Outlawing abortions will not stop women from having them.

[mzmolly]

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/beforeafter.html

Before Roe, both legal and illegal abortion posed an alarming risk to women's health.
Abortion was not a crime and was quite common in the U.S. during the 1700s and early 1800s. During this period, primitive methods such as physically striking a pregnant woman's abdomen or introducing foreign objects into the uterus were used to induce abortion, frequently killing or injuring the woman

The mid-1800s campaign to criminalize abortion stemmed from the medical profession's desire to establish the supremacy of physicians over midwives and homeopaths and an increasing resentment towards the growing women's rights movement

Laws passed across the country between 1860 and 1880 prohibited abortion at any point during pregnancy. However, illegal (back-alley) abortion remained widely available throughout the next century

Approximately 50% of all maternal deaths resulted from illegal abortion during the first half of the 20th century

Clinton framed the issue thusly: "Safe, legal and rare." I go back and fourth on the "rare" part, but we certainly need to keep "safe/legal" in the dialogue.

[deadparrot]

1. I believe I've heard somewhere that the percentage of pregnancies

that ended in abortion was the same both before and after Roe.

Making abortion illegal doesn't end abortion. It just pushes the process to the back alleys.

[IsItJustMe]

2. Not at all. Rich women go to Canada. Poor woman go to the back room.

[Megahurtz]

3. I like the "Safe and Legal" part but I don't like the "Rare" part

because it implies control. I think that "Safe Legal and Rare" phrase was made up
to appease the Pro-Lifers. The fact that an abortion is rare
is no one's business but the pregnant woman's business.

I believe abortions should be Safe and Legal at anytime, and all the time.

On edit, I noticed that you removed that phrase!

[mzmolly]

6. I kind of feel that way too, however "rare" can be seen as the promotion

of contraception vs. the abstinence only BS. Here is a thoughtful piece on this at TPM:

"I know that there are some people, including many who commented here, who hate the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare," because they think it concedes too much to those who would pass more laws to limit abortion. But I think that's even more of a tactical argument or empty gesture than "safe, legal, rare" is. Unless you are actually indifferent -- that is you really don't think it's better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy through contraception than through abortion -- then you have to think fewer abortions is better than more, and "rare" is a good goal. The argument should be about exactly how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/23/16146/7705

[liberal N proud]

8. I look at the rare part as a multi faceted result of choices

choice in preventive measures to begin with. Education of our women on protection methods meaning contraception and allowing the fundies to attempt to teach their children abstinence. Safe and Legal gives those girls the opportunity to do something when the abstinence fails.

Rare does not have to mean controlled, it means there are other options.

[Dawgs]

9. Rare implies rare.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand.

Rare does not mean restricting women from getting abortions, it means trying to reduce the number of needed abortions through education and birth control. It's that simple.

I am pro-choice, but I also want to see fewer abortions. This doesn't mean I want women restricted from getting them. It just means that I want birth control to be more readily available. This is why condom's being handed out at schools was such a good idea. I also want our kids to be taught about sex. If they know the consequences, they might actually use protection. This is why abstinence only programs are a joke.

[Burma Jones]

10. What Dawgs said....

Spot on, couldn't have said it better.....

[IsItJustMe]

4. Abortions were widely available in Chicago during the late 60's before Roe.

The cost was about $400. As far as safety goes, you took your chances.

[Atman]

5. What? Outlawing liquor stopped drinking didn't it?

Oops, wait. Bad example.

[mzmolly]

7. Heh.

;)