I’m not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; I’m Pro-Eviction!

[Goryani]

I Think the Chinese had a Pro-Eviction stance.

Any good studies from there while you guys are arguing statistics?

I'm sure your policies would have saved them all.

The issue is a good example of feedback systems. If the policy works, population shrinks. If population shrinks, the policy isn't needed. If the policy isn't needed, it gets repealed or ignored. If the policy is repealed or ignored, the year of the dragon occurs much more often. If birth rate rises, population rise. If population rises, the policy may be needed again. Yo-yo.

One may debate the methods, but China absolutely needs population control. They are running out of water. Aquifer Water tables are dropping up to 10 feet per year. Several cities have sustained damage from sinking land. 10% of rivers in China are dry. China is building multiple dams along rivers that feed Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Projects have been started to divert water from the Himalayas to Beijing.

China has claimed water rights to rivers originating in Tibet but flowing through India (a nuclear power). These waters supply 47% of the world's population. Wars over water have already been fought (India vs Pakistan skirmishes in Kashmir) but a BIG war over water could easily happen in my lifetime.

Current technology isn't capable of supplying the average Chinese the same quantity of water as is used by the average American.

[Stevinator]

It seems to me that "eviction" is just dressing up abortion in another name. Just like Jmerv's calling Abortion Infantcide (when it is not) is dishonest, so is calling abortion and "eviction". My understanding is that if no one is there to accept the fetus into their womb, then it is killed. Well that's just basically abortion. Who's responsibility is it to find someone to be there to accept the fetus? Is that even possible in the late stages? I don't want to think about how that would happen...

More disconcertingly (and after that mental image, I'm not using that transistion lightly), it would seem that these "evictions" would be allowed well past the point of viability. I wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose when we're talking about a typical abortion (a very high percent occur in the early term--the link with specifics is in the ron paul thread), but when you have a viable fetus, that could support itself outside the womb (around 24 weeks iirc), that's a very different story. After viability my support for abortion wanes considerably. Why did it take so long to make this decision? Is the mother's life in jeopardy? I don't like to ban things, but late term abortions should be only happen in extreme circumstances. There's a reason Roe v Wade stopped at the point of viability. While it's hard to nail down to an exact second, it's an important demarcation. That's the point where the best argument for personhood is made (imho).

Rebranding abortions as "evictions" erodes the gravity of the situation. Certainly, shaming women for aborting a child is wrong, but so is callously ignoring that a late term abortion is significantly more "infantcide-esque", and under normal conditions, easily avoidable. By engaging in this type of activity proponents of the "eviction" theory are no better than the religious nutbars they claim to despise. For a group that engages in so much proverbial man-parts waving about who's the bigger libertarian--a label that's supposedly synonymous with rational thought, high-minded principles and respect for justice, we're real quick to bust out propaganda to serve our cause.

Friedrich Nietzsch[/URL]]He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.

[jmervyn]

.... You need to read more about the Finnish study. It doesn't work like you think it does.

Actually, I'm of the impression that it does, but that it also reviews the cause of death and additional material. I get that your claim is that the anti-infanticide group is taking the study's conclusion that a woman who dies in a car crash did so because she had an abortion within the year. Even though I don't read Finnish, the study doesn't seem that sloppy. Now, I'm certainly not one to swear on a stack of Bibles that the anti-infanticide folk aren't quoting the greatest number of possibly related casualties to back their claim, but neither are the Guttmacher/PP claims covering themselves in any credibility glory since the CDC deliberately under-reports abortion casualties. Bottom line is that unless the death resulted from primary causes, like the abortionist piercing the uterine wall and the woman bleeding out on the table, it's not reported. That very exception has been noted as deceptive, since the same reporting of casualties by Guttmacher would therefore OVERSTATE the number of deaths by childbirth (in other words, they used casualty rates for "natural birth" that would include secondary and tertiary causes).

The Finnish study and the Guttmacher study answer separate questions. They are apples and oranges.

I already agreed with that, but I don't think you grasped my intent. The Guttmacher "studies" are basically whitewash jobs based on spurious data provided by the CDC. They're not meant to identify what they claim to identify, but simply to cover up realities - Guttmacher is already comparing apples and oranges, deliberately.

In the ensuing discussion, you say I have to prove that your proof is wrong before you will look at my proof.

No, I already identified that I had read the Guttmacher claims (your "proof").

Could you at least give me a courtesy reach-around?

You should ask a Finn for that - maybe WildBerry's around?

I especially like the part where the author reads a summary of a report but doesn't read the actual report (with data) then says "with no raw data" as proof that Guttmacher lies about statistics.

That's because Guttmacher plays at a fan-dance with their data, not revealing the underlying assumptions but simply presenting a fait accompli. They claim it's due to patient privacy, but given the antipathy they know they face for their funding and allegiances, it would bear far more resemblance to the AGW "warmists" claims that become handily "data-free" once examined.

This is exemplifies one of the most vexing issues in studies. The Guttmacher Institute relies on self reported claims of religion and behavior.

Oh, come off it. The Guttmacher claims are based on a data set of self-admitted sexually active yet not pregnant/trying/recent women, nominally Catholic but 70% of the "twice-a-year" variety, and then falsely extrapolates that claim to represent the entire set of Catholic femininity, nuns and grannies included. If you claim to be so scrupulous about statistics, how can you pretend this is anything other than blatant misconduct with intent to mislead?

Which statement is the fallacious one?

The fallacious quality lies in the Guttmacher wording, obviously, in no small part because they actively confuse the term "sexually active" to imply "ever" when it actually seems to have been "during the last three months" on their original questionnaire.

Wait, isn't this supposed to be a dig at Guttmacher?

Considering their credibility continues to have massive holes blown in it, such as this "raw data" being provided only after numerous outfits cried "BULLSHYTE" at them, well yeah. Re-read the piece; Guttmacher LIED about their conclusions' basis and backpedalled after being caught.

No mention of Guttmacher data, findings or methods.

Oh, come on, really? Grimes and Raymond are both staunch pro-abortionists who based their claims off of Guttmacher data and Family Health International (for whom they both have worked) is essentially the abortion industry's international branch, leeching dollars from USAID arteries. The "FHI" group is a "Who's Who" of the people Guttmacher backs & publishes; the very folks who were insane about Bush stopping American funding of abortion overseas.

Bad apples suck.

Then again, there are those who much like the camp doctors in WW2 Germany really believe in their cause. Some others just like the money.

I'm talking about any abortion issue, not just the mortality rate of a procedure.

All the more reason to accept the Finnish study and reject that by Guttmacher/CDC.

I have checked the methodology of other studies. I have yet to find a serious issue that isn't self reported.. I CHECKED BEFORE I JUDGED.

You patently took sides with Guttmacher despite their numerous and visible deceptions, and discounted the Finns without grounds to do so. So you may have checked, but you did so after pre-judgement. Hardly scientific!

************************************

Certainly, shaming women for aborting a child is wrong,

Why? Aside from the obvious - that they got knocked up and don't want to face the results - your identification of the later-trimester issue should be sufficient grounds for EVEN MORE shaming, not that it should be a shame-less issue. That's what exposes the hypocrisy of you pro-abortionists - you claim that it should be "safe, legal, and rare", but never bother to explain why you include "rare" if it's such a swell deal..

[BobCox2]

That's what exposes the hypocrisy of you pro-abortionists - you claim that it should be "safe, legal, and rare", but never bother to explain why you include "rare" if it's such a swell deal..

It should be rare because Birth control is cheap and easy (except in places pro-lifers have intentionally made it expensive and hard) and we don't want people to stupid to use it and rapists breeding.

But:
Real world problems VS

Abortion is a first world problem.

[Goryani]

Actually, I'm of the impression that it does, but that it also reviews the cause of death and additional material.

The cause of death is reviewed to determine if the death was of a violent (suicide, murder, auto accident, etc) or natural (heart attack, cancer, peanut allergy, anesthesia complication, etc) nature. However, the study doesn't attempt to determine if the cause of death was directly or indirectly related (primary, secondary, tertiary, unrelated etc) to either a birth or abortion. The Finnish study is incapable of determining whether birth or abortion procedure is safer than the other.

the study doesn't seem that sloppy.

That is a different study asking a different question. It deals solely with suicide. Abortion and birth are not the only "causes" of suicide. That study also is incapable of determining whether birth or abortion procedure is safer than the other. Also, the study warns that it's possible for a pregnant woman to not be counted as pregnant if she didn't seek medical treatment for the pregnancy which would be tracked by one of the databases used as data (the "CDC issue").

the CDC deliberately under-reports abortion casualties.

The CDC can't report what it doesn't have access to. I read somewhere that only 37 states report "good" abortion related data to the CDC (like multiple abortions performed on the same woman). The information those 37 states report are controlled by the states - there is no guarantee the states keep track of scientifically valid and useful data. This is the reason Guttmacher doesn't usually utilize CDC data for it's reports. Guttmacher generally obtains data directly from the health care providers and women but not from reporting agencies such as states and/or the CDC. I can't show this to be true of the data for comparative mortality rate, but I can show this about many other data points. Look at the difference between the CDC reported abortion rate and the Guttmacher reported abortion rate. Guttmacher includes data sources not reported to the CDC.

Bottom line is that unless the death resulted from primary causes, like the abortionist piercing the uterine wall and the woman bleeding out on the table, it's not reported.

This is perphaps our greatest divide. We very likely have a different opinion on what should count as related to a procedure and what should count as unrelated. What is primary? What is secondary? What is tertiary? How do you differentiate between them? The nature of those questions are subjective. Subjective doesn't make for a very scientific study.

I'm not aware of ANY study which includes direct and attributive causes but excludes unrelated causes. The Finnish study doesn't (doesn't exclude unrelated causes). The California study doesn't (doesn't exclude unrelated causes). The Guttmacher study doesn't (doesn't include all attributive causes but should include all direct causes).

That very exception has been noted as deceptive, since the same reporting of casualties by Guttmacher would therefore OVERSTATE the number of deaths by childbirth (in other words, they used casualty rates for "natural birth" that would include secondary and tertiary causes).

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you just say that Guttmacher reports that some deaths are birth related even if the woman didn't give birth?

I already agreed with that, but I don't think you grasped my intent. The Guttmacher "studies" are basically whitewash jobs based on spurious data provided by the CDC. They're not meant to identify what they claim to identify, but simply to cover up realities - Guttmacher is already comparing apples and oranges, deliberately.

Your intent appears to be that a study which shows an increased long term mortality rate for abortion compared to birth shows that the abortion procedure is more dangerous than a birth prodecure. I disagree. The nature of the Finnish study isn't capable of answering the "Which is safer" question.

No, I already identified that I had read the Guttmacher claims (your "proof").

I can't help but notice that you only link to sources that aren't Guttmacher. I also can't help but notice that you only link to sources that neglect to mention details of the Guttmacher study sufficient to show the author actually read the Guttmacher study. Your "proof" that my "proof" is invalid doesn't ever talk about my "proof."

Here are your own words:
"Crap of the finest grade, as far as I'm concerned. You'll need to convince me that this is more legitimate than the claims about anthropogenic global warming, where the data set is falsified, the methodology disguised, and the peers cherry picked."

"Then you'll need to convince me..."

"Oh, and then you'll need to teach me..."

You said you would treat all information from the Guttmacher Institute as false until I first prove to you that the criticisms of said Institute are false. Now you backtrack and said you have read that information already and that is why you disagree with it. Forgive me if I don't immediately believe you. Care to provide me with a link to the Guttmacher study you studied?

Oh, come off it. The Guttmacher claims are based on a data set of self-admitted sexually active yet not pregnant/trying/recent women, nominally Catholic but 70% of the "twice-a-year" variety, and then falsely extrapolates that claim to represent the entire set of Catholic femininity, nuns and grannies included. If you claim to be so scrupulous about statistics, how can you pretend this is anything other than blatant misconduct with intent to mislead?

Don't blame Guttmacher for what the MEDIA says. Having read the summary report, I don't share the belief that it tried to falsely extrapolate to all Catholic women, nuns and grannies included. Sexually active was stipulated (elimintes nuns). Not wanting to become pregnant was stipulated (eliminates grannies). Using contraception of any form was stipulated (eliminates those who don't try to prevent pregnancy).

Most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant—whether unmarried, currently married or previously married—practice contraception. The large majority use highly effective methods. This is true for women of all religious denominations, including Catholics, despite the Church’s formal opposition to contraceptive methods other than natural family planning.

• Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.

The fallacious quality lies in the Guttmacher wording, obviously, in no small part because they actively confuse the term "sexually active" to imply "ever" when it actually seems to have been "during the last three months" on their original questionnaire.

I don't think Guttmacher tried to imply sexually active as "ever." The three month stipulation was reported in the very same summary.

Current contraceptive use was measured only
among women who had had sex in the three months prior
to the survey and refers to the method used in the most
recent month she had sex. Among women who reported
using multiple methods in the survey month, priority
was given to the most effective method. The category of
“other” methods mainly consists of withdrawal but also
includes less common methods, such as suppositories,
sponges and foams. Natural family planning includes periodic
abstinence, temperature rhythm and cervical mucus
tests.
Contraceptive use was restricted to women at risk for
unintended pregnancy, whom we define as those who
had had sex in the three months prior to the survey and
were not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant.

Considering their credibility continues to have massive holes blown in it, such as this "raw data" being provided only after numerous outfits cried "BULLSHYTE" at them, well yeah. Re-read the piece; Guttmacher LIED about their conclusions' basis and backpedalled after being caught.

I still can't find a lie, at least not by Guttmacher. I can find a BUNCH of people lying by saying that Guttmacher said X when it didn't say X. This is pointed at media directly and indirectly at those who used the media's take (pro-life groups) rather than Guttmacher's take.

Oh, come on, really? Grimes and Raymond are both staunch pro-abortionists who based their claims off of Guttmacher data and Family Health International (for whom they both have worked) is essentially the abortion industry's international branch, leeching dollars from USAID arteries. The "FHI" group is a "Who's Who" of the people Guttmacher backs & publishes; the very folks who were insane about Bush stopping American funding of abortion overseas.

If you think that the author talks about Guttmacher studies, findings and data, please point out the passages in the article you linked. The author talks about the other authors, other studies (which are separate, as we have both agreed), and Reuters description of the study.

I get that you and many others don't like what Guttmacher says. That doesn't mean Guttmacher lies. Yet the "proof" that Guttmacher lies seems to be as factual as "they're a bunch of poo-poo heads."

All the more reason to accept the Finnish study and reject that by Guttmacher/CDC.

I accept the Finnish study. I accept that the Finnish study says that a women undergoing an abortion has risk factors, many unrelated to abortion, that provide a measurable mortality risk. I don't accept that the Finnish study "proves" that the abortion procedure is safer than the birth procedure. Not even the pro-life groups quote such a statistic. Egro, such a statistic isn't contained within the Finnish study.

You patently took sides with Guttmacher despite their numerous and visible deceptions, and discounted the Finns without grounds to do so. So you may have checked, but you did so after pre-judgement. Hardly scientific!

I would say "Look who's talking" but that implies I agree with your premise. I don't.

While it's true I haven't read the Guttmacher study in question, I am using my opinion of other scientific studies performed and published by Guttmacher. I also noticed the very specific timing data. Mortality rate in the Guttmacher study is quantized by length of pregnancy. That data isn't something you see on a cause of death line on a death certificate (what the CDC can report). That data comes from a non-CDC source and is something you expect to see in a study that compares the mortality rate of procedure A, B or C.

It's also true that I can't say conclusively that I've read the Finnish study. I saw a pdf that was less than the full study but more than the two sentence "conclusion" as posted on the sites you linked to. It had graphs vertically on the sides of the pages and was of overal poor scanning quality. While there were tables, the data within them couldn't be read.

But I have read many, varied discussions about the Finnish study that actually talk about the Finnish study. Mortality rate for women having an abortion is 40% higher than mortality rate for non-pregnant women and 295% higher than mortality rate for women giving birth is only true when suicide, murder, auto accidents, etc are part of the data. In other words, abortion is "more dangerous" when the relative safety of abortion isn't compared with the relative safety of birth.

By all accounts, the study should be capable of comparing the non-violent mortality rate for birth and abortion. It's the closest that study comes to comparing the mortality rate of the procedures themselves. How come that number isn't quoted?

Certainly, shaming women for aborting a child is wrong,

Why?

Shaming anyone for any reason is wrong. It's not Chrstian. It's not moral. It's not just. It doesn't benefit society.

[krischan]

Why?

It's bad manners, didn't you know that? I think children usually learn it at the age of 5 years.

People they have dignity, honor, pride or whatever you want to call it. They might try to take revenge and if the humiliation is severe enough, they might kill themselves or kill you. It's similar to what Dharun Ravi did who is so much despised by you in the "homophobic h8er" thread.

With respect to society and debatable matters (and it's not just one side which decides what is debatable), it's is destructive. Polarizing makes sense if there's a chance to defeat your opponents permanently, but there is no chance to achieve it on this matter. Besides, you can only ashame those who aren't witty enough to give a proper reply, so doing that is directed at the wrong people anyway and that would make it bullying.

[BobCox2]

WOW QFT Kris!
RE: Jmervyn and Steve (Too lazy to multiquote)
Shaming the man ineffective I guess?
Cause he does not have a effect, REALLY? Other than the one and unless raped that was her choice as well.

[krischan]

IMO it's not in the "10% most brilliant posts" list of mine when addressing jmervyn .

I left too much opportunities for attacks. My comparison with Dharun Ravi might be used as saying that I regard suicide equal to making a woman cry. I also noticed that it's not entirely true what I said about polarizing. To be more precise, polarizing is a strategical method in a debate which can be used for many purposes, to prepare the ground, making people believe that they have to decide for a particular position (usually one of two). Polarizing is a tool, it can be used for good and for bad.

[jmervyn]

However, the study doesn't attempt to determine if the cause of death was directly or indirectly related (primary, secondary, tertiary, unrelated etc) to either a birth or abortion. The Finnish study is incapable of determining whether birth or abortion procedure is safer than the other.

I think you're completely wrong, in that the review determined whether the cause of death was directly or indirectly related. I suppose we're not going any further down this road until someone who reads Finnish is able to obtain and translate the actual study.

That is a different study asking a different question. It deals solely with suicide.

Perhaps, but it seems to me like it's the same authors discussing the same meta-data.

The CDC can't report what it doesn't have access to. I read somewhere that only 37 states report "good" abortion related data to the CDC (like multiple abortions performed on the same woman).

True, which is where the "scandal" aspect in one of my previous links came from - the CDC deliberately turns a blind eye to the data in order to avoid asking uncomfortable questions that might impact the PP lobby, rather than simply collecting the data that it can from the states that are willing to provide it.

I can't show this to be true of the data for comparative mortality rate, but I can show this about many other data points.

You're defending Guttmacher's cherry picking, yet you have a fit about what you accuse me of doing?

Subjective doesn't make for a very scientific study.

You're probably right about this being something we can't agree on. Guttmacher takes your stance, but then produces the claim of superior safety vs. birth from whole cloth and says "trust us, we're doctors". I take the stance that from what we can tell of both, and accounting for the deliberate and conscious bias from Guttmacher and other PP allies, their claims are about as credible as those of SCO made against Linux.

Personally, I think Guttmacher would establish some validity by doing what the Finns did and providing the array of results along with the base data, like legitimate survey groups are supposed to. I worked for Bureau of the Census IT for three years; it's not at all difficult to separate the data from the PII elements that Guttmacher claims to have to hide and disguise. That's probably my biggest red flag item for them - they're completely unwilling to provide base data, and pretend that it's because the anti-infanticide lobby would hunt down women like dogs if they did so. This is in no small part because they don't want to recognize abortion as an unregulated medical industry... but more on that regarding the USSR later.

I'm not aware of ANY study which includes direct and attributive causes but excludes unrelated causes. The Finnish study doesn't (doesn't exclude unrelated causes). The California study doesn't (doesn't exclude unrelated causes). The Guttmacher study doesn't (doesn't include all attributive causes but should include all direct causes).

The whole point of the Finnish and California studies, as well as the NYT analysis, is that they <DO> include multiple categories - their credibility lies in the fact that they discuss whether the death was a car crash, suicide, secondary infection, or death on the operating table. Guttmacher, OTOH, takes the line from the old USSR that it's a completely safe and superior operation, and in order to support that conclusion they ignore all causes aside from death on the operating table.

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you just say that Guttmacher reports that some deaths are birth related even if the woman didn't give birth?

No, rather that if they followed the same reporting procedures then they wouldn't overstate their birth casualty number as I suspect they did. Example - a woman dies during a miscarriage, but it is due to anesthesia, they score one for the childbirth death rate. Her sister dies in PP but it is due to anesthesia, so they don't.

Your intent appears to be that a study which shows an increased long term mortality rate for abortion compared to birth shows that the abortion procedure is more dangerous than a birth prodecure. I disagree. The nature of the Finnish study isn't capable of answering the "Which is safer" question.

Well, duh, I know you disagree and that's why you refuse to accept my reading of the Finnish study (in that it can and does provide that answer). However, none of these studies seem long-term to me; all the studies on the issue that come out against abortion seem to be under a calendar year for the sample's duration.

Now you backtrack and said you have read that information already and that is why you disagree with it. Forgive me if I don't immediately believe you. Care to provide me with a link to the Guttmacher study you studied?

You haven't produced anything "proving" their crediblity, because that's an impossiblity - it is sufficient to say that they are suspect and that I'm not backtracking in the least. However, if you think I reviewed their data specifically for this thread, guess again - I was playing the devil's advocate on this same issue a year ago or more on the GW OTF (I imagine the threads are still there). THEY DON'T PROVIDE BASE DATA even when their claim is at all tenous, just the splashy summaries with enough pseudo-science fig-leaf for the media. Guttmacher is a known quantity; what I had to do some searching on was the "Family Health International" links which aren't as obvious.

Having read the summary report, I don't share the belief that it tried to falsely extrapolate to all Catholic women, nuns and grannies included.

So the fact that they produced the splashy report, and only provided specifics once they were found to be lying about the conclusion, somehow means they didn't do it? I don't really follow what you would call "reasoning" here. The three-month timeframe was NOT provided in the initial information; Guttmacher is quite accomplished at 'junk science for propaganda' announcement techniques, which is why I so easily dismiss your unbridled faith in their scientific credibility. I mean, not to return to an old joke, but would you defend tobacco company medical findings with the same zeal? Because that's explicitly what you're doing; Guttmacher assures us that abortion is completely safe.

I still can't find a lie, at least not by Guttmacher.

How could you? Psychic powers? They don't reveal their data. However, my complaint isn't about any deliberate falsification, but rather that (just like the tobacco companies) what they're doing is simply marketing rather than scientific study, and then telling rubes like you that "9 out of 10 women prefer to have their babies surgically dismembered". Producing one claim, and then spinning on a dime and producing a contradictory claim (while not providing base data for either) may not fall under "lie" in your book but I obviously read from a different dictionary.

That doesn't mean Guttmacher lies. Yet the "proof" that Guttmacher lies seems to be as factual as "they're a bunch of poo-poo heads."

If I produce a study that I claim scientifically proves you're a pedophile, and yet refuse to produce my methodology, data set, boundaries, and controls, is it lying? Furthermore, if I say this and claim that I'm not doing it at the behest of NAMBLA, yet NAMBLA paid me $2.1 million between 2004-2009, does it mean that I'm credible? These aren't just rhetorical devices; they strike at the heart of our disagreement. Guttmacher used to openly admit being PP's "research" arm, but they realized just how bad that looked back in 1977, and spun it off as a supposedly impartial non-profit group producing peer reviewed journals. Because, after all, peer review is the bees' knees when it comes to pseudo-scientific street cred. Their "peer-review" process, of course, is easily dismissed as a load of crap since the reviewers are all from the same tightly closed group of abortionists and they cite "personal communication" as scientific "fact". Ergo, my friend says it's true and I trust my friend, therefore SCIENCE!!!

I don't accept that the Finnish study "proves" that the abortion procedure is safer than the birth procedure. Not even the pro-life groups quote such a statistic. Egro, such a statistic isn't contained within the Finnish study.

Yet you accept that the Guttmacher positive claim, made on far less valid grounds, is true. Fantastic.

While it's true I haven't read the Guttmacher study in question, I am using my opinion of other scientific studies performed and published by Guttmacher. I also noticed the very specific timing data. Mortality rate in the Guttmacher study is quantized by length of pregnancy. That data isn't something you see on a cause of death line on a death certificate (what the CDC can report). That data comes from a non-CDC source and is something you expect to see in a study that compares the mortality rate of procedure A, B or C.

Your psychic and clairvoyant powers notwithstanding, I'll turn the tables on you here - please provide ANY relevant study from Guttmacher that demonstrates anything deeper than coffee-table fodder for mainstream media consumption. In other words, something where they do more than provide a pretty graph or chart with numbers they actually provide, rather than just promise exist somewhere. Bottom line is that neither of us has been able to obtain full data, but while those from the Finns and other sources I use are available if you want them badly enough, Guttmacher (and FHI, &c.) aren't going to comply with FOIA requests because they'll claim to be commercial entities when pressed.

But I have read many, varied discussions about the Finnish study that actually talk about the Finnish study.

Given your predeliction, are you as shocked as I am that you come to a conclusion in a similar manner that you criticize me for? I could throw in the USSR aspect, since the ex-Soviet states performed abortions on something approaching the same scale that China does, as the prevalent method of "birth control". They also regularly fudged their numbers, but that would only give you the opportunity to claim that it was because of the "mill" nature of Soviet abortion facilities. Which is precisely what my accusation supports regarding PP's activities; even ignoring Soviet misinformation and pretense about their claim of nearly 40% casualty rates from "illegal" abortion, they claim a 0.79% for State abortions yet doctors will cite a factor of ten times the risk versus child birth. Hey, given their rate of performing abortions, would you want to argue that they don't learn how to do it well, or that the vastly greater number is somehow unrepresentative of a more accurate casualty rate?

How come that number isn't quoted?

I think it is, and that you don't believe it. The triple mortality rate is not an issue that conflates better quality medical care being able to save the woman, because Finnish medicine is not significantly worse than that in America. One of the authors already answered your claim about causality being unestablished, however -

[t]here is no consensus concerning which cases should be included as maternal deaths. Problematic are, for example, some cancers, stroke, asthma, liver cirrhosis, pneumonia with influenza, anorexia nervosa, and many violent deaths, such as suicide, homicide, and accidents.

Again, from another discussion of the study,

This comparison to mortality rates for women who had not been
recently pregnant suggests that the disparity in death rates between
delivering and aborting women may reflect two active effects: (1)
giving birth may have a protective effect, and (2) having an abortion
may have a deleterious effect. Both effects are captured by means of
making a direct comparison of women who deliver to women who have
abortions. In this study, compared to Finnish women who delivered, the
age-adjusted odds ratio of dying in the year following an induced
abortion was 1.63 for deaths from natural causes, 4.24 for deaths from
injuries related to accidents, 6.46 for deaths resulting from suicide, and
13.97 for deaths resulting from homicide.

That 1.63 ratio is the number you're arguing against, even though you're claiming it's all the other numbers. The same citation above identifies yet another study from England indicating that women who have abortions seek 80% more medical care in the year following the abortion as there was before having it. Finally, it mentions that Gissler also published another <actually> peer-reviewed paper which, "Reports that 73% of pregnancy associated deaths and 94% of abortion associated deaths are missed when record-linkage is not used."

***************************************
***************************************

Shaming anyone for any reason is wrong. It's not Chrstian. It's not moral. It's not just. It doesn't benefit society.

That's another complete load of garbage. Shame is one of the best motivators for societal instruction there is. Did your mommy praise you when you peed on the rug rather than the toilet, or disassembled the coffee table? Also, since when did you claim Christianity as a tenet, considering that you are ignoring the operating mechanism used by the "conscience"?

It's bad manners, didn't you know that? I think children usually learn it at the age of 5 years.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If not shame, then are you advocating violence for use in deterring social misconduct?

People they have dignity, honor, pride or whatever you want to call it.

Indeed they do, which is why shame is so superior to physical punishment. Man is a social animal and desires the approbation of his peers, to the point that he will easily risk physical pain and harm to achieve it.

They might try to take revenge and if the humiliation is severe enough, they might kill themselves or kill you.

Might, schmyte. Stop with the drivel. While the validity of shaming by sub-cultures can be debated (I remember all too well Techno's native land) the motivator of shame is a superior one.

With respect to society and debatable matters (and it's not just one side which decides what is debatable), it's is destructive.

Destructive how? I remember German parents whispering some sort of magic words in their misbehaving brats' ears, at the conclusion of which all misconduct ceased and the children were meek as lambs and silent as death. Are you telling me that hidden in your cultural mystery there is no variant of "stop doing that, people are looking at you!"

Polarizing makes sense if there's a chance to defeat your opponents permanently, but there is no chance to achieve it on this matter.

Oddly enough, even Stalin found abortion abhorrent, becasue he realized what the results were. Sad to say, our society is no longer as morally clear as he was.

Besides, you can only ashame those who aren't witty enough to give a proper reply, so doing that is directed at the wrong people anyway and that would make it bullying.

Okay, by parsing your reply I was able to make heads or tails, but this completely lost me. Shame is something that cuts across levels of intellect very efficiently; if anything, a wiser person would attempt more self-justification and exculpatory excuse than a dim one.

[krischan]

I like your reply as it is, it tells enough on its own.