Knowing that abortion was made legal in the U.S. by Roe vs Wade in 1973 resulted in ever increasing numbers of abortions being permformed. Thats all well and nice, I'm somewhat under the impression the population grew by ever increasing numbers as well, coincidence? Not really.
Anyway as to the question, because this one has been on my mind since I first understood the debate: Do you, so called pro lifers, really seriously honestly believe outlawing abortion will make it stop?
Can you provide historical data to back up your claim (from non biased sources m'kay?)?
I have plenty of evidence showing abortions were still being performed before it was legal, take our landmark Roe vs Wade case which would have never happened if the answer to this question was 'yes'.
So other then finding new and interesting ways to control women through their sexuality what is the true purpose of being 'anti-abortion'?
I know I've been gone from this board for a few years but it seems to me I am seeing teh same 'arguements' over and over an over that i've seen for over 20 years now and they are no more effective now then they were then.
So please answer the question with facts to back up your answers and sources which are not mychurch.com ok?
Big surprise, I agree with you. Prolifers always insist that very few women had illegal abortions performed and a lot of them insinuate that the women who did deserved to get sick or die.
Logic: If abortion is illegal and a woman has the procedure done anyway, she's NOT going to report it, is she? Back in the dark ages pre-Roe, women obtained abortions despite the legal status of the procedure and the only recorded cases were the ones that went wrong. A healthy woman suffering no complications isn't going to report her illegal abortion.
I swear, some prolifers must be under the delusion that if you're born with xx chromosomes you have no brain.
Actually, one of the interesting side effects of legalising abortion is also to reduce or remove the stigma of illegitimacy or being an "unwed mother". Since the option of aborting is there, it is difficult to condemn someone who has an illegitimate child, since that is tantamount to telling them they should have had an abortion.
The other thing to remember in these statistics is that R v W was not the only thing going on at the time. This was also the era of women's liberation, and a much less restrictive sexual/moral climate. That means a lot more people were having sex with someone they did not necessarily want to reproduce with, resulting in greater number of unplanned pregnancies, even with the development of advances in contraception.
I do think that making abortion illegal does reduce it, but never eliminate it entirely. One fact is that the wealthy have always had, and would always have access to abortion. Poor women will often decide to take whatever risk is necessary, and probably die. Many more women would probably end up giving birth to children they didn't want, with the attendant consequences.
Actually, one of the interesting side effects of legalising abortion is also to reduce or remove the stigma of illegitimacy or being an "unwed mother".
And who was stigmatized? The resultant child. Not the parents. So far I've seen so called pro life claim they care about all unborn feti and embryos and try to use that 'caring' to decide my daughter's fertility choices for her. Some of These are the same people who happily stampted "illigitimate" in red across the birth certificates of people like me whose parents weren't married.
It seems to me its all about control no matter if the control device is a womb, a child or social stigmatizism and it rarely hits the actual issues.