A Question for the Pro-Choicers

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2008
A Question for the Pro-Choicers
138
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 12:35pm

After lurking on these debates for a while, I've come to the conclusion that there would be little I could say or do to change anyone's mind, however I AM interested to know some more information of Pro-Choicers reasons for their beliefs.

So, after reading a lot of the posts, I've noticed that there have been a lot of pro-choicers who bring up the issue of women's health, and the subsequent termination of the pregnancy (i.e., baby is potentially putting mamma's health at risk by her carrying it to full term).

My issue is not with this. I am a pro-lifer, and were I to conceive an ectopic pregnancy, I would sadly have to abort it because there is very little chance the baby would survive, and I most likely not survive as well. This view is supported by my religion, so these are not the circumstances I am talking about.

We all know that there a lot of abortions happening all the time. I'm not gonna pretend I know the numbers, but I'm gonna throw the idea out there that a lot of these abortions happen to viable pregnancies because of other concerns of the mother (assuming that the risks of carrying the fetus to term would be no more than an average pregnancy for an average woman).

So my question is this: If people are speaking of the woman in question, who decides to abort her average pregnancy for whatever reason (there are multitudes of reasons she might, I'm not even gonna try to throw in some examples) and saying that "it is her right, after all, her health could be endangered", what about all the risks of abortion itself?

Here is a link I found, that lists quite a few possible complications from abortion:
http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html
I'm sure there is more out there, I just thought that this could be a place to start.

The complications preceding from an aborted fetus COULD far outweigh the risks of carrying the child full term. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a lot of the complications women have with their pregnancies could be avoided if they'd never had an abortion to begin with! (Incompetent cervix, pre-term birth, higher risks of ectopic pregnancies, to name just a few). This is of course an assumption on my part. Of course there will be always risks in pregnancy, but I almost wonder if women really are aware of all the risks when they do have one?

depression, possible suicide, infertility, cerebral palsy in your future children, cervical cancers, actual death... wow, these factors may be the woman's individual right to choose, but it is a strain on our health care system nonetheless. When your current and future children are at risk as well, abortion goes far beyond simply impacting the woman's health. It affects her partner, kids, and her country. So yes, she has a choice, but should it be so easy and socially acceptable given all the risks? People have been having babies in far greater numbers to abortions in the past societies leading up to this one, and it's gotten us to where we are today. Do we have an issue here or don't we?

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 12:52pm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/248/2/188

Mortality from abortion and childbirth. Are the populations comparable?
S. A. LeBolt, D. A. Grimes and W. Cates Jr

Critics have challenged previous comparisons of mortality from legal abortion and childbirth for contrasting population groups with different clinical characteristics. They allege that most women dying from abortion were young, white, and healthy, while those dying from childbirth had serious underlying conditions. To address this question, we calculated standardized abortion and childbirth mortality rates between 1972 and 1978. We also adjusted independently for preexisting medical conditions. These adjustments for demographic and health differences between the two populations actually widened the difference in the mortality risk between abortion and childbirth. Thus, between 1972 and 1978, women were about seven times more likely to die from childbirth than from legal abortion, with the gap increasing in the more recent years.

*********************************
Perhaps childbirth shouldn't be automatically permitted given it's seven times more likely to result in maternal death than abortion.

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 12:54pm

I'm not sure I can answer your question because my reasons for being pro-choice do not hinge on the mother's health.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-13-2004
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 12:55pm

1 in 20 women will suffer a potentially fatal condition in pregnancy called pre-eclampsia. That is also barring the potential for uterine rupture, hemmorage, which is happens in about 5% of pregnancies, infections (because of their depressed immune system, even the flu usually requires hospitilization for the mother), 30% chance of c-section which raises the maternal death rate 2.5%, life-threatening anemia, increased risk of embolisms, severe post-partum depression, not to mention the very real risk of being on bed-rest and unable to make a living.


In the developing world, it is common for women in birth to say goodbye to their children, 1 in 48 will die.


Even in the United States, it is wrong to assume birth is safe.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2004
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 1:57pm

Actually your argument supports the prochoice stance (when considered with the fact that gestation and birth are 7x more likely to cause maternal death than abortion).

Once a woman is pregnant, there is no easy way out for her. She cannot avoid taking responsibility for the situation. She MUST choose which set of risks she will opt for, and she is the only person who can make that decision (in consultation with her dr). None of us can know the situation of a woman we've never met. That's why I'm prochoice.

With a massive global overpopulation problem? Sorry, not sure where you're going with this bit...?

baby siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 2:12pm

Hi, and welcome to the board!

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 2:19pm

<>

ITA. From a purely health perspective, pregnancy/birth is way more risky than abortion. My sister never wants children, so of course she uses birth control, but if that should ever fail, she would choose the risks of abortion over the risks of pregnancy any day. And she's a doctor, so she knows exactly what the risks of each path are.

Photobucket










Photobucket




iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2007
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 3:28pm

My decision to be pro-choice doesn't depend on health issues anyway. It's just a personal choice- just like I wouldn't force someone to eat certain foods or use a certain brand of tampons.


I have to agree that the health risks are higher when a pregnancy goes to term than the risks of having an abortion. And if you have one, these risks are explained to you beforehand. And I may be wrong, but I think that a lot of birth-control choices carrythe same risks you outlined.

Photobucket AB blinkie
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-06-2010
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 3:55pm

There are risks we do with anything in our life. I am pro-choice because I do not believe a women should be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to. Obviously there are risks with abortion just as there are with pregnancy. There are also lots of risks with the birth control women take just to avoid getting pregnant. We cannot live our lives based on risks because if we did we would never do anything in life.

If I were to get pregnant I would abort. The risk of something bad happening to me is better than carrying a child I do not want for 9 months to then put him/her into an over crowded adoption system.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 4:20pm

I just recently came out of lurkdom on this board as well. : )


I appreciate that there are possible risks to having an abortion, however the website you posted as your source is definitely incorrect. I didn't look through all of the risks they mentioned, but one of the first ones I saw has already been proven to be flat-out wrong. According to the National Cancer Institute, which has no vested interest in abortions, there is no link between breast cancer development and having an abortion.


"The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk. "


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage


"In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that a lot of the complications women have with their pregnancies could be avoided if they'd never had an abortion to begin with! (Incompetent cervix, pre-term birth, higher risks of ectopic pregnancies, to name just a few). This is of course an assumption on my part."


I don't think it's safe to make assumptions like this without appropriate data supporting your opinion.

Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 4:23pm

"If people are speaking of the woman in question, who decides to abort her average pregnancy for whatever reason (there are multitudes of reasons she might, I'm not even gonna try to throw in some examples) and saying that 'it is her right, after all, her health could be endangered', what about all the risks of abortion itself?"

I remain of the same opinion. Both abortion and pregnancy have risks and their own physical complications. As such, women should discuss those risks and come to a decision with the aid of their physician, who is infinitely more qualified to understand those risks than I am.

Pro-choice is not about advocating abortion; it's about allowing women to get abortions the same way they would any other medical procedure- with the help and advice of their doctors.

"It affects her partner, kids, and her country."

As does gestating a fetus (possibly more so), but I don't see people being very concerned about that.

"So yes, she has a choice, but should it be so easy and socially acceptable given all the risks?"

Plastic surgery has a lot of risks, and I believe is far more common. It's even performed by people who may not have a lot of training. This argument is not unique to abortion, but is common in many, many procedures.

"People have been having babies in far greater numbers to abortions in the past societies leading up to this one, and it's gotten us to where we are today."

Really? What evidence do you have to support this? Abortion wasn't always illegal in this country, or elsewhere in the world for that matter.

Photobucket
Lilypie 1st Birthday PicLilypie 1st Birthday Ticker
PhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

Pages