Posted on 08/07/2015 1:19:27 PM PDT by Gamecock
2.8%
As of late the left has been pressing really hard on the life of the mother as a defense of abortions. Last night during the debate Megan Kelly got particularly nasty in pushing that argument. Based on the rhetoric one would think that over half of the abortions performed are to save the mother's life.
But what is the real story. There are lots of studies giving reasons that women have abortions and most ignore the reasons trotted out by the left. Most of them center on the convenience factor. Examples include lack of money, the timing to have a child is bad, etc. These reasons make up well over 75% women gave for having an abortion.
Why do these studies not report the reasons pushed by the left? Could it be that those reasons are so statistically insignificant that they left really doesn't want us to know?
I dug deeper to find exactly how many women chose to have an abortion because their lives are at risk,and here is what I found:
25.5% want to postpone childbearing
7.9% Want no more children
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
10.8% Will disrupt education or a job
14.1% Relationship problem or partner doesn't want a child
12.2% Too young
2.8% Risk to maternal health
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.1% Other
Source: Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. Spetember 1998
Now I know that is an old article, but the health of the child bearing woman in the US has not changed. If anything advances in medicine will drive that number down.
2.8% FRiends, burn that number into your head. Throw it out whenever someone trots out the red herring of the mother's health.
The old “rape and incest” canards don’t even appear on your list — I would assume because they’re statistically insignificant.
The same argument could be made for any procedure intended to save the life of the mother.
all you need to know about the “abortion” issue is that some of the most rabid and activist supporters of abortion are lesbians.
“pro choice” is just one tentacle of cultural marxism.
I suppose so. It wouldn’t mean anything to me unless the mother’s life was actually in peril. I automatically exclude sophistic arguments.
Wrong again, sir. An abortion to save the life of the mother would be the direct murder of the baby in utero by, say, scalding or dismemberment. This is not the same as removing a baby by csection at as late a moment as possible and trying to keep it alive, or removing a tube that contains an embryo that you would keep alive if you could.
I don’t care if someone has a throat slit or is merely starved to death, the effect is the same.
And, by definition, abortion to save the mother’s life is as a side effect killing the fetus through a procedure that is intended to save the mother’s life.
Of course, abortion in the case of rape is something completely different, and more akin to the distinction you’re trying to make.
Who goes to an abortion clinic if her life is endangered by her baby?
You are a troll, a dope, or both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.