Deadly Toll of Abortion NY Times Article

My cousin shared the following NT Times article with me:

nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html

She, along with many of the commentators on this piece, believe we “religious zealouts” who want Roe v. Wade overturned, don’t think about what happens to women who then seek to have “amateur abortions.”

How does one respond? I am so saddened by this article. I am also angered that it heralds legalized abortion to be the only way to save these women. The article shows no care or concern about the murdered babies. It seems to say, the life of the baby is not important, which is sadly how many pro-choicers think, as I know since I’ve argued with many of them. I always argue that it is profoundly wrong for a government to legalize the murder of any human being, for then why should any of us be safe from being considered “unworthy” of life? The horrors of the Nazi State are never far from us then. Yet, that usually falls on deaf ears when I am talking to a “pro-choicer.” Especially, when they say that the unborn baby in the earliest stages is just a “clump of cells,” despite any scientific or logical arguments I pose to such a statement.

May God help us all and have Mercy on us sinners!

Abortion, because it is murder, should be illegal and they should use its previous funding to support increased prenatal care and life affirming resources for pregnant mothers (such as adoption agencies).

That is an option for this country that I think will work to bring some audaciously good change to the world.

Pax!

Very well put.

As to the women who not matter what will procure an abortion in some “back alley:” too bad for you if the procedure goes bad. Evil begets evil.

Respond that abortion is much rarer when it is illegal, and the number of deaths of innocent babies from abortion completely dwarfs the small percentage of deaths from illegal abortion. Legal abortion also causes health problems for women, including death, depression, and other mental health problems.

And people think the media isn’t biased? Look at the choice for their article–even just having an article like that screams how biased they are.

When are we going to see some articles in the NY Time where they interview people who have escaped abortion & how much they love their lifes & are happy to be living them.

Even more serious, where does the newspaper get this quote from, “In most countries the rates of abortion, whether legal or illegal — and abortion-related deaths — tend to decrease when the use of birth control increases” Hello, statistics? This is supposed to be one of the leading newspapers in the country.

some good info:

How many women died?
Let’s look. The following chart was used on the floor of the US Senate during the tumultuous debate on abortion in 1981. It was compiled from official U.S. statistics and was not challenged by the pro-abortion forces.
**
Why the early sharp drop? **
Largely because Penicillin became available. Note that after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths stabilized during the 1950s at about 250/year. e.g. 1956 = 250 Note that by 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to half that number. 1966 = 120

Why the drop after 1960?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/image/lovethemboth/chapter27_1.gif

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
**
This legalization reduced the deaths?
**In these two large states, legalization should have substituted “safe” for unsafe abortions. It should have saved many women’s lives. Actually there was no sharp drop in the number of women dying. Let’s look further. By the year before the U.S. Supreme Court decision which allowed legal abortion on demand in all fifty states, the death rate for illegal abortions had fallen to: 1972 = 39 (With 25 additional deaths that year due to legal abortions.) Now abortion was legal in 50 states. Now back alley abortions should have been eliminated with their alleged toll of maternal deaths.
In 1973 there should have been a really sharp drop in women dying. The chart, however, shows that there was no such drop. The line didn’t even blip. The previous rate of decline actually slowed, to flatten out in the late 70s and 80s. According to the U.S. vital statistics, as anyone can see, legalization of abortion did not save almost any women’s lives.
**
But we’ve been told the opposite. **
Correct, but let’s recap: Pro abortionists claim that in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died.
Actually only 39 women died — less than one per state per year.
But they can’t have it both ways.

  • Either there were not many illegal abortions
    [LEFT]or [/LEFT]
  • Illegal abortions were all extremely safe.
    Since we assume that all illegal abortions were not extremely safe, it seems obvious that THERE WERE NOT MANY ILLEGAL ABORTIONS One other comparison is relevant here. The pro-abortion claim was 1,000,000 illegal abortions in 1972. But with abortions legal without restriction in all states, the total reported for all of 1973 was about 750,000. This climbed to 1,500,000 by 1979 and plateaued there.

see:
abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#How%20many%20women%20died?

Keep your legs together, girls-Until you’re married.

People who are shocked at this I don’t understand.

Like playing Russian Roulette, and being surprised when the bullet is in the chamber, and someone blows their head off.

Well, duh.

A good book to debunk pro-abortion arguments is *Defending Life *by Francis J. Beckwith. He responds to the argument by pointing out that it begs the question (an argument “begs the question” if it assumes what it is trying to prove). This particular argument assumes the unborn are not fully human. It says that because people can die or suffer injury while in the process of killing other human beings that the state should make it safe for them to do so. However, the killing of innocent human life is wrong, regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it. See pages 94-95 for Beckwith’s full treatment of the argument.

Hope that helps. Suggest you get the book so you can counter any other pro-abort arguments your cousin might have.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.