pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/06/84)
} }> > >From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) }> > >Point 6: Abortion must be made legal. }> > }> > I think it should be made both illegal and unnecessary. Making it legal has }> > done little to make it unnecessary. }> > }> > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd }> }> While point 6 is a totally unsubstantiated assertion, I think that the answer }> to it given above is ridiculous. Making abortion illegal certainly has done }> nothing to make it unnecessary, all it has done is to make it dangerous for }> the mother. }> }> So, Paul, how does one make abortion unnecessary? the only fail-safe way I }> could think of would be to sterilise all women of child-bearing age, or }> better yet, kill them all. }> }> Sophie Quigley }> ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley Sophie, I agree that if abortion is made illegal and nothing else done you conclusion is correct. But I wasn't talking about that. And I'd think you would know that if you thought about it. Your purpose here seems to be to ridicule me, however. You have said yourself in past discussion with me that providing reasonable alternatives to abortion (so more women don't *have* to get them) should be the main focus of the pro-life movement. It seems to me, however, that the legality of unrestricted abortion on demand provides no impetus whatsoever for developing these alternatives and, in fact works counter to those initiatives. Any reason is good enough to get an abortion. You also ought to know from other things I've written that I'm not talking about making abortion illegal overnight. Even the Human Life Amendment wouldn't do that. It would return the power to regulate abortion to the state legislatures. }[From Alex C. Tselis:] }If abortion is made totally illegal, we will be back to the old situation, }as Ms. Quigley asserts. Do the so-called "prolifers" know what that was? }Backroom abortions done by dirty little old abortionists, reeking of alcohol, }and using dirty knitting needles. Do the "prolifers" know what the leading }cause of death for young women was back in those days? I give you one guess. }(Hint: It wasn't Von Recklinghausen's neurofibromatosis. It wasn't }periarteritis nodosa. It wasn't even Cushing's syndrome. I'm sure that }lots of you might guess that it was polycystic disease of the kidneys. Well, }it wasn't that either.) So far as I'm concerned, every death due to those }old backroom abortions was an execution by the state. There were lots of }deaths of that sort. (Made your guess yet?) For those fortunate ones who }made it through, the complications and sequelae were numerous, and not at all }fun. I'll spare myself the descriptions. } Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly exaggerated by groups like NARAL. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder) has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press and their claims were given wide and uncritical support. The Encylclopedia of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source. However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held in Wash. DC. Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans, sociologists, and ethicists representing different views. A book based on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968). It says the following about deaths from abortion (p. 43): If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come by, the number of deaths resulting form abortion is eaiser to obtain. As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly as a result of hemorrage or infection. In either circumstance they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition will be diagnosed. Those who die on arrival in hospitals, or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies. In summarising the discussions of the medical panel, Dr. Andre' Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown Univ. reported that in 1964 there were a total of 247 known deaths from abortion in the U.S. In 1965 there were 235. These figures include death from spontaneous miscarriages, legal therapeutic abortions and illegal abortion. The question may be raised how many women actually die from abortion with the fact going un- recognised or unreported. Obviously, an accurate assessment of this is impossible. These statistical inadequacies emphasize the extreme care with which *all* available figures should be used. But despite these problems, all the doctors [there were 15] at the International Conference on Abortion reached a consensus that a total of 500 abortion deaths per year would be a reasonable figure--based on the current data. Page 47 has a table for the 1965 figures (latest available then) broken down by state and race (White/Non-white). New York had the most reported deaths (23 white 26 non-white). California was next which also had the biggest difference between white and non-white (25 white 14 non-white). The table can be found in "Vital Statisics of the United States" Vol. 2 Part B. I don't think the doctors at this conference would have called abortion the major cause of death among women. Even in 1968, three years before the Row vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton decisions. As to where figures of 8000 to 10,000 deaths per year came from, well, I can only accept Nathanson's explanation for that. I quoted it a few months back. He also made the point that, should abortion be made illegal overnight, there wouldn't necessarily be a return to the back-alley coathanger abortion. Abortion technique was revolutionized about the same time the laws were. Even a person with little training can operate a suction currette (not a very hard device to hide) with "remarkable saftey". I know that just one woman dying from an abortion is too many as is one who dies from drug abuse or alchololism or any situation caused by desparate conditions in life. One answer might be to make these all legal and safe. Another might be to try to relieve the desparation. A while back Paul DuBois cited some sources to indicate that illegal abortion had not been reduced in countries that have legalized abortion. For various reasons they still go on. The primary one is probably money and the answer to that, proposed by many is that tax money be used. Will that help the poor be less poor. Not necessarily, but it will make them fewer in number. The fact that a large proportion of these poor are minority groups and those in third world countries makes me wonder if this is the right way to approach the problem. Also, I'm not sure that the complications from legal abortions are insignificant. Such complications (perforated uterus, sterility, to name a few) are often diagnosed some time after the abortion and are treated as a problem separate from the abortion. Can anyone cite any studies on the rate of uterine cancer, sterility, abnormal births or such among women who have had abortions vs those who haven't. Right to Life has published some independant studies, I think, but nobody listens to anything they publish. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (12/08/84)
> > Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly > exaggerated by groups like NARAL. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder) > has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press > and their claims were given wide and uncritical support. The Encylclopedia > of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per > year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source. > > However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held > in Wash. DC. Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans, > sociologists, and ethicists representing different views. A book based > on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The > Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968). It says the following about deaths from > abortion (p. 43): > > If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come > by, the number of deaths resulting form abortion is eaiser > to obtain. As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher > Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly > as a result of hemorrage or infection. In either circumstance > they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition > will be diagnosed. Those who die on arrival in hospitals, > or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies. > The following is from "The Year of the Intern", a fictionalized account of his internship year by Robin Cook, M.D., Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, copyright 1972. ..."Most cases of Gram-negative sepsis that I had seen came from urinary-tract infections. Criminal abortions were the not-so-rare exceptions. At the end of my gynecology service in third-year med school, we had seen so many septic criminal abortions that an epidemic seemed to be sweeping New York. Young girls, mostly, who generally waited until the infection was roaring until they came in, and even then they gave us no help with the diagnosis. Never. Some of them died denying the abortion right up to the end. With the legalization of abortion, I suppose the picture has changed, but many times back then I saw Gram-negative sepsis set in, with the irreversible combination of zero blood pressure, failing kidneys, and dying liver." (No, this book is NOT imaginative fiction; it's "names-changed-to-protect- the-innocent" fiction. It's drawn from real experiences.) I don't know whether Dr. Nathanson was lying or not. Unfortunately, the only sources of information on deaths from illegal abortion are anecdotal. As my citation points out, women dying from illegal abortions tend to deny the cause, both because of societal pressures and because of fear of prosecution. As a result, *any* figures on the rate of deaths from abortions must be guesses. Even autopsy reports are only a rough indicator; many families still refuse to allow autopsies, and the official cause of death has been known to be laundered to protect a grieving family's pride. Many sources besides Dr. Nathanson have confirmed that abortion-induced sepsis is not a rare disease. It's unusual for illegal medical services to be provided in the sort of surgically-sterile atmosphere needed to prevent infection; the quality of tools used is almost unimportant compared to their cleanliness. In an unrelated topic: how do the various pro-life people out there feel about the (currently-tested) "day-after" pill which causes a 2-week abortion? (that is, it is taken the day after a missed period.) As an admittedly biased observer, I'm much less worried about a 2-week fetus than about a 5-month fetus. -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/10/84)
}> = me (Paul Dubuc) } = Betsy Hanes Perry }> Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly }> exaggerated by groups like NARAL. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder) }> has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press }> and their claims were given wide and uncritical support. The Encylclopedia }> of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per }> year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source. }> }> However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held }> in Wash. DC. Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans, }> sociologists, and ethicists representing different views. A book based }> on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The }> Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968). It says the following about deaths from }> abortion (p. 43): }> }> If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come }> by, the number of deaths resulting form abortion is eaiser }> to obtain. As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher }> Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly }> as a result of hemorrage or infection. In either circumstance }> they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition }> will be diagnosed. Those who die on arrival in hospitals, }> or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies. }> }The following is from "The Year of the Intern", a fictionalized account }of his internship year by Robin Cook, M.D., Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, }copyright 1972. } }..."Most cases of Gram-negative sepsis that I had seen came from urinary-tract }infections. Criminal abortions were the not-so-rare exceptions. At the }end of my gynecology service in third-year med school, we had seen so many }septic criminal abortions that an epidemic seemed to be sweeping New York. }Young girls, mostly, who generally waited until the infection was roaring }until they came in, and even then they gave us no help with the diagnosis. }Never. Some of them died denying the abortion right up to the end. With }the legalization of abortion, I suppose the picture has changed, but many }times back then I saw Gram-negative sepsis set in, with the irreversible }combination of zero blood pressure, failing kidneys, and dying liver." } }(No, this book is NOT imaginative fiction; it's "names-changed-to-protect- }the-innocent" fiction. It's drawn from real experiences.) } }I don't know whether Dr. Nathanson was lying or not. Unfortunately, }the only sources of information on deaths from illegal abortion are }anecdotal. As my citation points out, women dying from illegal abortions }tend to deny the cause, both because of societal pressures and because }of fear of prosecution. As a result, *any* figures on the rate of }deaths from abortions must be guesses. Even autopsy reports are only }a rough indicator; many families still refuse to allow autopsies, }and the official cause of death has been known to be laundered to protect }a grieving family's pride. One clarification: Nathanson has said that he deliberately lied about maternal death rates, that he and the others at NARAL knew the figures they quoted (8000 - 10,000) were totally false. And that it was more likely to have been closer to 500 deaths per year (See his book "Aborting America"). It is interesting to note from my previous citation of the doctors at the conference that this is the figure that they agreed on. They more than doubled the reported figure to cover the margin of error. Those reported figures included deaths form *all* types of abortion not just illegal ones. This tells me that Nathanson (certainly someone at NARAL) knew of the conference results, but ignored them. Also, three of the fifteen doctors that reached that concensus at the conference were also from New York, as is Cook. Could an epidemic have happened between 1968 and 1972? Maybe. But what could possibly have caused it? For reference those doctors are: Christopher Tietze, M.D. (mentioned above in my excerpt) Bio-Medical div., The Population Council Sophia J. Kleegman, M.D. Professor of Ob. and Gyn., NYU College of Medicine Natalie Shainess, M.D. Lecturer, Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons Betsy is not responding to the statistics cited from the conference just after she cut off the above quote. I don't fault her for using an anecdotal response. I do think they have value (as long as one takes into account that it is the perspective of one person). However, I would like to make one point. Whenever I have used anecdotes in my argument I have often been screamed at for not providing statistics to back them up. Which form of data is more useful, statistical studies or anecdotes? It's true that these kinds of statistics are inherently unreliable. I made that point myself. But my main point was that the data that did exist do not support deaths of epidemic proportions and that there was a lot of hype (admitted by Nathanson) that went into the media at the time from those pushing to legalize abortion on demand. The agrument that illegal abortion contributed as the No. 1 cause of death before 1973 is, to say the least, unsupported by any evidence. Can we put that argument to bed now? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd