Abortion

For Capt. Fantastic, who always asks me where I get my number of "1/3rd of my generation" being gone:

HOW MANY?

How many abortions are there?

In the U.S. there are 2 reporting agencies. The U.S. Center for Disease Control is a passive recipient of reports voluntarily sent to it by the states. Since all states don’t report, and many report inaccurately, these totals are under-reported. The CDC does do a meticulous job of breaking down the categories, and so these are the percentages everyone uses. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a branch of Planned Parenthood, aggressively contacts hospitals and known abortionists, and the result is a more accurate and larger figure, which we use.

How many? During the 1980s and 1990s total abortions stayed about 1,550,000 annually, slowly decreasing in the 1990s. Note that the Guttmacher Institute reported that 10% of known abortion providers did not report. Adding 10% to its 1,550,000 equals 1,700,000. The total reported slowly decreased in the 1990s. When the unreported abortions are added (income tax evasion, cover-up for privacy, etc.), a figure of 1,800,000 may be more realistic. Live births have hovered just under 4,000,000. Therefore: Almost every third baby conceived in America is killed by abortion. 112 Abortion Surveillance U.S. 1988 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, July 1991. S.K. Henshaw et al., "Abortion Services in the U.S., 1987-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May-June 1990), p. 103.

What’s the story on numbers of abortion providers?

In 1973 half of all abortions in the U.S. were done in hospitals. Twenty years later it was down to 7%. Most are done in 440 large free-standing abortion chambers which did 70% of all abortions. The rest are done in doctors’ offices or in clinics that do less than half of their "business" in abortion. 5 Henshaw et al., Ab. Service in U.S. Fam. Plan Persp., June ’94

How far along in pregnancy were they?

Using a 1,500,000 figure, in 1992:

- 1.2% or 18,000 were 22 weeks or older

- 10.0% or 150,000 were 13-20 weeks

- 88.8% or 1,332,000 were 12 and under

Center for Disease Control, MWWR, Dec. ’94

In 1994 the CDC reported that in 1993, 1.3% were done after 22 weeks or about 20,000.

How many are repeaters?

Repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 but rose to 44% in 1987. In the U.S., by 1995, 45% of all abortions were repeats. S. Henshaw et al., Ab. Characteristics, 1994-95, Fam. Plan. Persp., Vol. 28, No. 4, July ’96, p. 143

What is the racial mix?

"The abortion rate for black women is approximately three times that for white women." The race of those aborting, looking at total numbers, is 63% white, 33% black and 4% "other." CDC as above 113

How many in 3rd trimester?

Probably more since the partial birth abortion technique was begun. The official figures in the U.S. stop at 22 weeks but Dr. Wm. Swartz reported on inserting laminaria in 700 women for third trimester abortions. Swartz, OB/GYN News, vol. 21, no.11, p. 23, Jan. ’87

How many abortions are there in Canada?

In Canada, in 1984, there were 64,449 abortions, which is 17.5% of their birth rate (11.7% were late abortions). In 1993 there were 104,403 abortions. Statistics Canada, Globe & Mail, July 13, 1995

The 1969 Canadian law was struck down in 1988.

Since then, many free standing abortion chambers have been set up. The result has been a steady increase in the numbers of abortions.

How about sex selection?

Few abortionists admit to doing this and so there are few reports. When reported, it is girls who are killed except for a few males known to carry or have genetic diseases.

Is abortion done for sex selection?

Selective abortion of multi-fetal pregnancies is a good example. Doctors faced with quadruplets (4) will at times selectively kill two in the womb on the supposition that survival of two has better odds than four. But, if the sex can be determined, which ones are killed? "Ninety-nine percent of the requests are to keep the boys." M. Evans, Progress in Fetal Studies . . . Thorny Ethical Issues, OB, Gyn News, Oct. 1, 1990, p. 3

In a series of 8,000 amniocenteses done in Bombay, India, 7,999 unborn girl babies and one boy baby were killed.

But think of the additional welfare costs for all these babies born to teenagers.

Planned Parenthood’s own figures are that there will be welfare costs of $13,900 for each first birth to a teenager (married and unmarried), and $8,400 cost for each first birth to her if she is 20 years or older. Compare this with the average of nearly $50,000 each will ultimately pay in taxes as an adult. M.Burt, "Public Cost of Teen Childbearing," Family Planning Perspectives, vol.18, no. 5, Sept. 1986

What about Informed Consent?

This is one of the most tragic abuses associated with the abortion industry. In any other type of surgery, the doctor is required to explain in detail what the procedure is, its possible complications, etc. Only then does the patient give "informed" consent. Abortion is unique in that, while it is surgery that is potentially dangerous to the mother, it also destroys the living being within her. To be fully informed, she should be given full factual information on the surgery, its possible complications (immediate and long-term), and, also, full details about "what she carries."

What is done? Very little factual information is given at all, and what is given is often false. The complications are ignored, glossed over, or given on a paper in fine print. Her passenger is referred to as "pregnancy tissue," "not alive yet," "not a baby yet," "just a bunch of cells," "only a glob." These descriptions are given at a stage of development when the baby already sucks her thumb and feels pain, and when we can listen to her tiny heartbeat on an office ultrasonic stethoscope. Such deception of the mother and planned railroading of her into an abortion is never more evident than when the so-called "counselor" asks her, "Do you want your menstrual period reestablished? If so, just sign up for this procedure." Abortion is not mentioned, nor anything about the baby.

There is no better example of the exploitation of women than this continuing, commercialized, and almost universal deception.

How are abortions different in practice in clinics compared to other surgery?

Abortions are unique among all types of surgery.

The chart below reflects the situation in free standing abortion clinics in the U.S. To a greater or less extent, in every nation, abortion procedures are commonly exempt from the sanitary and professional rules required of other surgery.

ABORTION ETHICAL SURGERY
Payment Cash at door Pay later
Pathologic exam Seldom Routine
Advertising Routine Rare
Counseling Usually a farce Done if needed
Second opinion Never If needed
Informed consent Legally not required Always
Kickbacks Sometimes Never
Record Keeping Sketchy In detail
Pre-op exam Often not done until Mandatory and she is on the table detailed
Follow-up exam None Mandatory and detailed
Correct Diagnosis 10-15% done on none-pregnant women Surgeon is disciplined if he does many wrong operations
Husband’s consent Not needed Expected
Husband informed Not necessary Always
Consent of parents of minor Not needed Legally required
Parents informed Seldom Legally required
Tissue disposal In garbage In humane and dignified manner
Burial In garbage Yes, if large enough In humane and dignified manner
Surgical training Not required Absolutely required
Non-medical reasons 99% About 1%
Cash "kick-backs" common forbidden

Is there a remedy?

In the U.S., states are beginning to pass "Women’s Right to Know" laws. These require the abortionist to see the patient and mandate a waiting or "cooling off" period. Most require that an information booklet be given her. Probably the best such book is from the Ohio Department of Health and was approved by the Ohio Medical & Hospital Associations. For a copy, send $2.00 to Cincinnati Right to Life at 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45239, USA.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
BIOLOGIC FACTS

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Comment

- The above is not a religious faith belief.

- The above is not a philosophic theory.

- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Note: Detailed biologic facts are in Chapters 11 and 12.

Must the question "when does human life begin" be answered?

If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.

What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?

The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.

What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?

We would ask:

Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.

Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.

But what if a person would still sincerely doubt that this is human life in the womb?

Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go? Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life? We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man? We suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.

But isn’t "conception" different from "fertilization?"

Ever since its discovery 150 years ago, both words were used to mean the union of sperm and ovum. In the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine "conception" to mean implantation. "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." E. Hughes, ed., "OB & GYN Terminology," Philadelphia: F. A. Davis,1972

This made it possible to call an intrauterine device a "contraceptive" even though it was an abortifacient (see chapter 29).

But in 1982, lengthy hearings in the U.S. Senate and the two-volume report of the Human Life Bill defined "conception" and used it exclusively to mean the time of union of sperm and ovum. "Human Life Bill," U.S. Senate Common Judiciary, Subcommittee of Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, S-158, April-June 1982, Serial No. J-97-16

This "American" semantic distortion is not accepted in many other nations where "conception," "fertilization," and "fecundation" are all used interchangeably.

But when is it a person?

"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."

I read that expecting some kind of sense, but I found nothing more than philosophy where I was promised science.

None of that proves anything. It's still not murder (especially as all of this is in utero) and it will remain so until there is a worldwide change in laws and legal definition, which hopefully will not happen. So it's still a fact that abortion isn't murder because murder is the same as it was before you posted that, and guess what? It's still not applicable to abortion. As for this:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then, the ideal is to save both. But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an unfortunate result. Your authors have traveled nationally for 30 years lecturing on this subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her death. There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its late months, but here hopefully the baby is saved. Never in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used.

It was all typed by someone with their own personal values in mind. This "We have to save them both" theory.

A) It may not even get to that point because once again it's based on the assumption that abortion is out of the question, which it isn't.

B) It's operating under the assumption that we simply must save them both. I'd personally aim for the woman who already has a life. If the child dies and the woman lives, unfortunate. If the woman dies and the child lives, worse.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Why can’t we love them both?

That's not the question that should be asked.

The question is, why can't pro-lifers stick to their guns and be pro-life, regardless of age or position. Though, the priority should be the woman already living here and to support her. That meaning her decisions.

If you don't like it and don't wanna pay for it, that's fine by me. To move for the removal of her birth given rights is wrong. You are all talk about "A baby has rights! It has birth/god given rights!" Yeah? Well a woman was once a baby, and she still has those same rights. The right to life, the right to decide what she does with her life.

Guess who DOESN'T have a say? You.

-AC

Of particular interest in this debate:

What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?

If this were a sectarian religious belief, there would be justice to such a complaint. In fact, this is not a religious question except in the broad sense of equal rights, dignity, and justice for all.

If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion. The officer corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.

I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.

The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!

This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and place of residence.

Perhaps the question should be turned around :

What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

"The question is, why can't pro-lifers stick to their guns and be pro-life, regardless of age or position. The priority should be the woman already living here and to support her. That meaning her decisions.

If you don't like it and don't wanna pay for it, that's fine by me. To move for the removal of her birth given rights is wrong. You are all talk about "A baby has rights! It has birth/god given rights!" Yeah? Well a woman was once a baby, and she still has those same rights. The right to life, the right to decide what she does with her life."

If someone is making a bad descision they need to be called on it and not coddled. My stance is clear, third trimester abortions shouldn't be allowed unless for health reasons.

A woman does have the right to choose and if she cannot make a descision in what close to 5 months she now forgoes that "right" you wish to grant her.

UK/USA/Canada/Mexico/France wherever in the world the definition doesn't change what is considered a third trimester fetus which is a viable individual/human. Just the fact you want a black and white world AC.

Another interesting point:

TAX FUNDED ABORTIONS

This has been rather definitively answered in the U.S. A large majority of citizens do not want to pay for welfare abortions. With almost no exceptions, every poll with unbiased wording has confirmed this time after time. Most of the investigations of this issue were done in the ’70s and ’80s when there were dire predictions of women dying if such abortions were not paid for.

What happened when public funding of abortions was cut off?

There was an excellent example. In 1977, the federal government of the U.S. paid for 295,000 welfare abortions. In 1978, it only paid for 2,000 abortions because the Hyde Amendment had cut off the funding. The U.S. government’s chief pro-abortion biostatistician, Dr. Willard Cates, predicted "a total of 77 excess deaths to women" who would turn to illegal abortions, plus five additional deaths due to delay of abortions into the later weeks of pregnancy. Petitti & Cates, "Restricting Medicaid Funds: Projection of Excess Mortality," Amer. Jour. Public Health, vol. 67, no. 9, Sept. 1977, pp. 860-862

In fact, his projection proved to be completely unfounded. An article by the same department, which later surveyed 13 states and the District of Columbia, revealed, "No increase in abortion related complications was observed. . . . No abortion deaths related to either legal or illegal abortions were detected, [and there was] no difference between institutions in funded and non-funded states."

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, U.S. Dept. HEW, vol. 28, no. 4, Feb. 2, 1979

A later attempt to link three deaths as "abortion funding related" was shown not to be related to the funding cut off at all. Total maternal abortion deaths were actually lower than before the cutoff in 1976. Further, when welfare funds for elective abortion are cut off, there is a reduction in the total number of abor-tions, but also of live births. Apparently, conceptions decreased when the welfare state eliminated free abortions as a birth control measure. J. Kasun, "Cut Off Of Abortion Funds Doesn’t Deliver Welfare Babies," Wall Street Journal, Dec. 30, 1986

But poor women want this help.

Not as much as rich people. In 1984, the strongly pro-abortion University of North Carolina polled its state to find that only 32% favored tax funding. An important finding was that 43% of the college-educated favored such government "assistance," while only 17% of those with less than a high-school eduction concurred. Also, 36% of men favored assistance, but only 28% of women. So, those who would receive the "benefit" of tax-funded abortions wanted them the least. One might conclude that the elitist social planners see this as a way of reducing poverty — killing the unborn children of the poor.

From a strictly economic standpoint, isn’t it cheaper to abort than to have another person on welfare?

Planned Parenthood did one of the definitive studies on this which showed that at the time of the study there were welfare costs of $13,900 for each first birth to a teenager (married and unmarried), and $8,400 for each first birth to her if she was 20 years or older. Compare this with the average of nearly $50,000 each will ultimately pay in taxes as an adult. M. Burt, "Public Cost of Teen Childbearing," Family Planning Perspective, vol. 18, no. 5, Sept. 1986

The average time a family stays on welfare in the U.S. is 27 months, not 18 years. When we peel away the outer layer of the rhetoric, what we find is a callous cost-benefit analysis of solving poverty by killing the unborn children of the poor.

This continues to happen. In 1982, Michigan for instance, only 14.7% of pregnancies of non-welfare mothers were aborted. This clearly suggests coercion when we realize that the minority classes who make up a large share of the welfare people are more against abortion than are the while middle and upper classes. Ibid

It isn’t the poor who want abortions. It’s the rich who want abortions for the poor.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
For AC or Styletime, or Braddock or anyone else:

(please just read, before responding, as I afford your posts the same courtesy)

[B]Except for the pro-choice argument, there are only two basic questions to be answered when one considers the abortion controversy.
[/B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!

Those statements are basically saying "A large number of countries' laws impose religious morality, so that means they don't impose religious morality because everyone is doing it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of [B]age and place of residence.[/B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Perhaps the question should be turned around :

What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?

First off:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?

None. We need go no further.

Wake up and enjoy the life YOU chose. Not having a good time with christianity? Sucks, but you chose it. Don't bring the rest of the world down with you just because we didn't choose to have the joy of life sucked out of us by chaining ourselves to an ancient text that becomes more irrelevant by the day.

You talk of irresponsibility and not accepting consequences of your choice, well you religious nuts are doing the same. You chose christianity, so your cross to bear is that not all of us agree and will do things that your book doesn't like too much. There's but two things you can do: 1) Nothing. 2) Deal.

Originally posted by soleran30
If someone is making a bad descision they need to be called on it and not coddled. My stance is clear, third trimester abortions shouldn't be allowed unless for health reasons.

I know it's clear, you don't think something should be allowed because it conflicts with your morals. My stance on that is clear too, as I said before, silly.

If someone is making a bad decision and it has f*ck all to do with you, then you have no right calling them on it.

Originally posted by soleran30
A woman does have the right to choose and if she cannot make a descision in what close to 5 months she now forgoes that "right" you wish to grant her.

UK/USA/Canada/Mexico/France wherever in the world the definition doesn't change what is considered a third trimester fetus which is a viable individual/human. Just the fact you want a black and white world AC.

It has nothing to do with what kind of world you are telling me I want (which is what you are doing), it's me looking at what's there. Right now, abortion isn't murder because the two do not connect. If the laws change worldwide and the definition of murder is changed, we'll talk.

A woman doing something with her body, however you disagree, is none of your business. Ok so you don't wanna pay, fine. Even if you didn't have to, you'd still whine about third trimesters, despite the only grounds for doing so is moral dispute. Which would mean you are trying to force your morals onto others, which is stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by sithsaber408
TAX FUNDED ABORTIONS

It's not a reason at all.

Abortion is actuall safer than delievery:

MATERNAL DEATHS AND LONG TERM COMPLICATIONS

— ABORTION – CHILDBIRTH —

It is claimed by abortion proponents that abortion is safer than childbirth. They claim 1 death per 100,000 abortions compared to 10 deaths per100,000 deliveries . . . Not True

What is the maternal mortality from childbirth?

Reported average maternal mortality 1979 through 1986 was 9.1 per 100,000 deliveries, having declined from 11 to 7.4. Morbidity & Mortality Report, July 1991, Cent. Dis. Cont., Vol. 40, No. 55-1

If all causes of maternal death, other than those associated with live birth i.e., abortion, tubal pregnancy, molar pregnancy, etc., were excluded. . . . "the maternal mortality for 1985 would be 4.7 deaths per 100,000 live births." "Induced Termination of Preg . . . ," Council on Scientific Affairs, AMA; JAMA, Dec. 9, ’92, Vol. 268, No. 22, p. 3231 147

And the rate has dropped further since the above, but the U.S. Center for Disease Control (see Chapter 17) does not break down their figures. It continues to report a figure for "maternal mortality" that includes abortion and other deaths.

But some mothers do die?

In developed nations, almost never. The National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, receives many complicated cases from around that nation and delivers 10% of all births in Ireland. In 10 years (1970-79) it delivered 74,317 births at more than 28 weeks gestation with only one woman dying from a cause related to her pregnancy. J. Murphy et al., Therapeutic Ab., The Medical Argument, Irish Med. J., Aug. ’82, Vol. 75, No. 8

Ed. note: And this report was from two decades ago. Since then medical care has improved substantially.

Abortion Deaths

These have been grossly under-reported. The expose’ on this is detailed in Lime 5 published by Life Dynamics. The author and his staff have verified 23 deaths from induced abortion in 1992-93. All were reported to state agencies. There is documentation from state health departments that 18 were reported to the Federal Center for Disease Control. However, the official report of the CDC listed only 2 deaths. "At Life Dynamics we knew abortion complications were grotesquely under-reported, but attributed it to garden-variety bureaucratic incompetence." But after continuing research, they documented "that the flawed abortion data from the CDC was not from ineptitude but of dishonesty and manipulation" after finding that "a large percentage of CDC employees had direct ties to the abortion industry," they retitled the CDC to stand for "Center for Damage Control" — "The CDC doesn’t oversee abortion, it justifies it." M. Crutcher, Lime 5-Exploited by Choice, Genesis Pub., Chapter 4, "Cooking the Books," p. 135.

The claim that relevant statistics can be collected from the place where the abortion was performed "is little short of science fiction."

"Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under- reporting and disregard women’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.

What can cause her death?

The main causes are infection, hemorrhage and uterine perforation.

How often do women get infection as a consequence of induced abortion?

A study from one of the most prestigious medical centers in the world, John Hopkins University, reported: "Occurrence of genital tract infection following elective abortion is a well-known complication." This institution reports rates up to 5.2% for first trimester abortions and up to 18.5% in midtrimester. Burkman et al., "Culture and Treatment Results in Endometritis Following Elective Abortion," Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 128, no. 5, 1977, pp. 556-559.

For the local freestanding abortion facility in your community, with far inferior quality of care, the number of such infections will be at least double that of such a medical center.

"One sequel to abortion can be a killer. This is pelvic abscess, almost always from a perforation of the uterus and sometimes also of the bowel," said two professors from UCLA, in reporting on four such cases. C. Gassner & C. Ballard, Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 48, p. 716 as reported in Emerg. Med. After Abortion-Abscess, vol. 19, no. 4, Apr. 1977

In an underdeveloped country, complications are more frequent and treatment is usually less available and effective.

Can infection cause damage?

Infection in the womb and tubes often does permanent damage. The Fallopian tube is a fragile organ, a very tiny bore tube. If infection injures it, it often seals shut. The typical infection involving these organs is pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

Patients with Chlamydia Trachomatous infection of the cervix (13% in this series) who get induced abortion "run a 23% risk of developing PID." E. Quigstad et al., British Jour. of Venereal Disease, June 1982, p. 182

"Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) is difficult to manage and often leads to infertility, even with prompt treatment . . . Approximately 10% of women will develop tubal adhesions leading to infertility after one episode of PID, 30% after two episodes, and more than 60% after three episodes." M. Spence, "PID: Detection & Treatment," Sexually Transmitted Disease Bulletin, John Hopkins Univ., vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 1983

"Acute inflammatory conditions occur in 5% of the cases, whereas permanent complications such as chronic inflammatory conditions of the female organs, sterility, and ectopic [tubal] pregnancies are registered in 20-30% of all women . . . these are definitely higher in primigravidas [aborted for first pregnancy]."

Kodasek, "Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia," Internat’l Jour. GYN/OB, vol. 9, no. 3, 1971 Venereal disease, usually Gonorrhea or Chlamydia, causes PID. This, if present, vastly complicates an induced abortion. "Chlamydia trachomatous was cultured from the cervix in 70 of 557 women admitted for therapeutic abortion. Among the 70, 22 developed acute PID postoperatively (4% of the total)." E. Quigstad et al., "PID Associated with C. Trachomatous Infection, A Prospective Study," British Jour. of Venereal Disease, vol. 59, no. 3, 1982, pp. 189-192

Another study revealed a 17% incidence of post-abortal Chlamydia infection. Barbacci et al., "Post Abortal Endometritis and Chlamydia," OB & GYN, 68:686, 1986.

In a classic English study at a university hospital which reported on four years’ experience, "there was a 27% complication rate from infection." J.A. Stallworthy et al., "Legal Abortion: A Critical Assessment of its Risks," The Lancet, Dec. 4, 1971

What of bleeding?

Bleeding is common. Most get by, but some need blood transfusions. The Stallworthy study (above) reported that 9.5% needed transfusions. Most recent studies are reporting smaller percentages.

Viral hepatitis is transmitted in up to 10% of patients transfused. Ten percent of 16,000 is 1,600 women. Amer. Assn. Blood Banks and Amer. Red Cross, Circular Information, 1984, p. 6

An analysis of 300,000 cases of Hepatitis virus infection showed that deaths occurred from three causes:

322 from acute disease, 5100 from cirrhosis, and 1200 from liver cancer. This mortality rate is over 2%. R. Voelker, Hepatitis B: Planned Standard, Am. Med. News, Oct. 13, ‘89, pg 2.

Two percent of 1600 women means that ultimately 32 deaths result annually from abortions for this reason. AIDS is another threat. Two percent of AIDS has been acquired by blood transfusions. With recent careful screening techniques, this is now much less. Even so, 200-400 people in developed countries, per year, are still being exposed via blood transfusions. Noyes, "Transfusions Risk Despite Screening," Family Practice News, May 15, 1987.

In underdeveloped nations the AIDs threat ranges from seldom to common.

Apart from deliberate mis-reporting to mask abortion death, are there others innocently missed?

Yes. For instance:

- Consider the mother who hemorrhaged, was transfused, got hepatitis, and died months later. Official cause of death, Hepatitis. Actual cause, abortion.

- A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis (blood poisoning), and death. The official report of the cause of death may list pelvic abscess and septicemia. Abortion will not be listed.

- Abortion causes tubal pathology. She has an ectopic pregnancy years later and dies. The cause listed will be ectopic pregnancy. The actual cause, abortion.

- Deep depression and guilt following an abortion leads to suicide. The cause listed, suicide! Actual cause, abortion.

But many are misreported on the original death certificate and are not quite innocent.

- The kindhearted surgeon, unable to save the life of an abortion victim, feels that she and her family have been punished enough. He doesn’t want to ruin her and her family’s reputation in the community

— so he forgets to mention abortion on the death certificate.

- If the abortionist does the follow-up care and the patient dies from the abortion, the abortionist doesn’t want the reputation of being a butcher, so another cause is listed.

- Usually, however, a different doctor sees a patient who dies from the damage done from an abortion, but she and her family hotly deny the abortion. The abortion connection cannot be absolutely proven, and the new doctor fears a suit for malpractice or for defamation of character, and so he lists another cause.

Now we just have to wait for Deano V.3 to cut the pasting (ironically), conjure up a debate of his own rather than pasting irrelevant ones that have been discussed, and we can continue.

-AC

Don't forget about the effects of abortion either:

THE ABORTION / SUICIDE CONNECTION

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

In the 1960's, when abortions were available only for "therapeutic" reasons, it was not uncommon for persons with the means and know-how to obtain an abortion on psychiatric grounds. In some states, all that was necessary was to find an agreeable psychiatrist willing to diagnose every woman with a problem pregnancy as "suicidal."

Yet all the studies done on this issue show that pregnancy is actually correlated with a dramatic decreased rate of suicide compared to non-pregnant women. This has led some psychiatrists to suggest that pregnancy somehow serves a psychologically protective role. The presence of another person to "live for" appears to reduce the suicidal impulses of a mentally disturbed or deeply depressed woman.(1)

Although pregnancy weakens suicidal impulses, there is strong evidence that abortion dramatically increases the risk of suicide. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than is a comparable teenage girl who has not had an abortion.(2) Other studies have found similar statistical significance between a history of abortion and suicide attempts among adults. Thus, the actual data suggests that abortion is far more likely to drive an unstable woman to suicide than is pregnancy and childbirth.

This abortion/suicide link is well known among professionals who counsel suicidal persons. For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country.

Sometimes a post-abortion suicide attempt is an impulsive act of despair. For example, 18-year-old "Susan" writes: "Two days after the abortion I wrote a suicide note to my parents and boyfriend. I just couldn't fathom how I could possibly live with the knowledge of what I had done. I killed my own baby! I went down to the basement and figured out how to shoot my father's pistol. Hysterical and crying I put the barrel of the gun into my mouth. All of a sudden I heard someone upstairs. For some reason my father had stopped by to pick up something. I stopped what I was doing and went upstairs. He saw that I was upset and asked me if I wanted to have lunch with him at noon. I felt I at least owed him lunch. By the time lunch was over I was too scared to do it."

Other times, the suicidal impulses result from years of repression, depression, and lost self-esteem. A 1987 study of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma found that 60 percent had experienced suicidal ideation, 28 percent had attempted suicide, and 18 percent had attempted suicide more than once, often several years after the event.(3)

Sadly, in at least one documented case, an 18-year-old committed suicide three days after having a suction abortion because of guilt feelings over having "killed her baby." Later examination of the clinic's records revealed that she had not actually been pregnant.

Perhaps one reason for the strong abortion/suicide link exists in the fact that in many ways abortion is like suicide. A person who threatens suicide is actually crying out for help. So are women who contemplate abortion. Both are in a state of despair. Both are lonely. Both feel faced by insurmountable odds.

Some "right-to-die" groups argue that we should legalize suicide and even create suicide clinics where facilitators would ease people through their suicide decisions. If we did so, there would be no shortage of desperate people willing to exercise their "freedom to choose." Promised a "quick, easy and painless" solution to their problems, suicide rates would skyrocket just as abortion rates did in the 1970's.

Like the suicide clinics described above, abortion clinics also exploit desperate people. They promise to release clients from the darkness of their despair. They appeal to our consumer society's demand for instant solutions to all our problems. They pose as places of compassion, but they are actually reaping huge profits through the harvest of the lonely, frightened, and confused people who are "unwanted" by society. In place of life, they offer the "compassion" of death.

Granting the wish for suicide or abortion is not an aid to desperate people. It is abandonment. It is a false compassion that protects us from getting entangled in the "personal problems" of others. It is "cheap love."

To those who look deeply, and care deeply, it is clear that people who express a desire for suicide or abortion are really crying out for help. They are crying out for the support and encouragement to choose life, cherish life, and rejoice in life. They are crying out for an infusion of hope.

Just as a suicidal person is crying out for help when she tells others she wishes she were dead, so a woman who is distressed over a pregnancy is crying out for help when she tells others she is considering abortion. In both cases, the desperate person is reaching out in the hope that someone will announce they truly care, and will truly help them. They need to see the value of life, their own as well as their child's, reflected in the love of those who would help them preserve that life. They need to hear that they are strong enough to triumph in the life that is theirs, and that whenever they grow weak, we will be there to strengthen them and even carry them.

This requires us to engage in "costly love," a love that demands a real sacrifice of time, energy, and resources. Anything less, they will interpret as "You don't really care." Anything less, and they will be right.

Notes:

1. Hilgers, et al, New Perspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, Md.: University Press of America, 1981) 156.

2. Garfinkel, et al., Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986).

3. Reardon, "A Survey of Psychological Reactions," (Springfield, IL: Elliot Institute, 1987).

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yo soy un vato nuevo.... yo tiene veinte-tres anos.

(Pero yo soy muy intelligente para el hombre mas nuevo)

So you're 23 but you knock AC for being 20?

What a douche. "Three years makes me way more smarter! DUHHHRR"

And it's "Yo tengo" and "Yo soy muy intelligente para un hombre tan joven"(which doesn't seem true at all). My one eyed trouser snake speaks better Spanish than you do. Which is sad really, because Puerto Rican is like the ebonics of Spanish.

aaannnd that's the end of my flame time.

onto to the topic at hand,

PRO-LIFE = FORCING YOUR ANTI-ABORTION VIEW ON A WOMAN.

PRO-CHOICE = LETTING A WOMAN MAKE HER OWN CHOICE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT.

Hmm, forcing your view on another...that rings a bell, who has done that before..? ooohh right, fascist leaders like Hitler, monarchal leaders like King Lous XVI, and Impirical leaders and etc that could not hold a government because the people always revolted. Wait, I know there are others who force people to do shit...oohh yeaa, every organized religion in the world preaching converting the non-believers!

Some good Q & A:

When does the unborn baby's heart begin to beat?

The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day.

When does the brain begin to function?

Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.

How early can a baby survive outside the mother's womb?

Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.

What about cases of rape and incest?

Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion. But we must approach the victim of rape or incest with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. more information

But what about the child with disease who will die a slow death or live his life as a burden to his family?

Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.

What about the population boom? We can hardly feed the people of the world now!

True, the population of the world is growing, but population is not much of a problem in the United States. With a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 11 seconds, the U.S. population is growing at less than one percent per year. (www.census.gov)

Population growth or decline compares replacement of the current number of reproductive age individuals with the number of babies being born. By this measure, the United States is now in a sharp population decline.

How can a girl give up her own baby for adoption and go through life never knowing what is happening to her child?

Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?"

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
So you're 23 but you knock AC for being 20?

What a douche. "Three years makes me way more smarter! DUHHHRR"

And it's "Yo tengo" and "Yo soy muy intelligente para un hombre tan joven"(which doesn't seem true at all). My one eyed trouser snake speaks better Spanish than you do. Which is sad really, because Puerto Rican is like the ebonics of Spanish.

aaannnd that's the end of my flame time.

onto to the topic at hand,

PRO-LIFE = FORCING YOUR ANTI-ABORTION VIEW ON A WOMAN.

PRO-CHOICE = LETTING A WOMAN MAKE HER OWN CHOICE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT.

Hmm, forcing your view on another...that rings a bell, who has done that before..? ooohh right, fascist leaders like Hitler, monarchal leaders like King Lous XVI, and Impirical leaders and etc that could not hold a government because the people always revolted. Wait, I know there are others who force people to do shit...oohh yeaa, every organized religion in the world preaching converting the non-believers!

Hey I'm a white kid that grew up with cholos for friends.😛

I never claimed to speak fluent spanish.

Quiero Mota was asking the questions, and he understands me.

Mind your own business on that part and piss off.

sithsaber408, you have done a LOT of posting. I guess I can commend for trying to get some evidence for your side BUT,...

...you have still given NO reasons to outlaw abortion.

Somebody explain to me how abortion is not murder.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hey I'm a white kid that grew up with cholos for friends.😛

I never claimed to speak fluent spanish.

Quiero Mota was asking the questions, and he understands me.

Mind your own business on that part and piss off.

Right. like I have to do what you tell me to 🙄 You're just mad because I caught your stupid ass out there. you conveniently ignored the rest of my post, which are the relevant parts anyway.

Originally posted by Backspace
Somebody explain to me how abortion is not murder.

Do you eat chicken eggs?

I see now why this will never work as a debate:

I post facts from studies about over-population, the effects of abortion, the real numbers of rape/incest cases, the true, undeniable scientific facts about the start of life and my country's sworn duty to protect it.....

And the pro-choicer's like styletime, AC, and Arachnoid freak call me a religious Hitler who wants to steal everbody's freedoms.

How dare I.

Well, I could post some more info. but you wouldn't care to read it and actually try to reason with/answer any of the points that I made.(PM me if anyone wants the real deal on abortions.)

For now, I will take solace in the fact that change is coming, despite all ignorance of the obvious....

and I will show you why "I dare to say what" I say....

http://www.abortionfacts.com/life_or_choice/babies/babies_saved_by_prolife_work.asp

Originally posted by Backspace
Somebody explain to me how abortion is not murder.

Go back through the last three pages.