Some choice quotes from the article:
Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.
...
Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.
"The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity," Fredrick wrote.
...
Improving women's health, experts said, means improving access to safe abortions.
So, to those of you who insist upon another attempt to outlaw abortion in South Dakota: please be upfront with the citizens about what you're actually hoping to accomplish. Because preventing abortion isn't what you're after.
14 comments:
somehow I doubt this will change their minds
What is it they're after?
Not sure, since I'm not looking to outlaw abortion.
So "outlawing abortion" is what they're trying to do, but it doesn't have anything to do with decreasing the number of abortions?
Correct...please read the post & the linked article. The World Health Organization's study states that women have abortions in countries where it is illegal just as frequently as they do in countries where it is legal. So outlawing abortion does not prevent it from occurring.
Respectfully, that's a pretty flimsy argument. "Women will still try to get abortions even if the procedure is outlawed therefore pro-lifers don't really want to outlaw abortions."
Men will still rape women even though it's against the law, so domestic violence coalitions don't really want to outlaw rape?
The article you've linked to...it strikes me as more sad than anything. One thing that stands out is that Eastern Europe has more abortions than live births. I'm sure you won't accuse pro-lifers in those regions of not wanting to reduce the number of abortions.
And this: "'The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,' said Beth Fredrick." That is just nonsense. Laws do dissuade people. They will never be 100% effective, but they are a deterrant.
You're painting with a very broad brush. I think you ought to be more cautious before you make the sweeping accusation that pro-lifers in South Dakota are not interested in women's health or, it seems, in outlawing abortion.
I don't think they're sincerely interested in women's health, and I think they've made that evident. Again, please engage what is actually written in the article. Laws do not dissuade women from having abortions, THEY HAVE PROVEN THAT IN THEIR STUDY. Good golly!
Anti-abortionists obviously want to make abortion illegal But WHY do they want to do that, knowing (as the WHO has informed us) that it will do nothing to reduce the number of abortions & will harm women's health. What is the purpose?
I've read the article, I've reviewed the study (published by the research arm of Planned Parenthood), etc, etc. I'm still rejecting the broad notion that laws do not deter people from committing crimes. That just isn't true. I know you're too bright of a woman to believe it, at least in general.
But I'll blog about the study over at girlfriday, hopefully later today.
Your continued attack upon "anti-abortionists” as being unconcerned with women's health as evidenced by their opposition to abortion is insulting and blindly partisan. It is not an "if, then" equation.
Millions of women worldwide, as concerned with women’s health as you are, oppose abortion because abortion, to the total destruction of the victim, elevates the liberties, the choices of one human being over another: a fundamental “evil” that feminism aims to correct. Or, aren’t female humans in utero equal? If you don’t believe they are, then we are at an impasse.
"How can one protect and help women by killing them as babies?" asked Alice Paul, an early feminist who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment. Put another way, how can I, in good conscience, claim to care about women’s good health, when I advocate the termination of their opportunity to achieve it?
No, I do not consider a zygote/embryo a person with equal rights to me, and I consider that argument kind of silly, to be totally honest.
As a woman, I don't feel respected when my very seriously considered decisions are trivialized. Telling women that you can make better choices for their lives than they can is not a type of feminism that I want any part of.
And with regard to the question of women's health, I think I'm going to take the word of the World Health Organization on that one.
Couple questions, since we're knee-deep in it now.
First--why don’t you recognize the fetus (“offspring” in Latin) as an equal? Why are your rights, why is your power to act, more important than the fetus?
Secondly, when do you begin to seriously weigh the rights of the fetus? When it can feel pain? Seven months into gestation? Eight months? When it’s in the birth canal?
Finally…“Telling women that you can make better choices for their lives than they can is not a type of feminism that I want any part of.”
Is that true? How do you feel about tobacco use? Drugs? Pornography? Incest—even if it’s consensual? Heck—seatbelts! We tell women what to do all the time. Why is abortion the exception?
By the way, I don’t know anyone who trivializes the decision—on either side of the argument. Who was trivializing it?
I typed out a response to your questions, but, you know - I'm not going to do that.
This is not a useful conversation because you refuse to show how making abortion illegal helps women. TELL ME HOW. It does not improve women's health. 70,000 dead women and 5,000,000 maimed women every year prove that to be false. It does not stop abortions from occurring. Millions upon millions of abortions are being performed in countries that have outlawed it.
You can think that a zygote is exactly the same as you and entitled to all the rights you hold, but it doesn't stop women from having abortions. It never, ever has, because so few people share your view. You can tsk-tsk all you like, but women will continue to make this decision. You think the solution to that is taking away the option, but you have provided no solid evidence to prove that. Until you can do that, I don't think this discussion serves any useful purpose.
Since you've placed so much weight on this study, commissioned not by the WHO, but by the very politically-motivated Guttmacher Institute, I will, as I've said, address it on my own blog. There is too much there. I figured the ideology behind what we were discussing was worth engaging.
My concern, from the beginning, was to challenge your blanket statement that pro-lifers are not out to reduce the number of abortions. By suggesting that this was not their aim, you insinuated that they are being dishonest. In fact, you all but said so.
Beyond that, you decided to suggest that pro-lifers, in addition to not really hoping to see a reduction in abortions, don't care about women's health.
I also argued against the claim that laws do not, in general, deter people; therefore certain things should not be outlawed (the logical outcome of your argument). You persist in making this point: "but women will continue to make this decision." The fact that some people, even vast amounts of people, will continue to act in a way contrary to the law is not an argument against the law.
I then addressed, in very plain terms, your question about the motivation of those who oppose abortion. They think it is wrong and for many reasons; I listed a few.
I went on to demonstrate that women can care about women's health and still be pro-life. There's a lot more linkage there, if you'd like me to go on.
It's too bad you don't think it's useful dialogue, but I think we're communicating quite clearly. I understand your position very well. I'm just sorry it's your position.
How does illegal abortion help women?
You're right, Graeme.
No change has occurred in my mind.
Post a Comment