Roe v Wade is now safe

[PLC1]

Yes.

Obviously stats before Roe V Wade on abortion totals are hard to come by, therefore I will show you the claims made by the pro-abortion lobby and point out why they are wrong.

In an article by Suzanne Gordon in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine she stated, "more than 1.2 million women are estimated to have had illegal abortions each year before Roe v. Wade, and approximately 5,000 died annually as a result."

During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute). Therefore, the anti-abortion lobby must claim that the legalization of abortion dropped the number of abortions by almost 500,000, only to then see that number double in the coming years. It does not fly in my opinion.

The number of legal abortions reached 1 million in 1975, the third year of legalization. In 1977, four years after Roe v. Wade, the number exceeded 1.2 million, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Today (according to numerous sources) the number of abortions remains about 1.3 million a year, but we saw an all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990. (Guttermacher Institute)

The pattern here is pretty seems pretty clear that abortion numbers in fact went up after the Supreme Court legalized nationwide abortion, and continue to stay much higher than they did before it was legalized. Therefore, the law banning abortion did indeed, by extension, limit the number of abortions that were taking place in the United States.

Yes, I'm sure stats on illegal abortions were hard to come by. That's why the 1.2 million figure could be just as valid as the 744,600 figure, or it could be that neither one is correct. If the 1.2 million figure were exaggerated by even 10%, then the figure of a million abortions in '75 would indicate that the actual number didn't change much after Roe V Wade.

It is more accurate to compare nations where abortion is legal with where it is illegal, and see who has the most. The figures from South America are particularly telling, IMO, because of the strong Catholic majority in those nations.

Passing laws against a social evil may make the lawmakers happy, but it doesn't necessarily end that evil, nor even lessen it.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, I'm sure stats on illegal abortions were hard to come by. That's why the 1.2 million figure could be just as valid as the 744,600 figure, or it could be that neither one is correct. If the 1.2 million figure were exaggerated by even 10%, then the figure of a million abortions in '75 would indicate that the actual number didn't change much after Roe V Wade.

Well just by looking at the time when we have stats we have seen over a 100% increase between 1973 and today.

But, let us get a better view of how much it might have been exaggerated. Aside from the 1.2 million figure, it was also claimed that 5,000 deaths occurred from abortion yearly before 1973.

In 1972 there were 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions (according to the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary, 1978).

So, the claim that 5,000 people died as a result of illegal abortions when in reality only 63 occurred in total is quite the exaggeration. While this proves nothing, it does give a sense of the exaggeration of the numbers.

It is more accurate to compare nations where abortion is legal with where it is illegal, and see who has the most. The figures from South America are particularly telling, IMO, because of the strong Catholic majority in those nations.

Passing laws against a social evil may make the lawmakers happy, but it doesn't necessarily end that evil, nor even lessen it.

My question here would be is the availability of "morning after" pills in the United States factored into these numbers, and in the comparison is it factored in that many poorer nations will not have access to pills like this?

 

[Libsmasher]

If laws against abortion don't limit abortions, why have pro-abortionists fought tooth and nail for 35 years to prevent such laws?

 

[PLC1]

Well just by looking at the time when we have stats we have seen over a 100% increase between 1973 and today.

But, let us get a better view of how much it might have been exaggerated. Aside from the 1.2 million figure, it was also claimed that 5,000 deaths occurred from abortion yearly before 1973.

In 1972 there were 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions (according to the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary, 1978).

So, the claim that 5,000 people died as a result of illegal abortions when in reality only 63 occurred in total is quite the exaggeration. While this proves nothing, it does give a sense of the exaggeration of the numbers.



My question here would be is the availability of "morning after" pills in the United States factored into these numbers, and in the comparison is it factored in that many poorer nations will not have access to pills like this?

I'm sure that the lack of easy access to birth control is a factor in the large abortion rates of some of the countries listed on the site I posted. The fact remains that countries that have outlawed abortion don't necessarily have lower abortion rates than those that have not outlawed it. The point is that one way to limit abortion is to make birth control, and information about birth control, widely available, but outlawing it doesn't necessarily limit it.

Posted by Libsmasher:

If laws against abortion don't limit abortions, why have pro-abortionists fought tooth and nail for 35 years to prevent such laws?

Pro abortionists? I'm not sure just what that might be. Most people see abortion as a negative thing, not something to celebrate or try to increase. The goal of most thinking people is to cut back the abortion rate as much as possible. The question is, how?

One answer is better education. Another is better access to birth control. Another is simply more self control, but, how can that be legislated?

Social ills tend to be complex in nature, and not solvable by simplistic methods, like passing unenforceable laws.

 

[BigRob]

I'm sure that the lack of easy access to birth control is a factor in the large abortion rates of some of the countries listed on the site I posted. The fact remains that countries that have outlawed abortion don't necessarily have lower abortion rates than those that have not outlawed it. The point is that one way to limit abortion is to make birth control, and information about birth control, widely available, but outlawing it doesn't necessarily limit it.

I can accept this argument.

But at the same time, to look at it from a purely domestic viewpoint, abortion rates have increased by over 100% since it was legalized.

I would argue as well, that in the United States we have pretty easy access to birth control, and pretty easy information about birth control as well, yet abortions continue at the same high rates.

Therefore, it would seem (from a purely domestic viewpoint) that the legalization of abortion in the United States did indeed increase the rate that abortions were committed, and that rate has remained high, even with easy access to birth control and education.

 

[PLC1]

I can accept this argument.

But at the same time, to look at it from a purely domestic viewpoint, abortion rates have increased by over 100% since it was legalized.

I would argue as well, that in the United States we have pretty easy access to birth control, and pretty easy information about birth control as well, yet abortions continue at the same high rates.

Therefore, it would seem (from a purely domestic viewpoint) that the legalization of abortion in the United States did indeed increase the rate that abortions were committed, and that rate has remained high, even with easy access to birth control and education.

We don't know that it has increased at all since it was legalized. As you said yourself, and correctly, data from before Roe v Wade is pretty sketchy and not reliable. Of course, we don't know that it hasn't, either, which is why looking at other nations is one way to determine the result of legalization.

Of course, that doesn't prove anything, really, since there are a lot of factors determining abortion rate: poverty, access to birth control, woman's rights, acceptance of abortion, popular culture, and so on.

The fact remains, given all of that, that abortion is a complex problem and isn't going to go away by any simple means. You may believe that outlawing abortion will lessen the rate, but you can't prove it, and the indications are that it most likely wouldn't work.

But, the argument is academic anyway, as Roe V. Wade isn't going to go away, regardless of who might get elected to the presidency.

 

[CONSERVERATIVETOO]

Certainly one of the byproducts of President elect Obama's ( that does sound good doesn't it?) historic victory will be his ability to put an abrupt end to the right wing takeover of the Supreme Court. Obama's nominations will be more in line with the views of the majority of the American people...and Roe V Wade is safe, at least for now.

Roberts, Scalia, and Uncle Thomas best move over, the liberals are coming!

yes, You libs are certainly proud of your ability to slaughter over 50 million babies since 1973. With the election of B.O. who loves abortions , even partial birth abortion . Plus B.O. says and voted to kill any baby that should by the grace of GOD survive an abortion. Sadly this does reflect the agenda of the democrat party . I'm positive B.O. will work to increase that 50 million number. Are YOU proud to be an AMERICAN ? , Hitler only murdered 6 million Jews, America today is not racist , we will abort any race!! THINK!!

 

[BigRob]

We don't know that it has increased at all since it was legalized. As you said yourself, and correctly, data from before Roe v Wade is pretty sketchy and not reliable. Of course, we don't know that it hasn't, either, which is why looking at other nations is one way to determine the result of legalization.

I can accept that, but circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it did drastically increase. Obviously it is at best circumstantial, therefore proving nothing.

Of course, that doesn't prove anything, really, since there are a lot of factors determining abortion rate: poverty, access to birth control, woman's rights, acceptance of abortion, popular culture, and so on.

I agree with this, which is why I believe it is better to focus on the situation within a country rather than between countries.

The fact remains, given all of that, that abortion is a complex problem and isn't going to go away by any simple means. You may believe that outlawing abortion will lessen the rate, but you can't prove it, and the indications are that it most likely wouldn't work.

I do believe it yes, but as you say my evidence is circumstantial. It is quite the complex problem, I agree with that.

But, the argument is academic anyway, as Roe V. Wade isn't going to go away, regardless of who might get elected to the presidency.

I believe it will go away at some point. Perhaps not within my lifetime, but I think it will. That is simply my personal opinion however.

 

[Libsmasher]

Pro abortionists? I'm not sure just what that might be. Most people see abortion as a negative thing, not something to celebrate or try to increase.

You're so innocent and clueless, they should change your name to Bambi. To a feminazi, feminazis being the overwhelming majority of the leadership of the pro-abortion movement, the only bad abortion is the one that doesn't happen. They have long called for something named the Reproductive Freedom Act (they keep tweaking the name), which would establish an absolute right by any female of any age and any stage of pregnancy to get an abortion for any reason - the ultimate goal they've aimed at for decades. They bitterly opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. They screamed like stuck pigs that Bush wouldn't free up funds to go to UN operations in the PRC, where they would be used to support the program to force women who have had one child to abort any future ones. They insanely deny that the PRC even does this, when everyone including the whole lib stablishment except them knows it's true.

Feminazis have a clear-eyed, unwavering focus on the human fetus - it symbolizes everything they hate and despise. That a woman can have children, and has all the biology to support it, is the only really significant difference between men and women. The feminazis know that, they hate that fact with a fury, and they want the results of it dead. They know (but won't admit) that it's ultimately the affect of children which is, eg, the cause of women's lower average salaries, not any so-called "glass ceiling".

 

[oceanenvy]

Yes you have a right to be critical of her policy, of course. It has always been that kids are off limits. Her daughter being pregnant should not be something we are talking about. Libs sure want us to leave the obama kids alone and I agree with them to leave the kids alone but being the kind of people they are libs always attack conservative or repubilcan peoples kids.

I am asking that you leave the palin kids alone, and I am asking that Sarah Palin's parenting skills and style not be an issue. Now if you can show me some where where she has tried to pass laws so that you can not raise your daughter with the parenting style you want to do, I will be right with you in being critical.. I just think its low to attack her as a parent or attack her children.

I have never attacked her as a parent or the choices she makes. But when Palin says in an interview that it should be illegal for a 17 year-old girl who was raped to get an abortion, that's when I draw the line.

She has also said that she believes that abstinence-only should be taught in schools, along with creationism. I am against this as well, and to me, that IS legislating her personal religious choices to everyone else. I have every right to object to those positions on the issues. I could care less what she does with her family.

 

[oceanenvy]

If laws against abortion don't limit abortions, why have pro-abortionists fought tooth and nail for 35 years to prevent such laws?

Because we want them to be SAFE and legal. When abortion is illegal, access to high-quality centers is cut-off, and the abortions that are done are often done in low-quality non-sterile environments. That is why women want this to remain legal.

 

[PLC1]

You're so innocent and clueless, they should change your name to Bambi. To a feminazi, feminazis being the overwhelming majority of the leadership of the pro-abortion movement, the only bad abortion is the one that doesn't happen. They have long called for something named the Reproductive Freedom Act (they keep tweaking the name), which would establish an absolute right by any female of any age and any stage of pregnancy to get an abortion for any reason - the ultimate goal they've aimed at for decades. They bitterly opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. They screamed like stuck pigs that Bush wouldn't free up funds to go to UN operations in the PRC, where they would be used to support the program to force women who have had one child to abort any future ones. They insanely deny that the PRC even does this, when everyone including the whole lib stablishment except them knows it's true.

Feminazis have a clear-eyed, unwavering focus on the human fetus - it symbolizes everything they hate and despise. That a woman can have children, and has all the biology to support it, is the only really significant difference between men and women. The feminazis know that, they hate that fact with a fury, and they want the results of it dead. They know (but won't admit) that it's ultimately the affect of children which is, eg, the cause of women's lower average salaries, not any so-called "glass ceiling".

feminazis? Do you really get all of your "news" from Rush?

Try reading my posts sometime. It might give you a new perspective. I've never been for abortion, for example, and I'm certainly not a feminist of any kind.

 

[Libsmasher]

Because we want them to be SAFE and legal.

A "safe abortion" is a sick Orwellian self-contradiction - there is no such thing. In every abortion, at least one human being dies.

 

[oceanenvy]

A "safe abortion" is a sick Orwellian self-contradiction - there is no such thing. In every abortion, at least one human being dies.

Well, you are certainly free to have that position.

As far as my position, I am glad that the rights of the woman supercede until viability, depending on the state. Most Americans agree.

You have a perfect right to feel my position is "sick", just as I have a perfect right to think you are wrong.

 

[Pandora]

I would be happy to have tax payer funded abortions to any woman who wants it under one condition. sterilization of all women who get abortions except those who are having life threatening abortions.