Abortive Effects of the Pill

I think Major's point was that it is hard to change an exisiting law when there is not an overwhelming majority in favor of the change, so why attempt to make a change that would be difficult to enact.


Absolutely. In order to make murder legal, I think a substantial majority would have to want it - say 70-80% of the people.

On the other hand, if murder was already legal, it would take 70-80% of the people wanting it to become illegal to make that happen and work.

Like bobrek said, to enact a moral-type change, I think there needs to be substantial agreement.

 

Whoa! I'm not the one creating the problems. I think abortion (except for medical necessity), murder, and rape should always be illegal. It is your side that is theorizing about the poularity factors...

I understand that women want to have choice. They have already made those choices though. If they are sexually active (by choice) then they should accept the risks of unwanted pregnancy. The only alternatives are to keep the child, give it up for adoption, or terminate the pregnancy and that means the termination of a human life (or something that would always become a human life).

Only the last one is selfish and, I think, shameful.

 

While I was explaining my view on Major's thinking, I do agree with your pro-life stance!

 

Abortion before 'quickening' (the baby moving in the womb) has only been considered immoral for a mere hundred years in western societies. Current abortion law is actually a continuation of longterm attitudes to pregnancy termination - it was the period between the nineteenth century and the 1970s that was the aberration or exception.

Besides - and I've said this before - in places where abortion is illegal, it often comes down to a choice between the life of a foetus and the life of a woman killing herself by using a coathanger. (I know who I prioritise higher - the mother. But hey, that's just me.) Point is, women *abort foetuses themselves anyway*. Always have, always will, you can't stop them no matter how much you tell them not to. Make it clean, make it legal, make it safe, or thousands of women die *along with the foetuses*.

 

I appreciate your first post, but I'd say those feelings come from a better understanding of the science of pregnancy and development...i mean, we can see the fetus now through ultrasound...we have a much better understanding of its development...someone in the Netherlands did a study of brain function of a fetus and found out that it's possible for the fetus to make memories and to dream...I would say that our view of abortion from 100 years ago should be vastly different in the face of new discovery.

I'm not trying to condmen you for your view...you're certainly entitled to it!!! But why do you necessarily value one life over another? You say you know who you'd choose...you'd value the life of the mother over the fetus everytime. Why?? I'm just curious, because I can't make heads or tails of that approach. Maybe I'm missing something.

Also...I never buy the "everybody does it so we should just legalize it" argument. I see this logic thrown about so willy-nilly it's unbelievable. People commit theft everyday...we shouldn't legalize it. People murder other people everyday...the fact that people do it shouldn't deter us from making it a criminal act! If something is morally reprehensible to a society at large, it will likely be outlawed. I don't think we should be concerned with making it safe or clean for people to carry out what society deems as morally reprehsible. Now, if abortion isn't viewed as such by society, then that's a whole other story...all I'm saying is that the logic in this approach is really faulty in my opinion. If you take it to the extreme you can use it to "legalize" just about any action you can think of.

 

They don't have to. That is their choice-- a poor choice in my opinion. I still don't want to kill innocent babies because, otherwise, their mothers will kill them. I won't be held hostage by that "possibility."

 

dimsie

Where do you get your statistics that "<b>thousands</b> of women die..." from 'coathanger' abortions?

 

bobrek -- This is from "Our Bodies Ourselves," a highly respected health manual by the Boston Women's Health Collective:

In the 1950s about a million illegal abortions a year were persormed in the United States, and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women came into emergency wards only to die of widespread abdominal infections, victims of botched or unsanitary abortions. Many women who recovered from from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time.

I'm incredibly thankful those days are over. Yet, there are many (often men) who seem more than willing to go back to that.

Max -- You ask dimsie why she would choose a fetus over the mother. I ask you the same question. Why would you choose the possibility of a human over a fully-realized adult female? Is your opinion of adult women that low? Or do you think a small fertilized egg is better than any woman who would stoop to have an abortion? I'm not sure I can understand your rationale any more than you can understand dimsie's.

giddy -- In your condemnation of the mother's "shameful" behavior, where does the father figure in? Do the men have any responsibilities here or is it just the woman's problem? If the woman must bear all the responsibility of the pregnancy, then I believe she should also have sole right of choice as to whether it will be terminated.

As I said in an earlier post, if we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country we must have early and thorough sex education and we must have safe, affordable access to birth control for women. You can't try to pretend that sex doesn't exist, restrict access to birth control and then be shocked when young women end up pregnant and wanting an abortion. It doesn't work both ways. Either address the situation up front or be prepared to deal with consequences later on. Your choice.

 

I doubt women choose that, however, the fact remains that the majority of non-white, non-healthy babies do not find permanent homes in America. There are a large number of families on waiting lists but they place requirements on the children they choose and the majority of them desire a healthy, caucasion child.

Fact is, most abortions and adoptions are the result of unwanted pregnancies among the most poor in our country. Those with the means don't usually abort or adopt. There are large percentages of children with physical and mental disabilities that have very little chance of being anything more than a ward of the state living in a medical facility.

In addition, a majority of the children born into adoptive situations in America are minorities. This dramatically effects their chances at getting adopted for several reasons:

1. Most parents on adoption waiting lists are white because they can afford the exhaustive process and high fees that come with adoption. Most of these parents want children that fit their ethnicity.

2. It is difficult to adopt a minority child to a white family even if they wanted it because many groups still protest inter-racial families and the courts have been slow to react.

3. Potential adoptive parents want "babies," not children. The odds of a child being adopted after the age of 2 are reduced by a large margin. Because so many minority children are passed over as infants, they have an even smaller chance of being adopted later.

The truth is that the children most in need of adoption usually do not find homes. Some are minority. Some are "special needs" kids or crack babies. Some have severe disabilities. Some are abandonded at the age of 2 or 3, beyond the scope of most parents wanting an infant.

I applaud HEARTILY the efforts of those who choose adoption as an alternative to both abortion AND having their own child. I think it is a tremedous option. However, to ignore the fact that most of these kids go un-adopted is to ignore the realities of the situation.

My father and mother both worked with organizations and schools who handled teen pregnancies in Houston. Many teen mothers kept children but were forced to live in a home for teen mothers because their families and boyfriends abandonded them. In fact, that is more common than the reverse. In addition, many were counseled on the adoption option and a decent percentage chose that route.

But, in America, the focus on adoption is one of mostly fear and skepticism. The process itself is difficult and expensive. Most doctors and fertility counselors focus on drugs and in vetro procedures and favor them over adoption. Many people still believe that an un-wanted child is un-wanted because there is something wrong with him/her. There is a tremendous stigma still attached to those who choose adoption over normal birth and on the children themselves.

I wish it were different and I would really love to see adoptions take the place of dangerous and unpredictable fertility treatments, but that doesn't seem likely given the incredible marketing campaigns by pharmeceutical companies and the dramatic desire on the part of expectant parents to have children of their own over adopted children.

I'm not a fan of abortion by any stretch. I doubt my wife and I could accept it as an alternative to adoption or birth. We have considered adoption ourselves. But, it is important to face the realities of childbirth and adoption in America on the whole instead of just assuming things are ok as is.

 

<b>Mrs.JB</b>: I think it is sad when anyone seeks or supports abortion-- man or woman. The argument as detailed was talking about women having abortions, thus only references to the woman. I still don't agree with you though because I would assert that the unborn child has rights as well. Kill a pregnant woman and I believe you are facing double murder charges.

<b>Jeff</b>: Why don't we just pay a healthy bounty for voluntary sterilization? That is far more decent that killing unborn babies. Wouldn't it also be cheaper in the long run?

So let's rectify the problems with the laws of adoption that make it so cumbersome. Put the fertility specialists out of business.

I think I understand the problem. Nevertheless, killing the unwanted babies is not an option after birth so it shouldn't be an option before birth. How does one escape that reality?

 

This is a pretty interesting review of a good book (it's used in graduate history classes) about abortion's 'illegal years'.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortion.htm

It's quite long, and 'leftie' in focus (ie, nuanced ), but I think it gives some useful context for this debate, particularly the ways in which racism and sexism make women's 'choices' in this area very limited. Oh, and brobek, I believe this article notes that in the 1950s 5,000 women a year died from botched abortions, which is an improvement on the 1920s figures of 15,000 a year. Not that women's lives matter, or anything. *All of you* know women who have had abortions. Would you prefer them to have died of an infection because they made some 'choice' that really wasn't a choice at all, just a desperate final option?

I don't think it's 'moral', in absolute terms, to abort a foetus. But it's not 'moral' in absolute terms to kill a bug, either, and we do that all the time (and no, I'm not equating a foetus with a bug). Things aren't black and white. They're grey.

 

Voluntary sterilization misses the point on several levels but I'll get to that in a second.

The reason there are stringent adoption laws in place is because there were numerous failures in the system years ago. Children were adopted to work on family farms or in businesses. Children were adopted and abused. The process became convoluted and expensive for a reason. You can't just turn loose children to parents.

Second, even doing so would not address the real problem which is the fact that the vast majority of adoptive parents want a healthy, white infant. Since the majority of children up for adoption cannot meet all three categories, you have a problem. Even if you loosened the strings for adoptive parents, there would still be waiting lists because there are just so many healthy, white infants available in America.

Ultimately, there are three really specific problems that create issues like abortion in the first place:

1. There is a tremendous stigma in our society placed on unwed mothers and no accountibility for the fathers. It took several decades just to get a law passed in Texas to hold fathers accountible for their actions if they bail out on the mother and child.

You mention sterilization. The truth is that many women end up with unwanted pregnancies and are stuck with them because their partner refuses birth control. In addition, 1 out of every 3 women is sexually abused by the age of 16 and those are just the reported cases. The number increases if you are poor to nearly 50 percent.

Unwed mothers are placed in a tremendously difficult position particularly if they are poor and have no external support from family members or their boyfriends. I remember my father talking all the time about the pregnant teens at Crittendon (a home for unwed expectant teens and mothers) and how their families had kicked them out of the house, the schools would not allow them to continue their education calling the pregnancy a "distraction" and the boyfriends where long gone.

There are NO support systems for even these women and they are women who have sought out the help of government agencies and charities. There are many others who don't even have that opportunity.

As long as the primary blame and responsibility for these pregnancies are placed on women instead of both the woman and the man, these problems will continue to exist. The tremendous inequity that exists not only perpetuates the problem but exaserbates it.

2. There is no effective sex education in America. Parents won't talk about it yet it is reported that 1 in 4 girls have performed oral sex on a boy by the age of 15!!! Teachers can't teach it. Yet, as everyone knows, not talking about it will NOT stop it.

The urge to procreate is a built-in biological urge. It is strong and we all know it. Simply ignoring this and telling kids to just abstain is not being realistic. If you want to protect them, you HAVE to educate them.

The higher the level of sex education (in fact, the higher the level of education in general), the lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and even sex itself. You can't simply ignore the behavior and pretend everything will be ok, particularly in poor and un-educated parts of our community where the risk is much higher.

3. There are no safe and affordable health care and birth control options available for the poor and the young. There are 40 million people in America with no health care. The vast majority of them are the working poor. They are also the most likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

Yet, birth control is guarded like the keys to a nuclear silo and efforts to educate are met with the stern admonition of religious leaders and moralists. The only possible way to avoid perpetuating this cycle is to make healthcare and birth control readily and easily available with NO stigmas attached.

If we could come up with legitimate ways to solve problems realistically and honestly, I would have no problem ridding ourselves of abortion. Frankly, the NEED for abortion would very likely dry up if we were more supportive of women in vulnerable positions. As long as we continue to ignore these serious problems, we will continue to see abortions. That is just a fact of life.

 

<b>dimsie</b>: "Not that women's lives matter, or anything. *All of you* know women who have had abortions. Would you prefer them to have died of an infection because they made some 'choice' that really wasn't a choice at all, just a desperate final option?"
<b>giddyup</b>: Flair for the dramatic, eh? Why is this a "desperate final option" and " a choice that really wasn't a choice?"

<b>Jeff</b>: Voluntary sterilization does not "miss the point" rather it prevents the problem. Would it be so terrible if every succeeding generation of adoption-eligible children was smaller in number than the preceeding? How fast could we shrink that population with an aggressive sterilization opportunity?

Instead we give poor women incentive to make more "unwanted" babies, don't we?

1. Where is the stigma now? Unwed mothers are surging in numbers, I think (in part) because of the lure of an easy out through the abortionist. Your partner refuses birth control? It takes two to tango; use your head-- just say no then. Agreed that unwed fathers have a keen responsibility, but it is the mother's who (for their own sake) must understand that the lioness' share of responsibility falls on them because they will actually bear the children. This reality cannot be changed.

2. Sex Education: I never said anything about ignoring it. It will reduce the incidence of pregnancy. Go for it; those parents who want their kids to opt-out should have that privilege. Typically they are the ones being responsible and teaching the kids something at home.

3. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood? There are other organizations like them. They're everywhere. If the least prepared are the most likely to have an unwanted pregnancy what can we do? People have to take responsibility for their choices. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Are you ghost-writing for Margaret Sanger?! I don't see the dark stigma of unwed motherhood anymore, nor do I see a lock on the library door of information. Every watch Jenny Jones or Maury Povich?!!

****************************************************

Why do I see, on my local news every week, stories about adoption-eligible children who are white and aged 7-10? It is a fallacy to assert that only minority chldren are left unadopted. We can't blame people for choosing to want to raise children of their own cultural/racial background. Most of us marry that way.

The problems of adoption are typical problems of a modern America choking on its own bureaucracy. The sad thing though is that kids grow up without families while a fat bureacracy does nothing but feed itself at the public trough at the expense of these kids longing for a home.

No doubt there were past abuses in the system, but now things are overwhelmingly ineffective. It is ridiculous that it takes years to place a healthy normal child for adoption. The system has over-reacted big time.

If someone has a 3-bedroom house in the suburbs, it's a pretty safe bet they aren't seeking to adopt a fieldhand.

 

Mrs. JB -- it's definitely a fair question...curiously, mine went unanswered. I assume it must have been overlooked. I would say I don't value either life over the other...they're both of equal value to me.

And keep in mind abortion isn't just practiced in this country in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy. Abortion is practiced here when a pregnancy is simply a nuisance and is unwanted...and a choice is made to snuff out a life. In that scenario, there is no value choice between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. Of course I don't want people aborting babies with coathangers...I don't want people aborting babies, period!! If you don't attempt to abort a baby with a coathanger, you probably won't get an infection....just guessing there..i'm not a doctor!

 

What do you mean by accepting the risk of unwanted pregnancy? Contracepties make it possible to minimize this risk. You're speaking of women, but what about men. Don't they have to accept the risk of unwanted pregnancy?

I think abortion should be leagal, but it should be a last option alternative. The mother should decide and after a certan time of pregnancy (maby 10 weeks) it should be illegal if no medical problems that jepordices the mothers life arises.

 

Contraception only minimizes the risk; it does not eliminate it. Of course fathers need to be held accountable, but is there any argument that it is a bigger issue and challenge for women? They are the ones who ultimately carry the pregnancy and bear the child. Women should be smart enough to look out for their own best interests. Men should be decent enough to proceed with caution; unfortunately we have given them the mixed message that it is okay <b>to be in rut!</b>

I think some abotiions should be legal (medical necessity) but read MadMax's post. If you just make it easily available and then complain about the casual use of it... you only have our predicament today: abortion as a birth control practice.

I think life is more valuable than that.

 

wow! i appreciate the information...but that information is really hard to navigate. I'm having a hard time seeing if the pill my wife uses is one that raises these concerns.

 

giddyup: I recognize that we will never come to a consensus on abortion because we share opposing views. I'm really ok with that because I'm not interested in trying to change anyone. However, my concern is that, quite often, the realities of pregnancy in America outside of committed, stable, healthy relationships are ignored in favor of a lot of heresay and rumor. I, for one, would rather know the facts so we can address the issues honestly.

First, why not simply offer vasectomies more readily. Again, you address the issue of the mother while ignoring the father. By the way, if women want to be sterilized, they can have tubal ligations through government programs, but how many of us would actually choose that option.

Many of these women and men assume that, someday, they might actually make it out of poverty and want to raise a family of their own. Just as abortion is often a last option, so should sterilization be.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we give women "incentive" to make more babies. If you mean welfare, the 1996 welfare reforms altered that significantly but even without those reforms, the average woman recieves $80 per month, per child. That isn't even enough to feed a baby let alone pay for medical expenses, clothing, child care, etc.

So, I don't get the incentive part.

First, unwed mothers are not surging in numbers. I don't know where you are getting those numbers. In addition, abortions are DECREASING.

According to US Government statistics, the overall U.S. teenage pregnancy rate declined 17% between 1990 and 1996, from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 to 97 per 1,000. In addition, only 30 percent of teen pregnancies resulted in abortion in 1996 as opposed to 56 percent which were carried to childbirth and 14 percent that ended in miscarriage.

Further, teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries--twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada, and nine times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan (US Gov) and steep decreases in the pregnancy rate among sexually experienced teenagers accounted for most of the drop in the overall teenage pregnancy rate in the early-to-mid 1990s. While 20% of the decline is because of decreased sexual activity, 80% is due to more effective contraceptive practice (US Gov).

As far as women just saying no, while 93% of teenage women report that their first intercourse was voluntary, one-quarter of these young women report that it was unwanted (US Gov).

The pressures are tremendous and, as I'm sure you know, the judgement of teens is not often good.

But, that still ignores the fact that men bear as much of the burden of childbirth as women. If they do not, than men have NO place in the decision process. That is simply forfeit because they choose to not be involved in the first place.

Agreed.

Yes, I've heard of them, but can you actually locate a clinic? In Houston, there are exactly THREE clinics. That is approximately one clinic per 1 million people. I had to look them up to find them and they are all on opposite ends of town. Many smaller communities don't have a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby.

I'm not talking about social stigma like little old ladies whispering in the frozen food aisle. I'm talking about stigma that equals a lack of choices. Because many are woefully misinformed abut the realities of pregnancy in the young and poor, they take their cues from Maury Povich or Jenny Jones, for example. Instead of looking at the statistics and facing the facts, we rely on what seems to be "common knowledge" and it is mostly incorrect.

You are telling me that you take your figures on adoption from the local news? If I did that, I'd be hearing those reports alongside stories on strip clubs, breast implants and Viagra! Just kidding.

Agreed. There is a problem with the system, but there is also a problem with misinformation. As a result there are often twice as many parents looking to adopt as there are children. The process is a big part of the problem. But, the other problem is that more than 50 percent of the children in adoption programs are African American, Hispanic or special needs despite the fact that those respective populations represent less than 30 percent of the total population.

What concerns me most about the childcare and childbirth issues in America is that the child is quite often the one who suffers. I agree that responsibility is a huge issue, but I don't really discriminate. I think that big corporations who risk our health by polluting the air deserve to be punished just as I believe that relationship problems are too often blamed on money or your partner or whatever other reason when the problem often lies in ourselves.

I also believe that we, as a society, have a responsibility to ensure that there isn't 1 child let alone 1 million (the current amount) on the streets of America. If a child starves to death in the richest and most affluent country the planet has ever seen, what does that say about us?

What concerns me is that there is a tremendous amount of complaining being done over abortion and the irresponsibility of the mother. I agree. However, no one wants to provide the systems necessary to educate that mother and make abortion unnecessary. No one wants to provide birth control or advice on contraception. We claim are kids are too young to be taught yet the more than 50 percent of teens are sexually active by the age of 14!!!

What I want is for society AND FATHERS to own up to their responsibilities as much as we demand mothers to own up to theirs. If that were the case, I have no doubt abortions would go the way of the horse-drawn carriage and that would be just fine with me.

 

Jeff --

amen to the last two sentences of your post!!!