Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
• A first-trimester abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal risk—less than 0.05%—of major complications that might need hospital care.[9]
• Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.[10]
• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.[10]
• Leading experts have concluded that, among women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single first-trimester abortion than if they carry the pregnancy to term.[11]
• The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 weeks or later.[12]
• Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.[13]
• Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher.[13]
While you are being deliberately obscure by not specifically saying what you want, I believe, that what you want is me to provide statistical foundation for saying that the other poster's claims were spurious. And the statistics actually do prove that, if you'd take the time to review them. The other poster is claiming a mortality rate related to abortions, that is not borne out by the statistics. And the other poster provided nothing, no link at all, to support their claim. Which makes me wonder why YOU are so inconsistent in your demands for proof. Biased, much?
Roughly a dozen women in the US die every year from complications from abortions. Shouldn't these doctors and facilities be better prepared to help these women when something goes horribly wrong?
Gun grabbers demand reasonable restrictions of gun owners. Why shouldn't reasonable restrictions be put in place to protect the lives of women having abortions?
Something almost never goes wrong, the mortality rate for abortions is .00073%. The question was asked as to why Texas didn't include clinics performing liposuction and colonoscopies in their law since they have higher mortality rates, they couldn't answer. It's quite obvious this has nothing to do with health care, did any women even die from abortion last year and were they at a clinic?
Those representing Texas couldn't even point to a statistic where admitting privileges increased the quality of health care. So what problem did these laws address?
Last edited by Goodnight; 03-08-2016 at 11:26 AM..
It is painfully obvious to me, a person who abhors abortion, that this law was an attempt to make it harder for women to obtain an abortion.
If the concern about health was sincere then they would have made the law applicable to ALL outpatient facilities. But they targeted abortion clinics only. How transparent.
I also must point out that repeating false claims doesn't make them correct and shines a bad light.
Not every pro life person wants to control women as a few have suggested. I don't know one person that feels that way. I am not going to pretend that there aren't ANY out there like that, but to post garbage like "They only want to control every aspect of a woman's life, and can't stand that she has control over her own body". That is absurd. Even more absurd that there were other posters confirming that they believe this ridiculous notion.
In any rational discussion about abortion, when someone makes an absurd blanket claim like that, they have lost credibility.
even if you or others don't think or want to "control women" abolishing or severely restricting a woman's reproductive rights does, in the end "control" her ability to live her life as she sees fit.
While you are being deliberately obscure by not specifically saying what you want, I believe, that what you want is me to provide statistical foundation for saying that the other poster's claims were spurious. And the statistics actually do prove that, if you'd take the time to review them. The other poster is claiming a mortality rate related to abortions, that is not borne out by the statistics. And the other poster provided nothing, no link at all, to support their claim. Which makes me wonder why YOU are so inconsistent in your demands for proof. Biased, much?
You asked for proof from the other poster. That means I do not have to as you already did.
There's genuine debate and then there's trolling.
Enjoy....
Odd that asking someone to provide verification for their claim is considered trolling, especially when the poster was calling another out for not providing it.
even if you or others don't think or want to "control women" abolishing or severely restricting a woman's reproductive rights does, in the end "control" her ability to live her life as she sees fit.
The only ones restricting the ability is those who closed the clinics rather than make them safer.
The only ones restricting the ability is those who closed the clinics rather than make them safer.
No, the one's restricting the ability are the legislators who targeted abortion clinics and asked for unreasonable measures to be taken, ostensibly for the protection of women, but since the measures do nothing to promote said protection, the purpose of those measures was only to force clinics to close. Which actually harmed women, by making reproductive care less available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
