The New Republic

"So you might think that abortion opponents would be thrilled about this latest news." Not really, as any normal honest person who is an abortion opponent has to operate in a somewhat abstract space to avoid confronting some of the unpleasant realities of pregnancy, abortion and banning it. This is not meant as a swipe; plenty of people ignore anything that doesn't happen to fit into their preconceived notions. It's just in this case, it can be a matter of life and death for both the mother and fetus, not just the latter.

- Nari224

November 27, 2012 at 1:24pm

"That's an increase of 0.000005% in the abortion-related death rate." Let us not mislead with statistics, Amy. First, 10 deaths/year from 1M abortions per year is a rate of 0.001%. Methinks you neglected to lop off a couple leading zeros when you added the % sign to your decimal calculation. You've got at least two extra zeros there. Second, to describe an increase from 0.0005% to 0.001%, which is what I think you intended to describe, as a 0.0005% increase in the rate is quite misleading. Most people will fail to parse the fact that you're describing an absolute rather than a relative increase in the rate, since percent increases are naturally construed as relative increases.

- IowaBeauty

November 27, 2012 at 2:04pm

While I have no problem with the current place we're at today on abortions, the reasoning in the article is flawed: "But the way to prevent abortion-related deaths isn’t to outlaw abortion—doctors who treated the mangled bodies of women who endured illegal abortions prior to 1973 can testify to that reality. The best approach is to make sure that abortions are performed in excellent medical facilities by doctors well-trained in the procedures. " The argument is that illegal abortions caused much more harm, and thus we should never outlaw them otherwise that harm will return. Let's try the same argument from another angle in the author's own words: [Men will beat women whether legal or not.] But the way to prevent beating-related deaths isn’t to outlaw beating—doctors who treated the mangled bodies of women who endured beatings prior to 1973 can testify to that reality. The best approach is to make sure that beatings are performed in excellent medical facilities by doctors well-trained in the procedures. [That way, doctors can stop the beating before it gets too severe. Medically supervised beatings are superior to back ally beatings, and safer for the woman, too]. Sounds odd, even repulsive? Perhaps a little medieval? Indeed. Just because the consequences from a repulsive action cause some harm does NOT mean that repulsive action should be made legal. Abortion is repulsive. It can be tolerated if done very early. But the longer it goes, the more repulsive it becomes. If women were dying while seeking illegal late 3rd term abortions, the author seems to be advocating that legalizing those would be the only solution.

- seattleeng

November 27, 2012 at 2:17pm

Yes, but men beating women isn't a medical procedure which is ethical and legal in many advanced countries: abortion is. A better analogy would be that devoting vast resources to fighting marijuana consumption creates social exclusion, criminal conspiracies, and prisons full of people who are not really a danger to society, and thus a decriminalization of the practice would allow those dollars to be spend on more rational goals and avoid excluding such consumers from normal society.

- ironyroad

November 27, 2012 at 3:59pm

seattle: "Sounds odd, even repulsive?" No, more contrived, if not worse. For example, the risk to the (woman beating) man in your analog is pretty low in both the home and the safe medical setting. Not so much for the pregnant woman. And let's not fool around about this being "some harm". We're talking about completely avoidable death of the woman, e.g. see the recent case in Ireland.

- Nari224

November 27, 2012 at 4:15pm

despite detractions, surely this account, compared to MUCH, stands as a timely reminder--in the teeth of opposition or obfuscation or ignorance that makes for what is worse than an abstract parlor game--that certain facts, and not only general/casual (or causal) opinions, MUST be taken into account--and not only by women.

- cdmcl3

November 27, 2012 at 7:35pm

Abortion is not a "good" thing. Legal abortion is a "necessary" thing because all the alternatives are worse. People have sex because we are animals and reproduce and because it is just about the most fun we can have with our clothes off and because as intelligent animals we love each other. We all die eventually. We can postpone it with far more success than we used to, but we all die. Sex for fun is fine, but very dangerous. We should make it as safe as possible. Sex for reproduction is wonderful, but difficult and dangerous, and there are far too many of us caused by accident. Abortion (probably most often in Japan and China) is not a good birth control method. The world is overpopulated, but the cure for that problem is not clumsy slicing. Reproduction, birth control, population limitation, etc. are enormously difficult problems and slogans, self-righteousness and simple-minded thinking provides little help.

- skahn

November 27, 2012 at 11:13pm

Irony writes: "Yes, but men beating women isn't a medical procedure which is ethical and legal in many advanced countries: abortion is." Capital punishment is a medical procedure. Does that make it right? No. Your assumption here is that abortion IS advanced. Murder and abortion is no more advanced than beating. Unless you define it that way. Your line is arbitrary and your argument is nothing more than "cause I said so" If first trimester abortions are more "advanced" than illegal abortions, then why not second and third trimester abortions? Aren't those even more advanced? How about aborting the child while the mother is in labor? Is that then super advanced? Perhaps while the cord is still attached, but the child is out? Is that the ultimate in advancement? OK, now, how about if the during the first 3 years you realize your child is autistic and will be a net drag on the world. Is that super-super-super advanced? Your comment reminds me of the Twilight Zone (or Star Trek) where in place of war, citizens were picked by computer to report to the government to be terminated. This way, the cities and buildings were saved. The war was fought in the computers. But the deaths were real. is that really advanced too? Irony writes: " We're talking about completely avoidable death of the woman, e.g. see the recent case in Ireland." Straw man. 99.9% of abortions are done when the mother is not facing the threat of death. You are taking a position that not even Sarah Palin will defend. skahn writes: "People have sex because we are animals and reproduce and because it is just about the most fun we can have with our clothes off and because as intelligent animals we love each other. " Yes, but actions have consequences. Just because it's easy to address the consequence doesn't mean it should be done. LIke I said, I'm OK with first trimester abortions. But the arguments the author used here were weak.

- seattleeng

November 28, 2012 at 3:20pm

Amy Sullivan: If you are saying that the abortion rate is lower than at any time in the last 40 years, that would include pre-Roe days when abortion was legal in some states but not others. If true, you're missing the key point: abortions rose after Roe v. Wade until the early '90s but are now at or below pre Roe levels due to education, contraception, etc. Frankly, I had no idea that 1 million+ abortions were performed before Roe. The entire opposition of the anti-abortion forces is focused on Roe v. Wade. So conservative groups want to overturn it. All that does is put it back in the states' hands. But if more people had access to abortion after Roe v. Wade, then decline in abortion rates (from 40 years ago) is even more dramatic. Roe temporarily increased the abortion rate, but education and contraception has brought it back to pre-Roe levels. So the choice faction wins. Again, however, the stats have to be iron-clad and should be checked, re-checked and compared across a broad cross-section of reports. The bottom line: is education and contraception bringing down the abortion rate even after Roe v. Wade made it universally available?

- CAMtwo

November 28, 2012 at 7:20pm

The problem for me with the "men beating women" analogy is that the terms are simply not analogous. Beating a woman unequivocally harms her physically (and occurs without her consent) whether it is performed in a hospital or a back alley, while whether having an abortion (at least often by her choice) harms her is very much up for debate. A more apt analogy would be something like "The way to prevent statin-related side effects isn't to outlaw statins; it's to make sure that statin use is supervised by competent professionals and that proper regulatory and scientific oversight ensures that the drugs are as safe as possible." Or "the way to prevent deaths from appendectomies is not to outlaw appendectomies but rather to make sure they are performed in properly maintained hospitals by competent surgeons, etc." Of course, to say that abortions are analogous to taking statins or having an appendectomy trivializes abortions: no, these terms are not analogous either, except in that in the case of an appendectomy (or many other operations), one would much prefer not to have to have the procedure at all. But these analogies are closer than the "men-beating-women" comparison, which only works if you equate having an abortion with being beaten by a man. To call abortion "repulsive" by definition is to put it in this class of repulsive acts a priori. it is more accurate to put it in the class or things we really wish we didn't have to do but sometimes feel we have to.

- vanderso

November 29, 2012 at 9:46am

Vanderoso, an appendectomy and abortion are not the same. An abortion is almost always is due to the careless behavior of a woman (and man). An appendectomy is not due to carelessness. A woman that doesn't have an abortion will not die in most cases. A woman that doesn't have an appendectomy will. Absent an abortion, a woman that gives her child up for adoption is usually not harmed. She's inconvenienced for a few months, no question. She experiences a few days of pain. But the pain and inconvenience are experienced by almost all women at some point. And by definition, they are bearable. A man beating a women is a 3rd party inflicting harm purely on a woman. An abortion is a 3rd party inflicting harm on a woman and her child, with a bulk of the harm falling on the child. So, there cannot be a perfect comparison because in one case you have two parties, and in another case you have 3 parties. Vanderoso writes: "To call abortion "repulsive" by definition is to put it in this class of repulsive acts a priori. it is more accurate to put it in the class or things we really wish we didn't have to do but sometimes feel we have to." We feel we "have to" do? Sounds a bit biblical. I'd prefer if I didn't have to put a 14 year old child who commits armed robbery in jail for his entire life, but I feel I must have too. For the good of the child, and the good of society. Poof. Problem solved. I'd prefer if I didn't have to stone the woman to death for committing adultery, but sometimes you just have to. Poof. Problem solved. See how easy it is to excuse bad behaviors if you argue from your (and the author's position)? You have slipped into the same lazy place the author ended up. PS. We can agree that a first trimester abortion isn't desirable. But can we also agree that an abortion of a child 2 weeks before he was due to be born IS repulsive?

- seattleeng

November 29, 2012 at 1:24pm