Challenge: Women Will Die

Posted: September 6, 2011 by Amy Hall in Do the Right Thing, Weekly Challenge

Here’s a common objection to the pro-life view:

Back before abortion was legal, women were dying all the time in back-alley abortions. Do you really want to go back to that? If we outlaw abortion, women will be forced to go to unregulated, and probably dangerous, abortion providers. How can you want to risk the safety—and lives!—of women like that?

So what do you think? Tell us how you would you answer a person who said this to you, and Alan will be here on Thursday to tell you how you did.

  1. I would start by asking, do statistics show that women are more likely to do those back-ally abortions when abortion is illegal, or less likely?

  2. bobby says:

    if someone brings up the backalley abortion arguement, heres a good arguement from Stephanie Gray That She Brings up –

    In 1994, Susan Smith killed her two toddlers in South Carolina, by putting them in the backseat of her car and rolling it into a lake. Imagine that that was not an isolated incident. Imagine that more women do what Smith did. Whether they are stressed out with their children, or are dating men who do not want children, or have some other reason, they, in mass numbers, drown their offspring.

    But unlike Smith, imagine that woman after woman drives her car into the lake with the plan of escaping out an open window. Now imagine that many women fail in their efforts to get out of the cars before they sink, thereby dying when killing their children. Should society, then, make drowning one’s children legal so that it is safe for these mothers? In fact, should society even facilitate the process by helping women kill their children in a manner that doesn’t threaten their own lives?

    Clearly we don’t change a law simply because someone who is going to break it may get harmed in the process.


  3. Sam says:

    Getting an abortion is a choice, so laws against abortion don’t put women in danger of back alley abortions. People CHOOSE to have back alley abortions, and they do so AGAINST the law.

    Scott Klusendorf asked this rhetorical question in one of his debates when the subject of back alley abortions came up: “Should we legalize bank robbery so it will be safer for people to rob banks?” After all, making bank robbery illegal hasn’t stopped people from robbing banks, and it’s very dangerous for everybody–the robbers and the people who are in the bank at the time.

  4. Most arguments for abortion proceed on the assumption that the unborn aren’t fully human with standard Human Rights. This is no exception. We need to iron that out.

    And besides, we might want to challenge the idea that women “were dying all the time” from back-alley abortions. What are the real statistics? Not that that is actually relevant to whether we should allow babies to be killed…

  5. Bert Dill says:

    I would suggest, as a start, that the government stop requiring me to pay for other people’s abortions. Then I would like to be able to use my First Amendment rights to attempt to persuade (not force) women to make a different choice. I am far less concerned about what the law says than with what people do. As Thoreau put it: it is, after all, with men, not with parchment, that I argue.

    That is one of the problems I face when people ask me what I think about abortion. I am opposed to abortion. That opposition has nothing to do with laws, but with lives. I would like to help YOU, to provide YOU with an alternative. And yes, I have adopted, and so should all of us who are opposed to abortion.

  6. Albert says:

    This has always been an interesting idea to me. I mean, when they outlawed booze, there were all sorts of speakeasy’s opened to accommodate the “need”, right?

    So I thought why not look and see what the back-ally statistics were and I came up with the following link:

    After reading this article, I would have different questions for the person making the claim.

    And I guess if this article is factual, I would ask the person making the claim if they would agree that this is what they believe back-alley abortions are. And then proceed to discuss it more because once they agree to this, it’s no longer about it being safer for it to be legal.

  7. Karl says:

    I’d ask her how she came to that conclusion, and why she’s getting the abortion in the first place. Then I’d implement two questions of Gregs:
    1) What is it?
    2) Is it human?(SLED test)

    From Mike Adams, conservative columnist:

    “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!

    They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead.

    ( and,_rape_and_abortion/page/full/)

  8. Adrian Urias says:

    Oh, ok, so lets make baby killing safer for the mothers then. And while we’re at it, lets hand terrorists bullet proof vests.