Would/have you ever? Abortion. Private poll.

Read up on what a 'Placental Abruption' is.

Not sure what your point is. There is a difference between an inconvenient pregnancy and a medical emergency. In some cultures they save the child - in others they save the mother. In any case very few abortions are true medical emergencies. Nice try...

I wonder, would you class a raped 10 year old girl in with 'inconvenient' or 'medical emergency'?

Again - a red herring. The vast majority of abortions are not for rapes or medical emergencies. They are for healthy women who have become pregnant unexpectedly. It doesn't matter if there are 1,000 good reasons for abortions - those 1,000 reasons add up to 1-2% of all abortions. I'm talking about the 98% that have no special circumstances.

There are no laws concerning how old you have to be to have your tubes tied. It is up to the individual doctor. Many doctors don't want to tie the tubes of younger women, because they do have a high rate of coming back and wanting the procedure reversed, when they meet someone they want to have kids with, or just decide they do want some kids.

I have seen doctors consent to doing tubal ligations on women as young as 16 or 17, and refusing to do them on women in their late 30s.

There are NO laws concerning the procedure, except that the woman has to consent.

Aside from that comment, I refuse to argue about abortion. It changes no one's mind and only creates bad blood. It's a discussion that never ends and no one ever agrees to disagree about.

I was going to not say anything and I should have probably not even read this thread. I had hoped that when it was buried for so long that it would stay buried because it's one of those subjects that becomes hostile fast. But someone decided that it was necessary to bring it up (I don't know who voted) to the top of the forums again. And I was fine to just read and not participate until I saw this comment.

Unfortunately, your point is unproven and the results of your "proof" are highly speculative. I'm assuming you're using these statistics as your source. This study was performed by The Alan Guttmacher Institute and the results were published February 19, 2004. Have you considered the fact that these results cannot be accurate currently because:

1) it's over 7 years old; and
3) the publication date doesn't even mean that was when the study was completed. It could have been completed much earlier than that date; and
2) they can't possibly have accurate results because too many women who ARE raped do not report it? I did NOT report my rapist.

I'm not saying that there's not some validity to the fact that the statistics for women choosing to abort due to just having an unwanted pregnancy isn't (even significantly) higher than those due to rape, but I would be loathe to offer any statistics that cannot be proven. I'd bet money on that number increasing significantly if every woman were honest about it.

I'm not going to argue about a woman's right to choose. Nor am I going to express my opinion about the Anti-Abortionists who feel like government should have a say in what I or other women do with our own bodies. I just wanted to offer some realistic perspective on results of a study that is outdated and leans heavily on a woman's honesty surrounding the events that resulted in her pregnancy. Medical facilities are often required to report all crimes to authorities when it's mentioned and then the woman can decide to speak to the police or not. Some women are so ashamed that they do not report it.

That's all I'm going to say this go-round and I'm not going to return to the thread because I'd hate to have Zuul come rip my face off.

EDIT:
As a matter of fact, it proves to be speculative and even more outdated due to this:

(copied from the link provided above)
1998 1,365,730 884,273*
1999 1,365,730 861,789*
2000 1,312,990 857,475**
2001 1,303,000& 853,485**
2002 1,293,000&
2003 1,293,000&&
2004 1,293,000&&

&AGI estimate
&&NRLC base figure
*excludes NH, CA, AK, OK
**excludes NH, CA, AK

The first column is the Planned Parenthood results received the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
The second column is from the CDC. They also collected "results" from National Right to Live Committee (which is where they get their "NRLC base figures" from that are estimated and the same for 3 years) and the Central Illinois Right to Life, but they don't include those results at all in this synopsis.

So for five years they didn't include all states? For four they estimated? This means that the last year that they worked fully on their statistics was 1997; which puts this study at being "complete" (as in the last time that they received complete cooperation and didn't guess) more than 14 years ago. Yeah. I don't think I need to say anything else.

I'm curious where you are getting your information that very few abortions are medically necessary. I'm not arguing, just curious.
If I got pregnant an abortion would be medically necessary. I have an IUD. Pregnancies with an IUD are generally ectopic and can endanger me if the fetus doesn't spontaneously abort and I'm far from the only woman with an IUD. That says nothing about women with a host of other problems, including those occasional cases where the woman is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant and needs treatment ASAP.

Here's one source: link

In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).

There has been much talk recently about the high incidence of abortions in New York City. It turns out that 42% of all pregnancies end in abortion. link

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

In other words - the life they have created is not convenient at this time. Taking care of grandma is not always convenient either, but we do it.

I don't think citing an anti-abortion site for statics on abortion yields the most unbiased or accurate sources on said topic.

Maybe - but the numbers are ugly no matter where they come from. Sometimes people don't understand how prevalent it is.

Almost half the women getting abortions have had one before - what's with that?

More than 3,300 abortions every day?

Over 40% of pregnancies in NY being aborted - what's with that?

The number say there is a problem more so than emotional arguments.

Assuming the numbers and percentages are correct. I agree that sources skewed towards anti-abortion have little validity.

I really want to know who gives anyone any right to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body. I want to know why religious leaders or political groups feel that they know better what is right for a person than the individual does. Who is anyone to judge what another person chooses to do with their own body?

Frankly, the problem with all these religious and political loudmouths fighting to make abortion illegal is that, if they succeed, we're going to end up back to a time where women are getting these procedures done by people who don't know what they're doing. Forward progression, not regression to clotheshanger abortions done in alleys or with lysol douches.

If you had any evidence the numbers are not correct I assume you would have blasted them - but since you have no other numbers, you tacitly accept that they are probably correct.

The question is one of when a woman's body is not just her own. The courts generally say that point is at about 22 weeks - give or take. An abortion after that point can be considered a crime. So at some point in time a woman loses the legal right to kill the child.

So it's not a question of if she loses her right to sole determination, it's a matter of when.

A fetus delivered at 24 weeks has a 50-50 chance to survive - so this country does abortions on children that are nearly viable - an ugly concept.

Look I know that people disagree on this. My point is that knee-jerk support of abortion at any time or at any cost does not make sense. The problem as I see is that supporters of abortion deny that the unborn child has any right to protection.

Does a new born have rights - I assume you agree that they do.

Do premature babies have rights - I assume you agree that is true.

So at what point do those rights come in to being? I'm not the one who decides, but thinking people, even supporters of abortion must support reasonable efforts to prevent abortion when ever possible - and to prevent it when the procedure entails dismembering the fetus.

Isn't there room for reasonable limitations?

I wonder, what are your reasonable limitations?

And at what point do your limitations involve FORCING WOMEN into doing something THEY DO NOT WANT.

You do not have any vote in what a woman does with her body. None. EVER.

Knee-jerk support of anti-choice insanity is just as bad as what you think you are railing against, and given your use of the words 'dismembering the fetus', I can easily picture you supporting the maniacs who pickets abortion clinics with the placards of fictional procedures in order to traumatize women.

You don't seem to realize that abortions that happen in late-term pregnancies are almost ALWAYS vital medical procedures that are required to save the life of the mother. A lot of anti-choice people don't care about that, of course - they don't care about women, only of their dogma. By lumping in the vital, necessary late-terms in with the early-term procedures, which are little more than an appendectomy to remove a bundle of cells, they are hoping to scare and traumatize even more women.

The current limitations are sound; when the fetus has a viable chance of surviving outside the mother, then it is illegal to perform the procedure, save when it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. Earlier is not an issue because a zygote is not a fetus nor is it a baby.

After that, it all lies at the feet of the WOMAN, not you. They have the final choice, always.

I do not accept that those numbers are correct because that would mean that I believe that people are being honest in their reasoning. Since a true and factual study cannot be done on how many women get raped and become pregnant due to that rape (since not all women report sexual attacks), this study is already null and void. Not to mention 14 years outdated. They just aren't accurate and cannot ever be accurate.

And for the record, I absolutely do not agree with late-term abortions. However, I would believe that the majority of abortions performed are not late-term abortions.

Your previous statement of: On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

I would say that most late-term abortions are not about those reasons. I would even bet that most of the medical reasons that abortions occur are the cause of most late-term abortions.

I'm going to have to agree with JR that this doesn't seem to be the most reliable site for these sort of statistics.
I'm staunchly pro-choice but they most relatable argument (Although I'm sure I won't sway your opinion, you are adamantly on the other side and I respect your right to be.) for the two sides is that if someone is willing to risk their own life to change the situation that they are in then by all means, we should give them a way to get out of that situation much more safely. I've read countless papers and an entire book (When Abortion Was a Crime by Leslie J. Reagan if anyone is interested) on the history of abortion and individual experiences with it.

Every single child should be loved and wanted. A lot of mothers do choose to give the baby up for adoption and that is great for them. Others have a difficult time doing that for a variety of reasons and that's fine too. What about those parents who don't give the baby up and then raise them and mistreat them? I've had friends who saw horrible things in their lives and some who were in foster care and witnessed even more horrors. My boyfriend's mother was a social worker and has told some of the "nicer" stories of people using toddlers as human shields from bullets and other horrors that break my heart and make me cry just thinking about them. Recently, somewhere in the South a 5 year old girl was found being raised in a cage, the neighbors never even knew she existed. A few months ago a child not too far from me was crushed because the children were kept for nearly a day in a playpen with a mattress and a TV on top. These people should have never had children. Certainly, we can all agree on that. But how do we stop that? If allowing abortions up until the fetus is viable prevents just one child from suffering like that then I feel like we've accomplished something in this country.

So what are the correct numbers? Your gut tells you I'm wrong but you offer no factual proof. What are the true numbers - not your guess, something real.

There can be a big difference between what we want to believe - than what is real. That's why I look for statistics.

I look forward to reading the proof you can find to share with us.

Less than 1% of all abortions in the US are performed after 25 weeks: link

Infographic describing under what circumstances each state permits a late term abortion:
link

The reason I HATE statistics is because it's highly dependent on humans being honest. AND according to RAINN 60% of sexual assaults are never reported. Again, I ask, where do they get that number if not everyone is honest.

I had compiled some statistics about poverty in America. I had compiled some statistics about eating disorders. But I chose not to link them. The reason I was going to present them is because I think that America gets too hung up on these issues of right and wrong. About who should be doing what. WHY aren't we helping these people who are going hungry? Why aren't we helping these people who are hurting themselves and are sick? WHY, OH GOD WHY are we not helping these people who are being abused?

But we're going to argue over why abortion is right or wrong? Really?

Shame on us.

damn double post!

Well, you can't help them every single second of every day. You have to do something during tea breaks. And why can't we debate it? There's more to life, more to this world, than just people dying in Africa and other Third World countries.

I read these links, and the site Clinicquotes.com is an anti-choice/prolife website.

Sorry. I can't accept sites that have either side as their "only way" and uses hyperbole to get their point across. And this one is skewed.

You do know this is a slanted website, don't you? I prefer to get my data from sites that don't have an agenda. Yeah, they are hard to come by, but they are out there.

I wasn't talking about Africa and third world countries. I'm talking about this country. People who are our neighbors. People who are our friends. People who are in our own communities.

We can debate it, but really? There are more important issues.