From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:15:51 GMT

In article <1a7l8fINNipj@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.163907.22679@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> >legalization of abortion caused any significant reduction in the number of
|> >women's deaths due to complications from abortion, when in fact the numbers
|> >are nearly the same (I can get these if you wish). 
|> 
|> How nice, please do.

From 1940 through 1960, the number of women dying from abortion-related
complications dropped exponentially from about 1,450 to about 300 (though
dropping as low as about 200 in 1952), largely due to the discoveries of
such medicines as Sulfa and antibiotics.  From 1960 to 1975 or so, the rate
continued to fall linearly to about 20 per year.  In 1972, the year before
7 men threw out the life-protecting laws of all 50 states without a consensus
and no accountability to the people for their actions, 39 women died from
abortion-related complications.  In 1977, after five years of nationwide
legalized abortion, 21 women died, and a total of 156 women died from legal
abortions in the years from 1972 through 1979.  In 1985, 27 women died from
legal abortions -- an increase due to larger numbers of women seeking
abortions, since the "safety" of the procedure actually improved to about
1.9 deaths out of every 100,000 legal abortions (compare that to about 1.1
for a normal vaginal delivery).

Sources:
Legal Abortion Mortality  and General Anesthesia. American Jnl of Obstetrics
    & Gynecology (1988;158:420-424) Hani K. Atrash, MD, et al
Mortality From Abortion and Childbirth; JAMA 1982; 248: 188-191;
    Scot A. LeBolt; David A. Grimes, MD; Willard Cates, Jr, MD, MPH.
Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, November, 1983
Other statistics from a graph published by the U.S. Department of Health &
    Human Services, Centers for Disease Control (some numbers rounded).

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action
League) admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal
abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.  He says,
"We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year. ... I confess that I knew the
figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so
why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

|> > Furthermore, several
|> >surveys, including one by Planned Parenthood, confirm that at least 90% of
|> >women who have abortions do so not by choice, but because they believe they
|> >are forced to.  That is, they would rather carry the baby to term, but for
|> 
|> Any support for this interesting statement?
|> By whom are they forced?

I've heard it from several sources, including one woman who verified it with
her own independent survey of 1,000 women who had had an abortion.  It seems
intuitive to me:  abortion is a pretty unpleasant experience, and if childbirth
were made a financially and circumstantially viable option for these women, it
stands to reason that many women would opt for it instead.  Note that this
statistic does NOT say that 90% of women regret having their abortions, only
that they would have preferred childbirth if that had been a more viable
option.

|> >financial or circumstantial reasons are compelled to abort it.  If only the
|> 
|> Ah.  'Circumstances'.  In what way are these circumstances changing to
|> un'force' these women?
|> 
|> >abortion just wouldn't be an issue.
|> 
|> That's an interesting opinion.  What are you doing to see the money and effort
|> expended in the pro-life/pro-choice battle is redirected toward the needs of
|> pregnant women?

I financially support two local independent Crisis Pregnancy Centers.  What
are you doing?

|> >By the way, the issue in this Presidential election is not whether or not to
|> >have legalized abortion; it is whether or not to require taxpayers to foot the
|> >bill for it.  
|> 
|> This statement is not correct.

It most certainly is.  You can't possibly think that if George Bush is reelected
abortion will be made illegal.  Even if he could, it's obvious that he doesn't
particularly want to.  Both he and Barbara (and even Marilyn Quayle) have made
statements in this campaign indicating that they think a woman ultimately has
the right to have an abortion, and that the government has no business meddling
in her private life.  In four years as prez (and eight years as part of an even
more dogmatic administration), he has done nothing to even try to do anything
of the sort, and the Reagan/Bush "packed" Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld
Roe v. Wade.  The most drastic thing that could happen is that Roe v. Wade
could be overturned and such blatant policy-making would revert back to the
Congress and the states, where it Constitutionally belongs, and where those
who make the decisions can be held accountable to the people.  Bush IS
adamantly opposed having taxpayers pay for all of these abortions, and Bill
Clinton is adamantly in favor of making it part of his health care utopia
(although he said just the opposite in a 1988 letter to Arkansas pro-lifers --
surprise, surprise).

|> >Over 1.5 million abortions are now performed annually in the
|> >U.S. -- how many do you think there will be when it's "free" (i.e. cheaper
|> >than a condom)?
|> 
|> More.  Why do you ask?   After all, if abortion is the most cost-effective
|> method of birth control, I'd expect people to use it.  Why do you figure it
|> would become 'cheaper than a condom' however?  There isn't today a single
|> surgical method that is 'cheaper than a condom'.  That would be a pretty
|> neat trick.

And Slick Willy would pull it off by just billing it to the taxpayers.  It's
all just smoke and mirrors.

This must be how some people get to be called "feminazis".  Imagine that,
getting flamed for proposing that women be enabled to have childbirth rather
than just abortions... someone tell Rush that we've just found number 31.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49857 misc.legal:18191 alt.politics.usa.misc:102 alt.politics.usa.constitution:550