide rate is one-third lower now than in 1973. And the Justice Department's annual survey on crime victimization shows a 69 percent drop in property crime and a 53 percent drop in violent crime since Roe.


http://www.factcheck.org/society/abortion_distortions.html

Pro-abortion groups frequently say that before abortion was legalized, thousands of women died every year from "dangerous back-alley abortions". In the 60's, the National Association to Reform Abortion Laws (now the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) routinely claimed that "5,000 to 10,000" women died every year from illegal abortions.
That claim is a little hard to believe. About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year -- from all causes combined. To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or 20%! This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group.

The pro-abortionists will then point to government statistics that show very few women dying from abortion after it was legalized -- dozens per year. This is an an argument for "safe, legal abortion". (Safe for the mother, of course; abortion is never safe for the baby.)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/deaths.htm

Other sources disagree

 

[Revmitchell]

It is idiotic logic to think that somehow making abortion legal reduces the amount fo abortions.

 

[JerryL]

This whole concept of saying how many abortions "back when" is ridiculous.

Reminds me of an old enviro argument I've heard from the past; (loosely quoted) "There are hundreds of species of animal & plant life going extinct every year that we have not discovered yet."

My question is, if they have gone extinct before they have been discovered, how did they ( enviros) know about them??????

Same question here - if they are "back-alley", just how do you get any similance of a reasonable estimate?????

As was noted earlier, this type of statistic is colored by who is doing the estimating, and who this particular statistic serves.

As the old saying goes, "Figures don't lie, but liars DO figure."

Do the logical reasoning on this JWP. The number didn't majically go from 100,000 to 1.4 million because of it being legal. The other figures say 1.2, which is very logical considering it was 1.4 the next year. If by your reasoning in your "same question here" paragraph, the numbers could be even higher. Do you honestly believe that 1.3 million more women wanted an abortion after it became legal the next year, from '72 to '73?

 

[JerryL]

It is idiotic logic to think that somehow making abortion legal reduces the amount fo abortions.

I'm not saying it reduces them. I'm saying, until we can come up with a solution rather than an agenda, basically the same number of babies are dying at a safer facility than a "back alley" or at the hands of quack doctors. I don't have the answers but, the answer isn't still killing the same number of babies in an "alley".

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not saying it reduces them. I'm saying, until we can come up with a solution rather than an agenda, basically the same number of babies are dying at a safer facility than a "back alley" or at the hands of quack doctors. I don't have the answers but, the answer isn't still killing the same number of babies in an "alley".

The figures you present are quite questionable. But the logic that says lets murder our children in a nice clean facility rather than in a back alley is extremely flawed.

 

[JerryL]

The figures you present are quite questionable. But the logic that says lets murder our children in a nice clean facility rather than in a back alley is extremely flawed.

How are they questionable? As I stated, did 1.3 million women decide to have a legal abortion the year after "100,000" did? My figures jive with reality much more than the 100,000 figure does. So your logic to murder them in a "back alley" is better than a clean facility? Are you really worried about the babies?