Abortion

[tyto_alba]

-snipped- Most of the abortions are teenagers looking for a way out so that they don't have to ruin their education.

I thought most abortions were had by married women? Could have sworn that was said somewhere in this thread by someone.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. :3

[TikindiDragon]

Most of the abortions are teenagers looking for a way out so that they don't have to ruin their education.

Not actualy true.

[CatCreature]

So married couples, who make up 1/4 of woman who have abortions, should abstain from having sex until they're ready to have children?

Wow, my memory works!

 

*goes to dig up some number from my own country*

[Brite]

me myself? its hard to think about. it would be so much easier to take care of a child when your able to and not have any other priorities, most of you know this is not the case with abortions.

So if the person was stable in every way, you're saying they should still take care of it even if they didn't want it? I'm asking this, I don't know.

 

Most of the abortions are teenagers looking for a way out so that they don't have to ruin their education.

This is pretty far from true

 

There's also this other side however, which says that you cant just end a life before it even starts.

If a life hasn't "started" yet, then you're technically not ending it.

 

I guess it depends on circumstance i suppose, it really comes down to you having to ask yourself, if i was in college/high school and about to finally get my education would i really want to have to take care of a baby when I'm so close?

 

No one is forcing you to do anything. I'm not saying it can't happen because there ARE spouces who force a child upon a woman. That is just as bad as forcing her to get rid of it.

[Obscure_Trash]

I thought most abortions were had by married women? Could have sworn that was said somewhere in this thread by someone.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. :3

Thoughts From an Abortion Doctor had these stats:

 

Most of the women seeking early abortion are either very young or in the late part of their reproductive life. The youngsters are often coerced into unwanted pregnancies by their partners, or they didn’t think or know that they could get pregnant. Some of the older women think they couldn’t get pregnant because they were “too old.”

 

[...]

 

Did you know that half of the abortions done in this country are done because of birth control failure?

 

[...]

 

Did you know that 1/3 of women who have abortions had a partner who sabotaged their birth control method? This is true domestic violence.

 

Not really any numbers for married women versus teenagers, but I always find it interesting (and terrifying) food for thought.

[Brite]

Is there a percentage for medical problems? Like abortions because it would endanger the mother?

[Obscure_Trash]

Is there a percentage for medical problems? Like abortions because it would endanger the mother?

The only thing Thoughts From an Abortion Doctor mentions in that regard is this:

 

The 1st trimester and early 2nd trimester abortions are most frequently done as elective abortions for unwanted pregnancies. I don’t like to do elective terminations after 22 weeks because of the viability issue. Late 2nd trimester pregnancies are very different.

 

Virtually all of the late 2nd trimester abortions I do are for fetal anomalies, fetal deaths, and for maternal health reasons. These poor souls really wanted their babies. They are in deep mourning because of the loss of their children. They come in deep grief, many times feeling guilty because they are “killing” their loved and wanted children. They worry if the baby will feel the abortion, and they don’t want their child to suffer.

 

I wish there had been some stats on that included, though!

[WereJace]

CDC to the rescue! (All statistics from their Abortion Surveillance 2008 report here).

 

57.1% of abortions were performed on women between 20-29 years of age. 16.2% were performed on women between 15-19. 11.9% were performed on women 30+.

 

91.45% were performed before or at 13 weeks.

 

And from a 2005 AGI survey on reasons for having an abortion (here).

 

4% reported mother's health as the most important consideration, 12% reported the mothers health as one of several considerations.

 

The most commonly cited reasons was the significant lifestyle changes associated with having a child (74%) and inability to afford having a child/another child (73%).

[Brite]

Ah. I had a feeling the health ones would be rather small

[linkx7]

pro choice if someone doesnt want the child it would be better off

[philpot123]

4% reported mother's health as the most important consideration, 12% reported the mothers health as one of several considerations.

Lots of those can be misdiagnoses. Just in my small church (7-8 families), there are two women whose doctors recommended abortions for "health reasons" that didn't exist, and they knew many more women with similar situations. One woman had been recommended for abortion by 4-5 doctors, and ONE doctor came in and told her there was absolutely nothing wrong, and to carry through with the pregnancy. She did, and she was fine, and the baby was fine. So doctors recommending abortions for "health reasons" can be quite wrong, very often if Tennessee means anything as far as overall sample size.

[Kai]

Lots of those can be misdiagnoses. Just in my small church (7-8 families), there are two women whose doctors recommended abortions for "health reasons" that didn't exist, and they knew many more women with similar situations. One woman had been recommended for abortion by 4-5 doctors, and ONE doctor came in and told her there was absolutely nothing wrong, and to carry through with the pregnancy. She did, and she was fine, and the baby was fine. So doctors recommending abortions for "health reasons" can be quite wrong, very often if Tennessee means anything as far as overall sample size.

Doctors will tend to be conservative in your country because they get SUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDD if they're wrong. I don't know why you say Tennessee because the sample size seems to be 7-8 families that go to your church which has an agenda to promote success stories over failures nevertheless the number is simply below insignificant.

[philpot123]

Doctors will tend to be conservative in your country because they get SUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDD if they're wrong. I don't know why you say Tennessee because the sample size seems to be 7-8 families that go to your church which has an agenda to promote success stories over failures nevertheless the number is simply below insignificant.

That number also includes doctors who are corroborating the over-recommendation of abortions in cases where it is not needed.

[WereJace]

That number also includes doctors who are corroborating the over-recommendation of abortions in cases where it is not needed.

That's still an extremely small sample size (versus the roughly 800 women who would claim health as the primary reason for their abortion in Tennessee) and sort of a vague answer to boot. A recommendation for an abortion doesn't have to be followed, after all, and while Tennessee has a maternal mortality rate above the national average, proper prenatal care is generally more of an issue than preexisting health conditions. I'm not really sure when a doctor would make an absolute statement recommending abortion. I imagine that would only be the result of genetic testing of the fetus, or in cases where a woman is suffering from a particularly difficult illness or undergoing treatment that would risk the health of her fetus, like chemotherapy. Obviously doctors also disagree on the necessity of certain procedures when assessing cases. The course of treatment one suggests might be contradicted by another. So long as those families made the choice that was right for them, that's all that matters.

[philpot123]

That's still an extremely small sample size (versus the roughly 800 women who would claim health as the primary reason for their abortion in Tennessee) and sort of a vague answer to boot. A recommendation for an abortion doesn't have to be followed, after all, and while Tennessee has a maternal mortality rate above the national average, proper prenatal care is generally more of an issue than preexisting health conditions. I'm not really sure when a doctor would make an absolute statement recommending abortion. I imagine that would only be the result of genetic testing of the fetus, or in cases where a woman is suffering from a particularly difficult illness or undergoing treatment that would risk the health of her fetus, like chemotherapy. Obviously doctors also disagree on the necessity of certain procedures when assessing cases. The course of treatment one suggests might be contradicted by another. So long as those families made the choice that was right for them, that's all that matters.

Those I heard referenced were for a variety of reasons. One was told her baby would have down syndrome and thus she should abort promptly. She kept the baby, and it did NOT, in fact, have down syndrome and grew up perfectly healthy. Others the doctors just decided for the mothers that they were too old to bear children, and should definitely abort. Once again, no abortion, healthy mother, healthy children. Then as I said, 4-5 doctors who presented abortion as the ONLY option for a woman, saying both her and the baby could be hurt/die from carrying through with the pregnancy, and ONE doctor said she would be fine, and she was. My point is, we have no way of knowing how many of those "medically necessary" abortions were ACTUALLY medically necessary.

[Kestra15]

Those I heard referenced were for a variety of reasons. One was told her baby would have down syndrome and thus she should abort promptly. She kept the baby, and it did NOT, in fact, have down syndrome and grew up perfectly healthy. Others the doctors just decided for the mothers that they were too old to bear children, and should definitely abort. Once again, no abortion, healthy mother, healthy children. Then as I said, 4-5 doctors who presented abortion as the ONLY option for a woman, saying both her and the baby could be hurt/die from carrying through with the pregnancy, and ONE doctor said she would be fine, and she was. My point is, we have no way of knowing how many of those "medically necessary" abortions were ACTUALLY medically necessary.

Or if the women in question actually understood what the doctor was telling them, or are telling you something different.

[philpot123]

Or if the women in question actually understood what the doctor was telling them, or are telling you something different.

Touche. Although the women I'm referring to are far from ignorant. My point is that those listed as necessary could be significantly different than those ACTUALLY necessary for medical reasons.

[Kestra15]

Touche. Although the women I'm referring to are far from ignorant. My point is that those listed as necessary could be significantly different than those ACTUALLY necessary for medical reasons.

They may not be ignorant, but mistakes are made. For example, *would* or *could* develop Downs Syndrome? After all, the test in question for Downs is a genetic and rather dangerous test that naturally carries a risk of miscarriage, but the test itself is foolproof - it's kind of obvious to tell you have an extra chromosome after all.

[philpot123]

They may not be ignorant, but mistakes are made. For example, *would* or *could* develop Downs Syndrome? After all, the test in question for Downs is a genetic and rather dangerous test that naturally carries a risk of miscarriage, but the test itself is foolproof - it's kind of obvious to tell you have an extra chromosome after all.

Good point. If I recall correctly, she said she was told there was a high likelihood that it would develop down, and abortion was highly recommended.

[Kestra15]

Good point. If I recall correctly, she said she was told there was a high likelihood that it would develop down, and abortion was highly recommended.

See, that is very unusual advice - more likely, it was more that she was told there is a high likelihood of Downs and *if* that is the case, to consider abortion.

 

I don't want to infer a bad doctor, nor the old arguement of 'in America, if there's pressure to pay for your appointments then there's pressure to provide answers.' But to definitively state an extreme procedure on nothing more than a maybe? That's frankly unheard of.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

See, that is very unusual advice - more likely, it was more that she was told there is a high likelihood of Downs and *if* that is the case, to consider abortion.

 

I don't want to infer a bad doctor, nor the old arguement of 'in America, if there's pressure to pay for your appointments then there's pressure to provide answers.' But to definitively state an extreme procedure on nothing more than a maybe? That's frankly unheard of.

Obviously this is secondhand (or is it thirdhand?) hearsay, so nothing definitive can be inferred from that instance. It just sheds a little doubt on what is currently considered a medically necessary abortion. If it's going to be listed as the reason, there should be some sort of standard for that. Is the mother's life actually in danger? Because from what I understand that is a HIGHLY rare occurrence...

[Kestra15]

Obviously this is secondhand (or is it thirdhand?) hearsay, so nothing definitive can be inferred from that instance. It just sheds a little doubt on what is currently considered a medically necessary abortion. If it's going to be listed as the reason, there should be some sort of standard for that. Is the mother's life actually in danger? Because from what I understand that is a HIGHLY rare occurrence...

For me, it sheds doubt on the mother, not the doctor. A doctor simply wouldn't definitively recommend abortion just because a kid *may* have Downs; it's a rather radical stance to take with no evidence and would leave them in a very precarious position - not to mention that it is unethical and medically unsound to suggest a non-reversible procedure with no actual proof.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Kestra15

[Kai]

Obviously this is secondhand (or is it thirdhand?) hearsay, so nothing definitive can be inferred from that instance. It just sheds a little doubt on what is currently considered a medically necessary abortion. If it's going to be listed as the reason, there should be some sort of standard for that. Is the mother's life actually in danger? Because from what I understand that is a HIGHLY rare occurrence...

The prevalance of second and thirdhand misinformation is clearly quite a problem and such a degraded source sheds doubt on nothing. You can get anecdotes to support homeopathy.

[philpot123]

For me, it sheds doubt on the mother, not the doctor. A doctor simply wouldn't definitively recommend abortion just because a kid *may* have Downs; it's a rather radical stance to take with no evidence and would leave them in a very precarious position - not to mention that it is unethical and medically unsound to suggest a non-reversible procedure with no actual proof.

Perhaps in that instance. But then you have the woman who was RECOMMENDED an abortion by several different doctors, when there turned out to be nothing wrong whatsoever. If such a woman didn't continue to get opinions, would that be listed as an abortion for "medical reasons"? In that instance, at least, there was no viable reason for abortion and yet it was heartily recommended by more than one doctor. If it happens once, it could happen more. To me it just shows, once again, how unreliable statistics are for determining fact, because no matter how hard they try, the actual number could be vastly more or vastly less than reported.

[WereJace]

Perhaps in that instance. But then you have the woman who was RECOMMENDED an abortion by several different doctors, when there turned out to be nothing wrong whatsoever. If such a woman didn't continue to get opinions, would that be listed as an abortion for "medical reasons"? In that instance, at least, there was no viable reason for abortion and yet it was heartily recommended by more than one doctor. If it happens once, it could happen more. To me it just shows, once again, how unreliable statistics are for determining fact, because no matter how hard they try, the actual number could be vastly more or vastly less than reported.

Those studies relied on self-reporting, so it would depend on what the woman herself acknowledged her primary and secondary (tertiary etc.) reasons were for obtaining the abortion.

 

Your second, possibly third-hand examples do not prove that every one (or even a large percentage) of those four percent of women claiming medical reasons for their abortion are lying or were lied to. There are clearly medical conditions and medications that will cause harm to either the fetus or the woman carrying it. The fact that some people are willing to play the odds and got lucky does not invalidate the existence of birth defects, preexisting conditions or other dangers to either mother or fetus. A handful of personal anecdotes mean very little without some kind of proof. What was the doctors diagnosis in the case of the woman who had an abortion recommended to her multiple times? As Kestra said, doctors don't just do that out of the blue, they make these recommendations for a reason.

 

To frame it in another way, 96% of women seeking abortion did not list their own health as their primary reason for seeking an abortion, and 88% of them did not list it as a reason at all. Finances and lifestyle change were the most common reasons given.