Illegal Abortion Myths

Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers"). Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.

The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. In fact, as we shall see, this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the popular arguments for the pro-choice position. One begs the question when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Another way of putting it is to say that the arguer is reasoning in a circle. For example, if one concludes that the Boston Celtics are the best team because no team is as good, one is not giving any reasons for this belief other than the conclusion one is trying to prove, since to claim that a team is the best team is exactly the same as saying that no team is as good.

The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.

Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn entity is not fully human. She writes that "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..."

Although it is doubtful whether statistics can establish a particular moral position, it should be pointed out that there has been considerable debate over both the actual number of illegal abortions and the number of women who died as a result of them prior to legalization. Prior to Roe, pro-choicers were fond of saying that nearly a million women every year obtained illegal abortions performed with rusty coat hangers in back-alleys that resulted in thousands of fatalities. Given the gravity of the issue at hand, it would go beyond the duty of kindness to call such claims an exaggeration, because several well-attested facts establish that the pro-choice movement was simply lying.

First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible.

Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital,pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.

This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross exaggeration.

Third, it is simply false to claim that there were nearly a million illegal abortions per year prior to legalization. There is no reliable statistical support for this claim. In addition, a highly sophisticated recent study has concluded that "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the prelegalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year.

Fourth, it is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.

Dr. Frank Beckwith is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California Campus. He holds a Ph.D. from Fordham University. Prior to coming to Trinity, Professor Beckwith held full-time faculty appointments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas(1989-96) and Whittier College (1996-97). His many books include Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. His articles and reviews have been published in numerous journals including Journal of Social Philosophy, Public Affairs Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, Focus on Law Studies, Simon Greenleaf of Law and Religion, and the Canadian Philosophical Review.

there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972

Does anyone know the number of deaths from legal abortions since then?

Abortion, like prescription-selling today, was originally a sideline that unscrupulous and immoral doctors engaged in for extra income.

Most often these doctors were the least competent losers of the profession.

Nowadays these same hacks are legally allowed to commit the same crimes, using much the same equipment.

The business hasn't changed - it's merely expanded because it's been given the mantle of state sponsorship.

hese abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year

From the above posted article. Multiply this average by the number of years since legalization.

Here is a chart from their website... geez...check out the "Note" at the end...

Note: The government stopped collecting these statistics in 1987 due to the lack of accurate reporting of deaths as a result of legal abortions.

How convenient...

And regarding the ominous coathanger...

Why are we sympathetic to people who horribly mutilate themselves in an attempt to murder an innocent human being? Its not like it's either the baby or the mom. The baby isn't a disease... (well, unless your with NOW or NARAL). Seems to me that, while it's tragic that a girl would maim or kill herself to get a back-alley abortion, them's the breaks! She chose to walk into the back alley and shell out for the hanger treatment, she chose to do it, and now its consequences. I realize thats not very sensitive, cold-blooded murder of a human baby sorta does that to me.

"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..."

Women don’t have the right to make decisions concerning their bodies when there’s more than one body, person or living being is involved. The argument that she dies at her own hand trying to kill another is where the “hanger” myth falls apart.

A very good question. It would also be interesting to correlate such a number with the number of women who died in childbirth 30 years ago. Childbirth is safer now due to medical advances.

In the same way, abortion is probably safer now than it was 30 years ago. Activists would tell you that the safety comes from the legality. I wouldn't be too sure about that, though. I think the health risk of back alley abortions are way over-blown. And, as this article says, if you factor in the millions of dead babies, abortion shows itself to be tremendously risky! Over half the people invovled in the procedure, die from it.

Multiply this average by the number of years since legalization.

Then remember that we condemn Communist China as genocidal, for the killing of some 50 million people. And we condemn Communist Russia as genocidal for the killing of some 20 million people. And we condemn Nazi Germany as genocidal for the killing of some 12 million people.

Note: The government stopped collecting these statistics in 1987 due to the lack of accurate reporting of deaths as a result of legal abortions.
How convenient...

Indeed… it makes the “hanger myth” even more inane.

PING-....the merciful Anti-Choic agents reappear!!!! Women don’t have the right to make decisions concerning their bodies when there’s more than one body, person or living being is involved. The argument that she dies at her own hand trying to kill another is where the “hanger” myth falls apart.

Dr. Beckwith is a great writer on this topic. He is in the process of revising his book on it to add sections on cloning and stem cell stuff. The book is titled "Politically Correct Death" and available for purchase, I believe.

I believe you can find some interviews with him on the STR website in their realaudio archives. http://www.str.org/

Note I have no connection to Dr. Beckwith nor STR other than being a donor and appreciating their work.

Scary, isn't it?

There was a thread last night in which a good chunk of the posters condoned a clinic bomber who had maimed a woman for life. She "deserved" it, you see.

Here, they advocate a version of slavery.

And they wonder why they can't get what they want...

I'm convinced that the radical right on this issue is as scary as the radical left on most other issues. They truly seem to believe that there is no difference between use of the morning-after pill and infanticide. Miscarrying in the first trimester is traumatic, but it doesn't come close to how I'd feel if I lost one of my children.

I oppose ANYONE who advocates terrorism for ANY purpose. If we make exceptions for our own side, what then does that make US?

Murder and maiming and enslavement for political or religious purposes is just that, no matter HOW many times the "it's for the BABIES!" line is tossed casually about.

Last night's thread was truly a look into the mind of evil. All the more frightening it was; as some there even suggested that I was no conservative myself, did I not adopt their views.

Have so few people failed to learn?

I feel NO sense of guilt for opposing that form of evil, along with all others. My ideology suffers not for it; my beliefs do not , either.

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.