who supports right to choose

[AlysonRR 0]

There is no such thing as a potential life. Either it's a life or it's not.

There's nothing rhetorical about the dependence of the embryo or fetus upon the woman. Without the womb, an embryo is unviable, incapable of life. Until 20-some weeks, without the womb, a fetus is unviable, incapable of life. Wombs are (at this point in technology) attached to fully viable, independent women.

Anti-choice advocates would put the well-being/health/life of the unviable embryo/fetus before the well-being/health/life of the viable female human being.

Pro-choice advocates do the opposite, feeling that an independent functioning human has the right to control whether or not she spends her time/money/health incubating an embryo/fetus from an unviabile state through to birth.

Alyson

[BJean 16]

Sorry. Just not interested. I have read about all the propaganda that I can stomach for the time being.

[gadgetlady 4]

Until 20-some weeks, without the womb, a fetus is unviable, incapable of life.

Incapable of life independent of the mother, not incapable of life.

Wombs are (at this point in technology) attached to fully viable, independent women.

Do you, then, support restrictions on abortion after viability? Or do you support abortion on demand up until 9 months of pregnancy?

If/when medical technology advances to the point where an unborn baby can be sustained apart from the mother at the time she becomes aware of the pregnancy (e.g. 6 weeks or so), would you support legislation to remove the baby alive (rather than abort the baby and cause death) and have the baby supported artificially?

Anti-choice advocates would put the well-being/health/life of the unviable embryo/fetus before the well-being/health/life of the viable female human being.

I don't believe in discriminating against anyone on the basis of age. I don't believe in imposing the death penalty on anyone because they are an inconvenience to another person. I believe both lives are valuable and should be treated as such.

[BJean 16]

My last post was in response to gadget's suggestion that I read her stuff.

Alyson, you don't need me to validate your statements but what you have posted above is absolutely true and straight to the core of this issue.

[gadgetlady 4]

Sorry. Just not interested. I have read about all the propaganda that I can stomach for the time being.

It's not propaganda. It's a medical study. The only reason you consider it propaganda is because the data it finds violates the holy grail of "safe" abortion.

[BJean 16]

The "holy grail of 'safe' abortion"? What kind of claptrap is that? Who ever declared that there was a holy grail of safe or unsafe abortions? Abortion procedures can be as safe as any other medical procedure. So what? Is there anyone who believes that there is absolutely no risk to having any medical procedure? Why is that an object of discussion on your path to prove that abortions should be outlawed? That is really, really digging deep to have something negative to say. Again, hardly worth my time.

I'll check back in tomorrow to see if anything new has come up in this discussion or if we have once again, come full circle.

[gadgetlady 4]

The "holy grail of 'safe' abortion"? What kind of claptrap is that?

That is a reference to the fact that you are so committed to the abortion movement that you refuse to even consider that there are valid medical studies demonstrating the complications of abortion. And you are so equally committed that you don't care that abortion is less regulated than animal clinics.

[BJean 16]

To quote your eloquent earlier reply..."baloney" When something doesn't make any sense, it is usually for a very good reason. Shocking yes, but also wrong. I am sure that there is someone somewhere who has said that they did a study that shows what you're claiming. However what they don't tell you is that their study was about counting how many regulations or regulators there were on last Tuesday regulating abortions versus regulations or regulators at animal clinics affiliated with Pet Smart on that same date. Of course I'm kidding, but something practically as ridiculous is always behind those inflammatory "medical studies" that are just calculated to shock people. Fortunately most people are not that gullible or susceptible to propaganda.

In fact, I am just as committed to Americans being able to have control over their reproductive organs as you are committed to making sure that they do not.

I really am going to bed now. Just thought I'd pop back in before I left and although I felt compelled to reply, I actually am sorry I did. I hate this craziness. It eventually gets bitter and personal and does no one any good.

On a higher note, I hope you all have a pleasant evening and a great night's rest. Cheerio~

[gadgetlady 4]

To quote your eloquent earlier reply..."baloney" When something doesn't make any sense, it is usually for a very good reason. Shocking yes, but also wrong. I am sure that there is someone somewhere who has said that they did a study that shows what you're claiming. However what they don't tell you is that their study was about counting how many regulations or regulators there were on last Tuesday regulating abortions versus regulations or regulators at animal clinics affiliated with Pet Smart on that same date. Of course I'm kidding, but something practically as ridiculous is always behind those inflammatory "medical studies" that are just calculated to shock people. Fortunately most people are not that gullible or susceptible to propaganda.

It's not propaganda. The quantity of regulations over freestanding abortion clinics is dramatically lower than the quantity of regulations over a veterinary clinic or any other medical facility. Not just last Tuesday. 100% of the time. And the abortion industry strenuously objects any time anyone tries to change it.

And the medical studies aren't calculated or inflammatory. They're studies.

In fact, I am just as committed to Americans being able to have control over their reproductive organs as you are committed to making sure that they do not.

I fully believe people should have control over their reproductive organs. The baby isn't an organ.

[AlysonRR 0]

where abortions are illegal, they still happen. And they still happen at about the average rate of 25-30%. Yet where abortion is legal and available, and contraception is free and available to all sexually active women, abortions decrease to 10-12%.

I didn't write this sentence very well - it should end "abortions have decreased as low as 10-12%."

From where do you get these statistics? Because abortion has dramatically increased in all places when it has become legal.

Actually, while that may be true initially in the US (questionable, since it's doubtful the number of illegal abortions was accurately quantified), over a decade or two the abortion rate has declined in the US to almost the same level of reported abortions pre-Roe.

I was thinking of Belgium, where abortion was illegal in 1988, did not increase once made legal, which has developed excellent sex ed programs and reproductive health access, and now has an abortion rate of 10%. Or Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Tunisia, which have very low rates in conjunction with improvements to education and contraception availability. Or the Eastern European countries, where abortion has decreased by more than half now that they can access better contraceptives.

Regarding the source of my data, I typically search pubmed first, then try to track down the original articles whenever possible. I spent 10 years as a research scientist working in projects relating to women's health and reproduction, so much of the literature is somewhat familiar to me.

It's not propaganda. It's a medical study. The only reason you consider it propaganda is because the data it finds violates the holy grail of "safe" abortion.

It's not a medical study. It's someone's interpretation of a medical study. And their interpretation does not jibe with the authors, per the abstract.

Every single study that has ever been done has shown that legal abortion has lower morbidity and mortality rates than illegal abortion. Is abortion the best choice for birth control - obviously not. Will some women pursue it when faced with unwanted pregnancy - absolutely. If a woman has decided that abortion is what she wants to do, she will do it. I would rather she does it legally, and therefore as safely as possible.

Until 20-some weeks, without the womb, a fetus is unviable, incapable of life.

Incapable of life independent of the mother, not incapable of life.

Um, yeah, I said "without the womb, a fetus is (...) incapable of life". Does it make a difference to say "independent of the mother" when the womb is in the mother?

Wombs are (at this point in technology) attached to fully viable, independent women.

Do you, then, support restrictions on abortion after viability? Or do you support abortion on demand up until 9 months of pregnancy?

For me there is not a black and white answer to those questions. I support leaving the decision to the pregnant woman, her doctor, and anyone else they choose to consult. The vast majority of doctors would not lightly terminate a pregnancy after viability - in fact they don't now; 89% of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester, and just over 1% after 20 weeks. And a large proportion of those 1% are going to be for late-detected genetic or developmental reasons, which I have absolutely no problem with.

I would prefer a woman whose fetus has reached viability be convinced to carry to term, but I wouldn't imprison her to ensure it happens, anymore than I would imprison a drunk or a drug addict or an anorexic or a smoker to ensure her baby is healthy. I also wouldn't support delivering her baby at bare viability and put hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars toward "saving" it. And again, if she wants to terminate her pregnancy badly enough, she will, with or without a doctor - drugs, knitting needle, "accident".

If/when medical technology advances to the point where an unborn baby can be sustained apart from the mother at the time she becomes aware of the pregnancy (e.g. 6 weeks or so), would you support legislation to remove the baby alive (rather than abort the baby and cause death) and have the baby supported artificially?

What would happen to those babies? Would the procedure be lower in morbidity/mortality compared to abortion? Would the parents have to financially, physically, or emotionally support that child at any time in the future? Those issues would affect my answer. Right now, worldwide, about 30% of pregnancies are terminated - can the world really provide resources and adequate parenting for that many more people per year? Regardless, I think it's unlikely that a woman-free-womb-technology will be developed before impossible-to-get-pregnant-unless-wanted technology - the hormone manipulation for the latter is decidedly less complicated.

I'd like to say that I'm a stay-at-home homeschooling mom now and part of me misses the intellectual stimulation of research (or sometimes just talking to another adult during my day!). I respect that people differ greatly on this subject, but for me it's nice to be able to use my brain to express my views. Thanks for the discussion - I'm back to the grindstone tomorrow so I don't know if I'll be able to check back very frequently.

Alyson

[gadgetlady 4]

Actually, while that may be true initially in the US (questionable, since it's doubtful the number of illegal abortions was accurately quantified), over a decade or two the abortion rate has declined in the US to almost the same level of reported abortions pre-Roe.

This is in complete opposition to any numbers I have ever seen. Can you cite some studies or from where you get your numbers? Because if you look at the numbers immediately post-Roe vs. the numbers now, there is a dramatic increase.

It's not a medical study. It's someone's interpretation of a medical study. And their interpretation does not jibe with the authors, per the abstract.

Can you cite contradictions? Because I don't see them.

If a woman has decided that abortion is what she wants to do, she will do it.

That is not necessarily true -- some women choose abortion because it is easy. Regardless, it is really inconsequential. If a teenager has decided that shoplifting is what she wants to do, she will do it. Should we then make shoplifting easier? If it's the deliberate taking of a human life, then it should be illegal regardless of whether people will do it anyway. Now I understand that you disagree that it is the deliberate taking of a human life -- I'm just trying to help you understand why the "women will do it anyway" argument doesn't hold Water with me.

Um, yeah, I said "without the womb, a fetus is (...) incapable of life". Does it make a difference to say "independent of the mother" when the womb is in the mother?

Yes, I think it does. Because the implication with what you said is that the fetus is not alive, not yet a life, and is incapable of life. The reverse is true. The fetus IS alive and it IS a life. After all, without food and water I am incapable of life, but that doesn't mean that I'm not alive now.

For me there is not a black and white answer to those questions. I support leaving the decision to the pregnant woman, her doctor, and anyone else they choose to consult. The vast majority of doctors would not lightly terminate a pregnancy after viability - in fact they don't now; 89% of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester, and just over 1% after 20 weeks. And a large proportion of those 1% are going to be for late-detected genetic or developmental reasons, which I have absolutely no problem with.

In other words, no. You are fine with abortion after viability (performed "lightly" or not), even though the "fetus" is "capable of life" at this point.

What would happen to those babies? Would the procedure be lower in morbidity/mortality compared to abortion? Would the parents have to financially, physically, or emotionally support that child at any time in the future? Those issues would affect my answer.

Why? Should we determine whether a person is killed or not based on finances or emotional support? Should one person ever be allowed to decide for another person whether they get the right to live or be killed based on their perception of that person's value?

Regardless, I think it's unlikely that a woman-free-womb-technology will be developed before impossible-to-get-pregnant-unless-wanted technology - the hormone manipulation for the latter is decidedly less complicated.

I would love a fool-proof birth control method. But I don't think that would solve the abortion issue, because even now many having abortions report not using birth control at all. Scientists are working on an artificial placenta. We'll see what happens first.

I'd like to say that I'm a stay-at-home homeschooling mom now

Me, too. Enjoy your precious children!

[AlysonRR 0]

This is in complete opposition to any numbers I have ever seen. Can you cite some studies or from where you get your numbers? Because if you look at the numbers immediately post-Roe vs. the numbers now, there is a dramatic increase.

I believe I said immediately post-Roe there was an increase but that we are nearly down to the pre-Roe "official" rate, which is undoubtedly lower than the pre-Roe actual rate due to illegal procedures that weren't counted. Here's a quote from a CDC report (Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2004):

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable, at 23--24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20--21 per 1,000 during 1994--1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998--1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000--2002 both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. During 2003--2004, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000, decreased to 15 per 1,000 in 2003, and to 16 in 2004 in the 47 reporting areas.

Can you cite contradictions? Because I don't see them.

The conclusions and interpretations the reviewing author made do not reflect the conclusions and interpretations of the researching authors, at least comparing the abstract which is all I can access: Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994--...[Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997] - PubMed Result

The Finnish retrospective study contradicts US studies which have found the mortality rate for women who terminate pregnancies to be <1/100,000 ("The case-fatality rate for known legal induced abortion for 1993 to 1997 was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions." from CDC Media Relations: Press Release), and the rate for women whose pregnancies result in birth ~11/100,000 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#highlights). When data conflict, more studies are needed. I also think the author made waaay too many conjectural jumps which support his bias, particularly regarding the Chinese data he quotes.

If it's the deliberate taking of a human life, then it should be illegal regardless of whether people will do it anyway. Now I understand that you disagree that it is the deliberate taking of a human life

Yes, I disagree - I think an unviable human fetus does not have the same value as the woman who finds herself unwilling to carry it to term. I think keeping abortion legal prevents the death of women and keeps the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy where it belongs: between a woman and her doctor.

In other words, no. You are fine with abortion after viability (performed "lightly" or not), even though the "fetus" is "capable of life" at this point.

No. You cannot make it that black and white.

While working as a researcher in conjunction with a maternal-fetal obstetrician I had access to numerous case studies of women who didn't find out until early in the third trimester that their fetus had a serious genetic condition, or major physical abnormality. There was also the occasional very young (<11) girl who didn't realize she was pregnant until very late and whose body would not easily handle the trauma of childbirth. And women who were so strung out on drugs and malnourished that their fetus was 1/10th the size it should be. And women whose health was deteriorating daily, who had to choose between continuing their pregnancy or imminent death. Etc., etc., etc.

It means I have an imagination and the background experience to realize that there are gray areas between the "yes" and "no" answer. It means I put more faith in medical practitioners to make those tough calls in conjunction with their patients.

It means I think the vast majority of the ~1% of abortions performed in the third trimester are heartbreaking situations, like those I described above, in which the doctor and his patient made the best choice for all. And for the sake of those women (and young girls), I think keeping the decision between them and their doctor is best.

Why? Should we determine whether a person is killed or not based on finances or emotional support? Should one person ever be allowed to decide for another person whether they get the right to live or be killed based on their perception of that person's value?

If the mother is not taking financial/emotional/physical responsibility, who is? There are millions of orphans already not being given adequate care - with your imaginary scheme there would be an additional 800-900K children being born in the US every year. I think that's a significant issue, and it definitely would affect my decision.

Just as many men do not contribute sperm to a sperm bank because they don't want to think they have unknown children walking around, I imagine there would be women who would not donate an embryo to an artificial womb.

I think your scenario is complicated - again, not black and white.

I would love a fool-proof birth control method. But I don't think that would solve the abortion issue, because even now many having abortions report not using birth control at all.

So here's what the CDC report (Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2004) concludes: Although induced abortions usually are performed for women who have unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse during the preceding 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy (18). Therefore, a reduction in the number of abortions will require adapting complex strategies aimed at reducing such pregnancies. Insurance coverage of reversible contraception (e.g., vasectomy and tubal ligation) has increased substantially since 1993 (68), although gaps in coverage remain substantial. Education regarding abstinence and contraceptive use, including emergency contraception, combined with access to and education regarding safe, effective contraception and family planning services, might help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and the number of legal induced abortions in the United States (69,70).

These are right-now solutions, not future scenarios. Expand insurance coverage, improve education, and increase access to family planning services. That's what will decrease abortions in this country.

Alyson, not coming back to post for a few days - lots to do with the kids, starting with sleeping tonight so I don't run off the road tomorrow on the way to violin lessons!

[luluc 6]

As lulu's story indicates, however, this is not how it works in the real world.

Very True Marjon, Abortion should never be something to be proud of, however the thought of it not being Legal / Safe truly terrifies me. I had mine done in a hospital in Eurpoe while attending school. I was treated with the utmost respect and cared for lovingly by my Dr & nurse. Fast forward 20yrs to the US and last month, when I took my neice to a Planned Parenthood to get a pregnancy test, at 18 herself, with a full scholarship to college, she IS terrified. What we encountered just to take a pregnancy test scared the SH*T out of her and me, bombarded with picketers, people shouting, and even more disturbing - young children holding posters of fetus'. I think this should be illegal - but they are very effective, it moved my niece tremendously - and she will be having her baby. Unlike me, she has a support system of parents and family that totally supported her Right to Choose & have an abortion...I knew my parents would feel the same, I just kept it quiet and moved along with my life - coming home to the states 20, unmarried, and with a baby was not what my parents had in mind for me - no what I had planned for myself.

The story doesn't necessarily end there - She will be having the baby, but My husband and myself will be adopting he or she - So my niece will have the opportunity of college and young adulthood, and I will get a baby that' I've wanted for the last 7 years. This is how I believe it was suppose to be for me - mapped out this way.

I realize the Pro Life movement should be pleased with this outcome.., I know I am - but this is not a real depiction of how an unwanted pregnancy & keeping it comes to fruition.

[BJean 16]

Like has been said over and over, in a fertilized egg there is life. How can anyone dispute that? However it is not a complete life. It must have many things prior to gestation for it to become a full and complete human being. I see no difference between saying that a sperm is life and an egg is life, just like a fertilized egg is life. You can't create an individual human being until certain conditions and nourishment occur with a sperm and egg, or with a fetus.

It isn't a black and white question, as Alyson said. To try to make it a black and white question to suit your argument doesn't make it correct.

I very much appreciated your post luluc. Legalization allows stories like yours to happen and have a good outcome. I find the demonstrations at Planned Parenthood extremely distasteful and hateful. But they have a right to be there and until they start shooting again, I have no argument against that right.

I must say that I wish the pro-choice side were as active. They could go to similar extremes by showing photos of suicides committed by women who were prevented by law from having a much-needed abortion. They could also show photos of children who have been abused and killed at the hands of adults.

Alyson is completely correct: education is the answer, along with resources for birth control - both of which, by the way, Planned Parenthood provides.

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's a quote from a CDC report (Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2004):

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. The rate remained stable, at 23--24 per 1,000 during the 1980s and early 1990s and at 20--21 per 1,000 during 1994--1997. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 during 1998--1999 and at 16 per 1,000 during 2000--2002 both overall and in the same 47 reporting areas. During 2003--2004, the abortion rate remained unchanged overall at 16 per 1,000, decreased to 15 per 1,000 in 2003, and to 16 in 2004 in the 47 reporting areas.

I haven't had time to review the entire page, but a cursory review provides this:

four states (Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) did not report abortion data for 1998--1999, three states (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire) did not report data for 2000--2002, and three states (California, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) did not report data for 2003--2004. Data for California and Oklahoma were estimated before 1998; however, data for nonreporting states have not been estimated since then. Third, data provided to state or area health departments by providers might be incomplete (63). Fourth, the overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to CDC for 2004 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed. In addition, the abortion total for 2000 provided to CDC by central health agencies are 20% lower than that reported for 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available) for the same reporting areas by The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a private organization that contacts abortion providers directly. (emphasis mine)

It's pretty difficult to have an accurate statistical analysis when you include a large (and liberal) state like California prior to 1998, and then don't include it after that. Remember, abortion was legal in CA prior to Roe. From my cursory review and the CDC's own admitted shortfallings in their ability to gather numbers, I have to dismiss the numbers as grossly inaccurate and the conclusion, therefore, as inaccurate as well.

As an aside, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, indicates that "In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million abortions in 1996." (An Overview of Abortion in the United States). Now while I don't trust the Alan Guttmacher Institute as far as I can throw them, most people who don't know their affiliation with Planned Parenthood (or don't have a problem with it) regard their information as gospel truth. So the difference of, oh, roughly half a million reported abortions is awfully curious.

I will try to comment on the rest of the findings later, after I've had time to review in more depth.