NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion just as common where it is outlawed as where it is legal, experts say (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-12-2007/2a430022bea5c4b4.html)
MARIA CHENG AP Medical Writer

(AP) - LONDON-Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in developed and developing countries and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.

The study was conducted by Gilda Sedgh, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute in the United States, and colleagues from the World Health Organization. It was published in an edition of The Lancet medical journal devoted to maternal health.

"The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy," said Beth Fredrick of the International Women's Health Coalition in the U.S., in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. Another 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary damage.

"The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity," Fredrick wrote.

The number of worldwide abortions has dropped slightly from about 46 million in 1995 to just under 42 million in 2003, the study found. But there was no change in the rate of unsafe abortions; nearly half are still performed illegally in potentially dangerous conditions.

"The only way to decrease unsafe abortion is to increase contraception," said Sharon Camp, president and chief executive officer of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank based in New York.

Camp said that more countries are allowing women to have abortions legally, but that many women only receive medical attention after a procedure has gone wrong. "I don't think women should have to hurt themselves before they get medical treatment," she said.

The vast majority of abortions - 35 million - were in the developing world. And nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions were in poor countries. Worldwide, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion, and nine out of 10 women will have an abortion before age 45, the report said, citing data from 2003.
*link to the full story* (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-12-2007/2a430022bea5c4b4.html)

Select quotes from the Guttmacher Institute itself:
ABORTION DECLINES WORLDWIDE,
FALLS MOST WHERE ABORTION IS BROADLY LEGAL (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html)

Eastern Europe Sees Most Significant Decline,

First Global Review Since 1995 Shows
Unsafe Abortion Remains a Major Global Health Challenge

The number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. Abortion rates fell most significantly in Eastern Europe, a trend that corresponds with substantially increased contraceptive use in the region.

For every 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) worldwide, 29 were estimated to have had an induced abortion in 2003, compared with 35 in 1995. The decline was most substantial in Europe, where the rate fell from 48 to 28 abortions per 1,000 women, largely because of dramatic declines in Eastern Europe. On the whole, the abortion rate decreased more in developed countries, where abortion is generally safe and legal on broad grounds (from 39 to 26), than in developing countries, where the procedure is largely illegal and unsafe (from 34 to 29). Significantly, the abortion rate for 2003 was roughly equal in developed and developing regions—26 and 29, respectively—despite abortion being largely illegal in developing regions. Health consequences, however, vary greatly between the two regions, since abortion is generally safe where it is broadly legal and mostly unsafe where restricted.

“The overall downward trend in abortion rates is encouraging, but positive change is happening too slowly and too unevenly across different regions,” says Dr. Sharon Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute. “We know, and the new evidence confirms yet again, that the best way to make abortion less necessary is to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And we know that the crucial first step in making abortion safer is to legalize the procedure, ensuring that it is performed by skilled providers under the best possible conditions. It’s high time for policymakers worldwide to renew their commitment to women’s health by addressing these crucial issues.”
...

"Nearly half of all induced abortions are unsafe, putting the lives and health of women at major risk. Each year, about 70,000 women die due to unsafe abortion and an additional five million suffer permanent or temporary disability," notes Dr. Paul F.A. Van Look, director of WHO’s Department of Reproductive Health and Research. “The widespread unmet need for contraception must be addressed if we are to see further decline in abortion rates, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where contraceptive use is low and unsafe abortion-related mortality is the high, compared with other regions"

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

Before this thread becomes a flame war, I'd like to say that I agree and that this survey confirms what I'd long suspected.

Also, economic growth and economic equality reduce abortion rates as well, which is an important corollary to the reasons behind the decline in abortions around the world. People who make more money have fewer kids to begin with, can afford contraceptives, and are far, far less likely to be in an unwanted pregnancy than people in lower socioeconomic categories. So, reducing poverty and increasing the overall prosperity of the society as a whole have similar effects on reducing abortion rates.

I'm actually surprised. I would have thought that it would have been higher in countries where it was illegal because that says so much about the way women are viewed there. (And hence the pressure to seek an abortion would be higher).

I'm actually surprised. I would have thought that it would have been higher in countries where it was illegal because that says so much about the way women are viewed there. (And hence the pressure to seek an abortion would be higher).

For involuntary pregnancies, sure. However, at the same time, women are also expected to have children with their husbands, so it likely offsets the higher rates of abortions for out-of-wedlock and children that are the product of rape.

For involuntary pregnancies, sure. However, at the same time, women are also expected to have children with their husbands, so it likely offsets the higher rates of abortions for out-of-wedlock and children that are the product of rape.

Yeah, but in countries that allow abortion women also have access to contraception. So I don't think you make the claim that there are a whole bunch of abortions going on with married couples which offsets the out of wedlock ones elsewhere.

I mean, it's possible, but I don't think it is likely.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

Couldn't agree more.

Agreed in full


No government should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body in regards to abortion.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

I would like to see somebody disagree with your conclusions.

In because I agree with you and wanted so badly to make the "in other news" snide remark ONCE.

In other news, the square root of 4 has been suspected to be 2.

:D

To make abortion safe, you would first need to change attitudes in countries where it is illegal because women cannot have safe access unless it is legal.

To ensure contraceptives are a viable option, education and a change in attitudes in some areas are required because there are still people who won't use it due to ignorance on the subject matter.

Comprehensive sexual education would help in both areas.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives
Illegal abortion accomplishes one thing: it hurts and kills women.

Ahh, "pro-life"...

a fair compromise would be if we just sterilize everyone :)

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.

You can't make that determination, they admit they don't have the data for some countries and they based the estimates for thouse countries on the results of other countries (presumably the countries with legal abortions have the results). Thus, since they used the stats from legal abortions to estimate the total abortions in illegal countries, the asssumption was made BEFORE the results were in. It might be true, but there is no data backing it up, if the assumption is wrong, the data in the report won't show it...

From Article:
The researchers' data came from government statistics, hospital records and national surveys. Where data was not available, they based estimates on fertility rates and made country-specific estimates based on previous figures or by comparing them to similar countries.

2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

Can't argue with that.

I agree, this thread is going to be boring if everyone keeps agreeing.

this thread is going to be boring if everyone keeps agreeing.
Probably, but it's just so damned hard to disagree with the conclusions in the OP :)

Probably, but it's just so damned hard to disagree with the conclusions in the OP :)

let's just wait until imperial brazil (or who's the recent religious troll?) comes.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

In other words: The sky is up, the ground is down (unless you're an acrobat) and the sun is in the sky.

let's just wait until imperial brazil (or who's the recent religious troll?) comes.
Well, that's true. Maybe I should have phrased my comment as:

"Probably, but it's just so damned hard (for me) to disagree with the conclusions in the OP :) "

There, that should head off any accusations that I was trying to put forward my own opinion as some kind of objective truth (or should that be Truth?) :p

let's just wait until imperial brazil (or who's the recent religious troll?) comes.

I believe it will go:

"It is the will of God for the sinners to have unsafe abortions because that liberal whore couldn't keep her legs shut. She's going to hell for having pre-marital sex and for killing the baby God gave her."

In other words: The sky is up, the ground is down (unless you're an acrobat) and the sun is in the sky.

Technically speaking, the sun is a little under a hundred million miles from the sky. But I get what you mean ;)

I'm actually surprised. I would have thought that it would have been higher in countries where it was illegal because that says so much about the way women are viewed there. (And hence the pressure to seek an abortion would be higher).

In countries where it is illegal, accurate data on abortion statistics is hard to come by. Although most abortions in such countries will be unsafe, not all will lead to significant complications resulting in a hospital visit (one source of abortion data) and women will be likely to lie about it on surveys (another source of data when government statistics are not available) even if anonymity is guaranteed.

In other words, the estimates for such countries are very likely to underestimate the number of abortions being carried out.


You can't make that determination, they admit they don't have the data for some countries and they based the estimates for thouse countries on the results of other countries (presumably the countries with legal abortions have the results).

Those wouldn't be "similar countries" on this topic, now would they?. There are sources of data for abortion numbers even where abortion is illegal - from research surveys to hospital records. It will generally underestimate the number of abortions, but it is there.

Thus, since they used the stats from legal abortions to estimate the total abortions in illegal countries, the asssumption was made BEFORE the results were in.

You are the only one stating that they use stats from legal abortions to estimate abortions in countries where it is illegal - something I think is very unlikely.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

Agree 100%, I also think abortion should be encouraged in some instances, because its still seen as the wrong thing to do in almost every circumstance.

*continues the agreement-fest*

You can't make that determination, they admit they don't have the data for some countries and they based the estimates for thouse countries on the results of other countries (presumably the countries with legal abortions have the results). Thus, since they used the stats from legal abortions to estimate the total abortions in illegal countries, the asssumption was made BEFORE the results were in. It might be true, but there is no data backing it up, if the assumption is wrong, the data in the report won't show it...

From Article:
The researchers' data came from government statistics, hospital records and national surveys. Where data was not available, they based estimates on fertility rates and made country-specific estimates based on previous figures or by comparing them to similar countries.


Dempublicents has already explained the flaw in your thinking, but I'll respond anyway.

You are being more than a little cavalier in concluding there is a massive flaw in the methodology of the study. What you cite doesn't support that conclusion.

Contrary to your assertion, it is not likely that any country's abortion rate was estimated using data from a dissimilar country. (Such as you suggest a country where abortion is illegal being estimated based on stats from a country where abortion is legal.)

As the part of the article you quote plainly says, where estimates were made they were country-specific and based on (1) previous figures for that country and (2) comparisons with similar countries.

Thus, there is every reason to believe the study's methodology was sound and therefore so are its conclusions.

Also, economic growth and economic equality reduce abortion rates as well, which is an important corollary to the reasons behind the decline in abortions around the world. People who make more money have fewer kids to begin with, can afford contraceptives, and are far, far less likely to be in an unwanted pregnancy than people in lower socioeconomic categories. So, reducing poverty and increasing the overall prosperity of the society as a whole have similar effects on reducing abortion rates.

Read the article. It states that the research found the rate of abortion to be the same in developed as well as developing countries.

However, since a rate is a percentage with regards to the number of pregnancies, I can imagine the absolute values would be lower... *thinks!*

Read the article. It states that the research found the rate of abortion to be the same in developed as well as developing countries.

I am not aware of any country in the world today in which there is economic equality.

In countries where it is illegal, accurate data on abortion statistics is hard to come by. Although most abortions in such countries will be unsafe, not all will lead to significant complications resulting in a hospital visit (one source of abortion data) and women will be likely to lie about it on surveys (another source of data when government statistics are not available) even if anonymity is guaranteed.

In other words, the estimates for such countries are very likely to underestimate the number of abortions being carried out.

Very likely true. I agree. But just because we agree doesn't mean the numbers support the conclusion of the title.

The numbers the report actually said...

In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found. In Western Europe, there are 23 abortions for every 100 live births.

In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.


So, according to their own report, there are less abortions per pregnancy in countries where abortions are illegal than there are abortions per pregnancy in abortion legal countries. So the title of the article is incorrect??? Perhaps not.

I admit these numbers don’t actually mean anything definitive (or can be used to say many different things), because as I stated the first time around, they admit they are 'estimating' their numbers to begin with and because of that they can't then make definitive statements about the difference between legal countries and illegal countries with their results. Why they did anyway I can't tell you.

I am not aware of any country in the world today in which there is economic equality.

True, but some have it more than others.

Very likely true. I agree. But just because we agree doesn't mean the numbers support the conclusion of the title.

The numbers the report actually said...

In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found. In Western Europe, there are 23 abortions for every 100 live births.

In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.


So, according to their own report, there are less abortions per pregnancy in countries where abortions are illegal than there are abortions per pregnancy in abortion legal countries. So the title of the article is incorrect??? Perhaps not.

Well, you are trying hard to discredit the study, but you aren't having much luck.

Europe, Africa, North America aren't countries, they are continents. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

The conclusion of the study that abortions are just as common where they are illegal as where they are legal still stands.

I admit these numbers don’t actually mean anything definitive (or can be used to say many different things), because as I stated the first time around, they admit they are 'estimating' their numbers to begin with and because of that they can't then make definitive statements about the difference between legal countries and illegal countries with their results. Why they did anyway I can't tell you.

In other words, based on the data available to you, you have no basis for questioning the conclusions reached by the study. You don't like those conclusions so you are hypothesizing some flaw in the study. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

EDIT: I should add that this is a peer-reviewed study published in The Lancet. It is rather silly to assume that the entire study has some gaping flaw that makes its conclusions invalid on their face.

So, according to their own report, there are less abortions per pregnancy in countries where abortions are illegal than there are abortions per pregnancy in abortion legal countries. So the title of the article is incorrect??? Perhaps not.

Poland has legal abortion? I dunno about the rest of eastern europe though.

Also, I think North America includes Mexico.

...
As the part of the article you quote plainly says, where estimates were made they were country-specific and based on (1) previous figures for that country and (2) comparisons with similar countries.

Thus, there is every reason to believe the study's methodology was sound and therefore so are its conclusions.

There is no reason to assume that there has ever been accurate or reliable statistics from countries where abortions have always been outlawed. There own report says 17 abortions per 100 births for African countries ... which means nothing really because the same countries aren't likely to have reliable birth statistics nonetheless abortion statistics.

the Eastern European vs. Western European and North American statistics would be useful, but trying to take those conclusions to the rest of the world's (Asia, Africa etc.,) lack of statistics is just unadulterated speculation on their part.

There is no reason to assume that there has ever been accurate or reliable statistics from countries where abortions have always been outlawed. There own report says 17 abortions per 100 births for African countries ... which means nothing really because the same countries aren't likely to have reliable birth statistics nonetheless abortion statistics.

the Eastern European vs. Western European and North American statistics would be useful, but trying to take those conclusions to the rest of the world's (Asia, Africa etc.,) lack of statistics is just unadulterated speculation on their part.

Again you are (1) comparing apples and oranges and (2) simply alleging methodological flaws that you have no evidence to support.

You are the only one engaging in unadulterated speculation.

In because I agree with you and wanted so badly to make the "in other news" snide remark ONCE.

In other news, the square root of 4 has been suspected to be 2.

:D

True, but recent studies have shown that it might perhaps be -2 too. This hasn't been confirmed yet but with new technology, we hope that scientist might come to an answer in the near future.

:)

Again you are (1) comparing apples and oranges and

I'm making observations from one report, theirs. If there are apples and oranges in my reply it's the reports fault, not mine. (which actually is my argument as a matter of fact, they are comparing apples to oranges to create their 'global' report assemblage)

(2) simply alleging methodological flaws that you have no evidence to support.

That’s true. I've only used the evidence they provided us.

You are the only one engaging in unadulterated speculation.

It's not speculation to point out erroneous conclusions from numbers they provided us. Their conclusions are not supported from their numbers.

I'm making observations from one report, theirs. If there are apples and oranges in my reply it's the reports fault, not mine. (which actually is my argument as a matter of fact, they are comparing apples to oranges to create their 'global' report assemblage)

That’s true. I've only used the evidence they provided us.

It's not speculation to point out erroneous conclusions from numbers they provided us. Their conclusions are not supported from their numbers.

*sigh*

You appear to confuse one article about the study with the study itself.

Rather obviously the Findlaw article does not contain all of the details published in the study itself (let alone the underlying data used in the study).

Regardless, your attempt to use the continent-based data to refute the country-specific data is facially invalid as continents are not countries (and vice versa).

You really are being rather facile in your attempts to argue against the study's peer-reveiwed conclusions.

I am sure someone else disagreed by now, but I am too lazy to read through the thread...so.

1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
No. Making it illegal does not make abortions unsafe, people seeking illegal abortions makes illegal abortions unsafe.

2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives
Or it could be made rare by not having wanton sex and not having abortions...

I believe it will go:

"It is the will of God for the sinners to have unsafe abortions because that liberal whore couldn't keep her legs shut. She's going to hell for having pre-marital sex and for killing the baby God gave her."

*applauds* Here's your NSGoscar.

No. Making it illegal does not make abortions unsafe, people seeking illegal abortions makes illegal abortions unsafe.

Actually, the study concludes differently. The more restrictive a country's abortion law, the higher are the rates of unsafe abortions and related mortality. Restrictive abortion laws do not, however, result in fewer abortions.

Banning abortions does nothing to stop abortion from happening, it just pushes it into unsafe conditions.

Or it could be made rare by not having wanton sex and not having abortions...

One doesn't have to engage in "wanton sex" to become pregnant. One generally doesn't become pregnant if one uses contraceptives properly, however.

Banning abortion doesn't accomplish the "goal" of reducing abortions. Contraception and sex education does.

No. Making it illegal does not make abortions unsafe, people seeking illegal abortions makes illegal abortions unsafe.

Wait, so the reason it's dangerous to play Russian Roulette is because people play Russian Roulette?


Or it could be made rare by not having wanton sex and not having abortions...
Sure, we could do that. Or we could allow all human beings to have fundamental human rights. Either way.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.


Are you suggesting that there would still be the same NUMBER of abortions, and that the ONLY impact would be to make them more unsafe?

Are you suggesting that there would still be the same NUMBER of abortions, and that the ONLY impact would be to make them more unsafe?

I'm not just suggesting that -- I'm supporting it with a study that reaches those conclusions.

Numbers may vary by nation, but overall legality/illegality doesn't control the number of abortions. Illegality does cause a lack of safety, however.

Very likely true. I agree. But just because we agree doesn't mean the numbers support the conclusion of the title.

The numbers the report actually said...

In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found. In Western Europe, there are 23 abortions for every 100 live births.

In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.


So, according to their own report, there are less abortions per pregnancy in countries where abortions are illegal than there are abortions per pregnancy in abortion legal countries. So the title of the article is incorrect??? Perhaps not.

I admit these numbers don’t actually mean anything definitive (or can be used to say many different things), because as I stated the first time around, they admit they are 'estimating' their numbers to begin with and because of that they can't then make definitive statements about the difference between legal countries and illegal countries with their results. Why they did anyway I can't tell you.

Live births != pregnancies.

Actually, the study concludes differently. The more restrictive a country's abortion law, the higher are the rates of unsafe abortions and related mortality. Restrictive abortion laws do not, however, result in fewer abortions.

Banning abortions does nothing to stop abortion from happening, it just pushes it into unsafe conditions.
Hmm.. because people choose to get illegal and unsafe abortions. Now whose fault is that? The illegal abortioners, or the people getting an abortion?
People push abortions into unsafe conditions, and abortion was never safe for the fetus.


One doesn't have to engage in "wanton sex" to become pregnant. One generally doesn't become pregnant if one uses contraceptives properly, however.
No, but it is fun. :)
One also doesn't become pregnant if one does not engage in sexual intercourse.

Banning abortion doesn't accomplish the "goal" of reducing abortions. Contraception and sex education does.
No, you are right, banning abortion does nothing. But unsafe abortions are the fault, and the choice, of the people who choose to have them.


Wait, so the reason it's dangerous to play Russian Roulette is because people play Russian Roulette?
Not exactly, but it is hardly a danger to you if you don't play it.

Sure, we could do that. Or we could allow all human beings to have fundamental human rights. Either way.
"Fundamental human rights" What a farce. Rights are what the government legislates.

I hope you all know I don't support these positions and in fact agree with the OP. I am just playing God's Advocate here.;)

Link?

Uh ... check out the OP.

Illegal abortion accomplishes one thing: it hurts and kills women.

Ahh, "pro-life"...
As an abortionist in the black market, I am disgusted by your generalization. I deliver a safe and painless procedure to my customers in...the country where I live, I don't really think I'll say.

.
No, you are right, banning abortion does nothing. But unsafe abortions are the fault, and the choice, of the people who choose to have them.

Was it María de Jesús González's fault that she had to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html

Would it have been better for her to have not even tried and died a little later?

Was it María de Jesús González's fault that she had to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html

Would it have been better for her to have not even tried and died a little later?

She would have lived longer.
Her name has a Jesus in it so she may have a place in Heaven?

Come on, I am new to arguing the blatantly inhumane side...stop posting such damning evidence.

Was it María de Jesús González's fault that she had to seek an illegal and unsafe abortion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html

Would it have been better for her to have not even tried and died a little later?

From the anti's point of view, that is EXACTLY what they want to happen. And when the anti-s get asked to adopt those poor children, it is too ... inconvient for them. .

From the anti's point of view, that is EXACTLY what they want to happen. And when the anti-s get asked to adopt those poor children, it is too ... inconvient for them. .

Actually that case doesn't seem to be a very good example...

From the article…In an attempt to clarify matters, the health ministry issued protocols last December that said doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. To terminate an ectopic pregnancy is legal, it turns out, because since the foetus is not in the womb the procedure would not be an abortion.

As it turns out, even under that extreme anti-abortion law this particular woman could have received medical help IF she had asked for it. She 'assumed' they would not assist her, she died of her own misfortune (although it's still a tragedy and her family should blame the medical professionals who diagnosed her and didn't immediately begin treatment or inform her of her options).

Not exactly, but it is hardly a danger to you if you don't play it.

If you are going to be logically consistent then there it should be exactly the same. Russion Roulette must be dangerous because people seek to play Russian Roulette.


"Fundamental human rights" What a farce. Rights are what the government legislates.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm saying that the government should maintain fundamental human rights for all persons.

...
I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm saying that the government should maintain fundamental human rights for all persons.

I think everyone will agree to that. I'll think you'll have a fight on your hands again though as soon as you announce who get's to define what a 'person' is.

Actually that case doesn't seem to be a very good example...

From the article…In an attempt to clarify matters, the health ministry issued protocols last December that said doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. To terminate an ectopic pregnancy is legal, it turns out, because since the foetus is not in the womb the procedure would not be an abortion.

As it turns out, even under that extreme anti-abortion law this particular woman could have received medical help IF she had asked for it. She 'assumed' they would not assist her, she died of her own misfortune (although it's still a tragedy and her family should blame the medical professionals who diagnosed her and didn't immediately begin treatment or inform her of her options).
Actually, she made a very accurate assumption. See, the fact that it might be technically legal for medical professionals to perform an abortion in some very, very restricted situations doesn't actually mean that she'd be able to FIND somebody to perform that procedure. Most doctors in nations with prohibitive abortion laws just try to steer clear of abortions entirely, lest they risk damaging an oh-so-precious fetus intheir efforts to save a human woman's life.

As horrible and tragic as her choice was, you need to be aware that she made a completely rational and accurate assessment of her situation. She is dead because her government passed laws stating that human women deserve to die rather than exercise basic bodily autonomy.

...
As horrible and tragic as her choice was, you need to be aware that she made a completely rational and accurate assessment of her situation. She is dead because her government passed laws stating that human women deserve to die rather than exercise basic bodily autonomy.

She might have made a rational choice, but her government did leave this particular situation a way out... that's why I said her family should blame the medical professionals that diagnosed her and then didn't help her understand how she should proceed.

I think everyone will agree to that. I'll think you'll have a fight on your hands again though as soon as you announce who get's to define what a 'person' is.
Why would I bother?

Even if you want to define a fetus as a peron, abortion should stll be legal. No human person has the right to inhabit my body against my wishes. No human person has the right to use my kidney to perform dialysis for them, use my blood to nourish them, use my respiratory system to sustain them. No human person is even allowed to take my blood for a transfusion against my wishes. Even if they will die without it. Even if I am a convicted serial killer waiting to be executed. Even if the person in question needs the blood transfusion specifically because of something I intentionally did to them.

No human person has any right to prolong their life by harvesting any part of my body against my wishes. You don't have any human right to somebody else's body.

If you want to argue the personhood of a fetus, go ahead. Personally, I don't much care, at least not in this context. My support for a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy will be the same regardless.

She might have made a rational choice, but her government did leave this particular situation a way out... that's why I said her family should blame the medical professionals that diagnosed her and then didn't help her understand how she should proceed.
I think they should blame the people who actually caused the problem, instead.

The problem was lack of information and lack of safe, legal access to reproductive health care. That problem was caused primarily by the anti-choice laws imposed in her country.

I think they should blame the people who actually caused the problem, instead.

The problem was lack of information and lack of safe, legal access to reproductive health care.

That's exactly right, the people that she was with when they diagnosed her were supposed to be safe, legal reproductive health care professionals and they failed her. They failed to understand their own laws, their own options and their care for her was entirely lacking.

That problem was caused primarily by the anti-choice laws imposed in her country.

And since the laws of that country would have allowed the professionals to help that women you haven't shown how the laws were at fault for her death.

As it turns out, even under that extreme anti-abortion law this particular woman could have received medical help IF she had asked for it. She 'assumed' they would not assist her, she died of her own misfortune (although it's still a tragedy and her family should blame the medical professionals who diagnosed her and didn't immediately begin treatment or inform her of her options).

Those medical professionals told her that she needed an abortion and that it was illegal for them to provide it. As far as she knew, the only option open to her was the one she took or to wait and die.

González was told at the hospital that any doctor who terminated her pregnancy would face two to three years in jail and she, for consenting, would face one to two years.

So now what happens when other medical problems that the clarification (which came after several deaths) didn't cover come up? What about fetal death in the womb? Can that woman get an abortion? Severe hydroencephaly? What about them? And what if the pregnancy itself is endangering her life but the fetus is living?

Also from the article:

Another woman, named Mariana, said she obtained a clandestine abortion because her pregnancy aggravated a permanent health condition. "I was very afraid. It was very traumatic not to be able to talk about it, because it is a crime. The abortion saved both me and the two children I already have

And, even more interesting is the likely effect on pregnancies that could possibly be brought to term, but won't, because women are too afraid to seek treatment.

The report said the potentially most harmful impact was that girls and women were afraid of seeking treatment for pregnancy-related complications, especially haemorrhaging, in case they were accused of having induced an abortion.

That's exactly right, the people that she was with when they diagnosed her were supposed to be safe, legal reproductive health care professionals and they failed her. They failed to understand their own laws, their own options and their care for her was entirely lacking.

And since the laws of that country would have allowed the professionals to help that women you haven't shown how the laws were at fault for her death.

The law was unclear. It states that danger to a woman is not a legal reason to perform an abortion. Until people started dying and the government decided to clarify that it is ok as long as the fetus isn't actually in the uterus, how would any doctor know that the law allowed for it? And if the government isn't making this particular exception clear to the medical professionals, whose fault is that?

Not to mention that ectopic pregnancy is hardly the only life-threatening medical complication that can arise from pregnancy. But those who pushed through the Nicaraguan law claim that abortion is never medically necessary.

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

Agree, although we must remember to respect other people's choice and let countries decide for themselves. It's never goes well when one country tell another what they should do under moral standpoints.

Actually that case doesn't seem to be a very good example...

From the article…In an attempt to clarify matters, the health ministry issued protocols last December that said doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. To terminate an ectopic pregnancy is legal, it turns out, because since the foetus is not in the womb the procedure would not be an abortion.

As it turns out, even under that extreme anti-abortion law this particular woman could have received medical help IF she had asked for it. She 'assumed' they would not assist her, she died of her own misfortune (although it's still a tragedy and her family should blame the medical professionals who diagnosed her and didn't immediately begin treatment or inform her of her options).

She might have made a rational choice, but her government did leave this particular situation a way out... that's why I said her family should blame the medical professionals that diagnosed her and then didn't help her understand how she should proceed.

That's exactly right, the people that she was with when they diagnosed her were supposed to be safe, legal reproductive health care professionals and they failed her. They failed to understand their own laws, their own options and their care for her was entirely lacking.

And since the laws of that country would have allowed the professionals to help that women you haven't shown how the laws were at fault for her death.

It takes a special form of myopia not to recognize that the restrictive abortion laws in Nicaragua are to blame for the death of Ms. González and at least 81 other women.

As the article clearly explains, the broad and restrictive nature of Nicaragua's abortion law creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the medical profession about performing even those abortions the government says are legal. Thus, more than one set of medical professionals did not believe Ms. González could obtain a legal abortion.

Agree, although we must remember to respect other people's choice and let countries decide for themselves. It's never goes well when one country tell another what they should do under moral standpoints.

No, tolerance for other countries and cultures does not extend to acceptance of laws that enslave, harm, and kill women.

Moreoever, fundamental human rights do not depend on where one is born. No country has the right to deny a woman an early-term abortion or a medically necessary abortion.

As an abortionist in the black market, I am disgusted by your generalization. I deliver a safe and painless procedure to my customers in...the country where I live, I don't really think I'll say.

Well, for the women who find you and know you and so on, sure, they'll be safe.

For all the women who don't who use knitting needles instead? Probably not so much.

Abortion is the choice of the father, and no one else.

Abortion is the choice of the father, and no one else.

I assume you're referring to the Heavenly Father? Because otherwise, your response assumes that women are property, an attitude that went out (legally and morally) at the turn of the last century. Either that, or you're a jerk. Haven't decided yet.

I assume you're referring to the Heavenly Father? Because otherwise, your response assumes that women are property, an attitude that went out (legally and morally) at the turn of the last century. Either that, or you're a jerk. Haven't decided yet.

I mean the infant's father.

Abortion is the choice of the father, and no one else.

Either you committed a typo (substituting "fa" for "mo") or you have some serious explaining to do.

I mean the infant's father.

Because I, as a woman, have no right to say whether I turn a microscopic parasite into a breathing human being by the courtesy of my body? You need to have your meds adjusted, sir.

No human person has any right to prolong their life by harvesting any part of my body against my wishes. You don't have any human right to somebody else's body.

If you want to argue the personhood of a fetus, go ahead. Personally, I don't much care, at least not in this context. My support for a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy will be the same regardless.

Then don't sign up for the 'Still Living Organ Donors Club'.
Then don't have sex if you are not willing to accept the possibility of a child.

Oh, I forgot, people don't take responsibility or the consequences for their actions anymore, if they can get out of it at another's expense, hell yea.

Then don't sign up for the 'Still Living Organ Donors Club'.
Then don't have sex if you are not willing to accept the possibility of a child.

Oh, I forgot, people don't take responsibility or the consequences for their actions anymore, if they can get out of it at another's expense, hell yea.

I get hit by a car, and lie bleeding on the street. Are you saying that I should be allowed to bleed out on the asphalt because I should take responsibility for the consequences of crossing the street?

I get hit by a car, and lie bleeding on the street. Are you saying that I should be allowed to bleed out on the asphalt because I should take responsibility for the consequences of crossing the street?

Vastly different. You did not mutually agree with the driver before the incident, to get knocked up...with the car. It may be good to note that I by sex, I mean consentual, not rape or otherwise. If you want to bleed out on the asphalt, you can, otherwise someone should get you some medical help.

By the way, just playing God's Advocate here, I agree with the OP.

Vastly different. You did not mutually agree with the driver before the incident, to get knocked up...with the car. It may be good to note that I by sex, I mean consentual, not rape or otherwise. If you want to bleed out on the asphalt, you can, otherwise someone should get you some medical help.

By the way, just playing God's Advocate here, I agree with the OP.

(I figured as much, which is why I didn't jump into this discussion with the fangs out, dripping venom :D.)

(I figured as much, which is why I didn't jump into this discussion with the fangs out, dripping venom :D.)

I am glad you picked up on that and did not inject me with a lethal dose of venemous secretion. However, if you pardon my French, I notice you are dodging my riposte. En guarde!

I am glad you picked up on that and did not inject me with a lethal dose of venemous secretion. However, if you pardon my French, I notice you are dodging my riposte. En guarde!

I simply refused to post on an empty stomach.

However, your argument relies on an unproven, and frankly incorrect, assumption that consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy. In the analogy I posted, for instance, one may consent to crossing the street, without consenting to being hit by a car while crossing the street. Similarly, one may consent to sex, without consenting to becoming pregnant. And similarly, if one should be treated for the injuries sustained from the car accident, I don't see why you would prevent treatment for a pregnancy in a case where the affect woman desires to be treated.

I simply refused to post on an empty stomach.
So you became pregnant, aborted the fetus, and then consumed it? You socialist.


However, your argument relies on an unproven, and frankly incorrect, assumption that consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy. In the analogy I posted, for instance, one may consent to crossing the street, without consenting to being hit by a car while crossing the street. Similarly, one may consent to sex, without consenting to becoming pregnant. And similarly, if one should be treated for the injuries sustained from the car accident, I don't see why you would prevent treatment for a pregnancy in a case where the affect woman desires to be treated.

You don't need to consent to pregnancy, you have to acknowledge it as an everpresent ris..gift, nay, splendour even, that may grant itself upon a womb.

One may consent to crossing a street yes, but one may not consent to being hit by a car. However, realizing that being hit by a car may in fact come about due to the crossing of a street, which is consented to, one should obviously...*loses train of thought* Treatment for a pregnancy? As in murder the fetii? Since when is killing a fully grown(potential) genius(human), 'treating' a pregnancy. It is naught more than manslaughter, and naught less than petty theft.

*is not cut out to support morally and somewhat logically indefensible positions* :(

So you became pregnant, aborted the fetus, and then consumed it? You socialist.



You don't need to consent to pregnancy, you have to acknowledge it as an everpresent ris..gift, nay, splendour even, that may grant itself upon a womb.

One may consent to crossing a street yes, but one may not consent to being hit by a car. However, realizing that being hit by a car may in fact come about due to the crossing of a street, which is consented to, one should obviously...*loses train of thought* Treatment for a pregnancy? As in murder the fetii? Since when is killing a fully grown(potential) genius(human), 'treating' a pregnancy. It is naught more than manslaughter, and naught less than petty theft.

*is not cut out to support morally and somewhat logically indefensible positions* :(

It's all good. It's a position only those with an inadequate understanding of reason or an over-investment in emotion take. At least you've proven you suffer not from a reason-deficiency :p

Agreed. There should be more access to proper contraception, making abortions less frequent, and abortions should be legally available and the business only of the woman, her partner, and her doctor.

Agreed. There should be more access to proper contraception, making abortions less frequent, and abortions should be legally available and the business only of the woman, her partner, and her doctor.

Johnny Come Lately huh? :p

It takes a special form of myopia not to recognize that the restrictive abortion laws in Nicaragua are to blame for the death of Ms. González and at least 81 other women.

As the article clearly explains, the broad and restrictive nature of Nicaragua's abortion law creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt among the medical profession about performing even those abortions the government says are legal. Thus, more than one set of medical professionals did not believe Ms. González could obtain a legal abortion.

I simply point out the fact that the individual case mentioned wasn't a particularly good example to use as an example of the wrongness of the law because the case in point was not actually forbidden by the law to have the procedure done, and so now I'm myopic? Nice.

Well at least I don't pull the wool over my own eyes when I proselytize my point of view about a cause.

Interesting isn’t it that the Guardian is ALSO the same Guardian that published a story about this law before it was enacted in an attempt to stop it from passing and saying that the therapeutic cause for abortion was hardly used anyway and so it should remain legal... in fact, they said, in the three years preceding the total ban, only 24 abortions were required in Nicaragua to saves the lives of the women who needed therapeutic abortions.

In the past three years, only 24 legal abortions have been performed, including one in 2004 carried out on a nine-year-old rape victim, but it is an open secret that many well-off families send female relatives to Cuba for the procedure. A third of new mothers are aged 16 or younger and in opinion polls women cite domestic abuse as one of their biggest problems. Tens of thousands of pregnant women are estimated to have illegal abortions in Nicaragua every year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1932576,00.html

Now, after the ban was passed anyway, suddenly the rate of women dying from pregnancies that abortions might have saved them from have gone from 1.5 per month to 6.8 per month…

Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger. So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html

Just a bit interesting isn’t it that the Guardian (and other sources) publish whatever numbers best suit their political position needs, at the moment, without mentioning why there might be an astronomical 450% increase in the number of unhealthy pregnancies in Nicaragua requiring therapeutic abortions this year?!?!

Perhaps they are filtering the numbers to best suite their needs? Nah, I must just be myopic to notice such things. :rolleyes:

However, your argument relies on an unproven, and frankly incorrect, assumption that consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy. In the analogy I posted, for instance, one may consent to crossing the street, without consenting to being hit by a car while crossing the street. Similarly, one may consent to sex, without consenting to becoming pregnant. And similarly, if one should be treated for the injuries sustained from the car accident, I don't see why you would prevent treatment for a pregnancy in a case where the affect woman desires to be treated.

My wife and I discuss this and similar analogies at length because we find it both incredibly asinine as well as amusing all at the same time.

Reasons the pregnancy from sex = injury from some activity fails:

1)Being hit by a car (as in this instance) is not a natural result of crossing the street. From any standpoint, the only successful outcome from an attempt to cross the street is to reach the other side. On the other hand, pregnancy is a perfectly natural, and in many cases desirable, result of sex. (Maybe you weren't trying to get pregnant, but your body was. It got pregnant on purpose.) Nobody in their right mind ever crosses the street with the intention of being hit by a car.

2)Pregnancy is not an injury. The female body goes to great lengths to maximize the chances of pregnancy and, once successfully impregnated, goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the baby. (It might have been an accident for YOU, but it wasn't an accident for your body.) On the other hand, when someone suffers an injury from a speeding car (assuming the body survives the event) it will go to extraordinary lengths to repair the damage e.g. undo what has been done to it.

3)In order to try and make this analogy work, one must take a perfectly natural and necessary body function and call it an injury. To defend it, people often cite the changes the female body undergoes during pregnancy. That, of course, assumes one defines ANY physiological change as an injury as opposed to a natural function. I suppose by that definition puberty is a form of injury since it triggers significant (and not always desirable) changes in the body.

4)Some even cite events in which something goes wrong and causes true injury or even death to either the mother, the baby or both. This would more appropriately fit the analogy if you set it as crossing the street:having a baby as being hit by a car:miscarriage/congenital defect/etc as nobody gets pregnant with the intent to experience such a situation and, in fact, this is an example of when an abortion procedure may be justifiable.

5)Treatment is something administered to restore or preserve normal body function and/or to preserve life. An abortion does not do this. In fact, it does the exact opposite. An abortion disrupts the female body's normal function of protecting and nourishing the new life within it. (Remember, you might not have meant to get pregnant, but your body did.) It destroys said life in the process. Just because it uses medical instruments, it's not necessarily medical treatment any more than it's medical treatment if I used a surgical scalpel to cut someone's throat.

I hate having to be this pedantic, but I've seen that analogy so many times it's gotten rather boring.

I simply point out the fact that the individual case mentioned wasn't a particularly good example to use as an example of the wrongness of the law because the case in point was not actually forbidden by the law to have the procedure done, and so now I'm myopic? Nice.

You are being myopic in ignoring the obvious chilling effect of the law --where fear uncertainty and doubt permeate the medical professsion-- which was explained at length in the article:

González was told at the hospital that any doctor who terminated her pregnancy would face two to three years in jail and she, for consenting, would face one to two years. "Nicaraguan doctors are now afraid of going to trial or jail and losing their licence," says Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine. "Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die."
...
The report said the potentially most harmful impact was that girls and women were afraid of seeking treatment for pregnancy-related complications, especially haemorrhaging, in case they were accused of having induced an abortion.

Doctors say they have been put in an impossible position. "We face extremely grave ethical conflicts, all because of politics," says Carla Serrato, a gynaecologist from Nicaragua's state-run Alemán Nicaragüense Hospital. Ligia Altamirano Gómez, an obstetrician, says they fear being overruled by the law. "We are pushed toward illegality."

In an attempt to clarify matters, the health ministry issued protocols last December that said doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. To terminate an ectopic pregnancy is legal, it turns out, because since the foetus is not in the womb the procedure would not be an abortion. But such is the climate of fear and confusion that the protocols are widely ignored and misunderstood. The doctors who turned González away from the hospital in Managua thought it was illegal, as did medical staff the Guardian interviewed in Ocotal, González's home town.

"The ban has people frightened. You could lose everything - that's the first thing on your mind," says Dr Arguello, a leading critic of the ban.

That after-the-fact the government had to "clarify" the law to expalin that doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care only emphasizes the fear, uncertainty and doubt that exists BEFORE the clarification. Then you add to it the fact that the new protocols are widely ignored and misunderstood, leaving many medical professions uncertain and afraid to treat obstetric emergencies.

None of this comes as a surprise, as the OP study specifically documented that more restrictive abortion regimes would not decrease abortion, but would increase unsafe abortions causing deaths.

Well at least I don't pull the wool over my own eyes when I proselytize my point of view about a cause.

ROTFLASTC.

You are the poster child for pulling the wool over your own eyes. This is the third go-around of you trying to nit-pick articles to find alleged "facts" that support your viewpoint (when really there is nothing to support you there.)

Interesting isn’t it that the Guardian is ALSO the same Guardian that published a story about this law before it was enacted in an attempt to stop it from passing and saying that the therapeutic cause for abortion was hardly used anyway and so it should remain legal... in fact, they said, in the three years preceding the total ban, only 24 abortions were required in Nicaragua to saves the lives of the women who needed therapeutic abortions.

In the past three years, only 24 legal abortions have been performed, including one in 2004 carried out on a nine-year-old rape victim, but it is an open secret that many well-off families send female relatives to Cuba for the procedure. A third of new mothers are aged 16 or younger and in opinion polls women cite domestic abuse as one of their biggest problems. Tens of thousands of pregnant women are estimated to have illegal abortions in Nicaragua every year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1932576,00.html

Now, after the ban was passed anyway, suddenly the rate of women dying from pregnancies that abortions might have saved them from have gone from 1.5 per month to 6.8 per month…

Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger. So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html

Just a bit interesting isn’t it that the Guardian (and other sources) publish whatever numbers best suit their political position needs, at the moment, without mentioning why there might be an astronomical 450% increase in the number of unhealthy pregnancies in Nicaragua requiring therapeutic abortions this year?!?!

Perhaps they are filtering the numbers to best suite their needs? Nah, I must just be myopic to notice such things. :rolleyes:

Well, one can't say you don't work hard at being obtuse.

1. The 24 legal abortions in three years is not the same category as the 82 deaths from illegal abortions in the last year. As the first quote fully explained, tens of thousands of women were having illegal abortions prior to the more restrictive law. No doubt some of them died. Making the law even more restrictive only increased the danger to women. Now even more women are forced to seek even less safe abortions and more die. Pretty simple to understand, really.

2. You mischaracterize the first story. It was written just after the new law had been passed by the Nicaraguan parliament. It could not and was not written as you claim "in an attempt to stop [the more restrictive law] from passing."

3. You mischaracterize the second story: "The Pan-American Health Organisation estimates one woman per day suffers from an ectopic pregnancy, and that every two days a woman suffers a miscarriage from a molar pregnancy. That adds up to hundreds of obstetric emergencies per year." Further, the chilling effect of the law causes safe medical treatment to be denied even when it is not forbidden by the law.

4. Your "and other sources" jab is misguided if it is aimed at the OP study. The OP study is not just some article written by a journalist. It is a peer-reviewed study written by experts and published in The Lancet.

I get hit by a car, and lie bleeding on the street. Are you saying that I should be allowed to bleed out on the asphalt because I should take responsibility for the consequences of crossing the street?

Yes.

González was told at the hospital...

Anything said to González by the medical professionals who diagnosed her is not González' fault, thus, I don't blame her, I blame the people that should have known better. I also blame them directly because they didn't tell her to go to the gynecologist/OBGyn, instead, they told her “what they thought the specialist would say so she needn’t bother seeing them herself?” I think a general practitioner in American would be liable for damages if they told a patient that there was no reason to see a gynecologist/OBGyn, don’t you? But because of what they erroneously told her; She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village.

It’s their fault for the erroneous information they gave her and for telling her not to bother to see a specialist, malpractice level of unprofessionalism whether you make excuses for them now or not.


1. The 24 legal abortions in three years is not the same category as the 82 deaths from illegal abortions in the last year. As the first quote fully explained, tens of thousands of women were having illegal abortions prior to the more restrictive law. No doubt some of them died. Making the law even more restrictive only increased the danger to women. Now even more women are forced to seek even less safe abortions and more die. Pretty simple to understand, really.

Your 82 number is said to be caused directly because of the new law, So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women. Adding in other causes to that 82 would make the statement incorrect. NOW you want to include deaths that would have occurred under the old law even if the new law wasn't signed into law? Who's changing their argument in the middle of their thread? Not I.

2. You mischaracterize the first story. It was written just after the new law had been passed by the Nicaraguan parliament. It could not and was not written as you claim "in an attempt to stop [the more restrictive law] from passing."

Really, a simple calendar check should suffice.

First Guardian article dated: Friday October 27, 2006
New more restrictive Law Passed, according to 2nd Guardian article: Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger.

President Enrique Bolaños signed the bill into law on 17 November 2006.

Looks like I wasn't mischaracterizing anything, you did. The article was written before the law was passed and put into effect, like I said it was.

You really should check you own facts before posting such easy to disprove 'rebuttals.'

3. You mischaracterize the second story: "The Pan-American Health Organisation estimates one woman per day suffers from an ectopic pregnancy, and that every two days a woman suffers a miscarriage from a molar pregnancy. That adds up to hundreds of obstetric emergencies per year." Further, the chilling effect of the law causes safe medical treatment to be denied even when it is not forbidden by the law.

How is 82 divided by 12 months not 6.83333~? It is. I didn't mischaracterize that either.

4. Your "and other sources" jab is misguided if it is aimed at the OP study. The OP study is not just some article written by a journalist. It is a peer-reviewed study written by experts and published in The Lancet.

No, it wasn't a jab at anything in particular, just all of them added together when they think they know their results before they collect the data...

González was told at the hospital...

Anything said to González by the medical professionals who diagnosed her is not González' fault, thus, I don't blame her, I blame the people that should have known better. I also blame them directly because they didn't tell her to go to the gynecologist/OBGyn, instead, they told her “what they thought the specialist would say so she needn’t bother seeing them herself?” I think a general practitioner in American would be liable for damages if they told a patient that there was no reason to see a gynecologist/OBGyn, don’t you? But because of what they erroneously told her; She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village.

It’s their fault for the erroneous information they gave her and for telling her not to bother to see a specialist, malpractice level of unprofessionalism whether you make excuses for them now or not.

Nice. You ignore that more than one set of doctors didn't think they could treat Ms. González. I quoted and bolded that part of the story in my last post. I don't believe you didn't notice that. Instead, you are being deliberately deceptive.

You ignore that Ms. González's story is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a pattern of denial of life-saving treatment to women because of the "new" law in Nicaragua. Here is a report explaining this at length: Over Their Dead Bodies: Denial of Access to Emergency Obstetric Care and Therapeutic Abortion in Nicaragua (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nicaragua1007/index.htm)

You ignore that part of the whole point is the law has a chilling effect which makes medical profession unwilling to risk treating women. Again, the linked report explains this at length (as did the Guardian story in the first place).

BTW: [EDIT]

EDIT: BTW2, your fictional account of Ms. González walking past the ob/gyn's office is truly a low blow. You have no basis in the story for making such statements. They are simply inflammatory and deceptive rhetoric on your part. Shame on you.


Your 82 number is said to be caused directly because of the new law, So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women. Adding in other causes to that 82 would make the statement incorrect. NOW you want to include deaths that would have occurred under the old law even if the new law wasn't signed into law? Who's changing their argument in the middle of their thread? Not I.

1. The 82 number is not merely "my" number. Nor is it simply the Guardian's number. It is reported in other stories about Nicaragua's law. (e.g., link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7041048.stm)).

2. I haven't changed my argument either. I never made an argument that said that all 82 deaths were attributible to the change in Nicaraguan law, but rather that Nicaragua's restrictive abortion laws were responsible for at least 82 deaths. It may be the case, as I explained in the last post, some of those deaths may have occurred under the old law. Regardless, you are taking a single sentence from the Guardian story and blowing it out of proportion. It does not represent the OP study, it does not represent my argument, and it doesn't represent the argument of any other poster. It is simply an allegation made by opponents of the Nicaraguan law and reported in the Guardian.

3. You ignore my point which is that there is not necessarily any contradiction between the numbers in the two stories. Your allegation that the Guardian was massaging the numbers to fit an agenda simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Really, a simple calendar check should suffice.

First Guardian article dated: Friday October 27, 2006
New more restrictive Law Passed, according to 2nd Guardian article: Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger.

President Enrique Bolaños signed the bill into law on 17 November 2006.

Looks like I wasn't mischaracterizing anything, you did. The article was written before the law was passed and put into effect, like I said it was.

You really should check you own facts before posting such easy to disprove 'rebuttals.'

Um. You seem to confuse the date the bill was signed into law with the date the law was passed by the legislature. The bill had passed the legislature and was awaiting signature from the President when the first article was written. It said that in the first article. So you cannot say the first article was written with the intent of keeping the law from being passed by the legislature. That had already happened. That was my point and it was a correct one.

If you are going to accuse me of not checking facts, you had better pay better attention to what is being discussed. :headbang:

How is 82 divided by 12 months not 6.83333~? It is. I didn't mischaracterize that either.

As I pointed out and you haven't responded to, your characterization that this was some unbelievable increase in the numbers that could only be explained by the Guardian massaging the numbers was untrue and unfounded.

No, it wasn't a jab at anything in particular, just all of them added together when they think they know their results before they collect the data...

*sigh*

You just did exactly what I said you were doing. You are "add[ing] together" the Guardian stories with the peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet and acting if they are all part of the same thing. You are linking the credibility of the OP study with the credibility of the two Guardian articles. That is simply bullshit.

The Guardian story was linked by another poster because the story of Ms. Gonzalez illustrates just how restrictive abortion laws kill women. This compliments the findings of the OP study, but it doesn't make them the same.

You have no basis for questioning the findings of the OP study -- which is probably why you are so gleefully trying to nit-pick the Guardian stories. It is the only straw left for you to clutch at.

...
EDIT: BTW2, your fictional account of Ms. González walking past the ob/gyn's office is truly a low blow. You have no basis in the story for making such statements. They are simply inflammatory and deceptive rhetoric on your part. Shame on you.
....

I don't have enough time tonight to go through your entire post piece by piece, but this bit clearly shows you didn't even read the article in question.

Fifth paragraph down...
She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html


Shame on yourself for not reading what you are writing about.

Additionally, a quick perusal of the link you added in your last post says this:
“If there had been a complete denial of services to women then, at this point, we would have seen a real surge in maternal deaths [and we haven’t].”
about 17 paragraphs down link (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nicaragua1007/3.htm#_Toc178672134)

And, it says this:
It is impossible to ascertain how many women the blanket ban has prevented from accessing safe therapeutic abortion services and with what effect. Nicaragua’s Health Ministry officials told Human Rights Watch that they did not have any official documentation of the effects of the blanket ban and no plans for gathering such documentation.
4 paragraphs down: link (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nicaragua1007/3.htm#_Toc178672134)
And thus, this site seems far superior to the other sites information already, legitimate sources don't have to 'make stuff up'.

...
Um. You seem to confuse the date the bill was signed into law with the date the law was passed by the legislature. The bill had passed the legislature and was awaiting signature from the President when the first article was written. It said that in the first article. So you cannot say the first article was written with the intent of keeping the law from being passed by the legislature. That had already happened. That was my point and it was a correct one.

If you are going to accuse me of not checking facts, you had better pay better attention to what is being discussed. :headbang:

Riiiight.

I said: Interesting isn’t it that the Guardian is ALSO the same Guardian that published a story about this law before it was enacted in an attempt to stop it from passing and saying that the therapeutic cause for abortion was hardly used anyway and so it should remain legal...

I said before the law was enacted, it's in your own quote of my post. You seem to be having trouble staying focused here.

But right back at ya, If you are going to accuse me of not checking facts, you had better pay better attention to what is being discussed. :headbang:

I don't have enough time tonight to go through your entire post piece by piece, but this bit clearly shows you didn't even read the article in question.

Fifth paragraph down...
She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2186039,00.html


Shame on yourself for not reading what you are writing about.

Oops. Shame on me is right. Truly sorry about that.

But while I am eating my words, you should chew on your original post regarding the Guardian story and Ms. Gonzalez's fate:

Actually that case doesn't seem to be a very good example...

From the article…In an attempt to clarify matters, the health ministry issued protocols last December that said doctors should respond to most obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. To terminate an ectopic pregnancy is legal, it turns out, because since the foetus is not in the womb the procedure would not be an abortion.

As it turns out, even under that extreme anti-abortion law this particular woman could have received medical help IF she had asked for it. She 'assumed' they would not assist her, she died of her own misfortune (although it's still a tragedy and her family should blame the medical professionals who diagnosed her and didn't immediately begin treatment or inform her of her options).

Do you still claim that Ms. Gonzalez didn't ask for medical help?
Do you still claim that Ms. Gonzalez merely "assumed" doctors wouldn't help her?
Do you still claim that Ms. Gonzaleez "died of her own misfortune"?
Do you still deny that the Nicaraguan law has a chilling effect that denies treatment to women?

Additionally, a quick perusal of the link you added in your last post says this:
“If there had been a complete denial of services to women then, at this point, we would have seen a real surge in maternal deaths [and we haven’t].”
about 17 paragraphs down link (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nicaragua1007/3.htm#_Toc178672134)

Um. There you go again picking through the wheat in order to capture the chaff. The entire 17-page report documents that the effects of the Nicaraguan law have been devastating -- even if that isn't reflected in every sentence. Even as to that quote you are being selective. The entire paragraph reads:

One Health Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said, “In a national reference hospital … the [OB/GYN] specialists told us clearly that if there was a case [of obstetric emergency], they wouldn’t treat it.… They interpret [the guidelines] as they see fit so as not to get involved.”33The same official acknowledged that not all medical personnel have reacted in this way: “If there had been a complete denial of services to women then, at this point, we would have seen a real surge in maternal deaths [and we haven’t].”

The fact that a Health Ministry official would admit that specialists are chilled from treating obstetric emergencies is significant. That that same official doesn't think there has been a "real surge" in maternal deaths is of less significance. Other source say there has been such a surge.

And, it says this:
It is impossible to ascertain how many women the blanket ban has prevented from accessing safe therapeutic abortion services and with what effect. Nicaragua’s Health Ministry officials told Human Rights Watch that they did not have any official documentation of the effects of the blanket ban and no plans for gathering such documentation.
4 paragraphs down: link (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nicaragua1007/3.htm#_Toc178672134)

The fact that Nicaragua has no official documentation of the effects of the blanket ban does not mean there have been no such effects or that no one else can opine on such effects. You are reaching here.

And, of course, is typical of you to pick out one or two sentences out of 17-page report. Here are the next two paragraphs after the one you cite (emphais added, footnotes omitted):

Meanwhile, the Health Ministry does not monitor the full implementation of the protocols, does not systematize complaints received for the delay or denial of care, and so far has not studied the impact of the law on the lives and health of women. The Nicaraguan government also has not attempted to address the prevailing misperceptions in the general public regarding the legality of post-abortion care (regardless of whether the abortion was induced or a miscarriage), and does not appear to properly investigate and sanction all medical personnel who cause unnecessary delay of or deny women access to legally available care.

But even without such official information and study, it is clear that the lack of or delay in access to emergency obstetric care could potentially affect hundreds of women and girls every year in Nicaragua. The Pan-American Health Organization estimates that one woman per day suffers from an ectopic pregnancy in Nicaragua, and every two days a woman suffers a miscarriage from a molar pregnancy, and another woman a miscarriage from cancer-related pregnancy complications. All of these cases often generate the need for emergency obstetric care, in most cases to treat incomplete miscarriages, resulting infections, and/or septic shock, and, in the case of ectopic pregnancies, to surgically remove the fertilized ovum. Moreover, Nicaraguan health protocols mandate comprehensive and immediate treatment for all such emergencies.


It appears from this story (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/02/america/LA-GEN-Nicaragua-Abortions.php) that the 82 deaths are the number of women that "have died from treatable pregnancy complications between Jan. 1 and Sept. 15" of 2007, according to Dr. Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine. "He said six of those cases required a therapeutic abortion — including one involving an ectopic pregnancy, in which a fetus forms outside the uterus."

(Note that is now 3 different sources quoting the 82 deaths.)

And thus, this site seems far superior to the other sites information already, legitimate sources don't have to 'make stuff up'.

There you go again. The Guardian article may be somewhat unclear, but it is echoed by the BBC and the AP and the figures are supported by a credible source: the president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine. They all may be reporting Dr. Arguello's figure, but that is a far cry from making stuff up.

Regardless, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the credibility of the OP articles and studies. The OP study is a legitimate source that doesn't make anything up. Your continued attempt to nit-pick the Guardian story only makes clearer your lack of a substantive response to the OP study.

Riiiight.

I said: Interesting isn’t it that the Guardian is ALSO the same Guardian that published a story about this law before it was enacted in an attempt to stop it from passing and saying that the therapeutic cause for abortion was hardly used anyway and so it should remain legal...

I said before the law was enacted, it's in your own quote of my post. You seem to be having trouble staying focused here.

But right back at ya, If you are going to accuse me of not checking facts, you had better pay better attention to what is being discussed. :headbang:

(change in bolding of the above post from the original)

Fair point. You are half-right, and I'll admit it. But, as I have highlighted, you claimed the Guardian story was published to stop the law from passing. That characterization simply wasn't true. As we both agree, the law had already been passed, it just hadn't been signed and taken effect yet.

Granted, this reduces me to the type of nit-picking that I am abrading you for. But the point remains.

Moreover, my claim that you are mischaracterizing the article as a whole stands. It wasn't written to make an argument for a policy, but rather reports the change in law. It doesn't make any argument that therapuetic abortions are rare and therefore should be allowed. It merely says how many therapuetic abortions have been allowed under the old law, and then says that it is well known that there are also tens of thousands of illegal abortions and abortions performed for Nicaraguans in other countries.

Now perhaps you'd be willing to return to the substantive part of the discussion.

*link to the full story* (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/10-12-2007/2a430022bea5c4b4.html)

Select quotes from the Guttmacher Institute itself:

Ah.. wait, you mean the same Guttmacher Institute that's named after Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society?! Yeah....ah no thank you.


Conclusions:
1. The risks of "unsafe" abortion, as well as risks to maternal health. Should be extensively mitigated through greater access to improved medical services and antibiotics.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives.

Ah.. wait, you mean the same Guttmacher Institute that's named after Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society?! Yeah....ah no thank you.

And he goes for the ad hominem, folks. It is getting ugly out there.

No doubt the World Health Organization, which co-produced the study, is also named after a "bad man" so we can discredit it. And what kind of name is The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext)* to have published the peer-reviewed study? Sounds fishy to me. :rolleyes:

*unfortunately a subscription (free) is required to read the actual study results.

Let's put the focus back where it belongs with a quote from The Guttmacher Institute article (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) (emphasis added):

The study also found that an estimated 20 million unsafe abortions occurred in 2003, 97% of these in developing regions. The prevalence of unsafe abortion remains high, with up to 39 unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in Eastern Africa and 33 per 1,000 in South America. By contrast, developed regions, where almost all countries allow abortions with few restrictions, had an average unsafe abortion rate of two per 1,000. The consequences of unsafe abortion—death, serious injury, infertility and increased health care cost are largely borne by poor women. The report concludes that reducing the incidence of unsafe abortion would result in an immediate and substantial reduction of maternal mortality and improve maternal health.

"Nearly half of all induced abortions are unsafe, putting the lives and health of women at major risk. Each year, about 70,000 women die due to unsafe abortion and an additional five million suffer permanent or temporary disability," notes Dr. Paul F.A. Van Look, director of WHO’s Department of Reproductive Health and Research. “The widespread unmet need for contraception must be addressed if we are to see further decline in abortion rates, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where contraceptive use is low and unsafe abortion-related mortality is the high, compared with other regions"


Conclusions:
1. The risks of "unsafe" abortion, as well as risks to maternal health. Should be extensively mitigated through greater access to improved medical services and antibiotics.

Of course. But you miss the point that making abortion illegal increases the threat to maternal health. Greater access to improved medical services includes abortion services.


2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives.

Oh, no. You agree with me and the Guttmacher Institute about something. You must also believe in eugenics. :eek:

Abortion is wrong.See the period?See it?
Abortion is murder and therefor illegal,but people complain about"Womens rights".I agree women have the same rights as men,but abortion is not a matter of rights,but a matter of whether or not the woman chooses to have sex.Now some will scream "BLOODY MURDER!"about this post but i stand by my decision.besides if your parents didnt want YOU would you support their decision to have an abortion?(other than the fact that if they did you would not be living anymore)
Life cycle-:fluffle::eek::)
Life cycle(with abortion):fluffle::eek::headbang::):sniper:

Conclusions:
1. Abortion should be legal. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe.
2. Abortion should be made rare by the use of contraceptives

I agree with the second point. However, the first point has never been proven. Prove that abortions are safer now. How do you know? Who checks up on abortion clinics? Who makes sure that the women are getting proper care before, during and after the abortion?

I agree with the second point. However, the first point has never been proven. Prove that abortions are safer now. How do you know? Who checks up on abortion clinics? Who makes sure that the women are getting proper care before, during and after the abortion?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."*

The primary point of this thread was that a new study has proven my first point in spades.

Did you read the articles in the OP about that peer-reviewed study?

Did you even follow the links to the study results published in The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext)?

Because if you had done those things you would know all about the link between restrictions on abortion and unsafe conditions for women. The study shows that abortions don't stop merely because they are made illegal. They do, however, become much less safe.


*Cool Hand Luke (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/), (1967)

Abortion is wrong.See the period?See it?

I see little or nothing wrong with abortion especially early-term abortions and medically necessary abortions.

What little might be wrong with abortion should be cured by making abortion rare through contraceptives.

Abortion is murder and therefor illegal,

Tut, tut. You've got it ass-backwards.

In the United States and much of the Western World, abortion is legal and therefore it is not murder.

Moreover, to the extent you want to stop abortion, you should promote birth control to make the need for abortion rarer.

Making abortion illegal does next to nothing to reduce abortion rates, but does cause abortions to be unsafe.

but people complain about"Womens rights".I agree women have the same rights as men,but abortion is not a matter of rights,but a matter of whether or not the woman chooses to have sex.

Nope, sorry. Choosing to have sex is not consent to carry a pregnancy to birth. There simply is no such obligation taken on.

Moreover, women have rights to control their own bodies. Those rights trump anyone else's claim to a woman's body.

Now some will scream "BLOODY MURDER!"about this post but i stand by my decision.besides if your parents didnt want YOU would you support their decision to have an abortion?(other than the fact that if they did you would not be living anymore)

You answered your silly question yourself. If I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here to complain about it. I could well take the position that I'd sure be suffering a lot less in life if my parents had aborted me.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."*

The primary point of this thread was that a new study has proven my first point in spades.

Did you read the articles in the OP about that peer-reviewed study?

Did you even follow the links to the study results published in The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext)?

Because if you had done those things you would know all about the link between restrictions on abortion and unsafe conditions for women. The study shows that abortions don't stop merely because they are made illegal. They do, however, become much less safe.


*Cool Hand Luke (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/), (1967)
First, could you pm me the Lancet article? The link isn't working for me.

The other story doesn't completely support your first point though. It doesn't define safer. It doesn't give many statistics on the subject. It doesn't tell you how they got the statistics they got.

Your first point is really general. I would never get an abortion in the US because it's an unethical practice here (not that I'd ever get one but that's beside the point). Again, who is checking in the US that abortion clinics are actually safe as defined by the AMA? Who makes sure these doctors actually know what they're doing? Who provides counseling services for the women after the abortion? Who talks them through their decision? How many women would actually sue an abortion clinic if something goes wrong? I hear Belgium's better though.

For those of you who seek the truth about abortion:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Especially the second paragraph.

First, could you pm me the Lancet article? The link isn't working for me.

Unfortunately, as I said in an earlier post, you must have a (free) subscription to access the actual study.

Click on this link (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue?issue_key=S0140-6736(07)X6043-4) and then click on "Access to safe abortions a key intervention to improving maternal health" (Full Text). You will be asked to subscribe and, if you do, you can access the study.

The other story doesn't completely support your first point though. It doesn't define safer. It doesn't give many statistics on the subject. It doesn't tell you how they got the statistics they got.

Yes, the stories do completely support my first point. They don't have all the details of the study, however. For that you would have to read the study.

Similarly, safe and unsafe abortions are defined in the study. You seem to want to debate what constitutes a "safe" abortion. Abortions performed by proper personnel in a proper setting are eminently safe. (see below)

Your first point is really general.

But specifically crafted from the facts revealed in the Lancet study.

I would never get an abortion in the US because it's an unethical practice here (not that I'd ever get one but that's beside the point). Again, who is checking in the US that abortion clinics are actually safe as defined by the AMA? Who makes sure these doctors actually know what they're doing? Who provides counseling services for the women after the abortion? Who talks them through their decision? How many women would actually sue an abortion clinic if something goes wrong? I hear Belgium's better though.

Now you are just being silly.

There is nothing unethical about performing an abortion in the United States.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the U.S. The risk of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); The Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html)).

Abortion is safer than childbirth in the U.S. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); The Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html).)

Abortion providers in the United States are subject to the same types of regulation and oversight to which any surgical provider is subject.

Most abortion providers also provide counseling and family planning services or refer patients to someplace that provides those services.

It took a while for this thread to get rolling (i.e. for some anti-choicers to show up), but I'm enjoying the way it's showing how the anti-choice side of the issue has nothing but talking points with which to counter facts. They are so unable to counter facts, actually, that they tend to ignore the facts altogether -- hoping I guess that we will forget our facts and pay attention to their fairy tales instead.

It took a while for this thread to get rolling (i.e. for some anti-choicers to show up), but I'm enjoying the way it's showing how the anti-choice side of the issue has nothing but talking points with which to counter facts. They are so unable to counter facts, actually, that they tend to ignore the facts altogether -- hoping I guess that we will forget our facts and pay attention to their fairy tales instead.

Yes, I love how many responses seem to be "But, but ... that can't be true."

Between that and the sputtering it is all rather amusing.

Agreed in full


No government should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body in regards to abortion.

Unless of course, having an abortion would result in extreme physical harm to the woman (in the case of late second and most [if not all] third trimester abortions), in which case I feel that abortion should either be illegal in third trimester, or the government should legalize it and take an advisory role.

Unless of course, having an abortion would result in extreme physical harm to the woman (in the case of late second and most [if not all] third trimester abortions), in which case I feel that abortion should either be illegal in third trimester, or the government should legalize it and take an advisory role.

1. I assume you know that late-term abortions are quite rare and almost always done for medical reasons.

2. On what basis do you assert that late-term abortions "result in extreme physical harm to the woman"?

I see little or nothing wrong with abortion especially early-term abortions and medically necessary abortions.
Eh, a lot of people just don't believe that, me included.

What little might be wrong with abortion should be cured by making abortion rare through contraceptives.
There I agree.

In the United States and much of the Western World, abortion is legal and therefore it is not murder.
True, but I don't think people would find that a reason to change their views on its morality.

Nope, sorry. Choosing to have sex is not consent to carry a pregnancy to birth. There simply is no such obligation taken on.
I completely disagree. If one does not use birth control, than he or she has to recognize the risk that a pregnancy may occur. Biologically, that is the point.
Moreover, women have rights to control their own bodies. Those rights trump anyone else's claim to a woman's body.
Again, I disagree. While I believe women have a right to their bodies, I don't see the thing that grows in them during pregnancy as part of their body, anymore than the bacteria living in my intestine are part of mine.

I see no reason to make abortion illegal, but for utilitarian reasons. It won't go away if it's illegal, and it will just be dirtier and less safe. Things such as "womens' rights" seem to be an ideological excuse for something that needs no excuse. It's the lesser of two evils, and I'm fine with preferring it over the worse one. It's unnecessary to convince people that it's good.

Eh, a lot of people just don't believe that, me included.

Spiffy for you. Just don't try to impose that belief on a woman.


There I agree.

Good.

True, but I don't think people would find that a reason to change their views on its morality.

I didn't say it did. I was responding to Conserative Morality's erroneous statement. As you admit, my response was true.

I completely disagree. If one does not use birth control, than he or she has to recognize the risk that a pregnancy may occur. Biologically, that is the point.

1. Who says we are talking about not using birth control? To the contrary, I've been arguing for more use of birth control.

2. Regardless, taking the risk that a pregnancy may occur is not the same as consenting to becoming pregnant and carrying a baby to birth.

Again, I disagree. While I believe women have a right to their bodies, I don't see the thing that grows in them during pregnancy as part of their body, anymore than the bacteria living in my intestine are part of mine.

Let's say you are right. So what? The embryo/fetus has no right to use the woman's body. The woman's right to control her own body trumps anyone else's claim to that body. If the embryo/fetus can survive outside that body then more power to it.

I see no reason to make abortion illegal, but for utilitarian reasons. It won't go away if it's illegal, and it will just be dirtier and less safe. Things such as "womens' rights" seem to be an ideological excuse for something that needs no excuse. It's the lesser of two evils, and I'm fine with preferring it over the worse one. It's unnecessary to convince people that it's good.

Which was the primary point of the OP. Glad you agree.

1. I assume you know that late-term abortions are quite rare and almost always done for medical reasons.

2. On what basis do you assert that late-term abortions "result in extreme physical harm to the woman"?

On 1. Yes.

On 2. Now I remember, read it in the Bergen Record last year, it wasn't late-term abortions in general. Just late-term abortions in unsafe conditions could lead to massive hemmoraging and sometimes death.

Spiffy for you. Just don't try to impose that belief on a woman.
The belief almost requires that I do. Because I believe it is immoral, I see it as immoral to support it. Like I said earlier, that doesn't mean I support making it illegal, but I'm not going to remain silent in my beliefs at the risk of offending others. (That should be true with anyone's beliefs.)




1. Who says we are talking about not using birth control? To the contrary, I've been arguing for more use of birth control.
I'm not disagreeing, but if someone does not use birth control, they are taking the same risk someone who does not use a seatbelt takes. Well, not the same risk, but you get the idea.


Let's say you are right. So what? The embryo/fetus has no right to use the woman's body. The woman's right to control her own body trumps anyone else's claim to that body. If the embryo/fetus can survive outside that body then more power to it.
The system humans have for reproducing has been around for millions of years, its a biological thing. If the embryo could actually live outside the woman's body, there might be something to what you say. However, it can't; as far as I know abortion always ends in the death of whatever is in the uterus. I believe a woman has a right to her body, but I believe the fetus's right to life (I shudder as I type that phrase) trumps that.

Which was the primary point of the OP. Glad you agree.
I'm glad I agree, too. It's so nice when we all agree.

The belief almost requires that I do. Because I believe it is immoral, I see it as immoral to support it. Like I said earlier, that doesn't mean I support making it illegal, but I'm not going to remain silent in my beliefs at the risk of offending others. (That should be true with anyone's beliefs.)

I didn't say you weren't allowed to espouse your belief, merely that you shouldn't impose your belief.


I'm not disagreeing, but if someone does not use birth control, they are taking the same risk someone who does not use a seatbelt takes. Well, not the same risk, but you get the idea.

Are you saying that someone who does not use a seatbelt should be denied medical treatment if they are injured in a car accident? After all, they accepted the risk.


The system humans have for reproducing has been around for millions of years, its a biological thing. If the embryo could actually live outside the woman's body, there might be something to what you say. However, it can't; as far as I know abortion always ends in the death of whatever is in the uterus.

So. That isn't a relevant question. The question is who has the pre-eminent right to the woman's body.

I believe a woman has a right to her body, but I believe the fetus's right to life (I shudder as I type that phrase) trumps that.

There. That is the heart of the question. I disagree. I don't think a fetus has a strong right to life and, even if it did, it would not trump a woman's individual sovereignty.

I'm glad I agree, too. It's so nice when we all agree.

:fluffle:

I didn't say you weren't allowed to espouse your belief, merely that you shouldn't impose your belief.
Not being on the Supreme Court, there's no way I can really impose it, then.



Are you saying that someone who does not use a seatbelt should be denied medical treatment if they are injured in a car accident? After all, they accepted the risk.
They should not be denied medical treatment anymore than...well, anymore than a pregnant woman should be denied medical treatment. However, just as someone who does not wear a seatbelt has to accept the fact there is a higher likelihood that they will get hurt, a woman (and man, for that matter) have to accept the fact there is a higher likelihood she will get pregnant. And, just as medical treatment can help a car victim without undoing the effects of the crash, pre-natal care, doctors at a delivery, and some place that will take the kid can help a pregnant woman without undoing the pregnancy.

There. That is the heart of the question. I disagree. I don't think a fetus has a strong right to life and, even if it did, it would not trump a woman's individual sovereignty.
Okay, I don't see any way I can change your mind, nor do I want to try. I'm content knowing the fundamental belief that separates our opinions, and letting it rest.
:fluffle:
Although I do not support it, I am going to be hypocritical and ask that any offspring created by this... this "poor decision" be destroyed as soon as possible.

abortion


should be mandatory.
except during the years of 28-32, during which time all fertile women
must be pregnant at all times. except for one month after giving birth of course.


:upyours::fluffle:

Unless of course, having an abortion would result in extreme physical harm to the woman (in the case of late second and most [if not all] third trimester abortions), in which case I feel that abortion should either be illegal in third trimester, or the government should legalize it and take an advisory role.

Why should the government have anything to say about it at all? The government is not a panel of physicians, is it? No. So the goverment can sit down and shut up, while the doctors talk with their patients, in private.

Eh, a lot of people just don't believe that, me included.
Your beliefs are irrelevant anywhere that they fail to fit with the facts. That is true no matter how many people share those beliefs. A lot of people believing a lie won't make it be true.

<snip>

True, but I don't think people would find that a reason to change their views on its morality.
Also irrelevant, to anyone who does not share their specific moral views on the matter. The "morals" argument always fails because everyone thinks their views are moral. So any argument that suggests "my view is moral and yours isn't" is always going to be rejected. No one has ever changed their morals viewpoint because of someone else's morals argument, on any topic.


I completely disagree. If one does not use birth control, than he or she has to recognize the risk that a pregnancy may occur. Biologically, that is the point.
Does this qualify as a strawman, or some other kind of debate fallacy? Because no one is talking about people not using birth control, and all existing data on abortion and contraceptive use ever compiled show clearly that abortion/birth control is NOT an either/or proposition.

So the scenario suggested by your remark -- of women choosing to have sex without birth control and that's why they get abortions -- is nonsense.

Again, I disagree. While I believe women have a right to their bodies, I don't see the thing that grows in them during pregnancy as part of their body, anymore than the bacteria living in my intestine are part of mine.
If "the thing that grows in them during pregnancy" is not part of their body, that is only another bolster supporting their right to remove it at will. No one is required, whether they like it or not, to let someone or something else use their body.

If "the thing that grows in them during pregnancy" is a part of their body, then they also have the right to remove it, if they like, because as long as they are alive, they are the sole owners of their own bodies and may alter it in both temporary and permanent ways, if they want to.

So the entire "woman's body" set of arguments always falls on the pro-choice side of the issue.

I see no reason to make abortion illegal, but for utilitarian reasons. It won't go away if it's illegal, and it will just be dirtier and less safe. Things such as "womens' rights" seem to be an ideological excuse for something that needs no excuse. It's the lesser of two evils, and I'm fine with preferring it over the worse one. It's unnecessary to convince people that it's good.
Although it should be unnecessary, it is apparently necessary at this time, considering the number of ongoing attempts to make abortion illegal.

<snip>

The system humans have for reproducing has been around for millions of years, its a biological thing. If the embryo could actually live outside the woman's body, there might be something to what you say. However, it can't; as far as I know abortion always ends in the death of whatever is in the uterus. I believe a woman has a right to her body, but I believe the fetus's right to life (I shudder as I type that phrase) trumps that.


<snip>

Any argument that says the fetus has a "right to life" that trumps the woman's right to control her body (i.e. the woman's "right to life") is an argument in favor of the enslavement of women.

How? Simple. By saying that the fetus has a right separate from the woman's, and that the fetus's right trumps the woman's rights, and that the fetus's right grants the fetus the attached right to use the woman's body for its own purposes (i.e. gestation), you are in effect saying the following:

1) The fetus is a person who has the right to use another person's body even if it is against their will, and

2) The other person (the woman) has no right to refuse being used by the fetus, but must submit to the fetus's will.

That is slavery, plain and simple.

I do not care if women can avoid enslavement by avoiding pregnancy. As a woman, I decline to live under any system which would allow me to be enslaved by anyone for any reason.

Unfortunately, as I said in an earlier post, you must have a (free) subscription to access the actual study.

Click on this link (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue?issue_key=S0140-6736(07)X6043-4) and then click on "Access to safe abortions a key intervention to improving maternal health" (Full Text). You will be asked to subscribe and, if you do, you can access the study.


Sorry I must have missed that post. There was a lot to read through.


Yes, the stories do completely support my first point. They don't have all the details of the study, however. For that you would have to read the study.

I believe I said that the article I could get to didn't but that doesn't really say much sense it really didn't include much details from the study.


Similarly, safe and unsafe abortions are defined in the study. You seem to want to debate what constitutes a "safe" abortion. Abortions performed by proper personnel in a proper setting are eminently safe. (see below)



But specifically crafted from the facts revealed in the Lancet study.



Now you are just being silly.

There is nothing unethical about performing an abortion in the United States.

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the U.S. The risk of death associated with abortion is approximately 0.6 per 100,000 abortions, and the risk of major complications is less than 1%. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); The Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html)).

Abortion is safer than childbirth in the U.S. The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 11 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. Each year, about 10 women, on average, die from induced abortion, compared with about 260 who die from pregnancy and childbirth. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm); The Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/safety.html).)

Abortion providers in the United States are subject to the same types of regulation and oversight to which any surgical provider is subject.

Most abortion providers also provide counseling and family planning services or refer patients to someplace that provides those services.

See the thing is risk of death is only a small part of safety concerns. What about the women who don't die but get their uterus torn up? Hypothetical I know but would they even be considered in the study? Also, I've just taken a Heath Care Ethics class and am now taking a bioinformation statistics course. So yes, I'm being taught to question surveys such as this. I was especially taught to questions articles loosely based on surveys. Finally, you don't have to respond yet because my comments are not my final opinions. I haven't had time to read the study yet but plan to do so this weekend.

How? Simple. By saying that the fetus has a right separate from the woman's, and that the fetus's right trumps the woman's rights, and that the fetus's right grants the fetus the attached right to use the woman's body for its own purposes (i.e. gestation), you are in effect saying the following:

1) The fetus is a person who has the right to use another person's body even if it is against their will, and

2) The other person (the woman) has no right to refuse being used by the fetus, but must submit to the fetus's will.
If the woman can find a way for the fetus to survive without her body, she is more than welcome to make it leave.
I know I've said this before, and it isn't sarcastic. I am genuinely interested in finding whether there is a way for a fetus, once it begins developing, to be removed and allowed to continue developing. I think that would be great, women wouldn't have to live for nine months in a more or less disabled state and the fetus wouldn't have to be destroyed. But until then, I don't think the mother's right to her body trumps the fetus's right to its life. I realize plenty of people do not consider the fetus to be a person, and I understand why. However, I also know there is enough debate to when it becomes a person that I would rather err on the side of caution.

But until then, I don't think the mother's right to her body trumps the fetus's right to its life.
Why does the fetus have more rights than an adult does? If I need, say, a kidney transplant to live, I can't force you to donate a kidney. In that case, your right to bodily integrity supercedes my right to life. Why should it be any different for a fetus?

Why does the fetus have more rights than an adult does? If I need, say, a kidney transplant to live, I can't force you to donate a kidney. In that case, your right to bodily integrity supercedes my right to life. Why should it be any different for a fetus?
Well, I disagree with you there, too. If you truly needed the kidney to survive, and there was really no other way for you get one, I think I would be obligated to give you my kidney. Now, if giving you my kidney caused me to die, then there would be no point. Likewise, if childbirth is likely to kill the mother, then abortion is reasonable.

I would like to emphasize again, before I go any farther, that I don't wish abortion to be made illegal. I think legalized abortion is the better of the two options, and saying that abortion itself is a matter of rights seems to be playing the same values card that pro-lifers use.
I agree with the OP's original statement, in other words.

Does this qualify as a strawman, or some other kind of debate fallacy? Because no one is talking about people not using birth control, and all existing data on abortion and contraceptive use ever compiled show clearly that abortion/birth control is NOT an either/or proposition.
I don't think it is, and I wasn't suggesting abortion/birth control is an either/or proposition. I'm not sure where you got that.

So the scenario suggested by your remark -- of women choosing to have sex without birth control and that's why they get abortions -- is nonsense.
Huh? I did not in anyway intend to suggest women don't use birth control because they can get abortions, sorry if that's how it seemed. What I really meant was, "no one can get pregnant unless they willingly put themselves in a position where it is likely." I didn't say this because it's not completely true, a woman who is raped does not willingly take the risk of becoming pregnant, and a woman who uses birth control is trying to lessen that risk (like wearing a bike helmet). Birth control wasn't meant to be an integral part of my argument, it was more of a way of covering my tracks. If I had said, "women know the risk they are taking" someone would (correctly) have pointed out there are exceptions.

Why does the fetus have more rights than an adult does? If I need, say, a kidney transplant to live, I can't force you to donate a kidney. In that case, your right to bodily integrity supercedes my right to life. Why should it be any different for a fetus?

After reading this post I couldn't help but think of:


Labcoat #1: Hello. Uh… can we have your liver?
Mr Brown: What?
Labcoat #1: Your liver. It's a large, uh… glandular organ in your abdomen.
[Mr Brown just stares at the labcoated men.]
Labcoat #1: You know, it's, uh… it's reddish-brown; it's sort of, uh…
Mr Brown: Yeah, y-yeah, I know what it is, but… I'm using it! I…
[The labcoated men push into the house. The second man holds Mr Brown against the wall.]
Labcoat #2: Go on, sir! Don't muck us up, now!
[The first labcoated man searches him and pulls out a card.]
Labcoat #1: Hel-lo! What's this, then?
Mr Brown: A liver donor's card.
Labcoat #1: Need we say more?
Labcoat #2: No!
Mr Brown: Listen! I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'. Uh. Oh! Ah. Ah. Eh.
Labcoat #1: No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived.
Mr Brown: Agh.
Labcoat #2: Just lie there, sir. It won't take a minute.
[The Labcoats remove and break Mr Brown's liver.]
Mr. Brown: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Labcoat #1: Zip it up.

Jesus Titty Twisting Christ, why are we still having this "debate" about abortion?

If the woman can find a way for the fetus to survive without her body, she is more than welcome to make it leave.
I have the absolute right to protect the integrity of my own body, even to the point of using deadly force to stop someone else from taking over my body against my will. If you try to take one of my kidneys for your own use, I can defend myself against you, even to the point of killing you. If I do not want a fetus to gestate inside me, I have the right to stop it from doing that, even if doing so kills the fetus. Period. There is no requirement that I have to make some other accommodation for that unwanted intruder, just like I don't have to get you a kidney from somewhere else before being allowed to stop you from taking mine.

I know I've said this before, and it isn't sarcastic. I am genuinely interested in finding whether there is a way for a fetus, once it begins developing, to be removed and allowed to continue developing. I think that would be great, women wouldn't have to live for nine months in a more or less disabled state and the fetus wouldn't have to be destroyed. But until then, I don't think the mother's right to her body trumps the fetus's right to its life. I realize plenty of people do not consider the fetus to be a person, and I understand why. However, I also know there is enough debate to when it becomes a person that I would rather err on the side of caution.
Go ahead and invent a contraption to gestate fetuses outside a woman's body. You'll be doing everyone a huge favor. But until you get that patent, then no such thing is possible, and I am not interested in any argument that would tend to base today's real laws on fantasies about what might happen in the future.

Well, I disagree with you there, too. If you truly needed the kidney to survive, and there was really no other way for you get one, I think I would be obligated to give you my kidney. Now, if giving you my kidney caused me to die, then there would be no point. Likewise, if childbirth is likely to kill the mother, then abortion is reasonable.

I would like to emphasize again, before I go any farther, that I don't wish abortion to be made illegal. I think legalized abortion is the better of the two options, and saying that abortion itself is a matter of rights seems to be playing the same values card that pro-lifers use.
I agree with the OP's original statement, in other words.

You may feel a personal obligation to help someone else, but you are not obligated by the law to give up your kidney to someone else, and that is the whole point of the debate -- whether the law can obligate me to allow someone else (a fetus) to use my body for their purposes. If you take on an obligation voluntarily, you are not under any undue burden because you are not being forced to do anything you don't want to do. But if you are obligated by law, then you are not taking it on voluntarily; you are being forced to do it whether you like it or not. Forcing someone to serve someone else is the essence of slavery.

I don't think it is, and I wasn't suggesting abortion/birth control is an either/or proposition. I'm not sure where you got that.


Huh? I did not in anyway intend to suggest women don't use birth control because they can get abortions, sorry if that's how it seemed. What I really meant was, "no one can get pregnant unless they willingly put themselves in a position where it is likely." I didn't say this because it's not completely true, a woman who is raped does not willingly take the risk of becoming pregnant, and a woman who uses birth control is trying to lessen that risk (like wearing a bike helmet). Birth control wasn't meant to be an integral part of my argument, it was more of a way of covering my tracks. If I had said, "women know the risk they are taking" someone would (correctly) have pointed out there are exceptions.
Well, you failed, then, due to poor choice of words.

Jesus Titty Twisting Christ, why are we still having this "debate" about abortion?
Because some people are so invested in restricting the rights of women, that they just can't let a simple statement of fact pass unattacked (even by lame attacks). That's why.

You may feel a personal obligation to help someone else, but you are not obligated by the law to give up your kidney to someone else, and that is the whole point of the debate -- whether the law can obligate me to allow someone else (a fetus) to use my body for their purposes. If you take on an obligation voluntarily, you are not under any undue burden because you are not being forced to do anything you don't want to do. But if you are obligated by law, then you are not taking it on voluntarily; you are being forced to do it whether you like it or not. Forcing someone to serve someone else is the essence of slavery.

Just a question: What if you were responsible for that person needing a new kidney? Should you be required to give one to them?

Just a question: What if you were responsible for that person needing a new kidney? Should you be required to give one to them?

no

even bad guys have civil rights.

do you think they should?

I'm not sure.

My wife and I discuss this and similar analogies at length because we find it both incredibly asinine as well as amusing all at the same time.

Reasons the pregnancy from sex = injury from some activity fails:

1)Being hit by a car (as in this instance) is not a natural result of crossing the street. From any standpoint, the only successful outcome from an attempt to cross the street is to reach the other side. On the other hand, pregnancy is a perfectly natural, and in many cases desirable, result of sex. (Maybe you weren't trying to get pregnant, but your body was. It got pregnant on purpose.) Nobody in their right mind ever crosses the street with the intention of being hit by a car.

2)Pregnancy is not an injury. The female body goes to great lengths to maximize the chances of pregnancy and, once successfully impregnated, goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the baby. (It might have been an accident for YOU, but it wasn't an accident for your body.) On the other hand, when someone suffers an injury from a speeding car (assuming the body survives the event) it will go to extraordinary lengths to repair the damage e.g. undo what has been done to it.

3)In order to try and make this analogy work, one must take a perfectly natural and necessary body function and call it an injury. To defend it, people often cite the changes the female body undergoes during pregnancy. That, of course, assumes one defines ANY physiological change as an injury as opposed to a natural function. I suppose by that definition puberty is a form of injury since it triggers significant (and not always desirable) changes in the body.

You realise that all this 'your body' crap could just as easily be used to justify rape? To take just one example (changes in bold):

2)Having sex is not an injury. The human body goes to great lengths to maximize the chances of attracting a mate and, once successfully attracted, goes to extraordinary lengths to encourage and facilitate intercourse. (It might have been an accident for YOU, but it wasn't an accident for your body.) On the other hand, when someone suffers an injury from a speeding car (assuming the body survives the event) it will go to extraordinary lengths to repair the damage e.g. undo what has been done to it.

And the anti-choicers wonder why they're seen as misogynistic...

I hate having to be this pedantic, but I've seen that analogy so many times it's gotten rather boring.

Maybe you should think about it more carefully next time you see it...

Just a question: What if you were responsible for that person needing a new kidney? Should you be required to give one to them?
No.

I agree with Bill Clinton on abortion, that it should be safe, legal, and rare.