• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W: 43]

Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

What YOU think doesn't matter. The SC ruled otherwise.

What happens if it gets overturned? Will your opinions stop counting?
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Yup, people can justify in their minds extraordinary use of violence.

:lamo extraordinary use of violence :lamo Thanks for the laugh.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Yep the death penalty is backwards logic. 100%. If you are punishing someone for killing the logical punishment is NOT to do what you are punishing them for in the first place. Killing in self defense is not a good thing but if you have too to save yourself, thats what you have to do. However if you kill someone in "self defense" when in reality you didnt have to kill them to save yourself that is wrong.

So, you don't believe in spanking children for hitting?

The death penalty is also to ensure that person never kills again.

So, killing someone to stop them from raping you is not okay? Rape won't kill you, so it's not to save your life.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

So, you don't believe in spanking children for hitting?

The death penalty is also to ensure that person never kills again.

So, killing someone to stop them from raping you is not okay? Rape won't kill you, so it's not to save your life.

Do people locked up in a nice padded cell ever kill again? I said if killing isnt nessesary to stop them, I never said they had to be trying to kill you. There are some things that are worse than killing someone. Rape is one of them. If you cant stop the attacker without killing them then do what you must.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

It means that your statement contradicts objective reality and is counterfactual; i.e. not a matter of opinion, just wrong.

The remainder of your post is dismissed as the hodgepodge of strawmen arguments that it is.

I take it you're giving up then.

Thanks for wasting my time.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

I take it you're giving up then.

Yes, because by saying that you're completely and utterly wrong, I'm conceding.

And after you've engaged in such naked straw men and misrepresentations, *I'm* the one wasting *your* time. Riiiiight.


Your statement conflicts with objective fact - every abortion is an aggressive homicide. Every abortion is the killing of a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. You're saying that what is objectively killing isn't killing.

You can't make such a bizarre counterfactual assertion and hope to get away with it. Up is not down. Left is not right. War is not peace. 2+2!=5.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Yes, because by saying that you're completely and utterly wrong, I'm conceding.

Well, prove it with logic and reason.

Your ranting and histrionics and misuse of terminology is getting you nowhere.

And after you've engaged in such naked straw men and misrepresentations, *I'm* the one wasting *your* time. Riiiiight.

I think you're confusing straw man with "telling you facts you don't like".
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

misuse of terminology

Nope.

I think you're confusing straw man with "telling you facts you don't like".

By your logic, we should just be able to remove this living human being from the women at any point and start feeding it formula milk.

Nope.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Quoting a straw man rejects your hypothesis that you made no straw man argument.

Yawn.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/131857-why-pro-choice-rights-woman-vs-rights-zef-argument-fallacy-w-43-a-22.html#post1060824435

Should I assume now that the Grimes\Raymond study can no longer be defended?


choiceone, I believe you to be the most adamant defender of their study so far, since the dialogue about it has been between us, so if there is nothing tangible left about it, at least admit that the study is flawed beyond being legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Here are few <SNIPS> from the

Executive Summary of the Task Force Report
which studied Mental health and abortion and found that among
adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater
if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.

<SNIP>
This literature was reviewed and evaluated with respect to its ability to address four primary questions:

Does abortion cause harm to women’s mental health?

How prevalent are mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion?

What is the relative risk of mental health problems associated with abortion compared to its alternatives (other courses of action that might be taken by a pregnant woman in similar circumstances)? And,

What predicts individual variation in women’s psychological experiences following abortion?

<SNIP>

A critical evaluation of the published literature revealed that the majority of studies suffered from methodological problems, often severe in nature. ccordingly,the TFMHA emphasized the studies it judged to be most methodologically rigorous to arrive at its conclusions.

The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.

<SNIP>



The few published studies that examined women’s responses following an induced abortion due to fetal abnormality suggest that terminating a wanted pregnancy late in pregnancy due to fetal abnormality appears to be associated with negative psychological reactions equivalent to those experienced by women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or who experience
a stillbirth or death of a newborn, but less than those who deliver a child with life-threatening abnormalities.


The differing patterns of psychological experiences observed among women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy versus those who terminate a planned and wanted pregnancy highlight the importance of taking pregnancy intendedness and wantedness into account when seeking to understand psychological reactions to abortion.

None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion. In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States.

Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.

This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:

Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision;

A prior history of mental health problems;

Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and

Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.



Across studies, prior mental health emerged as the strongest predictor of postabortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth, and, hence, are not uniquely predictive of psychological responses following abortion.


<SNIP>

APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. (2008). Report of the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion.


Read More:

Mental Health and Abortion Task Force Report
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Quoting a straw man rejects your hypothesis that you made no straw man argument.

Yawn.

Yep, just as I thought. You have no clue what straw man means.

IMO.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Here are few <SNIPS> from the

Executive Summary of the Task Force Report
which studied Mental health and abortion and found that among
adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater
if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.



Read More:

Mental Health and Abortion Task Force Report


Mental Health and Abortion Task Force Report
Well-designed, rigorously conducted scientific research would help disentangle confounding factors and establish relative risks of abortion compared to its alternatives, as well as factors associated with variation among women in their responses following abortion. Even so, there is unlikely to be a single definitive research study that will determine the mental health implications of abortion “once and for all” given the diversity and complexity of women and their circumstances.

Abortion statistics in the US are abysmal, so based on both factors, all your study is saying is the following;
With the limited info available, we don't see a correlation, but we can not say for certain since our available information is not good enough to be definitive.

Also, the Finland statistics are maternal mortality rates 1 yr after normal delivery vs abortion. They included all factors, not just mental health related.

This is the 3rd time someone has tried to debunk the Finland numbers using arguments about mental health mortalities, using US statistics.

Finland has universal healthcare.
Finland is 5+ million strong.
Finland is as pro-choice as you can get.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Yep, just as I thought. You have no clue what straw man means.

Did anyone argue that personhood should be dependent upon the ability to drink formula?

No?

Straw man.


No living Homo sapiens should be denied personhood.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Did anyone argue that personhood should be dependent upon the ability to drink formula?

Let's follow your personhood argument to its most logical conclusion, shall we?

Life begins at conception and any abortion is killing. Murder. The killing of a homo-sapian. (your words) Living, breathing.. blah, blah, blah. (I added blah, blah, blah)

But when we pull the homo-sapian out of the oven too early, it can't drink it's formula. Why is that? I thought it was alive, living, breathing, happy homo-sapian.

Let's review society's belief and our compassionate reasonable compromise (which you never address)

We know that little homo-sapian can come out 2 months early and with a team of caring nurses and doctors, he can live. Notice I said 'He' not it. Because he is now living. He was born early but with medical science is able to live.

Hmmmm. What does all this mean? Seems like there's a point in a pregnancy where the fetus is.... what's a good word... Viable! Able to live outside the womb on its own, well, mostly on it's own. I mean, no baby can rent an apartment and fill out a W-2.

Anyway, back to the failure of logic that is extreme pro-life (because we're all pro-life). We, meaning society, do not consider the non-viable fetus as a person with rights and personhoodness. We have this very compassionate and wise compromise called Roe v Wade. It allows the state more authority at each trimester, so that when the fetus is viable (but not yet a living breathing person), We the compassionate people know that termination of the viable fetus should only happen in the most drastic and often life-threatening circumstances.

No?

Straw man.

No -- No straw man. Just making a point about your flawed definition of 'personhood'. Set a baby rattle next to a zygote and you'll see. If it can fit inside a formula bottle it's not a person.


No living Homo sapiens should be denied personhood.

Agreed, just fill out this form with the time, date, and place of birth. Give her a name, if you've thought of one, and we'll issue you a birth certificate. Welcome to personhood little baby (insert name here).

Look, I'm pro-adotion. I support a Catholic adoption and foster home charity. I've seen the darkest side of unwanted pregnancies and the gift of an adopted child. My son's biological mother considered an abortion-- she was a coke addict running her own boutique in West Hollywood. I am grateful to God that she didn't CHOOSE to get that abortion. But it's sad to think about her leaving him a taxi cab at age 3. I don't agree with abortions of convenience, but there is just no way society can intrude on a medical decision in the first and most of the second trimester without compromising our values and our compassion.

Lastly, any nurse who refuses to give Plan-B to rape victims should be put in jail and barred from nursing.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/131857-why-pro-choice-rights-woman-vs-rights-zef-argument-fallacy-w-43-a-22.html#post1060824435

Should I assume now that the Grimes\Raymond study can no longer be defended?


choiceone, I believe you to be the most adamant defender of their study so far, since the dialogue about it has been between us, so if there is nothing tangible left about it, at least admit that the study is flawed beyond being legitimate.

I'm sorry I haven't had time to get back to you on this. It will take time. Give me the weekend. I realize now who this researcher critic is that you referred to. I'm a bit familiar with other aspects of her research. Anyway, I will not admit anything about the Grimes/Raymond study until I do all the homework, and I have to get back to supporting myself, as I am not a parasitic unborn.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

I'm sorry I haven't had time to get back to you on this. It will take time. Give me the weekend. I realize now who this researcher critic is that you referred to. I'm a bit familiar with other aspects of her research. Anyway, I will not admit anything about the Grimes/Raymond study until I do all the homework, and I have to get back to supporting myself, as I am not a parasitic unborn.

And your status as a human has what to do with this?

I have a wife and child. Both I and my wife work. We alternate watching our daughter and keeping up the house. A simple "i have been pretty occupied lately, and will look into what you are presenting...." would have been a much more diplomatic and matured response.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

I'm sorry I haven't had time to get back to you on this. It will take time. Give me the weekend. I realize now who this researcher critic is that you referred to. I'm a bit familiar with other aspects of her research. Anyway, I will not admit anything about the Grimes/Raymond study until I do all the homework, and I have to get back to supporting myself, as I am not a parasitic unborn.

And your status as a human has what to do with this?

I have a wife and child. Both I and my wife work. We alternate watching our daughter and keeping up the house. A simple "i have been pretty occupied lately, and will look into what you are presenting...." would have been a much more diplomatic and matured response.

Maybe I am taking this wrong. Did you mean parasitic in the sense of someone living off of everyone else?

Regardless, if that was what you meant, my apologies for misinterpreting your meaning.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Maybe I am taking this wrong. Did you mean parasitic in the sense of someone living off of everyone else?

Regardless, if that was what you meant, my apologies for misinterpreting your meaning.

Nevermind, I rescind my apology. You are calling a living, developing human a parasite.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/131857-why-pro-choice-rights-woman-vs-rights-zef-argument-fallacy-w-43-a-22.html#post1060824435

Should I assume now that the Grimes\Raymond study can no longer be defended?


choiceone, I believe you to be the most adamant defender of their study so far, since the dialogue about it has been between us, so if there is nothing tangible left about it, at least admit that the study is flawed beyond being legitimate.


1. On the Finnish study on suicide and abortion -

Like studies on abortion and mental health in general, including those that note higher suicide rates after abortion, this one has certain key weaknesses. The main one is that no attempt is made to distinguish outcomes of births in unwanted and wanted pregnancies and unwanted and wanted abortions. In comparing mental health outcomes after abortion and childbirth, some research claimed that mental health outcomes were worse after abortion than after childbirth, but reinvestigation revealed that bad outcomes occurred at similar rates after abortion and carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy. Wanted pregnancies carried to term predictably had better outcomes. Thus, in a completely unsurprising finding, unwanted pregnancy was associated with worse mental health outcomes whether it was dealt with by getting an abortion or carrying to term. Unwanted pregnancy is a serious problem and trauma for those who have it and may involve other problems that contributed to their getting unwontedly pregnancy in the first place.

Note: A similar problem emerges for study of suicide after abortion of rape pregnancy versus carrying rape pregnancy to term. One would have to omit all cases of pregnancy issuing from statutory rape that involved consensual sex in affectionate relationships of just-underage girls with just-overage boyfriends. Even if one limited the sample to cases of forcible rape, the type of forcible rape would matter and so would the time in pregnancy the abortion took place. It is reasonable to suppose that those rape victims who endure especially disgusting forcible rapes would be more likely both to abort and commit suicide because of the rape even after abortion, so post-abortion suicide in such cases cannot be assumed to be related to the abortion rather than the rape.

There is a host of variables that need to be controlled for in a comparative study, but without distinguishing wanted and unwanted pregnancy, a study confounds the variable of unwanted pregnancy with that of abortion, as seems to have happened in the Finnish study. Clues to this problem appear in that study. While the suicide rate associated with birth was half that of the general suicide rate for women and far lower than for abortion, this is going to reflect the fact that, in a pro-choice society like Finland, the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies will have been aborted, so almost all the childbirths will result from wanted pregnancies. Second, there was a much higher suicide rate related to teens, which would make sense because those childbirths are much more likely to have resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Third, there was a significant suicide rate after miscarriage, though lower than after abortion, and this makes sense because more miscarriages of wanted pregnancies would have been involved.

2. Death rates in abortion and childbirth -

Partly because of all the above, I would want to distinguish between suicide and death from clearly physical causes, death from physical causes clearly related to legal abortion/complications directly issuing from it in early and later pregnancy, on one hand, and complications in late pregnancy/hospital childbirth/ complications directly issuing from hospital childbirth, on the other hand. In a study making such distinctions, it would be quite reasonable to expect legal abortion to result in a lower death rate than hospital childbirth, and to result in a far lower death rate in early than later pregnancy, for the following reasons. First, legal abortion early in pregnancy is a very minor medical procedure compared to legal abortion later in pregnancy. Second, while abortion early in pregnancy is likely to be elective, abortion later in pregnancy is more likely to be related to health problems. Third, the later the point in pregnancy, the more time there is for complications to develop or be diagnosed, so death rates from early term elective outpatient legal abortion are far more likely to be lower than death rates from late pregnancy complications/hospital childbirth. But all these variables would have to be controlled for in order for a study to be really reliable.


I'm posting on the Grimes/Raymond study later. Please excuse me for taking so much time. Meanwhile, one site to check out on abortion and mental health outcomes more generally, which would include suicide, is the Wikipedia "Abortion and Mental Health" site, because it has good, fairly recent scientific references.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

1. On the Finnish study on suicide and abortion -
The Finish studies (plural) were not exclusively about suicide and abortion.
I take it you did not look into them, only attempt to discredit them.

Like studies on abortion and mental health in general, including those that note higher suicide rates after abortion, this one has certain key weaknesses. The main one is that no attempt is made to distinguish outcomes of births in unwanted and wanted pregnancies and unwanted and wanted abortions. In comparing mental health outcomes after abortion and childbirth, some research claimed that mental health outcomes were worse after abortion than after childbirth, but reinvestigation revealed that bad outcomes occurred at similar rates after abortion and carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy. Wanted pregnancies carried to term predictably had better outcomes. Thus, in a completely unsurprising finding, unwanted pregnancy was associated with worse mental health outcomes whether it was dealt with by getting an abortion or carrying to term. Unwanted pregnancy is a serious problem and trauma for those who have it and may involve other problems that contributed to their getting unwontedly pregnancy in the first place.

Note: A similar problem emerges for study of suicide after abortion of rape pregnancy versus carrying rape pregnancy to term. One would have to omit all cases of pregnancy issuing from statutory rape that involved consensual sex in affectionate relationships of just-underage girls with just-overage boyfriends. Even if one limited the sample to cases of forcible rape, the type of forcible rape would matter and so would the time in pregnancy the abortion took place. It is reasonable to suppose that those rape victims who endure especially disgusting forcible rapes would be more likely both to abort and commit suicide because of the rape even after abortion, so post-abortion suicide in such cases cannot be assumed to be related to the abortion rather than the rape.

There is a host of variables that need to be controlled for in a comparative study, but without distinguishing wanted and unwanted pregnancy, a study confounds the variable of unwanted pregnancy with that of abortion, as seems to have happened in the Finnish study. Clues to this problem appear in that study. While the suicide rate associated with birth was half that of the general suicide rate for women and far lower than for abortion, this is going to reflect the fact that, in a pro-choice society like Finland, the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies will have been aborted, so almost all the childbirths will result from wanted pregnancies. Second, there was a much higher suicide rate related to teens, which would make sense because those childbirths are much more likely to have resulted from unwanted pregnancies. Third, there was a significant suicide rate after miscarriage, though lower than after abortion, and this makes sense because more miscarriages of wanted pregnancies would have been involved.
This entire set of paragraphs, while well thought out in regards to caveats regarding mental health issues and abortion studies, is invalid, since; THE FINLAND STUDIES ARE NOT STRICTLY ABOUT SUICIDE AND ABORTION.

2. see links and quote summaries below;

Pregnancy-associated mortality after bir... [Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

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.

STUDY DESIGN:
This is a population-based, retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000. Information on all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland (n=15,823) was received from the Cause-of-Death Register and linked to the Medical Birth Register (n=865,988 live births and stillbirths), the Register on Induced Abortions (n=156,789 induced abortions), and the Hospital Discharge Register (n=118,490 spontaneous abortions) to identify pregnancy-associated deaths (n=419).

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.

Pregnancy-associated deaths in Fin... [Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

BACKGROUND:
Our aim was to study the impact of record linkage and different classification principles on maternal mortality rate.

METHODS:
The death certificates of all fertile-aged women who died in 1987-94 in Finland (n = 9,192) were linked to the Birth, Abortion, and Hospital Discharge Registers (n = 513,472 births, 93,807 induced abortions, and 71,701 other ended pregnancies) to identify the women who had been pregnant during their last year of life. All deaths that occurred up to 1 year after the end of pregnancy were classified according to their connection to pregnancy.

RESULTS:
In total, 281 qualifying deaths were found. Only in 22% of the death certificates was the pregnancy or its end mentioned. The mortality rate was 41 per 100,000 registered ended pregnancies (27 for births, 48 for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 for abortions). The maternal mortality rate depended greatly on which of these 281 cases were defined as maternal deaths. The early maternal mortality rate varied between 5.6 and 6.8 per 100,000 live births, and the late maternal mortality rate between 0.6 and 2.5 depending on the definition used. The classification of other than direct maternal deaths was ambiguous, especially in case of late cancers, cardio- and cerebrovascular diseases, and early suicides. The official Finnish figure for early maternal mortality (6.0/100,000 live births) seems to be a good estimate, although only 65% of individual deaths were unambiguously classified.

CONCLUSIONS:
Register linkage is necessary to identify late maternal deaths and pregnancy-associated deaths. The current official classification of maternal deaths as indirect, direct and fortuitous is arbitrary and allows much variation in defining a maternal death.


2. Death rates in abortion and childbirth -
Partly because of all the above, I would want to distinguish between suicide and death from clearly physical causes, death from physical causes clearly related to legal abortion/complications directly issuing from it in early and later pregnancy, on one hand, and complications in late pregnancy/hospital childbirth/ complications directly issuing from hospital childbirth, on the other hand. In a study making such distinctions, it would be quite reasonable to expect legal abortion to result in a lower death rate than hospital childbirth, and to result in a far lower death rate in early than later pregnancy, for the following reasons.
First, legal abortion early in pregnancy is a very minor medical procedure compared to legal abortion later in pregnancy. Second, while abortion early in pregnancy is likely to be elective, abortion later in pregnancy is more likely to be related to health problems. Third, the later the point in pregnancy, the more time there is for complications to develop or be diagnosed, so death rates from early term elective outpatient legal abortion are far more likely to be lower than death rates from late pregnancy complications/hospital childbirth. But all these variables would have to be controlled for in order for a study to be really reliable.

1. They show those distinctions in the studies themselves.

it would be quite reasonable to expect legal abortion to result in a lower death rate than hospital childbirth, and to result in a far lower death rate in early than later pregnancy, for the following reasons.

What is this reasonable expectation of pregnancy being more dangerous actually based on? Given the fact that Finland has universal healthcare, so there is no cost outside of taxes to the patient, and the fact that abortion has been allowed with very minimal restrictions in Finland since 1970, it seems like you are having a hard time accepting their conclusions because you want them to be wrong, not because they are.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

Post 248 and 25 pages and the OP is still a failure. Anybody have a new angles to try.
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:

There is also a distinct reason why Raymond and Grimes attack the Finland studies;

Immediate complications after medical compare... [Obstet Gynecol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

OBJECTIVE:
To estimate the immediate adverse events and safety of medical compared with surgical abortion using high-quality registry data.

METHODS:
All women in Finland undergoing induced abortion from 2000-2006 with a gestational duration of 63 days or less (n=42,619) were followed up until 42 days postabortion using national health registries. The incidence and risk factors of adverse events after medical (n=22,368) and surgical (n=20,251) abortion were compared. Univariable and multivariable association models were used to analyze the risk of the three main complications (hemorrhage, infection, and incomplete abortion) and surgical (re)evacuation.

RESULTS:
The overall incidence of adverse events was fourfold higher in the medical compared with surgical abortion cohort (20.0% compared with 5.6%, P<.001). Hemorrhage (15.6% compared with 2.1%, P<.001) and incomplete abortion (6.7% compared with 1.6%, P<.001) were more common after medical abortion. The rate of surgical (re)evacuation was 5.9% after medical abortion and 1.8% after surgical abortion (P<.001). Although rare, injuries requiring operative treatment or operative complications occurred more often with surgical termination of pregnancy (0.6% compared with 0.03%, P<.001). No differences were noted in the incidence of infections (1.7% compared with 1.7%, P=.85), thromboembolic disease, psychiatric morbidity, or death.

CONCLUSION:
Both methods of abortion are generally safe, but medical termination is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. These observations are relevant when counseling women seeking early abortion.

Gynuity Health Projects » Resources » Medical Abortion Guidebook
The second edition includes updated information on routes of misoprostol administration, infection and medical abortion, use of medical abortion for late first trimester abortion induction, telemedicine and medical abortion, professional and international clinical guidelines for use of mifepristone-misoprostol medical abortion, and a list of additional resources now available.

Elizabeth Raymond MD
Gynuity Health Projects » News » Dr. Elizabeth Raymond Joins Gynuity

David Grimes MD
Abortion Safer for Women Than Childbirth, Study Claims
Grimes and his colleagues had several reasons for undertaking the study, published in the February issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. One is that medical abortion, in which a woman can take a pill early in pregnancy, instead of surgical abortion, "has changed the landscape of abortion, and the mortality information needed to be updated."
 
Re: Why the pro-choice "Rights of Woman vs. Rights of ZEF" argument is a fallacy [W:



Still replying.

I do not support the Grimes/Raymond study, per se. There have been many attempts to calculate the safety of legal abortion relative to the safety of childbirth for women, and a major problem on both sides remains the problem of reportage of deaths in or as a direct result of legal abortion and in or as a result of late pregnancy/childbirth. While critics of Grimes and Raymond stress that the reportage related to legal abortion is flawed, Grimes stresses that the reportage related to late pregnancy/childbirth is also flawed, and both gripes are correct. In the US, there are no federal requirements to report maternal deaths in childbirth, so that the number of deaths could be twice as high as those reported. The only states where report of pregnancy-related deaths is mandatory are FL, IL, MA, NY, PA, and WA, and even there, it has not focused on childbirth-related deaths, but on abortion-related deaths.

Underreporting of Maternal Deaths on Death Certificates and the Magnitude of the Problem of Maternal Mortality has found that, in the US, perhaps 38% of maternal deaths are unreported, and that it could be 50% or more if women were undelivered at time of death, experienced a fetal death or therapeutic abortion, died more than a week after delivery, or died as a result of a cardiovascular disorder (notwithstanding the fact that such a disorder in a common way in which women die during delivery).

The problem for reportage in the case of late pregnancy/childbirth deaths is serious because so many problems that cause them can be reported as if they are not due to late pregnancy or childbirth at all even though the deaths, e.g., heart attack, stroke, infection, would never have occurred if the women had not been in late pregnancy or giving birth.

I noticed that there was even one problem related to reportage which one of the sources you cited here or just above is that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in death certificates even in Finland clarifying that some death is a pregnancy- or childbirth-related maternal death.

One issue for the comparison is that early term abortion by either medical or surgical means is an outpatient procedure, while childbirth is the most common reason for hospitalization, at least in the US (Statistical Brief #110). In the US, doctors recommend more than a 24 hour stay for the mother who has just given birth, and this is for her health, not just for the infant. Doctors typically recommend that a woman not have sex for 2-4 weeks after an abortion and 4-6 weeks after childbirth, or longer if there is discomfort - the difference in recommendation relates to the medically perceived seriousness of what happens to the body. There is also a greater variety of common postpartum problems than common post-abortion problems if the induced abortion occurred in early pregnancy.

Back to Finland -

I read the suicide study but not the others until the links you provided just above (thanks for these). However, I could not find free full texts for the latter, only the abstracts. The natural causes study thus seemed problematic for me without details because I needed a definition of "natural causes." I certainly wondered why "only in 22% of the death certificates was the pregnancy or its end mentioned" - was it because of reportage problems as in the US or because pregnancy is so much safer with socialized medicine or what? As for the issue with medical abortion having a higher incidence of adverse events, that is not a real surprise to me - patients have to be relied on to follow instructions, which they may not, for example.

The general comparison that led to the claim of a 4 times higher risk of dying within a year after an abortion than after miscarriage or childbirth seems clearer if one also notes that this included suicide, homicide, and death by injury as well as natural causes. I found an abstract for this one also: Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987

This study used data on women aged 15-49 for 1987-2000. Of course mortality during pregnancy and within one year of termination was lower than for non-pregnant women. The increased risk for women after abortions especially 15-24 years related to higher suicide and homicide rates. Suicide was already addressed in an earlier study. As for homicide - since girls and women are more likely to have abortions when they are in less stable situations, have less understanding parents, or have unstable partners, there are more homicide risks for them - e.g., parental abuse, partner abuse. younger women without infants are also more likely to engage in dangerous jobs or avocations. The abstract says nothing about injury-related deaths, but one would expect them to be higher also, for just that reason.

Only the deaths from natural causes are of interest to me, as I would like to see both childbirth/late pregnancy- and induced abortion-related deaths reported as such and clearly compared in sufficient detail, ideally in two distinct countries, so that reliable results can be seen.

On Grimes, Raymond, and Shuping - Grimes and Raymond are both trained and board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology and in preventative medicine, Grimes at Harvard and I think Raymond at Columbia. Grimes has been a clinical professor at four significant universities, taught research methods to over 1600 ob/gyns, and has membership in honored academies of science in both the US and England. He made safe legal abortion a primary concern when he had to deal with a case of a girl seriously injured in an illegal abortion and wanted to prevent such horrors (while recognizing that bans on abortion only drive them underground), so he is not just an abortion doctor. He and Raymond both have numerous peer-reviewed studies to their credit. In contrast, Shuping is a psychiatrist, trained at Michigan State U and Wake Forest University, and has collaborated on almost no peer-reviewed articles. She has collaborated with D C Reardon, who received his PhD in bioethics from Pacific Western, an unaccredited correspondence school with no non-correspondence classes. Both have been involved with the abortion-mental health link studies that have been justifiably discredited.

So please pardon me if I seemed too skeptical about any studies lauded by Shuping and questioned in any way by Grimes and Raymond. I am interested in the Finnish studies and am trying to get full texts.
 
Back
Top Bottom