A Win for Those Opposing Abortion

Remove all ads!

NOG,

This is a very simple concept, and I am flabbergasted that you cannot seem to grasp it. I'm beginning to think you're deliberately yanking my chain to get a rise out of me.

I still claim that it makes more sense to compare mortality rates of women receiving abortion and those carrying the baby to term, because both groups are pregnant, but since you are insistent on pursuing the pregnant vs. nonpregnant route, I will indulge you.

First of all, yes, in absolute numbers, most women of child bearing age who die in any given year are NOT pregnant. That's not because your chance of dying decreases when you're pregnant, but because the pregnancy rate in the U.S. is only about 3%. Or, in other words, 97% of women between the ages of 15 and 45 are not pregnant, so your chance of dying while pregnant would have to be 33 times higher than not pregnant for absolute numbers to show more women die while pregnant. That's why percentages are more useful than absolute numbers in this case.

Secondly, the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 15 and 45 are car accidents, not mosh pits or drug overdoses, and last time I checked, we still allowed pregnant women to ride in cars. It may surprise you, but mosh pits and drug overdoses didn't even crack the top 10.

Anyway taking all of this into account, why don't you take a look at this link from the CDC instead of taking my word for it.

In that link you will see that the death rates for women:

ages 15-24: 90.3 per 100,000
ages 25-44: 177.8 per 100,000

Now, if you remember, I said the numbers for deaths while pregnant were 6 in 1000. Adjusting the above numbers per a 1000 scale, we'd get:

ages 15-24: 0.90 per 1000
ages 25-44: 1.78 per 1000

So, a pregnant woman is approximately 6.7 times more likely to die than a non pregnant woman aged 15-24, and approximately 3.4 times more likely to die than non pregnant women aged 25-44. Is there anything else I can do to help you understand this?

 

@Aldeth: I understand exactly what you are saying (and am well aware that your comments weren't directed at me), but would argue that pregnancy rarely carries a credible risk to the health of the mother. In those cases where it does, I certainly would consider abortion a viable option, but I think using the fact that sometimes pregnancies have complications which can be fatal to justify abortion across the board is pushing it.

 

@ Drew - I agree with what you're saying. What I'm arguing is that we need a standard better than "the health of the mother is at risk" because that can apply to nearly every pregnancy, because the chance of serious heath complications while carrying a child to term are substantially greater than that of getting an abortion. Granted all the percentages we are talking about are low. Given the figures presented, 99.4% of women who get pregnant do not die.

 

My comparison came from your claim that pregnancy always threatens the mother's life. The issue of pregnant versus abortion would only come up if you were already assuming an abortion and were trying to show it was less likely to kill the mother than the pregnancy. You're agruement seems to forget that the child is also a living being and an abortion guarantees its death. Hmm, 6 in 1000 odds of dying versus 1000 in 1000.

EDIT: although I'll take your statistics.

 

That was entirely the point. That we need a better arguement other than "it threatens the life of the mother" because statistically speaking, an abortion (only in the first trimester - third trimester abortions are actually more dangerous than giving birth) are safer in terms of the health of the mother.

 

How about elevated risk? Like a high risk (much higher than normal pregnancy) of a serious (physical or Psychological) complication with severe and possibly long term effect?

 

Now that makes some sense. The 6 in 1000 factor takes into account ALL pregnancies. I'm sure that if you have no pre-existing health conditions that the average person has much better odds than 6 in 1000. What I'm saying is what if 2/3 of those who die had some pre-existing condition that made getting pregnant far more dangerous to them than the typical person? That would mean that only 1/3 (or 2 in 1000) of that total would affect otherwise healthy women.

 

Naturally, something more specific that "threatening" would need to be spelled out. I will, however, point out that what does or does not constitute threatening the life of the mother is not the galvanising issue where abortion is concerned. If we ever reached the point where we agreed that only in circumstances in which the mother's life were threatened that abortion would be permissible (fat chance) I doubt we would have a lot of anger spewing back and forth about what does and does not constitute a threat. The law-making body would likely defer to the medical community (as they have done in the past) to set that standard.

Where phsycology comes into play there could be trouble. I, for example, am of a mind that a person's phsycological well-being can never, under any circumstance, be weighed against another's life. They just aren't equivalent. If the mother were suicidal, that might give me pause, but probably only enough to make sure she is watched and treated while pregnant and to ensure that treatment continues afterwards. If she does not want the child, it could be given up for the adoption. This may sound harsh (in a way it is), but it stems from my belief that the child would rather exist than not.

 

I agree with what you're saying Drew. My point is that people who advocate using abortion only when the mother's life is threatened have yet to verbalize what constitutes a threat to the mother's life. If we just go by straight statisitcs it's safer to get an abortion than by caring the baby to term. On the other extreme, one can say that an abortion would only be allowed if the woman's death is imminent or a near certainty if the woman carries the baby to term.

I will grant that the woman's health is currently not at the heart of this debate. Currently, nearly anything other than partial birth abortion is legal. It's not abortion on demand, as most states demand counseling before getting an abortion, but for the most part, if a woman wants an abortion, she can get one. My personal opinion is that while I am opposed to abortion in most cases, I feel that no one other than the would-be parents (and more specifically the mother, as she is the one who has to go through child birth) have a right to decide if abortion is something that they would consider. It is certainly not my right to tell them what is right for them.

 

Again, we would defer to a psychiatrist or other trained professional. If cdarrying the child to term would make the mother a danger to herself or others, then that would count.

Ultimately, that would be the best solution...

Again, I would defer to the medical community.

 

Maybe. I think that life is never equivalent to phsycological well-being. Under any circumstance.

 

The idea is that "danger to self and others" would include ricks of self harm to the point where Suicide or dangerous habits (self mutilation, substance abuse) would place the mother's life in danger...

 

So are we all in agreement that abortion in other cases is wrong?

 

No.

 

Well, then, I'm right and you're wrong!
Mnee

 

I disagree that we should allow abortion in such a case. I think giving those women the treatment they need or putting them under watch is an acceptable option.

 

I honestly can't think of any psychological condition that would justify an abortion, but I'm not a psychologist.

 

But what if treatment would endanger the unborn Child?

 

I'm pretty sure aborting the child will endanger it more.

 

But to what degree of endangerment is abortion the lesser evil? That's really where I'm turning a blind eye to the situation.