h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Here are some stats from Fox News! ( a nice 'Fair & Balanced TM' conservative view for you to trust)<<
Ste, I don't want war with you! (Goodness knows I have had enough of being trolled to last a life time...) but I cannot help but regard your referring me to Fox News as a sneer and a deliberate, calculated insult. I would trust Fox News no further on *any* subject, than I could throw an elephant! I am a lifelong pacifist, adamantly opposed to the Gulf War, the War on Iraq and any other American military adventure that Fox News promote and propagandise about.
>>Adele, do you agree that 91% of all abortions are unequivocally performed on embryos and foetuses with no brain activity, therefore are not human beings? From what you have said before, I am presuming 'yes' [I would personally say the 99.99% in the first and second trimesters are acceptable, but I'm just asking Adele a question]. The 0.01% is presumably covered by D&X and other emergency prodedures to save the mothers life.<<
Yes, I agree that what you say is correct, that 91% of abortions are performed on embryos and foetuses with (what you say is) no brain activity. But I won't agree that that's a good thing! It should be unnecessary and is certainly not desirable.
It doesn't matter whether the women dying from illegal abortions were 10 or 1000 - except inasmuch as pro-abortion people use high figures to persuade the apathetic that there is a disaster that needs to be 'cured' by aborting women, salting out babies and thereby solving 'fear of commitment'!

Ignored again.

Let me repeat myself:

- Wouldn't it therefore be more productive, as well as more rational and compassionate, to stop campaigning against abortion and start campaigning for better counselling?

- You suggested 24 weeks - fine. What's the problem here?

- Is there, perchance, a link to some accurate figures of what the numbers of deaths WERE, rather than simply a single person saying (no matter how authoritatively) what the figures WEREN'T?

Serious, substantive, non-trolling questions which deserve considered answers.

H.

Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. [12] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. [13] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths. [14]

So, simply put, if abortion is criminalised, there won't be too many deaths as long as doctors are prepared to do safe *illegal* abortions nice and quietly to the same extent they used to do. That way the anti-abortionists can pretend it isn't happening and everyone's happy, except the doctors who end up in prison.
Wouldn't it be easier if the anti-abortionists just pretended it wasn't happening *now* (like evolution?) and found something else to worry about.

However, as noted earlier, it is always worth pointing out where statistics may have been exaggerated or misremembered somewhere along the line. The potential death statistic does seem like one that could do with some kind of consensus forming.

That said, from one perspective, whilst the historic figures do provide a good point to start thinking from, if attitudes to abortion have changed post-legalisation, (which seems likely) it is possible that even after recriminalising abortion, the demand may well be greater than it was previously, so figures may have to be adjusted accordingly.

In the modern world, I suspect an effective criminalisation of abortion would drive a black market in turbocharged RU486-style drugs that might well exceed the market for coathangers.
Who knows, some of the drugs might even be the right stuff, and work safely even when a woman has gone beyond the recommended period for taking them.

Oh Adele...

That was certainly not an insult, let me put it in context for you. I was searching for some statistics via google and all pages that I encountered were either heavily pro-life or heavily pro-choice. And the stats were biased depending on what page you were at.

I found the Fox page and thought that it was a less extreme, but more conservative (hence more pro-life) source to quote stats for you. I thought this might mean they would have more authority with you personally. The stats were factually correct, as I had seen them before posted on less reputable sites, so chose that to back up my figures. That's all. I want a polite, decent conversation with you just as much as you want on with me. It's nice to come across a pro-lifer who isn't an extremist.


'Yes, I agree that what you say is correct, that 91% of abortions are performed on embryos and foetuses with (what you say is) no brain activity. But I won't agree that that's a good thing! It should be unnecessary and is certainly not desirable.'

That's not quiiite what I asked ('Adele, do you agree that 91% of all abortions are unequivocally performed on embryos and foetuses with no brain activity, therefore are not human beings?'), am I to assume then you think they are not human beings in your perception?

Ok then, that's your opinion. I also agree that it isn't a good thing. I asked this question of Nerd42, and it is a question I think is central to the whole debate. I'll ask you now: Are you against abortion because it is ending a *potential* human life?


Ste

If 39 women died because of illegal abortions imagine how many were injured? How many made themselves infertile and how many were permanently psychologically scarred.


I just re-read this:

'According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972'

A *mere* 39. Mere. I'm sorry, but to say that kind of thing is f*cking sickening. Like it's 'only' 39, so that's ok then. Oh man...

Pro-lifers *seem* so pre-occupied with potential human life as to totally disregard actual human beings.

Ste

" It's nice to come across a pro-lifer who isn't an extremist."

Aha.

Ahahaha.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Hey Ste - do me a favour and let me know when a creature such as you've described starts posting in this thread? You're right, it'll make a refreshing change from the wilfully uneducated bigots and unapologetic ignorant liars we're currently stuck with...

H.

Hoo,

I think Adele deserves a chance to explain herself, she doesn't have to you know...

Ste

From the US CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/surv_abort.htm (first pdf file) 'Abortion Surveillance - United States 1999'

In 1972 there were 586,780 legal abortions performed with 29 deaths from legal abortions and 39 deaths from illegal abortions.

In 1999 there were 861,789 legal abortions performed with 9 deaths from legal abortions and 0 from illegal abortions.

Abortion as a medical science has improved since it was legalised to the benefit of women. I'll let someone else extrapolate how many lives have been spared per year and in total since 1972 in the US alone.

The law works and saves lives.

Ste

Say, do I count? I wouldn't say Im pro-life so much as I'm pro-consistency (more out of a sort of morbid anthropological curiosity). I'd be just as interested for the 'law' to decide that we could be pro-choice with our homicidal tendencies towards people of all ages, not just fetuses .

>>Wouldn't it be easier if the anti-abortionists just pretended it wasn't happening *now* (like evolution?) and found something else to worry about.<<
If that's a dig at me, you couldn't be more wrong! You have a stereotype 'anti-abortionist' in your head, and you don't want to encounter a real one, and have your prejudices questioned.
We're not all American fundamentalist creationists, you know!

>>A *mere* 39. Mere. I'm sorry, but to say that kind of thing is f*cking sickening. Like it's 'only' 39, so that's ok then. Oh man...<<
I merely cut and pasted the statistic, I didn't write it... Don't lump all 'pro-lifers' together, like Potholer above, who has some stereotype of neanderthal creationists!
Ask yourself how many women have been killed or physically and psychologically scarred by *legal* abortion? The answer is many, including women I know, and even in my family!
Now, Ste, I object to abortion not because it's a potential human life, but because having been pregnant (as has only one pro-abortion person on this thread) I know it's an *actual* human life!

Well, you have to admit that it isn't an entirely baseless stereotype (and Potholer would never mean to insult you []. There are reasons that most of us have a cateogory in our head for people that includes things like "Baptist," "Christian Fundamentalist," "anti-abortionist," "anti-evolution science,".... I used to be one of these people, and I've had many converstaions with these sorts of people, and while there are variances, i.e. talking to a Mormon or a Catholic instead of a Baptist, there are definite trends in political views amongst people who have a theologically based set of personal ethics. Unfortunately, what this means is that people who base their ideas and actions on the Christian mythology will forever be at odds with those who base their ideas and actions on scientific mythology (and in the end, it *all* be man-created mythology, in my opinion).

<--- has been pregnant twice with high-rick, highly monitored pregnancies. As such, I can confirm that it was in fact human life. (I mean, as opposed to equine life? )

'I merely cut and pasted the statistic, I didn't write it... Don't lump all 'pro-lifers' together, like Potholer above, who has some stereotype of neanderthal creationists!'

There were no quote marks, so I assumed it was you speaking. Sorry. I'm not lumping you in with anyone.


'Ask yourself how many women have been killed or physically and psychologically scarred by *legal* abortion? The answer is many, including women I know, and even in my family!'

That's not the question though is it? I know people deeply affected by abortion, but they're getting through it and coping well. Fortunately I don't know anyone physically scarred, and I don't think that is down to luck. The question is how many *more* people would be affected if it was *illegal*? I think the stats I provided answer that.


'Now, Ste, I object to abortion not because it's a potential human life, but because having been pregnant (as has only one pro-abortion person on this thread) I know it's an *actual* human life!'

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I get where you're coming from better now. Isn't it a little subjective though, to just say 'you know'? It sounds a little faith-based for me. I know a person who didn't know they were pregnant til 8 months in! It isn't something that humans automatically, or instinctively 'know'. I'm not demeaning you or your opinions in any way, it's a sincere question.

Feelings of that sort cannot surely decide laws?


Ste

I think people are pro choice, not pro abortion.

And there will be people that have been pregnant but just haven't talked about it.

"If that's a dig at me, you couldn't be more wrong! You have a stereotype 'anti-abortionist' in your head, and you don't want to encounter a real one, and have your prejudices questioned.
We're not all American fundamentalist creationists, you know!"

Don't take things *too* personally. I was aiming at the generalised bulk of the prolife/antiabortion lobby in one of the few places it seems they have much risk of success, not at you or your nation.

Sometimes the reason even intelligent people *have* stereotypes in their head is that they are surprisingly useful much of the time, but *if* we keep in mind that world isn't *entirely* simplistically subdividable, and the rest of the time they act as a useful base of comparison to help remind us not *everyone* is just a mental xerox of a particular party line. Many stereotypes contain some grain of truth, and they certainly aren't all in my head. Some people are self-stereotyping.

In any case, the main point is still valid.
If people are happy for illegal things to happen, as long as they're brushed under the carpet and made somewhat more difficult "Well, doctors used to do them *anyway*, and not *many* people died", I'd say there was more than an element of hipocrisy there.
If people are actually going to make sure the law is thoroughly enforced, they can't rely on statistics from a time of "don't ask, don't tell" to accurately predict the ill effects.

That said, obviously I don't know what the numbers would be if the US banned abortion (presumably people with money would simply go abroad to somewhere where it was legal), but caution must be applied by everyone when using old figures to predict future numbers.

I can perfectly understand that many women who have had abortions feel bad about that decision for a long time, quite possibly for life, but I guess something similar can be true for women who have given away a child for adoption. In either case it's not an easy decision to make, and not one most people are likely to take lightly or forget.
I certainly have know way of knowing whether loking at someone in the street and thinking "That *could* be my child" or "That *could have been* my child" is the most painful to a woman (or a man), but I suspect there are very few people who really *do* know which is worse, though there are clearly many who think they do.

Whatever the nature of the choice made, the guilt people may feel later on may be infuenced in no small way by other people giving their various views about how acceptable or evil one or other choice is.

<>


hi Adele,

Was that a reference to me? If so, I'd like to say that I don't consider myself 'pro-abortion'. I have said here before that I am 'pro-life' (only for myself) and 'pro-choice' for everybody (including myself). Which is only confusing in that it made my choice very hard to live with for a long time.

I also said that I *felt* that my foetus was a 'human' life, but that this was subjective and no basis to judge what other women feel or conclude that this has any basis in truth. After reading the last few pages the facts posted suggest that no brain activity proves that until the 24th week a foetus has not yet developed 'human' characteristics.

I think there must be plenty of 'pro life' people out there who are also 'pro choice'. People who would not willingly consider having an abortion themselves (or who even personally feel that abortion is wrong) but would never interfere, or want others to interfere, with the rights of another woman (another life!) to make her choice and be allowed access to safe medical services.

These people I would consider to be truly 'pro life'. I do find it irksome when extreme anti-abortionists use this name for themselves as nothing could be further from the truth.

az

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

As someomne pointed out each individual woman and each individual termination are not really represented in statistics and those same statistics may not serve us well in formulating opnions or finding good answers.

No one one this thread has ever expressed the view the they want lots of terminations taking place.

Most of us have not spoken about our personal experiences of termination or terminations in our families etc...but you should not suppose from this that we do not have any personal knowledge Adele. Your personal experiences do give you an individual insight but that does not make you a preeminent authority.

What pro-choice people like myself do want is better sex education and better awareness of contraception (not wanting to blame the media soley but the impression that it gives is that sex is largely without cosequnce), rather than the ignorance and coyness that causes the UK to have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe. I would like to see terminations where there is no pressing medical need at zero. It would be good if not one woman was forced into making the decicision to terminate by anyone else. I also think its important that women who do have terminations get access to as much counselling as they need.

Adele I understand that you and I share these goals but I think that outlawing abortion will make the situation for women worse not better.

Ste:

"I think Adele deserves a chance to explain herself"

So do I. And she's had ample chance. She uses lies to support her arguments, and pouts and has a tantrum when found out. She unjustifiably accuses people of stereotyping her - a hypocritical accusation, since she stereotyped ME as a typical right-wing yank. This is all the more hilarious since I'm a centre-left leaning Englishman who's never been further west than Cornwall. She *continued* to stereotype me as an American even AFTER I'd told her I was not.

Some people can't be helped, it seems.

Adele:

"I merely cut and pasted the statistic, I didn't write it..."

Didn't check it, didn't attribute it... then reacted angrily when someone misinterpreted your use of it. Learn to communicate, woman, and people will be less likely to misunderstand you.

"Don't lump all 'pro-lifers' together, like Potholer above, who has some stereotype of neanderthal creationists!"

Don't worry about other people stereotyping you, Adele, you're doing a fine job of that yourself. Rightly or wrongly I have a stereotyped image of feminists as irrational, paper-thin-skinned harpies with little grasp of logic and an overblown sense of the importance of their own opinions. Congratulations - you're very effectively reinforcing that stereotype in my mind, and do so all the more every time you snap back at the males posting in this thread as though simply because they're male their opinions have no value.

You see insults in every innocent statement. Your continued ignorance of my substantive questions simply because I point out your intellectual deficiencies in terms you do not like merely reinforces my impression of you as someone who lacks the courage or intelligence to defend or even understand the consequences of their own position.

H.