The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Newby]

No. Of course not.

And I have never tried to convince a woman anything about her choices. It's none of my business. My wife and I have 3 kids. And if one of my daughters came home pregnant the choice is hers and hers alone.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that how you felt when you were pregnant does not give you all knowing insight into how all women feel.

Coming from a guy, that's pretty amusing.

So you don't think men should be participating in this conversation?

I found it ironic when he said I would not have insight to what pregnant women would feel when in fact, I have been a pregnant woman, and he has never been.

 

[Delia]

Coming from a guy, that's pretty amusing.

So you don't think men should be participating in this conversation?

I found it ironic when he said I would not have insight to what pregnant women would feel when in fact, I have been a pregnant woman, and he has never been.

Do you apply that same shoe to pro-life men, wanting to discuss the issue at hand?

 

[Delia]

First, I wasn't talking to you. Second, I am speaking in generalities.

The vast majority of pro-lifers fit into that description I gave. I've been arguing these points on forums for close to a decade and you are the first to call me on this.

If it doesn't fit you, then great!

As for your comments on consequences, they are wrong. Of course there are consequences. Nobody I know wants to get an abortion. And pregnancy is still a massive problem. So the notion that just having legal abortion out there as an option takes away all consequences is nonsense.

The problem is teens (and yes, some adults) do not use good judgement. Never have. This is why we limit their freedom in so many ways. Why they don't vote. Why they don't drive.

Sure there are a tiny minority of nuts out there having 15 abortions, but they are nothing even remotely in the ballpark of normal and probably have some serious mental or drug abuse issues.

From the article, and what I am trying to discuss:



It's on page four, which would explain why I'm the only one mentioning it.

One doctor's "awakening" is vividly described in The Worst of Times, a collection of interviews with women, cops, coroners, and practitioners from the illegal abortion era. In 1948, when this doctor was an intern in a Pittsburgh hospital, a woman was admitted with severe pelvic sepsis after a bad abortion. She was beautiful, married to someone important and wealthy, and already in renal failure. Over the next couple of days, despite heroic efforts to save her, a cascade of systemic catastrophes due to the overwhelming infection culminated with the small blood vessels bursting under her skin, bruises breaking out everywhere as if some invisible fist were punching her over and over, and she died. Being well-to-do didn't always save you.

Her death was so horrible that it made him, he recalls, physically ill. He describes his anger, but says he didn't quite know with whom to be angry. It took him another 20 years to understand that it was not the abortionist who killed her—it was the legal system, the lawmakers who had forced her away from the medical community, who "…killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or the coat hanger or whatever. I'm still angry. It was all so unnecessary."

All so unnecessary.

In the same book, a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. "The deaths stopped overnight in 1973." He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. "That," he says, "ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal."

200 deaths versus 54 million...

No. Again! Why do you do this? 200 KNOWN deaths in one year versus ALL the deaths since Roe v Wade? I expect some level of honesty, madam.

 

[Newby]

Sorry but no. Consequences don't seem to matter a whole lot as the behavior has always existed. Not to mention the largest reason we don't consider teens adults is a lack of judgement. As a father of three teens I can tell you it pisses me off almost daily, but it's a fact.

So the evidence, the physiology and the psychology says consequences simply won't matter to most youth.

As for education, yes we have been working on that since the 80's. But birth control and the day after pill are not universally available.

And anyone who tells you that the day after pill is abortion needs to educate themselves. It simply isn't the same thing.

I honestly think anyone who truly believes abortion is murder should be advocating for giving the day after pill out like candy. Oh I know, they use the same argument you do. But the idea holds no water. On the one hand, you believe abortion is murder. On the other you are not willing to stop the murder because someone may have premarital sex.
Think about that. If I have the choice between a murder, and a teen, or even a bunch of teens having premarital sex, sex wins every time. Hands down.

Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price. We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly. Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that? How could you possiblty know what I believe? Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex? That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part. I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context. What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control. It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people. Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.

That's the point of this article. I'm honestly expecting people to extrapolate. Okay. You win. No abortion. What will happen then?

People will be more responsible about using contraception? More adoptions? People will adjust to the fact that their lives will now be different because of actions that they took that caused it to be different? And most likely never regret their decision once they hold that child in their arms and love it.

 

[Delia]

You were questioning the 1.2 million figure, how many abortions were there prior to 1973 and the passing of Roe vs Wade? A lot less, and it hasn't gone down significantly since the steep rise after it was passed, even though there has been sex education, planned parenthood, and passing out condoms to children in school. It is used as a form of birth control, not to help poor victims of rape or incest, which is the excuse pro-abortionists continue to use year after year. Why not just say it's birth control? Why can't you bring yourself to do that? Every woman I've spoken to that's pro-abortion would 'never have one herself'. Why not?

Everyone knows it's morally wrong, that's the bottom line, and most women who do have abortions suffer from mental and emotional problems for years afterwards. But that is never researched or looked into, can't have anything negative staining the 'feminist church', abortion. Yeah, we're so powerful and in control, we can kill our own children at will. It's sad what our society has turned into and has called 'progress'.

Consequences don't matter because there aren't any, and because as a society we've managed to make them less and less as years have gone by so people can live irresponsibly without paying too much of a price. We strive to take away the reason for acting responsibly, hence less and less will act responsibly. Even that is a 'consequence', so try as you might, there will aways be consequences to what you do or don't do.

Where did you get the idea, bolded above, that I believe that? How could you possiblty know what I believe? Because I am pro-life then it's only because I'm against pre-marital sex? That's a rather naive assumption to make on your part. I have nothing against pre-marital sex, I could care less what people do from a sexual context. What I am against is not being responsible for yourself or your own actions, if you're going to have sex, use birth control. It's readily available and free if you can't afford it, there's no excuse for 1.2 million abortions a year, other than lazy and irresponsible people. Which goes back to consequences, people will be lazy and irresponsible when there are no negative consequences for doing so.

Which is it? They're suffering forevermore, or there are no consequences.

It's just a different set of consequences, they trade one for another, supposedly feeling that one set of consequences has less impact than the other I guess. I wonder if you asked a group of women that were contemplating abortion at one point in their lives, but made the decision to keep their child, how many of them would say that they regretted not aborting?

Okay. Find yourself a new dance partner. You refuse to discuss the article, you abuse the facts to fit your agenda, you don't even stand by your own statements. I won't be discussing this matter further with you.

Good day.

 

[Underhill]

200 deaths versus 54 million...

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Newby]

So you don't think men should be participating in this conversation?

I found it ironic when he said I would not have insight to what pregnant women would feel when in fact, I have been a pregnant woman, and he has never been.

Do you apply that same shoe to pro-life men, wanting to discuss the issue at hand?

Where did I ever say he couldn't discuss the issue. Now you're just being petty.

 

[Delia]

200 deaths versus 54 million...

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

Thank you, Voice of Reason. Let's have that discussion. May as well have it here, the thread isn't being used to discuss the article.

 

[Newby]

Which is it? They're suffering forevermore, or there are no consequences.

It's just a different set of consequences, they trade one for another, supposedly feeling that one set of consequences has less impact than the other I guess. I wonder if you asked a group of women that were contemplating abortion at one point in their lives, but made the decision to keep their child, how many of them would say that they regretted not aborting?

Okay. Find yourself a new dance partner. You refuse to discuss the article, you abuse the facts to fit your agenda, you don't even stand by your own statements. I won't be discussing this matter further with you.

Good day.

I know, the truth hurts.

 

[Newby]

200 deaths versus 54 million...

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

It's been 40 years of supposed 'preventive actions', yet here we are at 1.2 million per year. There's no incentive to not get an abortion, the more you dehumanize a baby, the less incentive there is. What incentive is there to use birth control when you can get a cheap abortion at the clinic? It's used as a form of birth control. And if you don't think it's wrong or immoral, why would you care anymore about reducing the number of abortions than you would reducing the number of women on birth control pills? They're the same thing in your mind are they not?

 

[Katzndogz]

I have a hard time believing that. What you're saying is the flip side of the other comment in the thread that women only feel guilt because of their religious upbringing. Killing your own child is not natural, you can't be taught that it's not wrong, instinctually for the majority of women it would go against what their nature would tell them. Perhaps a lot of women rationalize, or lie about how they really feel when they've had an abortion, because it is the continuation of the rationalization that they've worked through to relieve themselves of guilt from what they've done.

I have worked with a number of women that have had abortions. Most if not all the women that I personally know have had at least one abortion. Religion really has nothing to do with it. That's why bringing religion into the abortion debate is counter productive. Women learn, very early on, that a fetus isn't a baby, it's not human. What it is, is a burden, an intrusion into their lives. So they feel a sense of relief at having it gone. They aren't killing their own child. They can't see it, or hold it, an unborn child occupies the same place as an appendix that's infected. You are relying on an instinct that just isn't there. Or, to be more precise, isn't there anymore. YOU might feel some instinctive imperative to protect the life of your child, but for the vast majority of women, that instinct has been eliminated. That's why abortion has grown from an option for the desperate to a convenience. Some women do feel a sense of guilt, but they are in a distinct minority and usually do come from religious backgrounds.

One of the main reasons why the anti abortion arguments fail to persuade women not to have an abortion is by assuming that women feel a sense of guilt when they obviously don't. Women talk to their friends who never felt a sense of guilt. They were there for women friends or family members who had abortions and never felt guilty but happy that they could continue on with their lives uninterrupted. If you want to stop abortions, the way isn't by telling women they will have an experience that they will never have. It's by imposing that experience on them. Do you understand? They don't naturally feel guilty. They must be made to feel guilty. There must be consequences. There were consequences but they have been eliminated. Bring them back.

What 'consequences' do you envision, exactly? And how do you propose to do so?[/QUOTE
What consequences were there before abortion became a rite of passage?

 

[Underhill]

200 deaths versus 54 million...

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

It's been 40 years of supposed 'preventive actions', yet here we are at 1.2 million per year. There's no incentive to not get an abortion, the more you dehumanize a baby, the less incentive there is. What incentive is there to use birth control when you can get a cheap abortion at the clinic? It's used as a form of birth control. And if you don't think it's wrong or immoral, why would you care anymore about reducing the number of abortions than you would reducing the number of women on birth control pills? They're the same thing in your mind are they not?

2 reasons.

First cost. No sane person will spend $600 (last I know 10 years ago) for an abortion when they can spend $10 for a pill.

Second, I do see late term abortion as morally dubious. I wouldn't go so far as murder. But it is a life. So I am in favor of anything that would reduce late term abortions.

As for your claim that it's been 40 years.... I would say it's been 40 years, but for most of that, anything that could actually reduce those numbers has been fought tooth and nail. And all too often it was by the same people who claimed abortion is murder.

First it was education. We got that in the 80's (sort of, many states turned that into a abstinence campaign which has proven useless). Then it was contraceptives which are still only available sporadically depending on the politics in your state. And the day after pill is a relatively new development and that too has been fought by the pro life groups (why, I have no idea).

 

[Newby]

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

It's been 40 years of supposed 'preventive actions', yet here we are at 1.2 million per year. There's no incentive to not get an abortion, the more you dehumanize a baby, the less incentive there is. What incentive is there to use birth control when you can get a cheap abortion at the clinic? It's used as a form of birth control. And if you don't think it's wrong or immoral, why would you care anymore about reducing the number of abortions than you would reducing the number of women on birth control pills? They're the same thing in your mind are they not?

2 reasons.

First cost. No sane person will spend $600 (last I know 10 years ago) for an abortion when they can spend $10 for a pill.

Second, I do see late term abortion as morally dubious. I wouldn't go so far as murder. But it is a life. So I am in favor of anything that would reduce late term abortions.

As for your claim that it's been 40 years.... I would say it's been 40 years, but for most of that, anything that could actually reduce those numbers has been fought tooth and nail. And all too often it was by the same people who claimed abortion is murder.

First it was education. We got that in the 80's (sort of, many states turned that into a abstinence campaign which has proven useless). Then it was contraceptives which are still only available sporadically depending on the politics in your state. And the day after pill is a relatively new development and that too has been fought by the pro life groups (why, I have no idea).

How can you make a point like that when we're talking about people who obviously have little to no sense of responsibility to begin with? They're at the abortion clinic because they're immature or irresponsible, so why do you think they'd even think about contraception? These are people who don't think that far ahead, we live in a world of 'I want it, and I want it now', or they deny that bad things can happen to them.

What state has outlawed contraceptives?

 

[oldfart]

I know of many families that would love to have the gift of a child and would make great parents if given the opportunity.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone brought up the "We need more unpaid surrogate mothers down on the (white, healthy infant) baby farm to accommodate the demand" argument. Of course it's too expensive and legally problematic to rent a uterus ("hire a surrogate") so we just hope enough fourteen-year old's get knocked up and that they buy the tap dance about how much better they will feel if they carry the baby to term and then give it up just before walking away into oblivion. Much more mentally healthy than an abortion, obviously.

I know of many people who want to live and whose only hope is an organ donation, but they don't run around lobbying for compulsory organ donation laws or pining for more "clean" head injuries in auto accidents to increase the supply of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, and tissue.

BTW, your driver's license states that you are an organ donor, doesn't it?

 

[Underhill]

It's been 40 years of supposed 'preventive actions', yet here we are at 1.2 million per year. There's no incentive to not get an abortion, the more you dehumanize a baby, the less incentive there is. What incentive is there to use birth control when you can get a cheap abortion at the clinic? It's used as a form of birth control. And if you don't think it's wrong or immoral, why would you care anymore about reducing the number of abortions than you would reducing the number of women on birth control pills? They're the same thing in your mind are they not?

2 reasons.

First cost. No sane person will spend $600 (last I know 10 years ago) for an abortion when they can spend $10 for a pill.

Second, I do see late term abortion as morally dubious. I wouldn't go so far as murder. But it is a life. So I am in favor of anything that would reduce late term abortions.

As for your claim that it's been 40 years.... I would say it's been 40 years, but for most of that, anything that could actually reduce those numbers has been fought tooth and nail. And all too often it was by the same people who claimed abortion is murder.

First it was education. We got that in the 80's (sort of, many states turned that into a abstinence campaign which has proven useless). Then it was contraceptives which are still only available sporadically depending on the politics in your state. And the day after pill is a relatively new development and that too has been fought by the pro life groups (why, I have no idea).

How can you make a point like that when we're talking about people who obviously have little to no sense of responsibility to begin with? They're at the abortion clinic because they're immature or irresponsible, so why do you think they'd even think about contraception? These are people who don't think that far ahead, we live in a world of 'I want it, and I want it now', or they deny that bad things can happen to them.

You make a point. But I think the day after pill, used as I laid it out, solves much of the problem.

I think young people make poor decisions on the spot, especially in the midst of sexual exploration. But if they were offered something like the day after pill in a routine visit, they could hold onto it and would be willing, probably happy, to use it later.

What state has outlawed contraceptives?

None of them. That is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about easy access to contraceptives.

 

[Newby]

2 reasons.

First cost. No sane person will spend $600 (last I know 10 years ago) for an abortion when they can spend $10 for a pill.

Second, I do see late term abortion as morally dubious. I wouldn't go so far as murder. But it is a life. So I am in favor of anything that would reduce late term abortions.

As for your claim that it's been 40 years.... I would say it's been 40 years, but for most of that, anything that could actually reduce those numbers has been fought tooth and nail. And all too often it was by the same people who claimed abortion is murder.

First it was education. We got that in the 80's (sort of, many states turned that into a abstinence campaign which has proven useless). Then it was contraceptives which are still only available sporadically depending on the politics in your state. And the day after pill is a relatively new development and that too has been fought by the pro life groups (why, I have no idea).

How can you make a point like that when we're talking about people who obviously have little to no sense of responsibility to begin with? They're at the abortion clinic because they're immature or irresponsible, so why do you think they'd even think about contraception? These are people who don't think that far ahead, we live in a world of 'I want it, and I want it now', or they deny that bad things can happen to them.

You make a point. But I think the day after pill, used as I laid it out, solves much of the problem.

I think young people make poor decisions on the spot, especially in the midst of sexual exploration. But if they were offered something like the day after pill in a routine visit, they could hold onto it and would be willing, probably happy, to use it later.

What state has outlawed contraceptives?

None of them. That is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about easy access to contraceptives.

What is the average age of a woman having an abortion? What percentage are teenagers?? Do they even keep those statistics?

What is 'easy access' to you? The corner drugstore isn't good enough?

 

[Delia]

You know? As big a mess as America is in, I can't help wondering what shape she'd be in with 54 million unwanted babies on the dole.

 

[arKangel]

Actually, women that have guilt and mental issues after an abortion are in a distinct minority. Mostly what they feel is a profound sense of relief. Especially now after decades of mental manipulation telling them, from the time they were girls, that they should be PROUD of what they've done.

Incorrect.
Quoting a survey of 21 women that planned parenthood and other baby-butchers routinely harp is hardly authoritative. It is pure propaganda.

Meanwhile, let us refer to statistical analysis:
The mental toll of abortion - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the fall, a meta-analysis was published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. The report was the most extensive of its kind to date -- the author looked at 22 published studies and data from more than 870,000 women. The results showed that women who have an abortion are at an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, drug abuse and suicidal behaviors. The study revealed the shocking statistic that close to 10 percent of all mental health problems in women can be directly attributed to abortion.

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

So your solution to a cultural problem of hating babies is to encourage degenerate behavior, drug pushing, and eventual health problems?
Is it just about pharmaceutical profits to you?
Or do you harbor some deep hatred of human life?

XXXXXXX
Basically what you are saying is that babies = bad, money = good, the standard anti-life mantra.



The problem is the degeneracy of hating babies and loving only money.
Any culture who embraces such insanity should not, and will not, survive.

 

[Underhill]

How can you make a point like that when we're talking about people who obviously have little to no sense of responsibility to begin with? They're at the abortion clinic because they're immature or irresponsible, so why do you think they'd even think about contraception? These are people who don't think that far ahead, we live in a world of 'I want it, and I want it now', or they deny that bad things can happen to them.

You make a point. But I think the day after pill, used as I laid it out, solves much of the problem.

I think young people make poor decisions on the spot, especially in the midst of sexual exploration. But if they were offered something like the day after pill in a routine visit, they could hold onto it and would be willing, probably happy, to use it later.

What state has outlawed contraceptives?

None of them. That is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about easy access to contraceptives.

What is the average age of a woman having an abortion? What percentage are teenagers?? Do they even keep those statistics?

What is 'easy access' to you? The corner drugstore isn't good enough?

Depends. For adults, yes the corner drugstore is adequate. For teens, not so much. Personally I think it should be available at the school nurse. Hell, make it mail order. Anything we can do to make it easier...

 

[Underhill]

Actually, women that have guilt and mental issues after an abortion are in a distinct minority. Mostly what they feel is a profound sense of relief. Especially now after decades of mental manipulation telling them, from the time they were girls, that they should be PROUD of what they've done.

Incorrect.
Quoting a survey of 21 women that planned parenthood and other baby-butchers routinely harp is hardly authoritative. It is pure propaganda.

Meanwhile, let us refer to statistical analysis:
The mental toll of abortion - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the fall, a meta-analysis was published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. The report was the most extensive of its kind to date -- the author looked at 22 published studies and data from more than 870,000 women. The results showed that women who have an abortion are at an 81 percent increased risk for mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, drug abuse and suicidal behaviors. The study revealed the shocking statistic that close to 10 percent of all mental health problems in women can be directly attributed to abortion.

I don't accept the notion that every abortion is a murder or even wrong. So there is not going to be much of a conversation on the subject.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to reasonably discuss what could be done to reduce the number of abortions through preventative actions, I am more than willing.

I would like to see a push for sexually active people to be given the day after pill before having sex, say during a physical ("are you sexually active", if yes then here you go, take this if you think there's any chance of unwanted pregnancy...). That alone could drastically reduce the number of abortions.

So your solution to a cultural problem of hating babies is to encourage degenerate behavior, drug pushing, and eventual health problems?
Is it just about pharmaceutical profits to you?
Or do you harbor some deep hatred of human life?

XXXXXXX
Basically what you are saying is that babies = bad, money = good, the standard anti-life mantra.

The problem is the degeneracy of hating babies and loving only money.
Any culture who embraces such insanity should not, and will not, survive.

I'm not going to talk to anyone who essentially just makes up my position for me.