Common Myths About the History of Abortion in America

Abortion Forum

From:
http://www.prochoice.org/

MYTH : In 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal for the first time in American history.

FACT : Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived on our shores until the mid- to late 1800's, when states began passing laws that made it illegal. Although a few states had liberalized their abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the right to have an abortion was finally made available to all American women when the Supreme Court ruling in 1973 struck down the remaining restrictive state laws.


MYTH : The founding fathers never intended for abortion to be allowed in the United States.

FACT : At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" (the stage of pregnancy when the mother can feel fetal movement in the womb) were openly advertised and commonly performed. Abortion was something that the founding fathers would have been aware of, and presumably, they would not have remained silent about it if they had intended for the government to involve itself in this aspect of the private lives of its citizens.

MYTH : In the 1800's, abortion was outlawed because it was so dangerous.

FACT : During this time in history, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without the technology that we take for granted today, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back-alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

MYTH : Abortion was outlawed because it is immoral.

FACT : The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state, and included fears that soon the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. But the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. This campaign was successful, and by 1910, all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a "physicians-only" practice.

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. It is noteworthy that obscenity, abortion, and contraception should be so linked at a time when society deemed women incapable of making legally and socially responsible decisions and the law classified any attempts of women to make reproductive choices as unacceptable.

MYTH : During the period when abortion was illegal, abortion was effectively outlawed and the safety of pregnant women was ensured.

FACT : Criminalization of abortions did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year1, although, of course, no accurate records could be kept of illegal procedures. What is known is that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.

It should be noted that during this time some women obtained relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors.

This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. Later, the rate of reported abortions began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.

Today, pro-choice advocates who fight for continued access to safe, legal abortion for all women often are motivated by their understanding of the consequences of criminalized abortion. We know from history that whenever abortion has been illegal, women have still attempted and succeeded in ending unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they have often suffered serious health problems or died in the process. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an important turning point in protecting women from unsafe abortion, an understanding of the pre-Roe v. Wade years is critical for making intelligent public policy decisions regarding reproductive health care in the future.

MYTH: Women have the right to choose what to do with their own body. If they don't want to be pregnant, they should be allowed to get an abortion.

FACT: Women have the right to choose what to do with their own body. If they don't want to be pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.

MYTH : Women who don't wish to be pregnant should not have sex.

FACT : Women, including teenage girls, while knowing the risks involved with being sexually active, continue to do so anyway. Often this results in sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Should the right to have a legal abortion be taken away from these women, they will find a way to terminate their pregnancy with other means, including but not limited to: Back alley abortions - done by inexperienced practitioners that results in severe infection and often death of the woman. Drug Overdose - not always causing the abortion of the fetus, often causing birth defects, hospitalization of the woman and death.

You can argue that women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, hence abortion should be illegal and so should premarital sex. But isn't that kind of like limiting the rights for women to make choices about their personal lives? Why don't we just return to the days when women didn't have the right to vote. How about taking a few steps BACK in the evolution of society instead of forward?

people can have premarital sex if they want. But if they get pregnant, I don't want to hear anybody complaining.

a fetus has different DNA, and therefore is not part of a woman's body.

should it be illegal? I don't know. It's really more practical to have it be legal, but I only say this because I believe the law should not venture into morality. I don't know if I'd call it murder, but it's certainly immoral (excluding cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger). But making it illegal is not taking away a woman's right to choose. God forbid people be responsible for their actions.

Glad we can some to a peace about it, even if we don't agree!

It's a given because you're a male, right?

yeah

If the use of condoms was promoted in school, along with abstinence, it would severly limit pregnancy/abortion. It's not promoting sex, just realizing that abstinence doesn't work in all cases.

people've gotten pregnant even though they remained abstinent?

no, not all people remain abstinent. and for those people condoms are they way to go.

<<<What about the baby's right to choose? What did he/she do wrong? What crime/sin did he/she commit? How did he/she exercise his/her freedom of choice? Seems to me like abortion ALWAYS has an unwilling participant -- the baby. >>>

Very accurate Marlene. Some accidental babies grow up perfectly once given a home and love. They're the society's jewels lost inside of the emotional turmoil.

<<< Legalized abortions may have made it safer for the woman -- but it's as deadly as ever for the baby! >>>

Forever lost, another life. We spend so much resources protecting all the living. The question for an intelligent society is: What about those who are alived, but unable to step up to help themselves (handicapped by several months only.)

<<< If a woman finds herself in a situation where she doesn't want to have the baby she is carrying, she can put the baby up for adoption. >>>

Totally agreed, but we can't understand why those who became involved wouldn't face up to the responsibility of at least caring for own flesh and blood yearning to come alive.

<<< You can argue that women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, hence abortion should be illegal and so should premarital sex. But isn't that kind of like limiting the rights for women to make choices about their personal lives? >>>

No one wants to limit women's right. She is entitle to pursuit of happiness. There are responsibilities for people's actions. Of course, we can argue down two paths; those consensual and the parental accountability thereafter AND those by rape and the possible options. It can take days for ensuing discussions.

In both, perhaps some sense of shared responsibilities despite the mishaps for unplanned parenthood. Where would you like to take this discussion?

<<< Why don't we just return to the days when women didn't have the right to vote. How about taking a few steps BACK in the evolution of society instead of forward? >>>

NOT backwards; but more progressive thinking and options for both the parents and the unwanted child. We live in a rather advanced society. There are many good thinkers who can come up with good solutions to make it a win-win situation. Perhaps, give a little and get lots more back later to know that the unwanted can and did grown up to be a wonderful and productive person. Think about the possibilities, not the current disabilities.

How come no one ever said this? Am I the only one that looks outside of the box? There are laws on the books which can be brought to court for clarification.

The bottom line is that even if abortion is made illegal, women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Remember health class? Remember "the talk" with your parents? HAVING SEX IS FOR MAKING BABIES.

So if women do not want to have the baby, they shouldn't have sex. If they are having sex, they are taking a risk. If the birth control fails, they are going to be carrying a baby for 9 months. Women's choice of what they want to do with their bodies comes before the pregnancy.

I mean, I don't go around killing IRS employees because I don't think I should have to pay taxes.

Although somtimes I'd really like to.......

[QUOTE]Dekka00 said this in post #19 :
HAVING SEX IS FOR MAKING BABIES.QUOTE]

Give me a break. People have sex because it feels good. Theory and practice are two different things.


Also, it seems that most people against abortion are in favor of the death penalty. Why the double standard?

Show me where all these kids in transient homes are NEVER adopted at some time in their life?

Are you for real??? Puhlease


And in case you werent aware...do you know how many kids in Romania get thrown out on the street after they turn eight and no one has adopted them? I know how many...ALL of them...

Have you EVERY seen inside a Russian orphange? Chinese orphange? Dont even go there...

These kids have NO homes whatsoever...and there ARE plenty of children in foster care and in places where people dont want them here...homeless kids all over the place...

Of all people Ken, Id never assume you blind to the reality.

Here Ken...here is Africa....

The need for help for the orphans and street children in Africa is profound. Tribal wars, extreme poverty, virtually no medical care, and the AIDS virus have killed off countless hundreds-of-thousands of people, and continue to do so at rapidly increasing numbers. Orphaned and abandoned children are everywhere. They are sick with various diseases (many infected with HIV), alone, hungry, sometimes naked or nearly so, dirty, living in alleys or dumps, scrounging for anything they can put in their stomachs, many continually sniff stolen glue (which is destroying their brains) to ease the pain, the younger ones fall prey to the violence of the older ones…they are in every “earthly” respect without hope.

The Ukraine

Now,103,000 children live in orphanages, and It is estimated in a recent Christian Scientist Monitor article [April 2002] that over 800,000 children are homeless in Ukraine today. Many make their home in the subway system in Kiev & other major cities. Too many kids for the orphanages to even handle.

And others


There are an estimated 150 million children who call the streets of the world home. (UNICEF, 1998)

· The most commonly used number for homeless children in the USA is 450,000(1991). Statistics reach up to 500,000 - 750,000. (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1990)

· 40,000 children under 5 years old die daily. (14 million annually) (UNICEF, 1991)

70,000 - 75,000 children in Manila live on the streets. About 30% of the boys and girls as young as 8 years old work as prostitutes. (Relin, 1991)

· 800,000 girls 12-16 years old are prostitutes in Thailand. Parents sell children into bondage. (UNICEF, 91)

· 1.3 minion crippled children beg for employers in Bombay

62% of the girls on Brazilian streets will either commit suicide or be murdered before they are 18. (Switz.)

· An estimated 260,000 children were left after Cheausescu's government toppled in Romania. Half of these abandoned children were sent to a 77 bed shelter, the remainder were labeled as handicapped and placed in "death houses". (World Press Review, 1991)

· 10,000 children, primarily boys, live at St. Petersburg airport, formally Russia. Militia round them up and place them in prison, institutes or return them home. Yearly 3,000 runaway. (World Press Review, 1992)

· The 20,000 - 30,000 children living on the streets of Moscow are viewed as "genetically inferior," subhuman, dispensable. (National Catholic Reporter, 1993)

· In Bogota Columbia missionaries with Action International have 50,000 children living on the streets of that city to care for.

· Mexico City has 1,900,000 kids on the streets, 240,000 of them are abandoned. (Action International, 1996)

· In one year Guatemalan police have publicly executed up to 40 street children and injured hundreds more. The government admits to only 5,000 street children in Guatemala City. (Relin, 1991)

· Brazil may house the most abandoned children in the world, their numbers range from 12 to 24 million

By 2000 AD, there will be 1,000,000 orphans in South Africa due to AIDS, 65-70% will turn to crime & prostitution. (Children's Ministries Convention, 1996)

· There are 1,000,000 orphans in Uganda (Wayfarers Ministries, 1/96)

· In Zambia 600,000 children will be orphaned by the year 2000 as a result of AIDS (Action Intl., 6/96)

· 400,000 African children carry HIV. An estimated 2.5 million will die of AIDS & 5 million more will become AIDS orphans by 2000 AD. (Operation World)

In the 60's & 70's the number of homeless children remained constant. For example, NYC had 1400 homeless children. Then in the 80's the population began to grow: in 1984 there were 7000; 1987 12,303; and 1991 20,000 kids were homeless in NYC. (Zuckerman, 1988 &N.C. for the Homeless, 1991)

· Wherever you look there are children. Their names: orphan, abused & unloved, abandoned, polluted, castoffs, just another mouth to feed, unwanted burden, unexpected accident, headache, added expense, nuisance, good-for-nothing, trash, thief, disposable ones, vermin, garbage... today the picture, isn't pretty.

Mystic ,

Thank you for presenting those facts about orphans, I was just about to look up that information and share it, along with the fact that without legalized abortion, those numbers of orphaned and homeless children would only increase.

Yes it's a nice concept, that if a woman is pregnant and doesn't want it, she should give it up for adoption. But so rarely does a white family from the suburbs want to adopt a black baby. Nor does a black family from the suburbs want to adopt a white baby. Eventually they grow older in the system until they're small children. And people would much rather adopt a baby than a small child. And forget crack babies or babies with other major health concerns. Who's going to adopt them? Marlene? It's a nice concept but unfortunately unrealistic.


And again we're talking early trimester, not late stage abortion. Meaning it is a fetus, not viable to survive on it's own, therefore NOT a baby.
Marlene, Ken, do you guys eat eggs?

chelktty said this in post #27 :
[B]Yes it's a nice concept, that if a woman is pregnant and doesn't want it, she should give it up for adoption. But so rarely does a white family from the suburbs want to adopt a black baby. Nor does a black family from the suburbs want to adopt a white baby. Eventually they grow older in the system until they're small children. And people would much rather adopt a baby than a small child. And forget crack babies or babies with other major health concerns. Who's going to adopt them? Marlene? It's a nice concept but unfortunately unrealistic.

I couldnt agree more!!! With all the kids that still need homes, what would the point be of adding more numbers to the already high tally there already is...

I opened up a thread in the gold forum about this same thing..and said EXACTLY what you did...its a nice thought, but definitely unrealistic....we cant even house and feed the homeless kids there are now..what are we to do with even more?

Marlene, Ken, do you guys eat eggs?

Ummm.....ROFTL!

Maybe this wasnt meant to be funny...but I couldnt help it...

BUT....The mere question brings forth a very good point!!

well, I have this thing against looking at people in terms of numbers.

but, whatever... that's just me.

I dont think any of us has the right to judge. and mystic brings us EXCELLENT points. so many children are already suffering in a state of homelessness or being shuffled around from foster home to foster home to foster home leaving them abandoned from any feeling remotely close to stability.

ken and marlene and the few others here opposing it: do you know anyone who has had an abortion? do you know what emotional trauma they go through while making this decision? do you know how much time they spend evaluating their situation to make sure they are doing what they feel to be right? do you know how much guilt they suffer afterwards?? granted, some women use abortion as a means of birth control, and that is wrong but i think most women have made a mistake and they are preventing themselves from making another......... being a parent when they arent ready.
aside from anything else, i cannot believe that a 2 month fetus can feel pain and suffer, im certain that the woman is experiencing a hell of a lot more pain than that tiny being that has not yet begun to really form.

and for a country who is becoming so politically correct on everything else to the point it makes me SICK, i think the politically correct thing to do is leave the choice up to the woman, where she can go to a licensed doctor who knows how to properly perform an abortion, and keep this practice as safe as possible.

and someone said earlier that abortion is only okay in cases of rape or when the mother is in danger.

that totally damages your entire argument. abortion is abortion. just because that mother was raped, did that baby do anything wrong??? either you think abortion is right or wrong. is it okay if the woman was practicing safe sex and the condom broke?? is it okay if the woman was on birth control pills and she fell into the 1% who get pregnant on the pill?? they were being responsible to protect against pregnancy.......... c'mon people. a woman has a right to choose.

Defensive you're absolutely right. The fate of a woman and her unwanted pregnancy shouldn't be up to a group of people to decide, but rather to that woman to decide whether she wants to have the child and keep it, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion.
Just like it should not be up to a group of people if a terminally ill person chooses to die with dignity rather than suffer in pain during their last days.
Personal and private decisions regarding one's own medical situation be it pregnancy or disease, should not be left in the hands of those who want to ban such practices on the basis that they're "immoral". As I said before, if you personally don't agree with the decision, that's your perogative...don't do it. But don't tell someone you don't even know what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

it's not for society to enforce. it's for the individual to enforce on themselves.

if they can't control their urges and get pregnant because of it, I'm sorry, but tough. They're going to have to deal with it.

the purpose of law in society is to maintain order, so under that view, i guess abortion should be legal.

but it's still immoral.

it's not about a woman's "right to choose" though. If she's pregnant (unless it's rape), she already MADE her choice.

well men have to pay child support if they run off. What if they wanted the woman to get an abortion but she didn't? should the man not have to pay child support?

it is up to a woman what she does with her body. If what she does with it gets her pregnant, then that was her choice. The fetus however, is not part of her body. It has different DNA. It depends on the woman's body for survival, yes. It's intimitaly connected to the woman's body, yes. That's part of being a mammal. But the fact is that it's not the woman's body.

FIRST OF ALL, men can get out of paying child support, TRUST ME. no matter how you try to enforce it. i have a son who has seen his biological father probably 10 times in his short 10 years. and that is being generous. and this man paid me child support for ONE STINKING YEAR!!!

DEKKA, you disagree that women who use condoms or birth controls pills are being responsible. what about married women?? if a married woman using the pill to avoid pregnancy with her husband gets pregnant, she has been irresponsible?? if you are going to have this moral debate - is there anything immoral about a married couple having sex, OH MY GOD, even for pleasure??? do you think that the only women getting abortions are young, careless, irresponsible party-goers??? go sit at an abortion clinic for a while, see the clientel that walks in there.

and that fetus is ABSOLUTELY part of her body. i have two kids, while i was carrying those babies, they were absolutely a part of me. they were connected to me, dependent upon me, and though their DNA is not exactly as mine, c'mon, we share DNA.

okay, all that is unarguable

however, don't use the phrase "right to choose." The choice comes before the pregnancy. I can't tell people not to have sex, but I can tell them that if they can avoid an unwanted pregnancy by not having sex.

I don't care. Actions have consequences. It's simple cause and effect.

[QUOTE]chelktty said this in post #47 :
[B]

Should a woman have a baby that the father didn't want, men have the option to sign off of all parental rights to a child, relieving himself of any financial burden. Of coarse this also means that the man has no rights to visit the child or even talk to them on the phone, because he has given up that right in signing away his parental responsibility.


that???[COLOR=darkblue]and the fathers should no longer have a choice either then, to those who oppose abortion, how can you argue this???? if a woman is FORCED by the government to continue her preganancy if she wants to terminate, then the government should FORCE all the dead beat, piece of **** dads that dont take care of their responsibility. where is the equality in that

i do see understand your argument dekka. but i think that as long as it is not being used as a form of birth control its okay.

i dont know, i tried to edit that post, and its all messed up. im glad you could even make sense of it dekka!!!

ummm yeah I know that I share half my genes with my mother and half with my father, but it's not the same DNA. That wasn't even the point. The fetus is an organism with different DNA than its mother.

I suppose if you wanted to argue that until it reaches a certain age it is still part of its mother, there is no way I could argue with that, but I'd still disagree.

But I have the same DNA now that I had when I was a small fetus, and I'm not a part of my mother's body.

But you're comparing a fetus/embryo to a human being. They're not the same.

Dekka, you are right that people should take responsibility for their actions. i agree with you 100% on that. However, accidents happen. As i stated before, even married couples who are practicing safe sex to avoid pregnancy can come up pregnant. and i dont think its fair to say that married couples shouldnt be having sex. but, my point, if its not the right time for them to have children, abortion may be the best option for them. i believe that as long as it is done within the first trimester, its okay. and i know that sounds kind of contradictory too, but after that, a baby is actually forming, with fingers and toes, etc etc. but still, the government does not have a right to make that decision for a woman.

its not a matter of DNA, its not a moral matter, its not a matter of congressional magnitude, it is a matter of choice for every woman. and i know that i see women all the time with 5 or 6 kids that she cant afford, not taking care of them, dirty clothes, screaming and beating them, and i have to think inside that perhaps abortion should have been an option for her. that may sound cruel, but its reality. we dont live in a perfect world, unfortunately, therefore things like abortion need to exist.

let's keep abortion legal.

and put all the unwanted foster kids to sleep.

problem solved.

Chelky's right, viable humans cannot be put to sleep ... unless they're in the womb.

Regardless as to whether a person supports or opposes abortion...one thing is clear and can not be overlooked....LIFE begins at conception period...some call the products of conception...a simple group of cells and give them no more thought than a womans 28th day discharge....well, and ova is ALIVE...a sperm is ALIVE...so how can those two living things come together and all of a sudden produce an unliving thing?....so to view abortion as being ok because the cells arent viable is crap...ask yourself this...if they arent viable....why have an abortion????

We ALL started out as products of conception...we are fortunate....we were born....

Mystic I'd love to add to that but I think you've made the point abundantly clear!
And I too think it's interesting that no one has answered your question about the homeless, abused and forgotten children of today. What's to become of them and hypothetically millions of others should abortion become a banned procedure.

mad_rhetorik, I understand that you feel passionately (as many do) about this issue. Like Mystic said, viable means capable of surviving outside the womb .
Which is why I don't believe in late stage abortion. I don't even think 2nd trimester abortion is right either. If the embryo has not developed into a fetus, I honestly don't believe it is yet a viable human.

Those of you who are anti abortion use the argument that it's murder. What do you think happens to the soul of the embryo? Does it have a soul yet? What then happens to the soul of a miscarriage? If a woman has an abortion it's murder. If a woman has a miscarriage is it neglect?

I've got an idea mystic, how about we kill them all!!!
The fact that you view these 'unwanted' children as having NO INHERENT WORTH WHATSOEVER is unsettling. Has the sanctity of life in america digressed to the point where a baby must be wanted to be human? Those children have a right to live for their own sake, not because they are wanted or unwanted by anybody. Those 'unwanted' children will some day be adults, should we dispose of those 'unwanted' adults? My best friend's dad grew up in foster homes, he is one of the coolest, funniest, most loving, and successful people i know - and you would have him aborted to reduce the number of "unwanted" children? Absolutely incredible.
As for the viability issue, fetusus can survive outside of the womb months before birth. But what does that matter? Are people who can't survive without respirators or pacemakers not human because they're not viable apart from aid? Of course not, but people will rationalize away the humanity of the unborn in that way. I'm not going to be drawn into this debate, all the players here are dug-in and in some cases hostile. All i did was write a one-sentence post and got singled out. All the best to everyone.

yeah we all are just going back and forth with the same arguments.

it all boils down to the question "when does humanity start?" and this can't be answered by anything other than beliefs. So it's actually kind of pointless to argue.

but if it ever comes down to a referendum(which it won't, but....), I know which way I'm voting.

*bows politely* it's been a pleasure bashing heads with you

Ditto!