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: 08-05-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 8:33pm

K, first of all, thank you to everyone who replied. It definitely goes far to help me understand why pro-choice people believe the way they do.

Our fundamental difference lies in the fact that I believe that the right to live trumps the mother's right to her uterus being free and clear of a fertilized egg. End of story. If she wants her body free of conceiving unwanted life forms, then she should take steps to prevent it from happening. I practice what I preach, never had sex till married, only with my husband, etc..

Since I know someone will bring up a rape conception, I have this to say: Hopefully I never get raped, but if I do, I would not abort if a child resulted. I'm just saying that it would not fit my beliefs to do so.

Obviously everyone has free-will. Heck, you could go out and murder anyone you choose. That is your choice. Whether you choose right or wrong will be debated depending on who you talk to. I think that abortion is ending a life, and medical evidence supports this.

So yeah, believe what you want, I thought perhaps that a woman's health being endangered in a variety of ways that a pregnancy never would, would have some sort of importance with people who are so concerned with woman's welfare, but I understand now that women's health after abortion will never be an important factor. I appreciate the people who brought up specific issues from the article I mentioned. As the article states, more research needs to be done, and the far-reaching effects of abortion are not even fully explored.

The answer to my question, then, is that the risks of abortion and their subsequent negative effects on women's health is not an issue. (I still think that even though pregnancy has risks, the risks of abortion are wide, varied, and not discussed enough).

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 8:41pm

>>Plastic surgery has a lot of risks, and I believe is far more common.

Umm, I think such a statement should be backed by statistics for real debate purposes. Since a 3rd party's life is not being endangered (or a z/e/f), I fail to see how it is relevant to this debate. I could just not be getting your point, however (always possible, I have a preggo brain :D). Maybe if we probe it a little further I will understand.

>>"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.

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that abortions are performed in greater numbers today rather than, say, 500 years ago when people had larger families. Infanticide was probably more common than it is today, but I didn't think people had as reliable access to abortions as today. Also most cultures had some sort of religious belief that would have condemned abortion. I think numbers would be hard to find in this case, but I can look.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 8:46pm
Women in the US die during childbirth at a rate of 9-15 per 100,000. I say 9-15 because some sources said 9 out of 100,000 and one source said 15 out of 100,000.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:06pm

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that abortions are performed in greater numbers today rather than, say, 500 years ago when people had larger families. Infanticide was probably more common than it is today, but I didn't think people had as reliable access to abortions as today. Also most cultures had some sort of religious belief that would have condemned abortion. I think numbers would be hard to find in this case, but I can look.




Can you back that statement up with statistical facts for "real debate purposes?" How do you know that less abortions were were being performed 500 years ago? Simply because people had larger families then does not mean that less abortions were being performed. It could be that societies 500 years ago were set up in a way that parents needed large numbers of children in order to work their farm and provide for the rest of the family. Or perhaps birth control is now more effective and available, thus less pregnancies are occuring now, which helps families stay smaller. And do you know for certain that "most cultures had some sort of religious belief that would have condemned abortion" or are you just assuming that to be true? Abortion was only illegal in this country for a little over 100 years, so I don't know that that's necessarily true. I appreciate that you said you would look for some research about this issue. I am interested to see what you find.

pregnancy Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Phot
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:18pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:42am

~The answer to my question, then, is that the risks of abortion and their subsequent negative effects on women's health is not an issue.~


No, the "answer" is that it's not a logical

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:57am
<<

Our fundamental difference lies in the fact that I believe that the right to live trumps the mother's right to her uterus being free and clear of a fertilized egg. End of story. If she wants her body free of conceiving unwanted life forms, then she should take steps to prevent it from happening. I practice what I preach, never had sex till married, only with my husband, etc..


Powered by CGISpy.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2007
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 1:18am

When you came here and asked for an opinion, you should have been truthful. Your first post spoke of respect fr everyone, but you got a lot of good answers and then acted totally different. If you only wanted to hear what you preached, then why did you ask?


OK, you "practice what you preach". Well, my sister was married AND on B/C and she still got pregnant. She knew she wasn't going to stay married, yet she had her baby anyway. I love her no less (and neither does she) but would she have been a bigger drain on healthcare then or now, since she is deeply disturbed (and not from environment)?


I am entirely NOT an expert on other people having children, and even if you do have a degree, but have not had sufficient surveilience of someone else's kids, then neither are you.


Take all the expert opinions you want, but they never survey the people YOU know. Just remember that.

Photobucket AB blinkie
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 7:08am

>>The answer to my question, then, is that the risks of abortion and their subsequent negative effects on women's health is not an issue. <<

I think you are missing the point of what people were saying. No one said abortion carries no risk what they said is they feel it should be up to the person undertaking the risk to decide which set of risks (abortion or pregnancy) she wants to roll the dice with


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 7:10am

>>How do you know that less abortions were were being performed 500 years ago? Simply because people had larger families then does not mean that less abortions were being performed. It could be that societies 500 years ago were set up in a way that parents needed large numbers of children in order to work their farm and provide for the rest of the family. <<

Lets not forget 500 years ago many kids did not survive their first year of life and even more died in their first 5. Also large families were easier to support as people lived off the land


Photobucket

Pages