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

@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
658 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
655 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
620 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
619 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.

Honored Social Butterfly

The abortion issue is a prime example of Conservatives refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

 

noeCons oppose birth control. They say women should eschew sex or buy OTC birth control, which has never worked, never will.

 

The only truly effective birth control requires a doctor's involvement, and a subsidy for the pills and devices the woman and her doctor deem appropriate is necessary in the case of poor women. But neoCons say that's socialized medicine and so far have made certain it doesn't happen everywhere they have the votes to do so.

 

Then we have the welfare of the pregnant woman. Again, neoCons seem to think the only Government support should be to sew a red A on all her clothes, which is why we have 300,000 live births where the mother's first contact with any medical personelle is the staff in the ER where she gives birth. That's also where we have 260,000 Low Birthweight Infants (LBI) or "preemies" with birthweight under a kilo. On average those LBIs cost the facility around $250,000 while the pre-natal, delivery and post-natal care of a healthy infant would cost from $18,000 to $50,000, average $30,000.

 

Routine pre-natal care would eliminate virtually all those "preemies", each of which cost the medical service provider from $100,000 to $2,000,000 (avg $250K) before the baby leaves the facility. Want to reduce our outlandish cost of care in America? Allow doctors and not politicians decide which lives SHOULD be saved instead of demanding they save everyone who CAN be saved, and do this at both ends ouf our lifespans.

 

Then we have the kid the mother never wanted. S/he will cost the family $14,000 every year from birth to age 18, ($250,000  total) if the child is healthy at birth, or ten times that if it's not.

 

At the same time, the numbers of both unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women have climbed steadily in recent years. About half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned, with poor women now five times more likely than higher-income women to have an unplanned pregnancy, and six times more likely to have an unplanned birth, according to the Guttmacher Institute's recent analysis of government data.

 

Only about 40 percent of women who needed publicly funded family planning services between 2000 and 2008 got them, according to the Guttmacher Institute. During that same period, as employment levels and the number of employers offering health insurance went down, the number of women who needed these services increased by more than 1 million.

 

The bottom line is this: Republicans CLAIM to value LIFE, but what they do is insure the GOOD life stays out of reach to all but the very rich. Everybody else has to pick up the tab for the totally unnecessary billions we spend because of their decisions.

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