General Question

flo's avatar

Do pro-choicers think that pro-lifers have in general, anti-women sentiments?

Asked by flo (7464 points ) March 26th, 2013

Do they believe that the majority are for focing women into having the baby in horrible circumstances?

What percentage are the bible etc. quoting fundamentalist and what percentage are the moderates and what percentage are in between?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

96 Answers

SavoirFaire's avatar

I don’t think that those who are pro-choice believe that all or most who are anti-choice have explicit or consciously misogynistic views. Some do, of course, and quite blatantly so. But that doesn’t mean that all or most do. Instead, I think the view that many who are pro-choice hold is that being anti-choice is itself a misogynistic view, even if it is not easily recognized as such.

bkcunningham's avatar

If I had to speak for all of them I’d say the majority are pro-don’t-get-your-ass/or-girlfriend’s-ass-pregnant-if-you-can’t-afford (financially or emotionally)-to-raise-the-baby crowd.

Judi's avatar

My daughter and I were having this discussion yesterday. She is very anti abortion. I hate abortion as well and want to barf when people use it as birth control. I’m just more inclined to believe that everyone has a story and that most people make that choice with a lot of agony and distress. As awful as I think abortion is I can’t say I have the right to make that decision for someone else.
We talked about when abortion should NOT be legal. I think I fall on the side of viability outside the womb. She said when there’s a heart beat. I replied, well for me and mine it’s at conception but that’s why it is such a hard and emotionally charged topic. At 52 years old I still don’t think my opinion on the subject is the same as it will be when I die.

YARNLADY's avatar

I don’t think pro-lifers are against women at all, just against killing.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

Pro-choice here. If a man tells me he is against abortion, I assume he is misogynistic. If a girl tells me she doesn’t approve of abortion, I take it at face value that it is a moral choice.

The more committed a man seems to be to getting rid of abortion, the more I assume he doesn’t like women and considers them children.

ragingloli's avatar

The most vocal once are definitely misogynists, no argument there.

ETpro's avatar

I’m pro choice. I would remind @bkcunningham that her line of reasoning does not account for rape, incest or threats to the health or life of the mother. And while her moral sense may be just fine for her, who invited her to legislate morals for us all?

Like @Judi, I draw the line on safe and legal abortion, except in cases of the health or life of the mother, when the fetus is no longer a fetus but a baby with viability outside the womb.

While I don’t think all anti-abortion activists are consciously misogynistic, their action ends up being a part of a concerted war against women. I’m in agreement with @Imadethisupwithnoforethought that each woman has the right to decide the issue for herself. I am not in agreement that she has the right to impose her decision on all other women. Doing that is where the war on women begins.

rooeytoo's avatar

I am pro-choice. I think it is a very difficult decision and with few exceptions, one made accompanied by heartbreak and pain. It seems to me that anyone who thinks they have the right to tell another what they must do with their body are aiming to control and manipulate. And that applies to men or women. There are starving people in this world, I think the naysayers should be working on that problem rather than forcing someone to bring an unwanted life into being.

I have never understood how those who are opposed to abortion say it is okay in the case of rape or incest. If their concern is saving the life of the innocent child to be, not controlling the mother, then what difference does the attitude of the conception make? The child to be is still innocent in any case.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@bkcunningham I think most people with common sense are part of the pro-don’t-get-your-ass/or-girlfriend’s-ass-pregnant-if-you-can’t-afford-(financially or emotionally)-to-raise-the-baby crowd. The problem is that we live in the real world, not some fantasy land where things always work out perfectly. As such, we have to decide what comes next—and what should be allowed to come next—when a less than idea situation comes to pass.

P.S. You can’t get an ass pregnant. That’s another reason some teenagers resort to saddlebacking.

cheebdragon's avatar

I don’t want to “leave in the real world”, why leave when I can live?

I think most people just don’t give a fuck, they might not want to fund it with their taxes, but otherwise don’t honestly care about what others do to their own body. Their opinion is too boring to be in the news, it doesn’t have the same shock factor as a few extremist fucktards. People only want to hear about the extreme of each end.

keobooks's avatar

In my State, they are requiring woman who want the morning after pill to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. As early as that, there is nothing that looks remotely babylike in the ultrasound. I can’t help but think that it is meant as punishment to keep women afraid to have abortions because they don’t want the awful procedure of the ultrasound done. I mean, what good does forcing a wand up someone’s vagina so they can see a little dot on a screen do?

Carinaponcho's avatar

I think pro-life people are being anti-woman without realizing it. They think they are saving the life of a baby that would otherwise be killed, but have no regards to the effect that this will have on the woman herself. If a woman truly wants an abortion, she will get one regardless of whether they are legal or not. The only thing that these pro-life people are doing is jeaporadizing the safety of this procedure. It’s better to have a woman go for an abortion in a sterile room or by a few pills than with a rusty coat hanger in a dingy alleyway. Whether pro-life people think abortion is morally right or not, they can’t deny women the choice to pursue their right to a safe and clean abortion. They are putting the lives of these women at risk. I think pro-lifers get their ideas from anecdotal evidence and in theory, but if they were really in the shoes of someone who needed one for whatever reason, their opinions would quickly change. What if the pregnant woman was a rape victim? Why would someone say she was obligated to have this baby that was forced onto her. Morally, you can stand wherever you want, but the minute you try to get the law involved there’s a problem.

Judi's avatar

@Carinaponcho, that is the exact argument my mother used to convince me that abortion should be legal. She told me that she remembered the horror stories of coat hanger and back alley abortions before they were legal. As much as she, like me abhorred the idea of abortion, she advocated compassion for the women desperate enough to make such a heart wrenching decision.

keobooks's avatar

I know some folk say that we shouldn’t focus on the extreme left or right, but the problem is there are many laws STATE laws that are on the extreme right and I am sure that less than a decade ago, people would have scoffed at the idea that any of these laws would take effect. I think things like “legitimate rape” and “transvaginal ultrasound” would have been political career killers not so long ago and they are becoming acceptable.

It’s VERY scary to me that some crazy right wing stuff is becoming mainstream law in many states when it comes to women’s health. It’s hard to ignore the “crazy fringe” when the fringe is becoming the center and reasonable enough to go into law.

bkcunningham's avatar

Have you ever spoken to, known or even read factual information about anyone who used a coat hanger to perform an abortion or had a “back alley” abortion?

Judi's avatar

@bkcunningham, my mother did. She was raised durring the depression. That’s why she supported abortion rights even before I did. She was an amazing thoughtful woman. She supported gay rights before I did too.

bkcunningham's avatar

Your mother had an abortion with a coat hanger? Or claimed to know someone who did?

As an aside, I don’t understand what gay rights have to do with an abortion, @Judi.

Judi's avatar

Apparently she knew someone who died trying to self abort.
I was just saying that my mom was more of a progressive thinker than most Christian women of her generation.

Earthgirl's avatar

I don’t think we can typify a pro-lifer as anti-woman any more than we can typify a pro-choice advocate as anti-life. These labels are meaningless and misleading. They seek to villainize the opposing side and don’t promote intelligent debate. That said, there are some things that it’s impossible to compromise on by their very nature. Reproductive rights are one of these things. Control over your own body is one of these things. So whether or not pro-lifers see making abortion illegal as anti woman or not, it is, by it’s very nature, unavoidably anti-woman.

@bkcunningham “Have you ever spoken to, known or even read factual information about anyone who used a coat hanger to perform an abortion or had a “back alley” abortion?”

From Wikipedia
An unsafe abortion is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy by persons lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both.[1] For example, an unsafe abortion may refer to an extremely dangerous life-threatening procedure that is self-induced in unhygienic conditions, or it may refer to a much safer abortion performed by a medical practitioner who does not provide appropriate post-abortion attention.[2]
Unsafe abortion is a significant cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in the world. Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal,[3] or in developing countries where affordable well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available,[4][5] or where modern contraceptives are unavailable.[6] About one in eight pregnancy-related deaths worldwide is associated with unsafe abortion.[7]

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that each year nearly 42 million women faced with unintended pregnancies have abortions, of which 20 million are unsafe, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal.[3][8] According to WHO and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is safe in countries where it’s legal, but dangerous in countries where it’s outlawed and performed clandestinely. The WHO reports that in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.[8] According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is ½70; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.[9] Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe.

Conflating illegal and unsafe abortion
Unsafe abortions often occur where abortion is illegal.[3] However, the prevalence of unsafe abortion may also be determined by other factors, such as whether it occurs in a developing country that has a low level of competent medical care,[18] and whether modern contraceptives are available.[6][19]
Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal.[20] Legalization is not always followed by elimination of unsafe abortion.[2][4] Affordable safe services may be unavailable despite legality, and conversely women may be able to afford medically competent services despite illegality.[21]
When abortion is illegal, that generally contributes to the prevalence of unsafe abortion, but it is not the only contributor. In addition, a lack of access to safe and effective contraception contributes to unsafe abortion. It has been estimated that the incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by as much as 73% without any change in abortion laws if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available globally.[6]

Methods
Methods of unsafe abortion include:
• Trying to break the amniotic sac inside the womb with a sharp object or wire (for example an unbent wire clothes hanger or knitting needle). This method can result in infection or injury to internal organs (for example perforating the uterus or intestines), resulting in death.[30] The uterus softens during pregnancy and is very easy to pierce, so one traditional method was to use a large feather.[31]
• Pumping toxic mixtures, such as chili peppers and chemicals like alum, Lysol, permanganate, or plant poison into the body of the woman. This method can cause the woman to go in to toxic shock and die.[32]
• Inducing an abortion without medical supervision by self-administering abortifacient over-the-counter drugs or drugs obtained illegally or by using drugs not indicated for abortion but known to result in miscarriage or uterine contraction. Drugs that cause uterine contractions include oxytocin (synthetic forms are Pitocin and Syntocinon), prostaglandins, and ergot alkaloids. Risks include uterine rupture, irregular heartbeat, a rise in blood pressure hypertension, a drop in blood pressure (hypotension, anemia requiring transfusion, cardiovascular problems, pulmonary edema, and death, as well as intense bronchospasms in women with asthma. [33]
[edit]

Unsafe abortion is a major cause of injury and death among women worldwide. Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries.[34] Unsafe abortion is believed to result in approximately 69,000 deaths and millions of injuries annually.[
Illegal abortion
An illegal abortion may be called a “back-alley”, “backstreet”, or “back-yard” abortion.
The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1970 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:
“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”
Herbal abortions (when done illegally) can also be described as an unsafe abortions because they are not induced in a medical facility.

cheebdragon's avatar

@Judi This is going to sound horribly mean but anyone dumb enough to “self abort” probably would have died doing something else equally stupid, like trying to curl their hair in the bathtub. Pioneers behind the need for “Caution: DO NOT ATTEMP-” tags and signs.

@Earthgirl Why not source a ProChoice website? it’s just as credible as Wikipedia.

Judi's avatar

@cheebdragon, you never know what you might do in a desperate situation. Until you’ve been there you just don’t know. Did you see @Earthgirl ‘s statistics?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@cheebdragon See the numbers in the Wikipedia quote, eagle eye? They reference books, studies, and news stories. If you don’t trust the article, you can check up on it all by yourself like a big girl.

Earthgirl's avatar

@cheebdragon I wanted to use as unbiased and statistically accurate a source as possible. There are appeals to emotion not backed up by facts on both sides of this issue.

keobooks's avatar

Why does fear of death from homeade abortions seem to be the only compelling reason to allow women to choose what to do with their own bodies?

flo's avatar

Can we leave the women who would die from giving birth off the table? I think pro-lifers make exception for that anyway.

I forgot whose answer includes:”...to bring an unwanted life into being” ... Unwanted by the mother, maybe but not by everyone, right? There is the father too. And plenty people are looking to adopt.

The pro-choicers are trying to convince (whether some of the method is insensitive etc.) women not to have the abortion in the first place whenever possible to avoid the danger of unsafe abortion (legal or not)

How about who is imposing what on who? Is it the pro-choicers or not who impose a life sentence on the unborn babay who they see as their property.

Allowing women to chose what to do with their bodies
It doesn’t refer to the fetus/baby at all If you didn’t know better wouldn’t you think the debate is about having a tatoo?

keobooks's avatar

Sorry, but I think a woman has rights with her own body that precede a lump of cells with only the potential to form an independent life. At a point the father doesn’t get to vote. The hordes of parents who want to adopt don’t get to vote (there is no child shortage, btw)

I have carried a baby to term and know that I don’t want to do it again. It was rough on my body. I had complications. I love my daughter and wouldn’t trade her for the world, but I won’t go through it again. No birth control is 100% effective. While I doubt I’ll get pregnant again because it was so hard for me to get pregnant in the first place – I would NOT want to carry to term. I will NOT go through pregnancy again. More than willing to adopt—but I don’t want to tear up my body any more than it’s already torn up from my pregnancy I did carry to term.

MY CHOICE. STAY OUT OF MY BODY.

flo's avatar

I understand in France they allow the woman to just bring the baby to the hospital no questions asked, not one. Just for the record.

@keobooks I’m not sure you addressed my points though

keobooks's avatar

Good lord, flo. Do they let you take it out at month 3 so it doesn’t give you gestational diabetes and place it in a little egg so it can grow up on it’s own? Do they magically take it out before you lose all sensation in your bladder and you need adult diapers before you are 40? Do they let you bring it in severely premature so you don’t get eclampsia? Do they let it before you get palsy in your face?

Do they let you come back for the baby after this? Did you not even READ my message? I am sorry for not answering every single point in your post, but you didn’t even seem to GLANCE at mine—otherwise you wouldn’t have been so insensitive to suggest dropping the baby off AFTER you go through the hell that is pregnancy.

MY BODY. MY CHOICE.

SavoirFaire's avatar

This is not a chicken. This is not a tree. This is not a dress. This is not a person.


This is not a difficult concept.

rooeytoo's avatar

I have raised litters of pups and I was frantic about letting them go for fear they would not have good homes

sooooooo there is no possible way I could bring a baby into this world and then not know. There are too many nuts, uncle grabs, plain old not good people to even consider that. If I can’t raise it myself then abortion would be the only choice for me. If there is a merciful god, it would not punish this innocent child, it would give the child to loving parents who actually want it. If there isn’t a merciful god, then that little thing that is depicted in @savoirfaire’s pics would never pass this way again.

@SavoirFaire – excellent examples!

cheebdragon's avatar

@Earthgirl How often do you write articles on Wikipedia about topics you have no personal opinion on? Is that what you do in your freetime? Or is there another reason why you assume Wikipedia is unbiased?

@SavoirFaire A big girl would have, at the very least, used the Wikipedia article to locate the information directly from its original source, rather than just copying a 3rd party summery of supposed facts. It’s not my job to prove someone else’s argument any more than its their job to prove mine, if you’re going to start throwing information out you should back it up with something credible if you want it to be taken seriously.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@cheebdragon Welcome to the internet age: Wikipedia is the default first source, and even more so since an independent study found it as reliable as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Saying that you can check up on the article if you don’t trust it is not putting it on you to prove @Earthgirl‘s argument. It is putting it on you to disprove it if you disagree with the information she presented. A lazy dismissal on the basis of putative unreliability doesn’t cut it.

flo's avatar

@SavoirFaire
1)a)If I showed everyone those pictures, asking them without telling them the context, if that is a tree, a person, they would all say no, in which case your arguement wins. b) a human life however small or weak is just as valued as an older, strong human. A one day old baby is just as no less than a 2 day old baby. It is more compassionate to have the limit at 12 weeks than 16, and 16 is more compassionate than 20 and on and on. So, at 0 it would be the most compassionate, it is a matter of degree.

3) I wouldn’t put all those things in the pictures in the same box as the fetus.

4)’‘This is not a difficult concept.’ is no arguement at all.

@keobooks
1)I wasn’t addressing you re. the France thing if you would note.

2)I feel bad for your experience. But this is more about how to reduce the chances of abortions whenever possible, than anything else. It is not about imposing the law on another woman.There was a pro-lifer who said something like: I was given the opportunity to exist, eventhough the circumstances (she was a product of rape) were horrid plus.

keobooks's avatar

There are many reasons someone might not want to go through a pregnancy. There are all sorts of medications you can’t take while pregnant -especially antidepressants, mood stabilizers and antipsychotics. I was taking Adderall when I found out I was pregnant. I ended up losing my job (strongly encouraged not to return to work) because I couldn’t do my job without the drug. Another reason I don’t want to get pregnant is that I think I wouldn’t be a good parent to my daughter without Adderall. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have schizophrenia controlled by meds and then not be able to take them while pregnant. That would be hell.

Sorry @flo, not paying attention to your maudlin attempts.

bkcunningham's avatar

@keobooks, firstly, I admire your honesty and sincerely respect your opinion. I don’t want to make this about you nor do I want to insult or make you upset. I hope @flo doesn’t mind if I ask you a question. You said earlier you had a very difficult time getting pregnant. So you knew your situation with the antidepressants and so forth beforehand and made a decision to get pregnant anyway. Correct? So now you are making a conscious effort to not get pregnant again, and like you said, you most likely won’t because of the difficulties you had getting pregnant the first time. I’m sort of missing your point. I get the “My body, my choice” slogan, but I don’t understand why you keep mentioning your situation since you had a difficult time getting pregnant in the first place. Sorry.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’m also interested in knowing what point(s) in the Wiki article were important to know about back alley or abortion by coat hanger? The point that I find interesting from the Wiki quote is,“The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1970 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:
“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician.”

flo's avatar

@keobooks—maudlin”? Maudlin or not I guess you couldn’t find a flaw in my point.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@flo Dealing with your comments in reverse order:

You’ve misunderstood my post. It’s a presentation of evidence that should convince any reasonable person on its own merits, not an argument from premises to a conclusion. So saying that some part of it is no argument at all is quite beside the point.

That you wouldn’t put all the things in the pictures in the same box as a fetus is also irrelevant. For one thing, the last picture is a zygote. The point for the moment is only that personhood—not life, but personhood—does not begin at conception.

I disagree that it is a matter of degree. At the early stages of human development, such as at the moment of fertilization, no person exists. The question of whether or not a zygote is biologically human is a red herring. So, too, is the question of whether or not it is alive. Neither binomial nomenclature nor classification under the superdomain Biota grant moral status as a matter of course. If they did, we wouldn’t be able to pluck our eyebrows without committing murder.

And yes, the pictures do present powerful evidence on their own. I’m glad you recognize that. But no, I by no means imagine that it settles the issue once and for all.

keobooks's avatar

@flo – don’t confuse realizing that it’s totally pointless to argue with you as not being able to find flaw in your argument. It’s just such a sad train wreck of attempting to jerk tears from the eyes so we feel sowwy for the poor little zygotes and whatnot that just wore me down.

I am leaving this discussion because I think I’d have more fun beating my head with a hammer or something as equally productive and useful.

So count that as a victory and a flawless argument if you want. You win .. whatever. Go buy yourself a stick of gum.

cheebdragon's avatar

@SavoirFaire If an average of 3.86 mistakes (factual errors, omissions and missleading statements) per article, is what you consider a good reliable source, thats pretty sad, do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the Internet? Use your brain princess. Wikipedia doesn’t even consider itself to be reliable, hence their disclaimer stating “WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY: Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”
Is Wikipedia popular? Of course, why is it popular? Because some people are fucking lazy and don’t bother to look past the first search result, why find your own info when you can just use Wikipedia? How is it my job to check her source when she couldn’t even check it herself? I already said I don’t give a fuck about abortions either way, I was only pointing out that if you’re going to throw out some info, make it from a reliable source because linking Wikipedia makes you—(anyone in general) look stupid—.

cheebdragon's avatar

Kind of like textile errors in an answer. lol

ETpro's avatar

@cheebdragon Any source that makes a guarantee of compete accuracy is LYING. Attacking a source rather than pointing out factual errors in it is an Ad Hominem fallacy. It’s been noted that Wikepedia is well anotated and you can follow the data presented there back to source. By ignoring that, and maintianing your ad hominem fallacy, it is you—(anyone in general that does that) who looks stupid.

Earthgirl's avatar

@bkcunningham
Sorry for the “wall of text”. I normally wouldn’t make such a long post filled with quotes. I normally would just link to the article/s that I want to cite in case anyone is interested and sum up my opinion briefly for people who hate to follow links and won’t read the article anyways.

Because you asked about “back alley” and “coat hanger” abortions in a way that sounded as if you thought they were made up stories, I wanted to link to a reliable source that showed that they did (in some places in the world, still do) happen as a result of making abortion illegal or highly inaccessible. It is not just a piece of emotional rhetoric invented by the Pro Choice movement. Even in the United States and other developed countries where abortion is legal the problem of inaccessibility exists due to restrictions. Incest victims; are some of the women hurt by state imposed restrictions.

As long as it was, the post still didn’t cover all of the issues. I excerpted as much as I did because I think people need to look at not just what constitutes legal vs. illegal and how it impacts women. The issue is really one of safe vs. unsafe. A safe abortion can be illegal and an unsafe abortion can happen even in areas where abortion is legal. What are the factors influencing this fact? A lot of them are socioeconomic. I’m sure you’re aware of this.

No one really thinks that we will go back to the days of “coat hanger” abortions even if it is made illegal again. I read an article from Planned Parenthood saying as much.More than likely though, even an abortion performed by a competent medical provider if forced to be done “underground” and in secret, increases the likelihood of maternal death due to inadequate post-op care and complications. In addition, creating obstacles and restrictions will drive a few unfortunate women to desperate measures. This is a reality even in developed countries where abortion is legal.

The important things to note, in my opinion, is that when abortion is made illegal, it doesn’t reduce the numbers of women seeking abortions. What dramatically reduces the amount of abortions is open access to adequate birth control.
What reduces the number of maternal deaths from unsafe abortions is making abortion legal, and providing adequate post procedural health care. Better yet, reducing unwanted pregnancies by providing birth control. Sure, you are still going to have unwanted pregnancies due to the lack of responsible use of birth control, ineffective birth control, rape and incest , but the numbers go way down. If you are interested in the latest statistics this is the article I read. The statistic come from the World Health Organization which, while not being a totally unbiased source of news (what is?) is the best source of accurate and available information in this case. Also cited is information from The Lancet

I think we have to recognize that the issue isn’t just one of making abortion legal vs. illegal. We need to pay attention to all facets of the picture and not reduce it to emotional appeals for and against. So if you want to know what part of the “wall of text” that it was important to pay attention to, I would say, all of it. Plus reading the reference articles cited in the Wikipedia article available online if you follow the links in the footnotes.

It is not my aim to be combative over this issue. I do feel strongly about it, but I don’t think anything is gained by people fighting without listening and being open minded and trying to understand each other. I want to focus on the facts. If someone has a factual disagreement with me, vs. an emotional argument, then we can have a dialog. Otherwise, I see no communication going on. If there is no communication going on, it just isn’t worth my time.

Earthgirl's avatar

@cheebdragon Do you disagree with the facts that I posted and linked to or are you just concerned with branding me stupid and lazy?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@cheebdragon Of course I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. That includes stupid, whiny complaints about sourcing on Q&A sites. Encyclopedias are starting points. Everyone with even the slightest bit of education knows that and understands that when they are pointed to one, it is not even intended to be the end of the conversation. Wikipedia is a secondary source that points to primary sources, and those secondary sources are where anyone impugning the credibility of the offered information must go. They are also where one would go if writing a serious academic paper on a topic, as encyclopedias are generally not considered acceptable sources in that genre. But in a conversation like this, you start out simple and move in deeper as the discussion evolves.

Furthermore, as @ETpro notes, no source is mistake free. One must always check into things for oneself. That’s just the basics of being intellectually responsible. You check for recent vandalism. You look at the primary sources that are being cited. But being reliable is not the same as being infallible (if you don’t know why, I recommend a basic course in epistemology; I’d link you to some relevant articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I guess you wouldn’t believe them). There’s also a difference between not guaranteeing something and not offering it. Many sources offer disclaimers so as to reduce their legal liability. That does not make them worthless.

But thank you for your completely inaccurate rant. I’ll be looking into how to mark it down as [citation needed]. We wouldn’t want anyone mistaking you for a reliable source, after all.

bkcunningham's avatar

Listen, I haven’t had time to read your recent post and give it the attention that it deserves, @Earthgirl. I know, for a fact, that you aren’t lazy or stupid in your replies. You are always insightful and have very well constructed and thought out answers. I just wanted to say that before I get busy in the real world here in Florida. I always appreciate your responses, @Earthgirl.

Please, play nice guys. It could be a very interesting discussion and a learning experience for everyone if we do read and research and offer pertinent information to the topic. It is very disappointing when it veers off topic into childish rants. I do agree with @cheebdragon about Wiki. I never use it as a serious source. Of course, like @SavoirFaire says, it is a good beginning place to go if you want to check out sources and references. Nothing wrong with that.

Earthgirl's avatar

@bkcunningham thank you. I do care a lot about not spreading misinformation.

I don’t hold Wikipedia to be the be all and end all. Like @SavoirFaire says, it is a secondary source, not a primary one. Given that I am just trying to give a quick response in an online forum, not write a dissertation, I often find Wikipedia helpful as an intelligent summary on many topics. I noted that the source of statistics given in the Wiki article was the WHO and The Lancet, both highly respected primary sources. I did not want to link to a biased Pro-Choice website for the info. I did browse and quickly read a couple articles from ProChoice and ProLife websites. I was on my lunch hour so that was all I had time for. Often, rather than not get it wrong, I will choose not to post a reply and just follow the discussion. I like to have my facts straight. I like to back up my opinion with verifiable evidence if possible. I am not so naive as to think that any source is completely free of inaccuracies, bias and lies of omission.

flo's avatar

This OP wasn’t about legal vs illegal, about legistlating morals, we all just got distracted.

flo's avatar

@SavoirFaire Whether it is a zycote (I stand corrected by the way the picture not a fetus) or a fetus, it is a person at the earliest level of developement, on a continium.

Brian1946's avatar

^
^

Continiuum! ;-p

cheebdragon's avatar

@Earthgirl I wouldnt have said anything if i hadnt already checked the sources, did you check all of them? There are a few broken links, and several sites or books lobbying pro abortion. WHO may be respected, but their statistics on illegal abortion are still just rough estimates. I’m extremely curious why you would post global statistics on illegal abortions? Considering the question tags, I thought we were talking about the U.S. ?
If you would like to know those statistics, according to the CDC
“In 2008, 12 legal induced abortion-related deaths occurred; no women died as a result of a known illegal abortion. The annual number of legal induced abortions has fluctuated from year to year over the past 36 years (Table 25). For example, 12 abortion-related deaths occurred in 1994, four deaths in 1995, and nine deaths in 1996. Because of this variability and the relatively small number of abortion-related deaths every year, national case-fatality rates were calculated for 5-year periods. The national legal induced abortion case-fatality rate was 0.64 legal induced abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal induced abortions for both the most recent period (2004–2008) and the preceding 5-year period (1999–2003).”

ETpro's avatar

@cheebdragon The original discussion about coat-hanger and back alley abortions was about a time before Roe v. Wade when abortion was a criminal offense nationwide. I was around back then. I remember seeing the news reports about women dying or ending up in the emergency room due to botched procedures. Most doctors would not risk their license and freedom to perform an illegal abortion. This discussion is really about whether we should go back to criminalizing all abortion. That is clearly what the Republican Party is trying to do and what its apologists, you included, are pushing for.

bkcunningham's avatar

If you want to use Wiki, this says that abortion was legal and readily available in the 1930s and there were 800,000 legal abortions performed each year in the US.

cheebdragon's avatar

@ETpro How am I pushing? I have already said multiple times that I don’t care about abortion either way. I do think its really sad that most women get abortions for petty reasons and that 34% of women who had an abortion in 2011 had already been through previous abortions. Make it legal or illegal, doesn’t matter, just because I’m not into killing my children, doesn’t mean that I care if someone else wants to kill their own.

@keobooks Your Body, your choice….should probably be birth control.

flo's avatar

@YARNLADY and @ragingloli for example, who are on opposite sides answered the question without introducing legal or illegal into it.

See @Imadethisupwithnoforethought‘s answer “The more committed a man seems to be to getting rid of abortion, the more I assume he doesn’t like women and considers them children.” answers the OP too.

flo's avatar

In case any moderator is following this thread @Imadethisupwithnoforethought and @YARNLADY‘s names (who else? I’m not sure) don’t show up automatically upon typing the @ for the purposes of addressing them.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’m not a mod, @flo, but I think it will only show a certain number of names when you type @...maybe 10 names. If you type the first letter of the name of someone who posted in this thread, regardless of whether or not the name is one of those queued by the @ symbol, the name will show up.

flo's avatar

@bkcunningham thanks. I knew about the typing the first letter part though.

flo's avatar

There is so much to correct in @SavoirFaire‘s posts.
”....If they did, we wouldn’t be able to pluck our eyebrows without committing murder.” Added: “At the early stages of human development, such as at the moment of fertilization, no person exists.”
The eyebrow hair is not becoming a person or anything else. So it is not comparable to a zygote. Without a zygote there is no person.

rooeytoo's avatar

I have known a fair number of women who have had abortions. None used it as a birth control method and none made the decision quickly, easily or painlessly. I would like to know who all these women are who use it as birth control or who take it lightly. I can’t believe they are in the majority.

But no matter, the bottom line is, it is their body, their decision. If anyone wants to save the children of the world, save a starving African kid who is already here. Seems a much more laudable act of mercy than saving a zygote.

bkcunningham's avatar

Why not campaign and educate and offer abortions to the African women as a way of controlling the population of starving children?

cheebdragon's avatar

@Rooeytoo Do you often ask women you meet about the number of abortions they’ve had? Just because you don’t think you’ve met one doesnt mean that they are not out there. I was friends with a girl for several years who had 3 abortions (all paid for by planned parenthood because she was unemployed) and 1 miscarriage all in 1 year, Why? Because the guy she was fucking around with “didn’t like to wear condoms” and he didn’t want anymore kids (he currently has 6 children from 4 women). Shortly after abortion #3 she ended up getting pregnant again before she found out that he was seeing another woman and gotten her pregnant also and this woman plans on keeping her baby, so my friend out of jealousy decided to keep her own baby, apparently “ill teach him after all of the abortions I’ve had for him and make him pay for this baby” seemed like a great idea, what better reason to bring a child into the world right? He married the other girl and they now have 2 kids and are still together, my former friend ended up leaving the state and still collects child support, but her child has never seen their father.

cheebdragon's avatar

Calling it a zygote reminds me of the military calling the people they’ve killed “insurgents” or “casualties”.

flo's avatar

@cheebdragon ”...calling the people they’ve killed “insurgents” or “casualties.”
sooooo right.
@rooeytoo there is no objection to saving the children already her on the earth but that doesn’t change that without a zygote, there is no person.

flo's avatar

@ETpro bringing up Republican party etc. doesn’t help. It doesn’t matter who/what an argument is coming from, if it is solid it is solid.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@flo You say that a zygote is a person at the earliest level of development on a continuum, but this makes no sense. Personhood is not a continuum. Personhood is the state of being a moral agent, with the rights and responsibilities thereof. This is a state that one is either in or not in.

There are no good arguments in favor of the claim that a zygote is a person. In one of your recent posts, you present one of the classic anti-choice arguments: the argument from potential. The distinction between an eyebrow hair and a zygote, you say, is that the eyebrow hair will not become a person.

This is quite true, of course, but what you fail to realize is that your argument has already conceded the point at issue: if a zygote still has to become a person, then it is not yet a person. Therefore, the argument from potential admits that a zygote is not a person. That a zygote can become a person explains why we sometimes value it. If we want to bring about a new person, we’ll need a zygote to do it. But note that this is a hypothetical imperative: the value of the zygote rests on the antecedent of the conditional being true (i.e., we must want to bring a new person into being).

@cheebdragon I mentioned that it was a zygote in order to correct @flo, who misidentified the picture as a fetus. These words have technical meanings, and it’s no help going around using the wrong words for things.

rooeytoo's avatar

I suppose I should have said among those women with whom I am friendly enough to have discussed such a personal topic. Now granted I am not friends with many women who are unemployed and milking the system. Are you saying this happens more among certain socio-economic groups than others? Because you know one specific person is not any more enlightening than my comment on what happens within my circle of friends. So I still say not many women use abortion as a means of birth control unless they are callous and unfeeling.

bkcunningham's avatar

It actually is one socio-economic group, @rooeytoo, and also, more than half have had repeated abortions.

Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.

Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely according to the same source.

Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women.

CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]
• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]
• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

rooeytoo's avatar

@bkcunningham – then it bolsters the argument for abortion on demand. Unless those opposed wish to adopt these unwanted children who would probably end up on welfare at a later date.

bkcunningham's avatar

I don’t really understand why that bolsters the argument for abortion on demand. Could you explain why being black and poor is more reason to not bring these children into the world? Because they are going to end up on welfare anyway they shouldn’t be born?

And why it would it support and justify aiding these women in getting pregnant and not keeping the babies? I may be misunderstanding you, but that doesn’t seem to solve the problem to me. It just seems to perpetuate the problem without offering any solid solution.

I’m not claiming to know the answers. I’m just opened to discussing the realities and make a real effort to understand why this is happening despite the tax dollars that are put toward birth control and reproductive education.

rooeytoo's avatar

I am a bit jaded because I have seen first hand the you can lead a horse to water syndrome. There is education available for all who want to know and actually it is usually poured onto those who don’t want to know, but you cannot make people practice what they hear. I don’t have a problem with anyone, regardless of their social or economic position obtaining an abortion instead of bringing a child they don’t want into the world. I don’t mind my tax dollars being spent that way. Now don’t get me wrong, if a child is wanted, that is their business, but if someone doesn’t want it, then who am I to tell them to have it.

cheebdragon's avatar

Maybe abortion shouldn’t be seen as a quick fix…for example, you can get an abortion but you can either pay for it out of your own pocket (except in cases of documented rape or incest), or you get to donate ___ hours of your time doing charity work or community service as a way to pay back the state & taxpayers.
It’s a little harsh, but I’m willing to bet good money that condom and birth control use would increase significantly.
Since its your body and having an abortion is your choice, you get to pay for it.
(“you” includes the father)

augustlan's avatar

I’m pretty sure that no federal dollars are used for abortions. I could be wrong, but that’s what I understand to be the case.

cheebdragon's avatar

FactCheck “Planned Parenthood’s 2008–2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in “Government Grants and Contracts.” (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, “by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for “medically necessary” abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

cheebdragon's avatar

It’s almost 4am and I haven’t been to bed yet, so correct me if I’m wrong but if most of planned parenthood is funded by government grants, even if they are not allowed to use that money to find abortions, why are private donations to planned parenthood tax deductible?

rooeytoo's avatar

Here we go again with the abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest. I think that is totally ridiculous. If we consider it a child, not a zygote, and it has a right to life, then what do the conditions of its conception have to do with anything. We are not considering the right of the host (the mother) in other circumstances, why are we suddenly placing her feelings above the innocence of the zygote? I think it is either acceptable or unacceptable, morally speaking, there are no extenuating circumstances.

I assumed from what was said above that medicaid paid for abortions. Since it is legal, and if people are entitled to medicaid, that why shouldn’t it be funded?

cheebdragon's avatar

*fund not find….spellcheck sucks…

Medicade is mostly funded by taxpayers.

Would you tell someone that its their fault for developing breast cancer just because they have breasts? Probably not, so why would you make a woman who did not choose to be raped (I assume rapists don’t like to wear condoms, but idk) pay to have an abortion?

bkcunningham's avatar

I’ve never understood the argument of rape and incest pregnancies – period- from anyone for any point. How many pregnancies in reality are you talking in those cases?

ragingloli's avatar

Why do anti choicers make exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother anyway?
If it were about the “baby”, the means of conception should be entirely irrelevant to them.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@ragingloli The answer to that, of course, is implicit in the title of the question we’re all discussing here: while such exceptions are entirely inconsistent with the majority of anti-choice rhetoric, refusing to allow them would reveal the fundamentally misogynistic nature of said position.

flo's avatar

Rationalization is the key word that goes hand in hand with “zygote is not a person.” statement. The person who feels the need to abort convinces herself that it is not. That is all there is to it.
Actually there is more: the people who make $$ from abortion clinics, among a few other parties.

ragingloli's avatar

It does not really matter if the zygote is considered a person or not. What matters is what rights this entity possesses and if its rights have priority over the mother’s rights.
Children are legally persons, but they do not have all the rights of an adult.
Age of consent for example starts at 14 (depending on territory), the right to consume alcohol at 16, drive a car at 18, vote at 18.
For a zygote, the right to life could easily be denied for the same arbitrary reasons as the other rights are denied to children, despite being persons.

flo's avatar

I run out of editing time in my last post.
Edited to add: Actually there is more: the people who make $$ from abortion clinics, among a few other parties.

@ragingloli “Children are legally persons, but they do not have all the rights of an adult.”
So according to you, the smaller they are, the more the parents have the right to own them? abuse? and kill? them.

ragingloli's avatar

That is the current system. They are legally allowed to force them to comply with their orders. “Grounding” a teen is essentially imprisonment. Parents can hit their children. Once they turn 18, that would be considered assault, a crime, but before that, it is legal.
Heck, according to the Bible, parents do have the right to stone their children to death if they are unruly, and they can do that publicly with other people watching and actively participating in the killing.

flo's avatar

@ragingloli you are puching yourself out.:)

ragingloli's avatar

What? Under the current system, parents can legally subject their children to physical assault, false imprisonment, and slavery. Killing them in the womb does not seem too far a step, whether you would support it or not.

flo's avatar

@ragingloli like I said…:)

ragingloli's avatar

care to explain

flo's avatar

@ragingloli Give it a few minutes you’ll see it. Your friends must be going ”@ragingloli OMG!’ OMG!OMG!

@bkcunningham The incest or rape exception made by some pro lifers could be because it is understandable that most women can’t handle the trauma after those incedents?

bkcunningham's avatar

I’ve never heard pro-lifers argue that point, @flo. It is usually pro-abortionists who use it as a point. I’ve heard them argue, what about women who were raped or who got pregnant by incest? That is why I always ask how many pregnancies we are talking about with those two examples.

flo's avatar

@bkcunningham I suppose @ragingloli‘s question:
“Why do anti choicers make exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother anyway?”
“If it were about the “baby”, the means of conception should be entirely irrelevant to them” is what my response would be for.

flo's avatar

@bkcunningham you’re right about the percentage of incest, and rape, and danger to the mother, cases.

cheebdragon's avatar

Reasons for abortion 2004

Reason 2004 1987
(N=957) (N=1,773)
Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25 27
Can’t afford a baby now 23 21
Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
children are grown 19 8***
Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems 8 13***
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young 7 11**
Would interfere with education or career plans 4 10***
Physical problem with my health 4 3
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3 3
Was a victim of rape <0.5 1
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion <0.5 1
Parents want me to have an abortion <0.5 <0.5
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant <0.5 1***
Other 6 1
Total 100 100

(Thats the best i can paste from my phone, sorry, if its confusing you can see page 4 of the link)

flo's avatar

What does Pro-choicer’s side think of genderside?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther