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

[jmervyn]

I was referring to eviction, i.e. the female body rejects the fetus during the pregnancy for some reason and it dies... or did I fail at my vocabulary? Actively causing an eviction is obviously an abortion as well.

Ah, understood; no, your vocab isn't at fault as much as the word choice. What you're referring to is generally lumped into "miscarriages", though it certainly can be different. Yes, actively causing an eviction without intending to re-plant the fetus in a new host would constitute abortion, which I believe the OP takes into account.

Time for some common sense.

Oh, this will be rich.

Advocacy groups like the one you just linked like to pick and choose stats that clearly show they are right. They tend to ignore data that show they might be wrong. I like to follow data back to the source.

Sure; the purported Samuel Clements rule applies (re: statistics). I'm simply calling B.S. on the similar quality claim you sucked down like so much spooge, without similar scrutiny.

Other factors would also have to be included in analysis, not the least of which is that while the death rate for births is a grand total, including those with midwives, off-duty policemen, and Wiccan High Priestesses acting as the attending physicians, the death rate for abortions is uniquely associated with the "care" provided by PP type licensed MD's. No illegal abortions are considered in your stats, particularly since "coathanger" procedures simply don't happen any longer. A similar observation can be made about other environmental factors - babies born in the back of a NYC cab have a far greater chance of reaping post-op complications than babies shredded in the womb at a PP facility.

Incidentally, the Finnish study does consider external causes, where you allege it does not. A second study with similar results is identified in the same link.

This data comes from a report published annually. The pdf linked is a summary. The full report is very big: lots of numbers.

Protip - when trying to cast aspersions upon your opponents' data, it's probably a good idea not to use a set of PowerPaint slides from a wholly-owned PP storefront which has been proven to bend the numbers to suit their agenda.

jmervyn has previously linked to special interest groups quoting prior versions of this report.

Oh, I'm certain I have - they're the way PP filters and distributes their information - or at least, the information they are willing to share. Who knows if it's accurate? That's why I chose Finland; smaller data set, more legit (official Federal) reporting, presumably equal or better health care capability.

This study won't count the number of women who gave birth or had an abortion but died of a car wreck within a year. The Finland study might.

My, for someone so scrupulously skeptical, you're quite eager to unquestioningly slurp down what PP feeds you. In the real world, the CDC purposefully stopped tracking abortion death rates accurately quite some time ago, and by no means does your Guttmacher storefront report a valid data set. As a callback to the Finnish and California studies, you'll note that a NYC journalist found evidence that, if extrapolated, means abortion death rates are up to 413% higher than reported by the CDC.

Conservatives practice Eugenics as well, but they practice it in a different manner: economic Darwinism. They desire the poor to fend for themselves, increasing the mortality rate of the poor, lowering the number of poor in the world.

Yeah, and we push grannies off cliffs in our spare time. Please don't be a buffoon, you make my arguments look better than they need to. IF people were responsible for their choices, they make them more responsibly. Therefore, you don't get duudes like the one Bob referenced. Your kinder, gentler view would have the kids drowned in sacks, I'm guessing?


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

Me too I just think a woman should get 100% control of HER own baby making equipment as a personal freedom.

Hey, guess what, Bob? That's exactly what I think, too. Thing is, this isn't about her control, but rather her lack of same plus stupidity, and subsequent attempts to avoid the obvious repercussions. Does it take that much to keep her knees together?

[krischan]

Things aren't as simple as they are made by extremists on both sides. If a woman can do with her body what she wants at all times, she can cut her end of the umbilical cord while the baby is in her womb, let's say 2 weeks before finishing the 9th month? It's murder if you crush a piece of tissue of the size of a rice grain two weeks after fertilization? For each yes on the first question, I expect a Godwin post and for each yes on the second, I exopect a video of the "every sperm is wasted" song from Monty Python's.

There's certainly a grey area of a debatable size inbetween, so the more distance is kept to it, the better. That doesn't mean that we need anti-baby pills which work by pressing them with both knees.

[jmervyn]

For each yes on the first question, I expect a Godwin post and for each yes on the second, I exopect a video of the "every sperm is wasted" song from Monty Python's.

Fail, kris - the song is "every sperm is sacred".

[krischan]

Of course! That must have been a Freudian slip.

[KillerAim]

BobCox2:

Me too I just think a woman should get 100% control of HER own baby making equipment as a personal freedom.

Then we’re in agreement. I too believe that a woman should have total control over her body and her baby making equipment. But that does not mean that she has total control over what the equipment produces if she decides to get rid of it.

As I stated in my first post, the evicted fetus can be considered as abandoned property, which is explained in libertarian property principals as “a person can acquire ownership of an un-owned resource–whether movable or immovable (land)–by homesteading it–which is basically initial possession coupled with intent to own.” We can consider it as abandoned property because the mother wanting the abortion obviously doesn’t consider it to be a human being (if she does consider it to be human, then she is proclaiming herself a murderer).

krischan:

If a woman can do with her body what she wants at all times, she can cut her end of the umbilical cord while the baby is in her womb, let's say 2 weeks before finishing the 9th month? It's murder if you crush a piece of tissue of the size of a rice grain two weeks after fertilization? For each yes on the first question, I expect a Godwin post and for each yes on the second, I exopect a video of the "every sperm is wasted" song from Monty Python's.

But that’s the beauty of this compromise. We don’t have to all agree on when a fetus becomes a human being with rights of its own.

To use your example, I would argue that a woman has the right to eliminate the fetus from her body at either time. The only limitation she would face would be in the method she used to do the elimination. And certain methods would only be proscribed if the following two criteria were met: (1) the method that would result in a live fetus is as safe as or safe then the abortion method, and (2) a third party is willing to take over all responsibility for the fetus after it has been taken out of the woman’s body.

[Goryani]

Other factors would also have to be included in analysis, not the least of which is that while the death rate for births is a grand total, including those with midwives, off-duty policemen, and Wiccan High Priestesses acting as the attending physicians, the death rate for abortions is uniquely associated with the "care" provided by PP type licensed MD's. No illegal abortions are considered in your stats, particularly since "coathanger" procedures simply don't happen any longer. A similar observation can be made about other environmental factors - babies born in the back of a NYC cab have a far greater chance of reaping post-op complications than babies shredded in the womb at a PP facility.

Births are allowed to be performed by untrained medical personnel. Abortions are not allowed to be performed by medical personnel. Do you want to allow coathanger abortions so they are on an even footing? Do you want to ban all births not performed by trained medical personnel so they are on an even footing?

You are right about unlicensed abortions not being counted. Neither unlicensed abortions nor any death from unlicensed abortions are included in the maternal mortality rate stats. Correspondingly, neither are "unlicensed" births. The methods which count deaths via live births won't keep track of midwives, off-duty policemen and Wiccan High Priestesses. Caveat: states which require a midwife to register with the state and register birth events might be reported but I'm unsure if any state requires such registration.

It sounds like you are agreeing with one of the Guttmacher Institutes conclusions: licensed and regulated procedures are safer than unlicensed and unregulated procedures. A lot of people, including myself, don't want the coathangers to return.

Incidentally, the Finnish study does consider external causes, where you allege it does not. A second study with similar results is identified in the same link.

That's exactly what I said. The Finnish study identifies deaths within 1 year of live birth, miscarriage, or abortion regardless of cause. It picks up deaths from traffic accidents, being murdered by a pimp, drug overdose, cancer, suicide, complications from anesthesia, infections from medical procedures, bleeding form medical procedures and many other causes. The Guttmacher study doesn't consider all deaths.

Neither the Finnish nor the California study show the relative risks of the procedures themselves. As such, they can't be used to say one proceedure is riskier than another. Which was, if you recall, my point. This conversation is beginning to stray so I'll remind you: Eviction procedures are probably going to be less safe than abortions for quite a while.

I'll agree with what your linked studies show: Women most likely to have an abortion are also likely to have characteristics which have been statistically shown to increase mortality rate: low income, sex without protection, lower education level, little to no health benefits from work, etc. The results of the California study should come as no surprise. A population displaying mortality risk factors dies more often. Duh.

Protip - when trying to cast aspersions upon your opponents' data, it's probably a good idea not to use a set of PowerPaint slides from a wholly-owned PP storefront which has been proven to bend the numbers to suit their agenda.

Reports issued by the Guttmacher Institute are peer reviewed in what amounts to a blind study. The reviewers sign off that the methods are valid and are capable of producing a conclusion before they see results. You and anyone else having beef with the Guttmacher Institute can challenge their methods and findings at any time. You can present alternative findings at any time. How come the pro-life industry doesn't study and publish "the truth" in a peer reviewed process to settle the issue once and for all?

My, for someone so scrupulously skeptical, you're quite eager to unquestioningly slurp down what PP feeds you. In the real world, the CDC purposefully stopped tracking abortion death rates accurately quite some time ago, and by no means does your Guttmacher storefront report a valid data set. As a callback to the Finnish and California studies, you'll note that a NYC journalist found evidence that, if extrapolated, means abortion death rates are up to 413% higher than reported by the CDC.

Since the CDC doesn't track maternal abortion death rates the Guttmacher Institute can't have an accurate measure of maternal abortion death rates? If only there was some other method to track that data. What method did Kevin Sherlock use again? I don't think he used the CDC. Should I invalidate his findings because the CDC purposely stopped tracking abortion death rates accurately?

Hint: In order to effectively trash someone's finding, you need to look at that someone (Guttmacher Institute), not at someone else (CDC).

I'd LOVE to have hard evidence to analyze but that runs into the Liberty issues. I don't think any medical procedure (birth and abortion and eviction included) should require a patient to register in a government watched database. I don't see a feasible method for large scale tracking or abortion recipients like birth recipients can be tracked via birth certificates.

Yeah, and we push grannies off cliffs in our spare time. Please don't be a buffoon, you make my arguments look better than they need to. IF people were responsible for their choices, they make them more responsibly. Therefore, you don't get duudes like the one Bob referenced. Your kinder, gentler view would have the kids drowned in sacks, I'm guessing?

Thanks for the first link. It exemplifies actual capitalism and not the capitalism-in-name-only we hear about in the media today. Reducing barriers of entry for consumers leads to happy times. Education. Allowing the peasant class to control aspects of government and economy. Questioning authority and power (Protestant revolution?). The more open the society, the freer exchange of information and knowledge, the better off citizens are.

My kinder gentler view would have the kid's mothers decide if they want a father like Desmond Hatchett. I'm not going to force the births of each fetus he fertilized.

Back to the economic Darwinism comment: Those women are responsible for their own choices and will reap the rewards or lament the losses. Their children share much the same fate, and that's what I'm referring to. The 33 children of Desmond Hatchett will have a higher expected mortality rate than 33 randomly selected children of the same age range. The "freedom" to make decisions which make you poor is synonymous with the "freedom" to ensure your heirs are unable to compete economically. Unable to compete economically is one of the strongest indicators of mortality rate.

[jmervyn]

Births are allowed to be performed by untrained medical personnel. Abortions are not allowed to be performed by medical personnel. Do you want to allow coathanger abortions so they are on an even footing? Do you want to ban all births not performed by trained medical personnel so they are on an even footing?

Precisely the point; your comparison is apples v. oranges because a birth is pretty much going to happen whether there's a doctor or not, and the chances of harm or casualty in an unattended case still qualifies on the statistics you proffer.

The methods which count deaths via live births won't keep track of midwives, off-duty policemen and Wiccan High Priestesses.

Untrue, again due to the apples v. oranges. Cause of death would be correlated to birthing in the former, while cause of death is deliberately obscured regarding abortion in the latter. Again, reason for the Finnish study to be superior.

It sounds like you are agreeing with one of the Guttmacher Institutes conclusions: licensed and regulated procedures are safer than unlicensed and unregulated procedures. A lot of people, including myself, don't want the coathangers to return.

The "coathanger" claim is such a shyte-filled canard I'm amazed that any self-respecting fascist-lefty would ever make it (no, I'm not referring to you). It's the same sort of crap when they claim that not granting totalitarian control to a Gov't agency would surely destroy something that's been going on for centuries.

That's exactly what I said. The Finnish study identifies deaths within 1 year of live birth, miscarriage, or abortion regardless of cause.

No, it's the opposite, at least as I read it (I suppose we'd need the original text to verify). MY understanding is that those unrelated vector deaths are identified by the Finns, so as to clarify the situation, whereas I am certain given past comments that the Guttmacher data avoids identification of deaths due to secondary complications. In other words, the scrape doesn't actually kill her due to blood loss, the subsequent infection doesn't actually kill her either, but the liver failure she has due to the infection is ignored.

Which was, if you recall, my point.

No, your point, which is what I took (up) offense at was:

Abortion may be less dangerous than eviction. I imagine it will be for a long long long time. Abortion is probably even "safer" for the health of the mother than giving birth. I wouldn't be surprised if the death/disability rate for medically supervised abortions is less than the death rate for all births. I'd be shocked if the opposite were true. Before the 20th century, childbirth was the leading cause of death for women.

This conversation is beginning to stray so I'll remind you: Eviction procedures are probably going to be less safe than abortions for quite a while.

We'd need medical data to make any such claim. I would not assume this to be true, though it's likely that eviction, like abortion, would be inherently more risky than childbirth.

The results of the California study should come as no surprise. A population displaying mortality risk factors dies more often. Duh.

I'll agree that the population having abortions would have higher risk factors, but IIRC both the California study and the NY analysis would indicate that these are over-weighted.

Reports issued by the Guttmacher Institute are peer reviewed in what amounts to a blind study.

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 that an "Institute" that lies about funding and patronage, then lies about statistics it reports, and then lies again about those lies, should ever be granted legitimacy. Oh, and then you'll need to teach me why said pack of vicious liars, when providing dishonest ammunition for their political affiliates, publish claims of such fallacious nature that they very well might not even have scientists or statisticians publishing their "facts". Apparently you would quote tobacco company scientists as unimpeachable regarding the dangers of smoking, particularly if their name contains the word, "Institute".

How come the pro-life industry doesn't study and publish "the truth" in a peer reviewed process to settle the issue once and for all?

Well, for starters because the CDC is in on the game, as are numerous Health Departments. That's why the NY analysis was so striking - the CDC numbers didn't jibe at all with what the NY Dept. of Health had reported to them.

Since the CDC doesn't track maternal abortion death rates the Guttmacher Institute can't have an accurate measure of maternal abortion death rates?

No, but their existence as a PP branch SHOULD make anyone with an ounce of credibility question pretty much all their claims. Why aren't you? Predispose much?

Hint: In order to effectively trash someone's finding, you need to look at that someone (Guttmacher Institute), not at someone else (CDC).

Again, Sherlock used autopsy records, where Guttmacher's very few disclosures are designed to not have comparable evidence.

It exemplifies actual capitalism and not the capitalism-in-name-only we hear about in the media today.

I have never been one to assume that Republicans are not Progressives. If you'd forgotten, I used to consider myself a conservative Democrat, before I came to the realization that for all the validity of sliming "big business", the Gov't is the biggest business of them all. The point of Capitalism is decentralization and putting money/power in the hands of the lowest echelon.

The 33 children of Desmond Hatchett will have a higher expected mortality rate than 33 randomly selected children of the same age range. The "freedom" to make decisions which make you poor is synonymous with the "freedom" to ensure your heirs are unable to compete economically.

I can no longer say with a cold EBIL RepubliKKKan sneer, "feck off, cut your hair and go get a job", because modern America no longer allows you to. I'm trying to encourage capitalism and responsibility in my own boy, and I've come to the realization that I'll have to send him across the U.S. (to the family farm) to be able to do so. He can't even legally walk home from the bus stop in NY any longer.

[BobCox2]

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.

[Goryani]

No, it's the opposite, at least as I read it (I suppose we'd need the original text to verify). MY understanding is that those unrelated vector deaths are identified by the Finns, so as to clarify the situation, whereas I am certain given past comments that the Guttmacher data avoids identification of deaths due to secondary complications. In other words, the scrape doesn't actually kill her due to blood loss, the subsequent infection doesn't actually kill her either, but the liver failure she has due to the infection is ignored.

.... You need to read more about the Finnish study. It doesn't work like you think it does. These quotes are from the link you provided:

"The annual death rate of women who had abortion in the previous year was also 46% higher than that of non-pregnant women." Annual death rate of women receiving abortions/births not annual death rate as a cause of abortion/birth.

"The study also revealed the difficulties involved in identifying direct and indirect effects of pregnancy on subsequent deaths." Indirect deaths. As in, not caused from the procedures themselves.

"They were also 6.3 times more likely to die from violent causes." The maternal mortality rate of the Finnish study includes women who were murdered or died from events like auto accidents.

From the Finnish study:
Objective: To test the hypothesis that pregnant and recently pregnant women enjoy a "healthy pregnant women effect," we compared the all natural cause mortality rates for women who were pregnant or within 1 year of pregnancy termination with all other women of reproductive age.

Results: The age-adjusted mortality rate for women during pregnancy and within 1 year of pregnancy termination was 36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, which was significantly lower than the mortality rate among nonpregnant women, 57.0 per 100,000 person-years (relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.71). The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000). We observed a significant increase in the risk of death from cerebrovascular diseases after delivery among women aged 15 to 24 years (RR 4.08, 95% CI 1.58-10.55).

Conclusion: Our study supports the healthy pregnant woman effect for all pregnancies, including those not ending in births.

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

The Finnish study found that women who underwent an abortion within the past year had a higher mortality rate than women who gave birth or who had a miscarriage or who were never pregnant over the past year. The "annual death rate of women who had abortion in the previous year was also 46% higher than that of non-pregnant women" statistic is only valid if violent deaths (crimes, auto accidents, etc) are included. I believe the original study allows for removal of the violent death difference, but those number aren't listed in your links. The increased risk of death from giving birth for women ages 15-24 has become well documented in several studies.

I think the Guttmacher study would count death from liver failure due to infection from blood transfusion from blood loss from complications of abortion as an abortion related death. One of the metrics tracked is incidence of hospitalization following abortion. The data usually comes from hospitals and patients. I say "I think" because I can show this to be true in reports about countries like Uganda, India and Colombia, but I can't find a statement showing the US data from the slide show comes from similar sources.

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 that an "Institute" that lies about funding and patronage, then lies about statistics it reports, and then lies again about those lies, should ever be granted legitimacy. Oh, and then you'll need to teach me why said pack of vicious liars, when providing dishonest ammunition for their political affiliates, publish claims of such fallacious nature that they very well might not even have scientists or statisticians publishing their "facts". Apparently you would quote tobacco company scientists as unimpeachable regarding the dangers of smoking, particularly if their name contains the word, "Institute".

Classic. I float a hypothesis. You disagree and provide "proof." I disagree and provide "proof." In the ensuing discussion, you say I have to prove that your proof is wrong before you will look at my proof. Could you at least give me a courtesy reach-around?

an "Institute" that lies about funding and patronage, then lies about statistics it reports

No discussion whatsever about Guttmacher studies and findings. 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.

providing dishonest ammunition

This is exemplifies one of the most vexing issues in studies. The Guttmacher Institute relies on self reported claims of religion and behavior. If a Catholic claims to be Morman, the Guttmacher study says the woman is Morman. If a virgin says they have sex every day, the Guttmacher institute study says they are "sexually experienced." This issue is well documented and warned about by Guttmacher in the full studies. Is the summary misleading in terminology? Possibly. The sentence in question is suspect though the Guttmacher wording is far closer to the Fact Checker wording that the wording used by media to report the issue. However, the summary included an accurate table with graphics and numbers and everything. Everything is clearly labeled.

It also exemplifies another vexing issue in studies: relevance. I hope people don't expect researches to study pre-pubescent or post-menopausal women for their contraception habits. If you can't have a baby, you don't exactly have to worry about getting pregnant. Pregnancy prevention is a non-issue for a large number of women because they simply can't get pregnant. Pregnancy prevention is a non-issue for a large number of women because they don't have sex. The question involved: "what percentage of women want effective birth control available to them" demands you exclude the innocent, the prude and the barren.

publish claims of such fallacious nature

A politician that misconstrues study data. Noooooooooooo!

Kudos to the Fact Checker for providing an English statement which is an accurate description of the details of the study. Compare the two versions:
"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."

"Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives."

Which statement is the fallacious one?

very well might not even have scientists or statisticians publishing their "facts"

This shows very well the dangers of media misrepresenting facts and I'm glad media are called out on it. The Guttmacher study summary included a nice little chart which shows all necessary relevant data. Journalists should have read the summary and did their homework. Shocker.

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

quote tobacco company scientists as unimpeachable

No mention of Guttmacher data, findings or methods. At best, they mention the apples vs oranges issue. Chronic issues of abortion and birth are different than the acute issues of abortion and birth. Which is what I've been saying.

the claims about anthropogenic global warming, where the data set is falsified, the methodology disguised, and the peers cherry picked.

Unfortunately, some scientists want to be rock stars instead of scientists. Despite the validity of the dangers of hidden liabilities, you are correct about some scientists, their data, and their methods. Bad apples suck.

Well, for starters because the CDC is in on the game, as are numerous Health Departments. That's why the NY analysis was so striking - the CDC numbers didn't jibe at all with what the NY Dept. of Health had reported to them.

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

No, but their existence as a PP branch SHOULD make anyone with an ounce of credibility question pretty much all their claims. Why aren't you? Predispose much?

Should your existence as a pro-life branch invalidate any statements you have on the matter? For the authors of the works you linked to, should their existence as a pro-life branch invalidate any statements they have on the matter?

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.

[BobCox2]

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.

That's the way to be sure. No need to look at real data.
Like Women that Choose abortion, and the research on why?