Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

I am bored and since this was mentioned in another abortion post... >.

Posted by   + Show Post

Someone mentioned violence against clinics and the like. There have been a few instances of pro life groups protesting clinics that do not offer abortions. Not that they make news. 

Anyway, here, read these.

Anthrax threats  Wait.. they are threatening to send Anthrax to a clinic??? Holy Hel, I remember how sick my husband was after his vaccination..

Butyric Acid attacks Ouch

Arsons and Bombings I thought people were taught not to play with fire... 

Murders and Shootings Most recent one was 2009... 

Now, I know not all pro life peeps are violent. however, violent language (while not condoned) is not as bad as the violence show above.

Neither should be happening, because it makes both sides look like fools

Come join us at CafeWho! Click the siggie!

by on Jul. 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Replies (101-110):
Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Remember that the study in question only addresses part of my original point--none of yours so far have addressed the fact of live babies being killed after an abortion when abortion is legal, or the number of viable fetuses killed by abortion.

Quoting Aestas:

Thank you. I will read these and get back to you as well.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 The datatset problem is described here:


http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/study-saying-abortion-safer-than-childbirth-disputed


The Denmark study of long-term outcomes is decribed here:


http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/13/study-confirms-childbirth-is-safer-for-women-than-abortion/


Quoting Aestas:


No, I have not, but I'd be happy to read them and get back to you if you'll provide some links. Thank you.


Quoting Meadowchik:


 Thanks.  Have you read any of the rebuttals?  First major concern was the datasets used, second was that the study focused on the procedures themselves, not long-term public health issues correlated with abortion vs live births.


Quoting Aestas:


Abortion safer than giving birth: study

By Genevra Pittman

NEW YORK | Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:16pm EST



(Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.


Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.


((snip))




 


Aestas
by Gold Member on Jul. 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM

You haven't provided a source for your assertion that live babies being killed after an abortion is something that happens because of abortion being legal, or is more common when abortion is legal. Killing a fetus which is born alive during an abortion is illegal in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act

I addressed your point about the number of overall fetuses killed when I offered the study that shows that abortion is less common in countries where it is legal and widely available. As far as the number of viable fetuses, you haven't provided anything to show that this happens because of abortion being legal, or that it's more common where abortion is legal. However, the earliest preemie ever to have survived was born at 21 weeks and 6 days, and general viability is usually considered to be around 28 weeks or more. As it is, abortion is only legal up to 24 weeks, and only 1.3% of abortions take place between 20 and 24 weeks, usually for medical reasons (i.e., the pregnancy threatens the mother's health or life, or the fetus has a terminal condition and won't survive). So the number of actual viable fetuses to be legally aborted must logically be vanishingly small.

Quoting Meadowchik:

Remember that the study in question only addresses part of my original point--none of yours so far have addressed the fact of live babies being killed after an abortion when abortion is legal, or the number of viable fetuses killed by abortion.

lokilover
by Bronze Member on Jul. 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM



Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting lokilover:

We have statistics that show that abortion is much safer than giving birth, in terms of mortality for the woman.  


 Let's see them, then.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271


lilblu399
by Bronze Member on Jul. 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Yes they were. Gosnell wasn't a licensed OB but since he performed abortions on viable fetuses(In PA you can obtain an abortion up to 24weeks of pregnancy) and a woman died he was charged with murder. Performing illegall abortions before theiy are viable only gets you a fine or loss of license, if licensed or maybe a few months in jail. Also more women die in the US in childbirth than abortions, if we want to reduce any number of deaths by pregnancy maybe we should ban pregnancy instead of abortion.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 Come again? Please clarify, as I do doubt that ALL of them were illegal.


My point was that in both cases, one where abortions are legal and two where abortions are illegal, people die.   If the point is to reduce the number of deaths, then we should look at it from comparing the deaths from both. 


Quoting lilblu399:

All of the abortions gosnell performed were illegal. He was given life in prison for his actions.


Quoting Meadowchik:


Yet live, breathing people are being killed after legal abortions, as in the case of Gosenell and other abortionists.  It's a similar scenario to women being killed by illegal abortions.  If both cases matter, then the law should really be about preventing as much deaths as possible.


Quoting Sekirei:

It is the makeup if what could be, no more than that. However, we don't need to agree on it. All that needs to happen is for everyone to stop worrying about what another person decides for themselves in the medical sense






Quoting JTROX:


I don't have to agree with someone to respect them.


I have respect for all of the humans involved.  Not just the woman.  I have respect for the unborn, the woman, and the father.  


If it is not a human form, then what form is it?  What is it before it reaches it's "potential"?




Quoting Sekirei:


Do you think that abortion should be illegal? If you do and are working  towards that end, then you are not respecting another person's beliefs. No one can  (or should) force you to have an abortion... but to force someone to carry a pregnancy they do not want is just as bad as forcing an abortion. 


and potential to be a human... *shrugs* 


Quoting JTROX:


I can't answer your question, because I do not believe I have been disrespectful.  Help me out.  Where have I been disrespectful?  


It is a human being.  It not, please, do tell, what life form is it?


 


Quoting Sekirei:


No one answered this in another post, so, because of your answer, i will pose you this question.


If you wish for people to respect your views and beliefs... why is it that you can't (or won't) respect others?


There are quite a few paths that do not believe that there is another human until they take their first breath. Even in the bible, a baby is technically not 'worth' anything until a month old (Old Testament)


Quoting JTROX:


Nope, not at all.


Just pointing out the fact that pro-choicers support a woman's right to have a violent act committed on another human being.


Quoting Sekirei:




Quoting JTROX:


Abortion is violent.


soooo, that makes shooting people, tossing acid at them, bombing and setting fire to clinics ok?
















 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 8, 2013 at 2:26 AM
It stands to reason that if there is an extreme case like Gosnell with such results, that statistically there are also infants born alive from a legal abortion attempt. Essentially, no law can perfectly guarantee safety, whether an abortion ban or abortion legalization. The ultimate goal should be to prevent the most deaths possible, both of women and the unborn combined.

Quoting lilblu399:

Yes they were. Gosnell wasn't a licensed OB but since he performed abortions on viable fetuses(In PA you can obtain an abortion up to 24weeks of pregnancy) and a woman died he was charged with murder. Performing illegall abortions before theiy are viable only gets you a fine or loss of license, if licensed or maybe a few months in jail. Also more women die in the US in childbirth than abortions, if we want to reduce any number of deaths by pregnancy maybe we should ban pregnancy instead of abortion.



Quoting Meadowchik:

 Come again? Please clarify, as I do doubt that ALL of them were illegal.



My point was that in both cases, one where abortions are legal and two where abortions are illegal, people die.   If the point is to reduce the number of deaths, then we should look at it from comparing the deaths from both. 



Quoting lilblu399:

All of the abortions gosnell performed were illegal. He was given life in prison for his actions.



Quoting Meadowchik:



Yet live, breathing people are being killed after legal abortions, as in the case of Gosenell and other abortionists.  It's a similar scenario to women being killed by illegal abortions.  If both cases matter, then the law should really be about preventing as much deaths as possible.



Quoting Sekirei:

It is the makeup if what could be, no more than that. However, we don't need to agree on it. All that needs to happen is for everyone to stop worrying about what another person decides for themselves in the medical sense







Quoting JTROX:



I don't have to agree with someone to respect them.



I have respect for all of the humans involved.  Not just the woman.  I have respect for the unborn, the woman, and the father.  



If it is not a human form, then what form is it?  What is it before it reaches it's "potential"?






Quoting Sekirei:



Do you think that abortion should be illegal? If you do and are working  towards that end, then you are not respecting another person's beliefs. No one can  (or should) force you to have an abortion... but to force someone to carry a pregnancy they do not want is just as bad as forcing an abortion. 



and potential to be a human... *shrugs* 



Quoting JTROX:



I can't answer your question, because I do not believe I have been disrespectful.  Help me out.  Where have I been disrespectful?  



It is a human being.  It not, please, do tell, what life form is it?



 



Quoting Sekirei:



No one answered this in another post, so, because of your answer, i will pose you this question.



If you wish for people to respect your views and beliefs... why is it that you can't (or won't) respect others?



There are quite a few paths that do not believe that there is another human until they take their first breath. Even in the bible, a baby is technically not 'worth' anything until a month old (Old Testament)



Quoting JTROX:



Nope, not at all.



Just pointing out the fact that pro-choicers support a woman's right to have a violent act committed on another human being.



Quoting Sekirei:






Quoting JTROX:



Abortion is violent.



soooo, that makes shooting people, tossing acid at them, bombing and setting fire to clinics ok?
























 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 8, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Thanks. I will look at it, but to be clear I wasn't only referring to the mortality of the woman.

Quoting lokilover:




Quoting Meadowchik:

 


Quoting lokilover:

We have statistics that show that abortion is much safer than giving birth, in terms of mortality for the woman.  




 Let's see them, then.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271



Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 5:40 AM

The article mentions some numbers and percentages that are far from comprehensive.  The conclusions such as this,

“What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

are, without the concrete numbers, merely political speak.  Guttmacher is an institution with an agenda.  Did you notice, however, that most European countries restrict abortion to before 12 weeks?  So it would seem that the Texas law of restricted it to 20 weeks is actually quite liberal compared to Europe. 

Anyways, back to the topic, correlation does not mean causation. Also, it is incredible that they would want us to swallow the idea that legality really does not make a difference, when there is evidence that restrictions can reduce abortion rates:

"But more importantly, the regression results indicate pro-life laws are effective. Specifically, Medicaid funding of abortions increases abortion rates and informed consent laws reduce abortion rates. Both of these findings are statistically significant. Interestingly, in the final regression model only 4 of the 24 independent variables achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. Two of these four variables measure the effect of pro-life laws. Overall these findings contribute to the body of academic and policy literature which argues that pro-life laws are effective at lowering abortion rates. "

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/123/

This, at the link I provide, is the kind of analysis I am looking for, one that can credibly talk about whether the statistics are rigorous or weak.

 

 

Quoting Aestas:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

Please read the whole article. There is a lot more information provided, and it includes links to the studies in question.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 My point was that in either case, whether abortion is legal or illegal, people die. I am fairly certain that legalising abortion is not the best way to minimize abortion. To me the issue is more about preventing as much deaths as possible.

Quoting Aestas:

No, that is not what happened with Gosnell. The abortions he was conducting were illegal. The way he ran his practice was illegal. The entire sickening case is a very good example of what happens when women are forced to resort to illegal abortions. The best way to minimize the number of abortions (because you cannot prevent them entirely) is to keep them safe, legal, and available, make sure that everyone has access to free or affordable birth control and reproductive health care, and make sure that mothers have the support they need, financial or otherwise, to carry wanted pregnancies to term.

 

 

Aestas
by Gold Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 5:56 AM

An article of the thoughts of Catholics in Alliance from a conservative think tank's website? Yeah, no agenda there.

The Guttmacher Institute is a non-partisan non-profit organization invested in health and policy research.

Quoting Meadowchik:

The article mentions some numbers and percentages that are far from comprehensive.  The conclusions such as this,

“What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

are, without the concrete numbers, merely political speak.  Guttmacher is an institution with an agenda.  Did you notice, however, that most European countries restrict abortion to before 12 weeks?  So it would seem that the Texas law of restricted it to 20 weeks is actually quite liberal compared to Europe. 

Anyways, back to the topic, correlation does not mean causation. Also, it is incredible that they would want us to swallow the idea that legality really does not make a difference, when there is evidence that restrictions can reduce abortion rates:

"But more importantly, the regression results indicate pro-life laws are effective. Specifically, Medicaid funding of abortions increases abortion rates and informed consent laws reduce abortion rates. Both of these findings are statistically significant. Interestingly, in the final regression model only 4 of the 24 independent variables achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. Two of these four variables measure the effect of pro-life laws. Overall these findings contribute to the body of academic and policy literature which argues that pro-life laws are effective at lowering abortion rates. "

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/123/

This, at the link I provide, is the kind of analysis I am looking for, one that can credibly talk about whether the statistics are rigorous or weak.

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Jul. 18, 2013 at 6:02 AM

 Um, it was disagreeing with the findings of Catholics in Alliance and it analysed numbers from the Guttmacher Institute.

 

Quoting Aestas:

An article of the thoughts of Catholics in Alliance from a conservative think tank's website? Yeah, no agenda there.

The Guttmacher Institute is a non-partisan non-profit organization invested in health and policy research.

Quoting Meadowchik:

The article mentions some numbers and percentages that are far from comprehensive.  The conclusions such as this,

“What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

are, without the concrete numbers, merely political speak.  Guttmacher is an institution with an agenda.  Did you notice, however, that most European countries restrict abortion to before 12 weeks?  So it would seem that the Texas law of restricted it to 20 weeks is actually quite liberal compared to Europe. 

Anyways, back to the topic, correlation does not mean causation. Also, it is incredible that they would want us to swallow the idea that legality really does not make a difference, when there is evidence that restrictions can reduce abortion rates:

"But more importantly, the regression results indicate pro-life laws are effective. Specifically, Medicaid funding of abortions increases abortion rates and informed consent laws reduce abortion rates. Both of these findings are statistically significant. Interestingly, in the final regression model only 4 of the 24 independent variables achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. Two of these four variables measure the effect of pro-life laws. Overall these findings contribute to the body of academic and policy literature which argues that pro-life laws are effective at lowering abortion rates. "

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/123/

This, at the link I provide, is the kind of analysis I am looking for, one that can credibly talk about whether the statistics are rigorous or weak.

 

candlegal
by Judy on Jul. 18, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Guttmacher Institute is just another extension of planned parenthood.


Alan F. Guttmacher 1898-1974

The Guttmacher Institute, an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C., was established in 1968 to provide research, policy analysis and education in the fields of reproductive health, reproductive rights and population. It was named to honor a distinguished obstetrician-gynecologist, author and leader in reproductive rights. While Alan F. Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s, he saw the need for the institution that now bears his name, and he nurtured its development.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 Um, it was disagreeing with the findings of Catholics in Alliance and it analysed numbers from the Guttmacher Institute.

 

Quoting Aestas:

An article of the thoughts of Catholics in Alliance from a conservative think tank's website? Yeah, no agenda there.

The Guttmacher Institute is a non-partisan non-profit organization invested in health and policy research.

Quoting Meadowchik:

The article mentions some numbers and percentages that are far from comprehensive.  The conclusions such as this,

“What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

are, without the concrete numbers, merely political speak.  Guttmacher is an institution with an agenda.  Did you notice, however, that most European countries restrict abortion to before 12 weeks?  So it would seem that the Texas law of restricted it to 20 weeks is actually quite liberal compared to Europe. 

Anyways, back to the topic, correlation does not mean causation. Also, it is incredible that they would want us to swallow the idea that legality really does not make a difference, when there is evidence that restrictions can reduce abortion rates:

"But more importantly, the regression results indicate pro-life laws are effective. Specifically, Medicaid funding of abortions increases abortion rates and informed consent laws reduce abortion rates. Both of these findings are statistically significant. Interestingly, in the final regression model only 4 of the 24 independent variables achieve conventional standards of statistical significance. Two of these four variables measure the effect of pro-life laws. Overall these findings contribute to the body of academic and policy literature which argues that pro-life laws are effective at lowering abortion rates. "

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2008/10/123/

This, at the link I provide, is the kind of analysis I am looking for, one that can credibly talk about whether the statistics are rigorous or weak.

 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)