Reply
Trusted Contributor

Abortion

Many of my Christian conservative friends seem to vote primarily on a candidate's stand on this issue, as if a single representative or even President can snap their fingers and make a change in abortion law.   In a recent conversation, one said that there are a large number of abortion-related deaths ( of women) even with legal abortions, which might tend to downplay the risks of overturning Roe v Wade and returning to the era of illegal abortions.

 

I'm wondering what the truth is here.  I hate the idea of abortion and think everything possible should be done to avoid it, including the willingness to have more taxes placed on me to subsidize adoption and things like child-care for women contemplating an abortion.   But I'm really wondering what would things be like if Roe v Wade were overturned.  Surely abortions would continue, just illegally, and we've all heard the horror stories of "back-alley" abortions.

 

 

Burnhaven
Honored Social Butterfly

Just another aspect of Nixon's Southern Strategy - the "useful fools" Tricky used to get elected now run his party. The last time they thought about questioning religon was age 6, when they wondered aloud how all those kangaroos got from Turkey to Austrailia and were told such thought would send them straight to Hell. So, since their preachers told them life begins with conception and it is a great sin to take a life, they have no choice but to deny women their choice.

 

Thanks Hillary Haters for making sure these geniuses now control our Government.

Honored Social Butterfly

I can see the Bible Belt again trying to manipulate its congregation.

Again, it is a woman's issue,it is the safety of any woman that makes that detrmination. and what is worse.

No one will ever stop a termination of a pregnance if a termination is what it is decided. Not now, not ever in history.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

I can see the Bible Belt again trying to manipulate its congregation.

Again, it is a woman's issue,.....nope, it's a man AND a woman's issue....it is the safety of any woman that makes that detrmination. BULL!  Most abortions have nothing to do with "the safety of a woman"....it's almost always a birth control issue.  and what is worse.  (sic)  claiming it's only a woman's issue.

No one will ever stop a termination of a pregnance if a termination is what it is decided. Not now, not ever in history.  You should bone up on your "history"....


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Indianrock wrote:

Many of my Christian conservative friends seem to vote primarily on a candidate's stand on this issue, as if a single representative or even President can snap their fingers and make a change in abortion law.   In a recent conversation, one said that there are a large number of abortion-related deaths ( of women) even with legal abortions, which might tend to downplay the risks of overturning Roe v Wade and returning to the era of illegal abortions.

 

I'm wondering what the truth is here.  I hate the idea of abortion and think everything possible should be done to avoid it, including the willingness to have more taxes placed on me to subsidize adoption and things like child-care for women contemplating an abortion.   But I'm really wondering what would things be like if Roe v Wade were overturned.  Surely abortions would continue, just illegally, and we've all heard the horror stories of "back-alley" abortions.

 

 


That's quite a dilemma...

 

Yes, undoubtedly you will end up paying increased taxes to support children whose mother will not keep and care for them after birth.

 

It's also possible that the pregnant woman who is prohibited an abortion might well not care much at all about the healthy development of a pregnancy she doesn't want(especially if it's the result of rape) - therefore considerably raising the possibility of a child with mild to severe congenital deficiencies - another additional cost to you.

 

Total cost per child has been estimated at between $200 thousand and $500 thousand - per child - to make it to age 18 - depending upon whether the child has congenital/developmental problems...

 

It's also highly probable that you will end up paying more - in higher hospital charges -  for some of the emergency medical care for women who have complications from back alley abortions and have no means of paying.

 

It's widely known that a multiple dose of any of about a dozen different brands of birth control pills can be used as emergency contraception, which would drastically reduce the number of "back alley abortions".

It's far more than likely that if abortions and birth control pills are outlawed, that the black market will fill that niche quickly, and enrich those who provide illegal abortions, as well as smugglers of contraceptives and abortifacients - another group that would increase the tax load for additional law enforcement hires to (mostly unsuccessfully) attempt to interdict.

 

Abortion is not something you can ever have any hope of being able to legislate out of existence - nor will religious mandates have any significant effect - as history has repeatedly and amply demonstrated...

 

The written history of abortion is over 4000 years old - and it's total history is older yet  - it will not go away - ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44>dolt45
Trusted Social Butterfly

Aside from any very valid considerations surrounding abortion is the ethical issue surrounding deliberate termination of life, ANY LIFE....by other life.  The issue extends beyond the human species all the way down to single celled LIFE.  Convention resolves that consideration at the point where the matter sustaining the life form using it is wholly inorganic.  Before that point is reached, ALL life that man knows of is sustained by the destruction of other life.  That fact makes us ALL predators.

 

Life itself AND every single particle of matter or energy that sustains life came from a single source....as far as we know.  The science of Man calls that source "The Big Bang".  Everything, no matter what, is composed of dust coming from that single source. The galaxy, the sun, the earth, the moon, that tree in your back yard AND that steak you just barbecued.  That fact makes you and me cannibals to one degree or another.  Every other form of life too, the exception has been noted above.

 

Lately it seems the universe resulting from the Big Bang we 'know' about may not be the only one AND the matter we 'think' it this one is made of may not be the only matter.  That in turn raises the question of how many 'Big Bangs' have happened and how many are yet to come.  See....it gets unmanageable pretty quick because there is no way to get our puny brain around something like that....not Einstein, not Hawking, not anybody human that I know of...at least to date.

 

So what's the point of all this in a topic about abortion.  Well...the point is that it IS the only point that has any real meaning.  In addition to being predators and cannibals to one degree or another, we are all hypocrites to one degree or another.  So...let's see now...at what point do you determine when it is or isn't justifiable to take another life?  That's a real question, not rhetorical.  The answer will tell everyone just how much of a hypocrite you really are.  And that's the real point, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

I will now try to explain as to why it is a woman's issue. 
I will try to put it in a crude manner.

Women:   A Coke machine.
Men"   a quarter.

Men" put quater in machine,  Woman produce a bottle of coke.

The intervention of that quater as we all know has become quite irrelevant. Therefore the decission to reproduce these days, is still a women's decission 
Now, if we are speaking about taking a life.
It entirely depends on when you think that Life is created. according to science it  cannot be called a life until the proper time has passed
You bet, all cells are a form of life, and yet, you walk on a grass field, it contains life. you kill a mosquito that is a life.
So, when the word Life is now seen in the eyes of many.  It is also, a workd that has that has different meanings to different people.
Therefore, let's all keep our own beleif on what is Life, but never try to impose that belief on others.

no name
0 Kudos
606 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@Roxanna35 wrote:

I will now try to explain as to why it is a woman's issue. 
I will try to put it in a crude manner.

Women:   A Coke machine.
Men"   a quarter.

Men" put quater in machine,  Woman produce a bottle of coke.

The intervention of that quater as we all know has become quite irrelevant. Therefore the decission to reproduce these days, is still a women's decission 

 

The Coke, the product, already exists in the machine.  Another woman, or child can place a quarter in the machine and the product will appear.  The Coke machine in your bizarre example, doesn't have a "choice" to make.  So you just blew your own reasoning out of the water.

 

A child does not already exist in a woman, just waiting for a man to insert his quarter.  If that was the case, two woman could produce a child and no sperm would be necessary.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:
@Roxanna35 wrote:

I will now try to explain as to why it is a woman's issue. 
I will try to put it in a crude manner.

Women:   A Coke machine.
Men"   a quarter.

Men" put quater in machine,  Woman produce a bottle of coke.

The intervention of that quater as we all know has become quite irrelevant. Therefore the decission to reproduce these days, is still a women's decission 

 

The Coke, the product, already exists in the machine.  Another woman, or child can place a quarter in the machine and the product will appear.  The Coke machine in your bizarre example, doesn't have a "choice" to make.  So you just blew your own reasoning out of the water.  The coke  is the the product of the quater, no quarter no product. and in todays world you are correct eithter a female Dr or a male doctor can actually   fertilize an egg and a child is produced.Look, my example may not be that great, but the point is tha is the female that creates and nurtures that egg until it becomes a person and eventually gives birth that that person. Men, have little to do with any of this. If you want to feel all of that responsibility, Great. and good for you. but I can assure you that the child will exist with or without you.

 

A child does not already exist in a woman, just waiting for a man to insert his quarter.  If that was the case, two woman could produce a child and no sperm would be necessary.
Ony  eggs exist in the women and without that egg. no speerm will ever produce a child. who knows, they may produce a sperm that may fertilize an egg and then what?


 

no name
0 Kudos
651 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:
@Roxanna35 wrote:

I will now try to explain as to why it is a woman's issue. 
I will try to put it in a crude manner.

Women:   A Coke machine.
Men"   a quarter.

Men" put quater in machine,  Woman produce a bottle of coke.

The intervention of that quater as we all know has become quite irrelevant. Therefore the decission to reproduce these days, is still a women's decission 

 

The Coke, the product, already exists in the machine.  Another woman, or child can place a quarter in the machine and the product will appear.  The Coke machine in your bizarre example, doesn't have a "choice" to make.  So you just blew your own reasoning out of the water.  The coke  is the the product of the quater, no quarter no product. Horrible analogy....as pointed out earlier, the Coke already exists in the machine.  In fact, it's well stocked with Coke's.  and in todays world you are correct eithter a female Dr or a male doctor can actually   fertilize an egg and a child is produced.  Can't fertilize an egg without a male.  Look, my example may not be that great, but the point is tha is the female that creates and nurtures that egg  Yep, wasn't a very good one, but no biggie.  But you are WRONG when you say the female "creates"...it takes both a male and female.   until it becomes a person and eventually gives birth that that person. Men, have little to do with any of this. There is NO creation without a male.  Why deny it?  Is it just to justify your belief that no men should have a say?  That's a VERY sexist position you know.  If you want to feel all of that responsibility, Great. and good for you. but I can assure you that the child will exist with or without you.  And wouldn't have existed without a male?  Why are you so insistent a male should have no say?  Isn't that what you and I are discussing?

 

A child does not already exist in a woman, just waiting for a man to insert his quarter.  If that was the case, two woman could produce a child and no sperm would be necessary.
Ony  eggs exist in the women and without that egg. no speerm will ever produce a child. who knows, No kidding; and without the sperm, the egg will just leave the body.  Ya see?  Women need men to reproduce, just as men need women.  It's actually pretty cool.  they may produce a sperm that may fertilize an egg and then what?  Well, and then you say, "get lost; it's all about me and what I want". Rather self-centered, IMO.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
648 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Indianrock wrote:
   But I'm really wondering what would things be like if Roe v Wade were overturned.  Surely abortions would continue, just illegally, and we've all heard the horror stories of "back-alley" abortions.

 

 


"We've come a long way, Baby . . . . ."

 

Today, we have so much access to various types of contraception with a high effective rate, morning after pill (over the counter availability), even a medication (RU486) to terminate an unwanted pregnacy up to 8-weeks, that actual surgical abortions for just the elimination of an unwanted pregnancy should be minimal in number if women are knowledgeable about their bodies and what is available.

 

All of this could easily handled via a woman's personal physician without government being involve - or anybody else - (well, anybody who is not already involved - like the father or the parents of a minor child).  Education can also be done by a personal physician or counterpart.

 

The problem comes in when money to pay for services is paid for by somebody else - that opens up them having a say in the process - same as any other medical need.

 

I believe in the right to choose - but not just for this type of service.  Overturning Row vs Wade, would not affect the choice one way or another if pregnancy was treated just like the personal nature of any medical need or procedure - at least not for those who are paying for their care even through private insurance.

 

When others get involve in our individual medical lives by paying for services, then they can make the rules of coverage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Indianrock wrote:
   But I'm really wondering what would things be like if Roe v Wade were overturned.  Surely abortions would continue, just illegally, and we've all heard the horror stories of "back-alley" abortions.

 

 


"We've come a long way, Baby . . . . ."

 

Today, we have so much access to various types of contraception with a high effective rate, morning after pill (over the counter availability), even a medication (RU486) to terminate an unwanted pregnacy up to 8-weeks, that actual surgical abortions for just the elimination of an unwanted pregnancy should be minimal in number if women are knowledgeable about their bodies and what is available.

 

All of this could easily handled via a woman's personal physician without government being involve - or anybody else - (well, anybody who is not already involved - like the father or the parents of a minor child).  Education can also be done by a personal physician or counterpart.

 

The problem comes in when money to pay for services is paid for by somebody else - that opens up them having a say in the process - same as any other medical need.

 

I believe in the right to choose - but not just for this type of service.  Overturning Row vs Wade, would not affect the choice one way or another if pregnancy was treated just like the personal nature of any medical need or procedure - at least not for those who are paying for their care even through private insurance.

 

When others get involve in our individual medical lives by paying for services, then they can make the rules of coverage.

 

 


Roe VS Wade meant the state does not have the right to interfere with a woman's right to chose.  You can't be against RVW and for the right to chose. 

Honored Social Butterfly

I have always gotten upset when men try to give their opinion on a subject that I consider  a female only subject.

Being  also a pro choice person, I believe that decission to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult decissin for all females and it should be left to her, to make that decission.
If abortions were to become illegal, there will always be abortions, a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy will find a wiay to terminate that pregnancy.
Of course in todays world abortions are probably the last option due to the fact that contraceptives are available. but, as a females, we all know that sometimes even when using contraceptives we find ourselves pregnant.
Therefore, it is the safety of the female that we should be concerned because abortions have existed since the first female got pregnant and will continue to exist hopefully in small numbers.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

I have always gotten upset when men try to give their opinion on a subject that I consider  a female only subject.

Being  also a pro choice person, I believe that decission to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult decissin for all females and it should be left to her, to make that decission.
If abortions were to become illegal, there will always be abortions, a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy will find a wiay to terminate that pregnancy.
Of course in todays world abortions are probably the last option due to the fact that contraceptives are available. but, as a females, we all know that sometimes even when using contraceptives we find ourselves pregnant.
Therefore, it is the safety of the female that we should be concerned because abortions have existed since  the first female got pregnant and will continue to exist hopefully in small numbers.

 

I've always been a pro-choice supporter, though I am an active adoption advocate as well.

 

But, riker, please let us know when pregnacy becomes a female only subject.  Sperm doesn't grow on tree's ya know.  A man's right to be part of the decision making process is a reality.  When that ceases, so should a woman's right to seek support from a male.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
613 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

I have always gotten upset when men try to give their opinion on a subject that I consider  a female only subject.

Being  also a pro choice person, I believe that decission to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult decissin for all females and it should be left to her, to make that decission.
If abortions were to become illegal, there will always be abortions, a woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy will find a wiay to terminate that pregnancy.
Of course in todays world abortions are probably the last option due to the fact that contraceptives are available. but, as a females, we all know that sometimes even when using contraceptives we find ourselves pregnant.
Therefore, it is the safety of the female that we should be concerned because abortions have existed since the first female got pregnant and will continue to exist hopefully in small numbers.


I agree its a womens issue. but until that great day when only women are allowed to vote on womens reproductive rights and reproductive health care, i will continue to be a bck seat driver. fumbling opinions or not, I am on your side.

 

So it begins.
0 Kudos
612 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Yet , wasn't it all Republican Men in Congress that made the recent Healthcare and Planned Parenthood proposal decisions ???

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Indianrock wrote:
   But I'm really wondering what would things be like if Roe v Wade were overturned.  Surely abortions would continue, just illegally, and we've all heard the horror stories of "back-alley" abortions.

 

 


"We've come a long way, Baby . . . . ."

 

The problem comes in when money to pay for services is paid for by somebody else - that opens up them having a say in the process - same as any other medical need.

 

I believe in the right to choose - but not just for this type of service.  Overturning Row vs Wade, would not affect the choice one way or another if pregnancy was treated just like the personal nature of any medical need or procedure - at least not for those who are paying for their care even through private insurance.

 

When others get involve in our individual medical lives by paying for services, then they can make the rules of coverage.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Gail - When the "other" getting involved is the Federal Government, it means the involvement should treat ALL those receiving services equally. The real " legal abortion" is the Hyde Amendment that makes treatment of poor people who have no other source of reproductive health care "inferIor" because they are denied LEGAL services available to women who get their care from facilities whose federal support comes in less obvious ways, like medical research and subsidies for medical educations and federally supported health insurance.

 

We are all involved in paying for DOD, but we do NOT allow pacifists to direct the activities of DOD to include only non-lethal weapons and negotiated settlements. Why should a minority of Americans views control how we fund health care? The whole notion of "We the People" as the ruling power in the USA is the antithesis of your view of SOME of those who pay get to decide WHO gets served.

Trusted Contributor

Thanks for the reply... I think if I'm going to respond to my friends who seem to believe that we're actually having more deaths with legal abortions than what we used to have when abortion was illegal I'm going to have to have statistics and sources.

Burnhaven
Honored Social Butterfly

Indianrock:  Thanks for the reply... I think if I'm going to respond to my friends who seem to believe that we're actually having more deaths with legal abortions than what we used to have when abortion was illegal

 

 

 

Perhaps you should ask your friend where they get their information?

 

Although recognized as an underestimation, the CDC has reported between zero and two annual maternal deaths from 1979–2004 in the U.S. due to complications of abortion.7

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791734/

Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

Indianrock:  Thanks for the reply... I think if I'm going to respond to my friends who seem to believe that we're actually having more deaths with legal abortions than what we used to have when abortion was illegal

 

 

 

Perhaps you should ask your friend where they get their information?

 

Although recognized as an underestimation, the CDC has reported between zero and two annual maternal deaths from 1979–2004 in the U.S. due to complications of abortion.7

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791734/


To put that into perspective with the situation before Roe v Wade,

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

 

Depriving women of reproductive services as Republicans demand will not end or even significantly reduce abortions. It will simply kill or disable more poor women. And make no mistake, it is ONLY the poor who are effected. The rich and middle class will always have safe abortion services available.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Indianrock wrote:

Thanks for the reply... I think if I'm going to respond to my friends who seem to believe that we're actually having more deaths with legal abortions than what we used to have when abortion was illegal I'm going to have to have statistics and sources.


Here's the problem: When abortion was illegal, the compassionate authorities did not want to "defame" the dead woman by recording she died from a botched abortion, so the cause of death was given as "sepsis" (blood posioning).

 

What you should consider is if ANY death from a "back-alley" abortion is justified by the desire to protect the unborn from mothers who don't want or simply cannot afford them.

Honored Social Butterfly

Most abortion related deaths of women are the result of infections from unsafe practices. Outlawing abortion will not have a major impact on the number of abortions but will result in an increase in women dying from an abortion.

 

The best ways to reduce the incidence of abortion are through better education and easier access to contraception. Those states that have provided the education and access have shown dramatic decreases.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png