| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"M is for Malapert" |
| Date: |
10 Jul 2003 02:15:48 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" |
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0307100858.711611cd@posting.google.com...
Abortion: A Woman's Right or Right for Women?
By Georgette Forney
Until people become aware
of the after-effects of abortion on women, they won't realize
that abortion advocates are more concerned with protecting
the right to abortion than doing what's right for women. In
other words, women's rights should focus on helping women
and not on keeping abortion legal.
Abortion has to stay legal because a substantial percentage of women *will*
have abortions whether it's a crime or not. They *will not* give birth to
children they cannot adequately take care of. American women have had
millions of abortions in the decades both before and after it was
decriminalized, but the death and complications rates plummeted with
legality. This is such a no-brainer and is backed up by so much fact and
experience, it's impossible to believe in the sincerity of anyone who
professes to want to help women while not caring if abortion is legal or
not.
Based on my own abortion experience
Prerequisite for a position in the "pro-life" movement: having had an
abortion or several.
and years of working
with other women who have had abortions, I know that abor-
tion hurts more than it helps.
Fine. It hurts more when women have to obtain it illegally.
We sense we're not allowed to
discuss our painful abortion experiences because it was sup-
posedly our choice. But I believe when "pro-choice' people
begin to hear our stories of how abortion affected us emo-
tionally, physically and spiritually, abortion won't be seen as
an acceptable choice, instead it will become unthinkable.
It's interesting to note that many birth mothers believe exactly the same
things about adoption. And indeed, in most countries, giving your baby away
to strangers is unthinkable. Fortunately, even English-speaking countries
(where for some reason adoption has been most successfully touted) are
cracking down on the practice.
The truth is an unplanned pregnancy creates a crisis for
the woman. We want a quick, simple solution so we
choose abortion, although sometimes we want the baby
but other people coerce us into aborting.
"So we choose adoption, although sometimes we want the baby..." Same
difference, except that far more mothers regret choosing adoption, and far
more bitterly.
Unfortunately, after the procedure, there is a lifetime of
regret, a sense of guilt, despair and loss.
Fortunately, not for most women. But that's not the point. The point is
that women *are* going to terminate a certain number of their pregnancies by
having abortions. Providing good health care, access to jobs, adequate
support for mothers and so forth and so on all help reduce the number of
abortions, yet no matter what anyone does women will continue to have them.
Having an illegal abortion does not lead to any less regret, guilt, despair
or loss and is far more likely to lead to complications and death than
having a legal one. So abortion needs to remain a legal choice - as does
adoption. Sure, let's try to construct society in every way possible so
that women never need to choose either one, but realize that such efforts
will never be 100 percent successful. Some women will have abortions and
some others will not be able to parent their own children. Both abortion
and adoption must therefore continue to be legally available and regulated
for safety and ethical practice.
.
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?"2 |
13 Jul 2003 09:05:34 PM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
Papa Jack quoted:
Based on my own abortion experience...
Prerequisite for a position in the "pro-life" movement: having had an
abortion or several.
Nope, but it does give certain folks more credibility.
If abortion really involved slaughtering innocent babies, having had an
abortion would give a woman about the same credibility level as Susan Smith
or Andrea Yates. The fact that pro-lifers get points for having had one
just proves that even they don't think of abortion as anything close to
babykilling.
We sense we're not allowed to
discuss our painful abortion experiences because it was sup-
posedly our choice. But I believe when "pro-choice' people
begin to hear our stories of how abortion affected us emo-
tionally, physically and spiritually, abortion won't be seen
as an acceptable choice, instead it will become unthinkable.
It's interesting to note that many birth mothers believe exactly the
same things about adoption. And indeed, in most countries, giving
your baby away to strangers is unthinkable. Fortunately, even
English-speaking countries (where for some reason adoption has
been most successfully touted) are cracking down on the practice.
The Reader will notice that MINXS has no good answer to
what's being said here, so she runs off on a tangent
against adoption.
Actually it is a good answer, because anti-choicers rely on adoption as a
primary remedy for unwanted pregnancy. When we contemplate the
psychological aftereffects of legal abortion, we have to do so in comparison
to the other alternatives for women with unintended crisis pregnancies. In
other words, we have to compare it to the aftereffects of (1) illegal
abortion, (2) adoption, and (3) raising a(nother) child.
Right at this moment, birthmothers posting on alt.adoption are routinely
bashed every time they open their mouths about regretting giving their
babies up for adoption. After all, it was supposedly a choice.
Our experiences have been the opposite.
"Our"? You've never experienced what it's like to be a birthmother.
My oldest son
is adopted -- and he communicates with his birth mother
who is very proud of him and the 3 grandchildren he has
given her.
Papa Jack, 1997: "However, there will always be good solid personal reasons
for some closed adoptions. For example, my son's birthmother came from a
wealthy family and had a husband and two other children. She wanted to keep
her little Hawaiian "indiscretion" secret. She specifically did not want to
worry about the possibility that he would show up on her doorstep 20 years
later. I can certainly understand and respect her feelings -- can't you?"
About three years ago, my adopted son adopted a girl
to go along with his two "birth" sons. She is a delight,
haming it up for the family. Yep, it was an "open"
adoption and the birth mother receives photos and progress
reports from time to time.
Papa Jack, 1999: "The birth mother was raped. She does not want the child,
but her conscience will not allow her to kill it.
"It will be an open adoption -- and the birth mother will see pictures and
hear news about the little girl as the years go by. My son knows how
important that is. It took him over 30 years to find his birth mother and
siblings because records were sealed by courts in Hawaii where we adopted
him."
Over the last 7 years, Papa Jack has posted enough personal information here
that anyone who knows the family could readily indentify its members, but he
has no shame about blabbing everyone's private matters to the world. Plus,
of course these posts are permanently archived to be read by family members
who know that the old man loves a brisk debate with his online friends.
Imagine how that granddaughter is going to feel when she decides to read
what her dear old Papa Jack used to write.
But, MINXS will try to convince the reader that both my
son and granddaughter would have been much better off if
they had been butchered in an abortion clinic before they
were born.
By this logic, your son would have been better off if his mother hadn't had
that "little Hawaiian indiscretion" and your granddaughter would be better
off if her mother hadn't been raped. So can Papa Jack convince the reader
that adultery and rape are good things, because they produced his son and
granddaughter? We're all waiting to see him try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?"2 |
16 Jul 2003 07:39:32 AM |
|
|
M is for Malapert (minxs@sonic.net) wrote:
: Actually it is a good answer, because anti-choicers rely on adoption as a
: primary remedy for unwanted pregnancy. When we contemplate the
: psychological aftereffects of legal abortion, we have to do so in comparison
: to the other alternatives for women with unintended crisis pregnancies. In
: other words, we have to compare it to the aftereffects of (1) illegal
: abortion, (2) adoption, and (3) raising a(nother) child.
It is true that we can be pretty confident that (1) is worse for the
woman.
As for (2) and (3), they, too, can at least be perceived as worse;
otherwise, women wouldn't have abortions.
It is useful and legitimate to note that a legal abortion might have
psychological consequences down the road that women choosing one might not
recognize at the time of their choice.
But the argument against abortion still doesn't rest on that. Instead, it
rests on the premise that an embryo, at least in the context of the
abortions being debated, is a complete living human organism. Unlike the
sperm and egg cell in conception, the process of being nurtured in the
womb doesn't cause the embryo to lose its integrity at any time. Thus, in
terms of its major moral features, abortion is just infanticide by another
name: it's given another name, because it requires different techniques to
accomplish, not because it is less heinous.
Given that, of course, one has an overriding constraint, and, yes, having
to satisfy another constraint - legalizing abortion would be like
legalizing infanticide or Negro slavery, so we just can't do it - we might
well be less well able to optimize the possible alternatives for women
with problem pregnancies.
This doesn't mean that the pro-life movement is devoid of compassion for
women. You will find, for example, that it would be quite willing to make
common cause with even militant feminists in empowering women to resist
pressures to engage in unwanted sexual activity.
Often, not having gotten pregnant in the first place _is_ an alternative,
and if the alternatives once one is pregnant have gotten less attractive,
it is one women will consider more. It is entirely right and proper for
women to demand that men not indulge themselves sexually at the expense of
women - that they do not rape women, that they do not blackmail, pressure,
or exploit women into sex. But they have to demand the same thing of
themselves as well; they have to admit that they can't obtain sex at the
expense of the children it produces.
Of course, I haven't yet seen women who object to the fact that
infanticide is illegal. Still, we do tend to deal compassionately with
women who commit infanticide, as opposed to men who commit other forms of
homicide. All I'm claiming is that the line some people draw between
infanticide and abortion should perhaps be drawn between abortion and
contraception instead: the line between an act that kills a human being,
and thus can't be tolerated, and an act which obviously does no such
thing, and therefore does not need to be regulated by the State.
That this would have difficult practical consequences we would have to
deal with is simply a characteristic of *many* things in the real world.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?"2 |
16 Jul 2003 08:18:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:39:32 GMT, () wrote:
M is for Malapert (minxs@sonic.net) wrote:
: Actually it is a good answer, because anti-choicers rely on adoption as a
: primary remedy for unwanted pregnancy. When we contemplate the
: psychological aftereffects of legal abortion, we have to do so in comparison
: to the other alternatives for women with unintended crisis pregnancies. In
: other words, we have to compare it to the aftereffects of (1) illegal
: abortion, (2) adoption, and (3) raising a(nother) child.
It is true that we can be pretty confident that (1) is worse for the
woman.
As for (2) and (3), they, too, can at least be perceived as worse;
otherwise, women wouldn't have abortions.
It is useful and legitimate to note that a legal abortion might have
psychological consequences down the road that women choosing one might not
recognize at the time of their choice.
Same can be said of illegal abortion, adoption and raising a(nother)
child.
But the argument against abortion still doesn't rest on that. Instead, it
rests on the premise that an embryo, at least in the context of the
abortions being debated, is a complete living human organism.
This has been shown, over and over, as a false premise. An organism
on something that can carry on the activities of life by the use of
it's own organs. An embryo cannot do this and is thus not an organiam
no matter how much we wish to claim that it is. Maybe *you* are
comfortable with basing life affecting decisions upon lies -- I am
not.
This has been pointed out to you many time and yet you continue to
claim that which you know is false. Why? Why do you lie? What are
you trying to accomplish that the truth will not justify?
.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?"2 |
11 Jul 2003 08:20:41 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2003 04:04:19 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
.....
Ahhh, but far fewer women will get abortions when it's illegal
-- as clearly pointed out in the Horatio R. Storer Foundation
study, "Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal
Abortions."
....
Why do you push this crap from people who are *paid* to produce lies
for the Right to Life?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" 1 |
11 Jul 2003 05:05:44 AM |
|
|
Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" Part 1
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<EXiPa.29154$ye4.21615@sccrnsc01>...
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0307100858.711611cd@posting.google.com...
===================================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
Abortion: A Woman's Right or Right for Women?
By Georgette Forney
http://www.lifenews.com/oped5.html
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
Until people become aware
of the after-effects of abortion on women, they won't
realize
that abortion advocates are more concerned with protecting
the right to abortion than doing what's right for women. In
other words, women's rights should focus on helping women
and not on keeping abortion legal.
===================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Abortion has to stay legal because a substantial percentage of women *will*
have abortions whether it's a crime or not. They *will not* give birth to
children they cannot adequately take care of. American women have had
millions of abortions in the decades both before and after it was
decriminalized, but the death and complications rates plummeted with
legality. This is such a no-brainer and is backed up by so much fact and
experience, it's impossible to believe in the sincerity of anyone who
professes to want to help women while not caring if abortion is legal or
not.
===================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Let's review a report released by the Horatio R. Storer Foundation.
"Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal Abortions."
http://www.r2rministries.com/prolife/X0134_Life_Without_Roe.html
_______________________________________________________________
Laws preventing abortion will not only dramatically reduce the
total number of abortions, but also the number of women and
babies killed by either legal or illegal abortion, according to
a report released by the Horatio R. Storer Foundation.
"This report carefully and clearly debunks the myth that women
will die if abortion is no longer available," said Cynthia
McKnight,
author of the report and a specialist in state legislative issues
at the Storer Foundation. "Medical progress in treating complica-
tions, not legalization of abortion, accounts for the enormous drop
in maternal abortion deaths from the 1940s to the 1970s."
The report, Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal
Abortions, was released by the Storer Foundation, an educational
foundation dedicated to examining issues related to life and death
and affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee.
The report, both historical and forward-looking in its scope,
examines previous studies and statistics on the number of illegal
abortions before Roe v. Wade and the number of maternal deaths
(deaths of mothers) from legal and illegal abortion to provide a
scientific framework for predicting "life without Roe."
The report provides the basis for estimates that there were a
mean of less than 100,000 illegal abortions annually in the years
before Roe v. Wade, far fewer than the 1 million repeatedly
claimed by abortion advocates.
"Today, there are 1.6 million abortions each year - 16 times as
many as in the years before legalization," McKnight noted. "Even
assuming an increased risk from illegal abortions, that means
that the total number of women dying and being hurt by abortion
would be less in a post-Roe America with protective laws than
it is today."
* Before Roe v. Wade, there were approximately 100,000 illegal
abortions per year, a number far lower than the 1 million
claimed by abortion advocates.
* The largest reasonably possible number of illegal abortions in
any one year before Roe v. Wade was approximately 210,000 in
1961; the lowest was about 39,000 in 1950. The mean (average)
was 98,000 per year.
* The data demonstrates an exponential increase in the number of
abortions since legalization. There are roughly 16 times as
many abortions now each year as there were in an average year
before Roe v. Wade.
* The claims by abortion advocates that 1,000,000 or more illegal
abortions occurred annually and 5,000-10,000 women died are
based on inaccurately calculated extrapolations from flawed
and erroneous data of the 1920s and the 1930s - the
pre-penicillin era.
* The number of deaths of childbearing-age women for non-abortion
related causes remained relatively constant in the years before
Roe v. Wade, showing that deaths from illegal abortion could not
have been "hidden" under other causes of death.
* Advances in medical technology, not the legalization of abortion,
caused a significant drop in the number of maternal deaths from
abortion:
- maternal deaths from illegal abortions were above 1,000 per
year only in the pre-penicillin era (1940). The maternal
abortion deaths dropped sharply with the advent of antibiotics
(penicillin and sulfa) and other medical advances to
treat
infections.
- the maternal death rate had declined to 30 maternal deaths
from illegal abortions by 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade
was decided.
* If maternal abortion deaths were significantly under-reported
in the official statistics, there would be an over-reporting
of other causes of death. But multiple forms of analysis
demonstrate this did not occur.
* The small numbers of maternal deaths demonstrate that there were
a comparatively small number of illegal abortions pre-Roe,
suggesting that the total number of abortions would drop
substantially if protective laws were again in effect.
"As America looks forward to life without Roe, the debate on the
legality of abortion must move beyond unsubstantiated claims and
toward a realistic approach sensitive to the lives of both women
and unborn children," the report concludes.
_______________________________________________________________
Next, go to:
http://www.roevwade.org/abortdeaths.html
Maternal deaths from Legal Abortions
Deaths from
Year Legal Abortions
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1958-62 5
1963-67 4
1968-69 4
1970 36
1971 54
1972 24
1973 25
1974 26
1975 29
1976 11
1977 21
1978 9
1979 18
1980 9
1981 7
1982-84 34
1985-87 26
Note: The government stopped collecting these statistics
in 1987 due to the lack of accurate reporting of
deaths as a result of legal abortions.
Sources: National Center for Health Statistics. Health,
United States, 1994. Hyattsville, Maryland:
Public Health Service, 1995. Abortion Surveil-
lance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.
Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher
Tietze, The Population Council, p 103
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" 1 |
13 Jul 2003 09:30:20 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in
news:WInQa.54559$ye4.41966@sccrnsc01:
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
Abortion has to stay legal because a substantial percentage of
women
*will*
have abortions whether it's a crime or not. They *will not* give
birth
to
children they cannot adequately take care of. American women have
had millions of abortions in the decades both before and after it
was decriminalized, but the death and complications rates plummeted
with legality. This is such a no-brainer and is backed up by so
much fact
and
experience, it's impossible to believe in the sincerity of anyone
who professes to want to help women while not caring if abortion is
legal or not.
Let's review a report released by the Horatio R. Storer Foundation.
"Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal Abortions."
Already discussed and debunked, many times, by myself and others. For
instance, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/gtxy
http://tinyurl.com/gty4
http://tinyurl.com/gty6
Next, go to:
http://www.roevwade.org/abortdeaths.html
Maternal deaths from Legal Abortions
Deaths from
Year Legal Abortions
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1958-62 5
1963-67 4
1968-69 4
1970 36
1971 54
1972 24
1973 25
1974 26
1975 29
1976 11
1977 21
1978 9
1979 18
1980 9
1981 7
1982-84 34
1985-87 26
Note: The government stopped collecting these statistics
in 1987 due to the lack of accurate reporting of
deaths as a result of legal abortions.
Also discussed and debunked many times, with corrected figures
provided. (Do you even read what you post? You know perfectly well,
or used to, that the government still tracks abortion-related deaths,
even if you claim it misses some of them.) For instance:
http://tinyurl.com/gtyd
http://tinyurl.com/gtyq
http://tinyurl.com/gtyv
http://tinyurl.com/gtyy
Don't confront PJ with actual facts. You will just confuse him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" 1 |
12 Jul 2003 03:07:32 AM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0307110205.6986a691@posting.google.com...
Re: "A Woman's Right or Right for Women?" Part 1
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<EXiPa.29154$ye4.21615@sccrnsc01>...
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0307100858.711611cd@posting.google.com...
===================================================================
Papa Jack quoted:
Abortion: A Woman's Right or Right for Women?
By Georgette Forney
http://www.lifenews.com/oped5.html
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
Until people become aware
of the after-effects of abortion on women, they won't
realize
that abortion advocates are more concerned with protecting
the right to abortion than doing what's right for women. In
other words, women's rights should focus on helping women
and not on keeping abortion legal.
===================================================================
MINXS wrote:
Abortion has to stay legal because a substantial percentage of women
*will*
have abortions whether it's a crime or not. They *will not* give birth
to
children they cannot adequately take care of. American women have had
millions of abortions in the decades both before and after it was
decriminalized, but the death and complications rates plummeted with
legality. This is such a no-brainer and is backed up by so much fact
and
experience, it's impossible to believe in the sincerity of anyone who
professes to want to help women while not caring if abortion is legal or
not.
===================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Let's review a report released by the Horatio R. Storer Foundation.
"Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal Abortions."
http://www.r2rministries.com/prolife/X0134_Life_Without_Roe.html
_______________________________________________________________
Laws preventing abortion will not only dramatically reduce the
total number of abortions, but also the number of women and
babies killed by either legal or illegal abortion, according to
a report released by the Horatio R. Storer Foundation.
"This report carefully and clearly debunks the myth that women
will die if abortion is no longer available," said Cynthia
McKnight,
author of the report and a specialist in state legislative issues
at the Storer Foundation. "Medical progress in treating complica-
tions, not legalization of abortion, accounts for the enormous drop
in maternal abortion deaths from the 1940s to the 1970s."
The report, Life Without Roe: Making Predictions About Illegal
Abortions, was released by the Storer Foundation, an educational
foundation dedicated to examining issues related to life and death
and affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee.
The report, both historical and forward-looking in its scope,
examines previous studies and statistics on the number of illegal
abortions before Roe v. Wade and the number of maternal deaths
(deaths of mothers) from legal and illegal abortion to provide a
scientific framework for predicting "life without Roe."
The report provides the basis for estimates that there were a
mean of less than 100,000 illegal abortions annually in the years
before Roe v. Wade, far fewer than the 1 million repeatedly
claimed by abortion advocates.
Less than 100,000 illegal abortions per year before 1973? How can they
possibly claim that when no-one can know how many there were? Women who had
broken the law by aborting were hardly likely to tell anyone. The only
figures that can have any validity are the numbers of women who had to
receive hospital treatment due to a botched abortion. In the 1960's,
complications from illegal abortions accounted for almost 20% of all
pregnancy-related admissions to municipal hospitals in New York and
California.'
http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#61
In 1960 there were 371,799 live births in California, most of which would
take place in hospital. 20% of that number is 74,359. That one state
alone shows that the 100,000 for the whole of the US, quoted by pro-life
sources, is a ridiculous claim, especially when one bears in mind that not
all abortions would go wrong..
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/1998data/chapter2/2-1&2-199
8.xls
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
