(Prolifer)ations 5/15/08
by JivinJ
On one hand, it’s “Is it really that big of a deal to endorse the presumptive nominee now that he has basically wrapped the nomination up?” and on the other hand it’s “Why not just wait until it’s completely over?” The only reason to give the endorsement now seems to be to convince Clinton to drop out sooner rather than later.
There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called “right” to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman’s right to have her wanted baby protected in law…..
The irony is that for years pro-lifers have been accused of trying to impose their views on others. The opponents of C-484 are now attempting to impose on women who want to be pregnant and want to love and protect their babies the view that the child in her womb is unworthy of protection in criminal law, unworthy of any amount of respect at all to the extent that a criminal can brutally attack that mother’s child with a fist or a boot or a gun or a knife or a sword and face no consequences for killing what is so dear to her.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill
On your last tidbit about the Canadian bill put forth by Ken Epp, he writes:
So why do the opponents of C-484 resort to scare tactics and misrepresentations of the law to make their case? Why are they so afraid of a law that would punish a criminal for intentionally harming or killing an unborn baby who is wanted and loved by its mother?
“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”
So they are opposing this bill because it recognizes some value in the unborn child (in that it can be the victim of a crime) which might lead to some Canadians changing their minds about abortion (which also deals with the unborn child).
So much for the other side advocating “choice”. We just wouldn’t want people to “THINK” too much about abortion and maybe CHANGE their minds! Can’t have that.
The AZ Board of Nursing allowing nurse practicioners to do abortions is old news. I posted it on a previous thread here several days ago.
Don’t you READ THE NEWS, Jill?
Getting back to the gay marriage question, it is interesting that several posters here, like Former Senator Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum, have suggested that gay marriage may lead to polygamy.
This seems odd, when you consider that nearly all practicing polygamists in the USA are members of cults that worship Jesus Christ (Early-style Mormons, and remember the David Koresh people?) (I guess there are probably some Muslim polygamists too, but not nearly as many, and anyway they revere Christ as a prophet of God, even if they don’t worship him.)
If ANYTHING has been shown to lead to polygamy in the USA, it is Christ-worship, not gay marriage.
I’m getting the impression that NOW doesn’t appreciate Obama calling women “sweetie” all the time either. I am going to enjoy watching Obama’s run for president implode.
Okay, truthseeker, if you say so. but wait:
NOONAN: Republicans ‘falling apart… dying’…
It’s a South-Park election: A turd sandwich against a giant douche.
Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Get lost SoMG. You’re a creep.
Jill:
Just wait until a nurse-practioner botches an abortion. Not that doctors are doing any better, mind you. Of course, we can see the type of people drawn to the abortion industry just by reading SoMG’s posts. Fine, upstanding human beings with a highly sensitive conscience, totally committed to the murder of their fellow humans!
SOMG,
You have claimed there are all kinds of well qualified doctors waiting in the wings to do abortions. Why is this action by the AZ Board of Nursing necessary? I recall leaders of the movement to legalize abortion promising women that board certified OB/GYNs would do abortions, not nurse practitioners.
ts 11:19PM
NOW was will to overlook the Bill Clinton being accused of everything from exposing himself to rape. They also had no problem with Ted Kennedy out romping like a college boy, picking up women with his nephew. These ladies stand by their men! Obama will get a free pass as well.
Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Sure beats the belief that a ball of gas billions of miles away exploded, fell to earth, created mud, that eventually turned into fish, which magically turned into monkeys, who woke up one day to find themselves able to do algebra.
SOMG, you are ignorant about Christianity. And anyway, CATHOLICS don’t believe the Eucharist is symbolic.
Nurses doing abortions is a BAD idea.
mk: agree with you there!
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “CATHOLICS don’t believe the Eucharist is symbolic. ”
You think it’s real blood, real flesh? Do a hemoglobin test.
Patricia, you wrote: “Just wait until a nurse-practioner botches an abortion. Not that doctors are doing any better, mind you. ”
What are you talking about? Abortion in the USA kills fewer than one patient per hundred thousand abortions. That’s ten times fewer (per capita) than childbirth. Complications from abortion requiring hospitalization are rare events in the USA.
MK, you wrote: “Sure beats the belief that a ball of gas billions of miles away exploded, fell to earth, ”
This is not the view of contempory astrophysics. When the ball of gas exploded, there WAS no earth. The earth condensed FROM the gas after the explosion.
Mary, you wrote: “Mary, you wrote: “You have claimed there are all kinds of well qualified doctors waiting in the wings to do abortions. Why is this action by the AZ Board of Nursing necessary? ”
I don’t know, my guess would be it’s probably not necessary. I’ve never read of a shortage of abortion docs in Arizona. It’s probably being recommended because it’s RATIONAL, not because it’s necessary. You can train a nurse-practicioner to do first-trimester manual suction curretage safely and effectively in maybe two days.
Actually SOMG, there was a test done after a miracle occurred and it was found to be real human heart muscle and I think it was type AB blood. This was documented. And its also called FAITH.
Women RARELY die from childbirth – this isn’t the 1600s anymore. We have epidurals for managing labor pains and c-sections for emergency deliveries.
True, Liz, but patient death from abortion complications is even MORE rare. By a factor of about eleven.
Let’s make a deal: I’ll stop yakking about how much safer abortion is than childbirth if you rtls will stop pretending (legal) abortion is dangerous for the patient and recognize that it’s safer than an injection of penicillin.
Liz, you wrote: “there was a test done after a miracle occurred and it was found to be real human heart muscle and I think it was type AB blood. This was documented. And its also called FAITH. ”
So then would you accept an intravenous injection of a hundred mls of communion wine, if someone proposed to transfuse you with it? It is blood, after all….
Pleased stop mocking my beliefs, SOMG. You are being insulting.
Weren’t you taught to respect the beliefs of others at all?
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “Weren’t you taught to respect the beliefs of others at all?”
HL Mencken said: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. ”
You guys have to realize that SoMG HAS to keep repeating over and over again just how much safer it is to have an abortion than a baby.It’s the proabort mantra chanted by a man who makes his living off of abortion. Sort of a sales pitch.
Yup that’s right. Womens bodies were designed to ABORT our pregnancies rather than carry them to term. That is the safest way our bodies work – to abort a baby. NOT to grow and bear the child. Evolution has designed us to ABORT our babies. Remember that LizfromNebraska! Just in case you should happen to get pregnant again, you might feel SAFER ABORTING. See SoMG.
You know SoMG, you like to spout about Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein to demonstrate how intellectual you are. In reality you are the stupidest person on this blog. Keep chanting your mantra to try to brainwash more people, but it just won’t work. There are some women who know their bodies and know the truth about how women’s bodies were designed to function.
If I were a pyschologist, I’d say you have some kind of female-envy.
SOMG likes to try to get a rise by playing the fool. He makes assertions about Jesus while it is evident he knows knows next little about Jesus. He makes like he knows the value of life by asserting he thinks babies are precious while the other side of his mouth is saying it is o.k. to crush same baby’s skull in order to make a woman’s delivery easier. He certainly shows himself to be illogical and having very limited capacity to understand concepts like God or love. But is he honest and ignorant, or a psychopath getting jolies by playing/insulting Christians and pro-life people? I haven’t been on the blog long to know for sure, but soon his posts should show the answer to that question.
Gov. Janet Napolitano
Reminds me of the immortal Johnette Napolitano, lead singer of ‘Concrete Blonde.”
SoMG is a lot smarter than many people on Jill’s blog.
He may not have the emotional need to subscribe to the same unprovable beliefs as some of you, but hey – that’s not a bad thing at all.
Tweedledee defends tweedledum….hmmmm
Why am I NOT surprised?
“SoMG is a lot smarter than many people on Jill’s blog.”
smart doesn’t mean wise though Doug. Judas was the smartest disciple.
Actually Patricia, I’m not married and I don’t have children. ;) I do have three nieces and three nephews, though, one whom was delivered by emergency c-section (and he was also born with a cleft lip).
Many women have believed the abortion industry’s lies, such as the development of an unborn child. Then they are shocked later on after their abortion when they see a 3D or 4D ultrasound of a subsequent pregnancy and see how human their child is.
Patricia, you wrote: “SoMG HAS to keep repeating over and over again just how much safer it is to have an abortion than a baby. It’s the proabort mantra chanted by a man …”
What makes you think I am a man? For all you know I could be a woman.
You wrote: “… who makes his living off of abortion. Sort of a sales pitch.”
No, it’s just a fact. And I pretty much only bring it up as a RESPONSE when right-to-lifers repeat the well-documented lie that (legal) abortion is dangerous for the patients. Which happens frequently here on Jill’s site.
For instance, on this thread I posted it in response to YOUR writing “Just wait until a nurse-practioner botches an abortion. Not that doctors are doing any better, mind you. ”
As I posted above, I’ll stop yakking about how much safer abortion is than childbirth if you rtls will stop pretending (legal) abortion is dangerous for the patient and recognize that it’s safer than an injection of penicillin.
And you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the source the doctors read: The Annals of Internal Medicine.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/8/620
What ever you are SoMG, lurker that you are, you are a very diabolical creature.
Diabolical because you work at destroying the very essence of what it means to be a woman – that wonderful feminine genius of being open to others, especially new life. You seek to thwart this at EVERY opportunity, with a kind of rage that is disturbing.
And, you also work at destroying what it means to be a true man too – the capacity to love and protect both the woman and her baby.
Intellectually, you may impress some people on this site, but not me. You lack insight, understanding, compassion, and true intellectual honesty.
SoMG,
well, what are you SoMG, a man or a women?
“As I posted above, I’ll stop yakking about how much safer abortion is than childbirth if you rtls will stop pretending (legal) abortion is dangerous for the patient and recognize that it’s safer than an injection of penicillin.”
how about for the unborn child SoMG, is it safe for him/her too?
Money quote from the Annals article linked above:
“Refinements in abortion technology, improvements in prevention and management of complications, and earlier abortions have all contributed to the impressive safety record (4) (Figure 2). The case-fatality rate from abortion today is less than 1 death [of a patient–they’re not counting the dead fetuses–SoMG] per 100 000 abortions (32, 33). By comparison, the risk for death from anaphylaxis after parenteral administration of penicillin is about 2 per 100 000 events. The risk for complications is also low. In a recent large case series report, the risk for a complication requiring hospitalization was 0.7 per 1000 abortions; less serious complications occurred in 8 per 1000 abortions (34). ”
Jasper, you wrote: “How about for the unborn child SoMG, is it safe for him/her too?”
Nope. It’s very dangerous to be a fetus in the uterus of a woman who doesn’t want you. I recommend avoiding that situation as much as possible.
Nope. It’s very dangerous to be a fetus in the uterus of a woman who doesn’t want you. I recommend avoiding that situation as much as possible.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 9:36 PM
I would restate that as:
I recommend mother and baby avoiding people like SoMG.
Jasper:
Note he did not answer your question.
Intellectual as well as personal dishonesty too. hmmmmm….
“I recommend avoiding that situation as much as possible”
Why SoMG?
Patricia, what question of Jasper’s did I not answer?
“I recommend atoiding that situation as much as possible”
wait a minute SoMG, you just said abortion is very safe, why are you warning people to avoid this as much as possible. whats going on here???
Jasper, I recommend avoiding the situation of being a fetus in the uterus of a woman who doesn’t want you, because in that circumstance you are likely to die very soon.
Patricia, you wrote: “I recommend mother and baby avoiding people like SoMG.”
That’s up to the patients. They come to us, you know. We don’t have to go out looking for them.
Remember Jasper: there are many many other complications from abortion besides maternal death – mental problems, depression, sterility,diminished fertility, infection, uterine perforation. Some of these effects are not manifest until months or years after the abortion incident.
It’s well known that most of the research done on women’s health after abortion is done by abortion providers and complications are usually much under-reported.
In fact, any independent researcher is forewarned to read the entire paper presenting abortion health outcomes as opposed to just the conclusions section – the latter usually contradicts the results reported.
That’s up to the patients. They come to us, you know. We don’t have to go out looking for them.
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 9:48 PM
Yes, unfortunately, they are referred to you by your lackeys, PP.
Are you a man or woman? (not that I expect the TRUTH or anything? Maybe you are hermaphroditic?)
Just as I recommend avoiding being a person with cancer or high cholesterol, I also recommend avoiding being a fetus inside a woman who doesn’t want you. For similar reasons. It’s the job of health-care workers to warn people about situations that are dangerous to their health or lives. So I’m warning you, being a fetus inside a woman who doesn’t want you is a bad idea, dangerous for you-the-fetus. If you must be a fetus, be a fetus whose mother wants you.
“Jasper, I recommend avoiding the situation of being a fetus in the uterus of a woman who doesn’t want you, because in that circumstance you are likely to die very soon.”
How can the fetus avoid that sitution SoMG? Doyou think the fetus implant itself from space? No. the mother and father did.
You so admiting the fetus is being killed, thats good at least.
“So I’m warning you, being a fetus inside a woman who doesn’t want you is a bad idea, dangerous for you-the-fetus. If you must be a fetus, be a fetus whose mother wants you.”
Do you realize the insanity of this SoMG?
I have a new QoTD…
Well, SoMG?
So where do you think SoMG’s gone, Jasper?
the correct term is BABY.
And somewhere there are mothers who want those babies that are “unwanted”. Someone who may not be able to have children or want to adopt children to add to their family.
I have two cousins who are adopted.
Patricia, you wrote: “There are many many other complications from abortion besides maternal death – mental problems…”
Rare, and often suspect (patients are members of cults or sects with open or covert political agendas and the demonstrated ability to exert control over what their members think).
Also, being forced to grow a pregnancy and give birth against ones will almost certainly will cause or contribute to mental problems. Fortunately it has not been possible to measure it, but I bet it would be worse and more common than any mental problems caused by abortion.
You wrote: “…depression,…”
Have you ever heard of post partum depression? Look it up. Abortion prevents it.
You wrote: “… sterility,…”
Nope. Extremely rare.
You wrote: “…diminished fertility,…”
There may be a very small effect on women who have MANY abortions but so far it’s been hard to measure. Partly this is because it’s hard to find a significant number of subjects with lots of abortions in their histories (I would start looking in Russia but it might be hard to find controls–subjects WITHOUT abortion histories–in Russia.) and it’s hard to measure effects on subsequent fertility–you have to follow the subjects for a long time. These issues are part of the difficulty of measuring an effect of a large abortion history on subsequent fertility but another part of it is of is that it’s a very small effect if it’s there at all, which it may well not be.
You wrote: “…infection,…”
Yes, infection is closer to being a real issue than the others you have listed so far. Occasionally you even have to prescribe antibiotics.
But what about the infections caused by childbirth? In the USA 24% of childbirths were accomplished by C-section in 1989. I wonder how many infections got started in those incisions. I bet you’re more likely to get infected from childbirth than from abortion too, because of the C-sections. And I’ll bet when you do get infected, it’s worse than an infection from abortion because you’re recovering from a c-section AND fighting the infection at the same time.
You wrote: “…uterine perforation.”
We don’t know how often this happens because the very large majority of uterine perforations are subclinical. They heal right up like any other puncture wound to a muscular organ. The patient doesn’t notice. It can leave a very small scar.
I have no data on this but I’ll bet that perforations are less likely with suction curettage (which uses a plastic tube and a 50 ml syringe) than with sharp curettage (which uses a metal curette with a small, looped, inner-facing blade, and is rapidly being abandoned everywhere in favor of suction curettage.)
Needless (I hope) to say, the risk of perforating the uterus is close to nil with medical abortion. I guess you could point to the 5% or whatever it is that need curettage after medical abortion and say some of them will get perforated. Not many though.
Any other complaints?
And Liz, the correct word is fetus. Not that it makes any difference to me what you call it.
Are you a man or woman SoMG?
Any other complaints?
Posted by: SoMG at May 17, 2008 11:00 PM
This post has not ONE factual statement, nor one point that is intellectually honest.
Patricia, yes, I am.
Again, are you a man or woman? Why avoid this question?
Or do you plan to disappear for the next half hour?
You have not answered my question SoMG?
Are you a man?
Actually yes, I do have to go edit a lab report. (It’s true.) Sorry. Good night.
be honest and simply answer the question.
I love it.
You backed out again.
You are not honest! This is wonderful!
I’ve got your number SoMG! lol
I love how you guys spent the whole evening attacking SoMG, rather than actually addressing anything he said.
Lovely example of debate. I think tomorrow I’ll teach my little brothers about logical fallacies.
That way, if they ever do grow up and become pro-lifers, at least they won’t attack the person, rather than the argument.
It’ll be time well spent.
Edyt,
Any idea what SOMG meant when he said to avoid be a fetus in the womb of a pregnant woman that doesn’t want you? How the hell is a fetus supposed to do that? Am I missing something in his logic? That sounds like nonsense.
TS,
It’s a joke. You have to appreciate dry humor to get it.
SOMG, 1:07PM
Doesn’t wash. If there were plenty of doctors so willing to perform abortions this wouldn’t be an issue. Why hasn’t it been before now?
All those phantom doctors wouldn’t want the competition either.
Can an NP handle follow up emergencies and have admitting priveleges or would a doctor have to be found?
Edyt: not one of SoMG’s assertations is supportable by research.
Ian Gentles and Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy have done extensive research in the area of abortion sequelae (which of course SoMG won’t accept).
Everyone of the consequences I listed happen to women on a regular basis. Abortion is one of the main reasons that infertility rates have risen so much in the past few decades.
Gentles and Ring-Cassidy claim that because abortion is so politicized in North America, the results of research on the true effects of abortion on the overall health of women is not being publicized- to the detriment of women.
From this work:
“Because no reporting policy exists in Canada or the United States, it is unclear precisely what happens when complications emerge several days or weeks later. For the most part it appears that the diagnosis and treatment of follow-up issues are left to community hospitals or family physicians. These diagnoses and treatments may never be linked statistically to the original abortion procedure, and therefore they will seldom appear in the North American literature as the sequelae of an induced abortion.”
“Because abortion is very much a political issue in North America, all research results need to be interpreted with care, bearing in mind the problem cited above – that North American clinics typically do not follow up and identify only very short-term complications. The authors of many studies are, themselves, abortion providers who have a vested interest in minimizing negative findings.”
There is apparently a huge discrepancy between the British and European medical literature and that of North American medical research over the effects of abortion. One must read the research carefully to get a true picture of just what is happening.
The authors go on to cite the example of New Zealand researcher, P. Sykes whose study showed abortion complications consistent with British and European studies, but which he tried to explain away. So is it a case of bad science or bias?
“In addition, there are often glaring inconsistencies between the actual research results and the summaries and conclusions of articles. Attempts to minimize negative results and to explain away findings that are not consistent with accepted opinion exist throughout the literature on abortion sequelae.”
In fact, SoMG’s treatment of this research confirms what Gentles and Ring-Cassidy have discovered.
We have also seen the huge silence about the aobrtion and breast cancer link. Of course, as Jill has already posted, the line cancer orgs are giving is that they are focusing on research.
Gee, thank goodness we took that line with smoking!
The bottom line: to the women’s movement abortion is their sacrosanct sacrament – NOTHING will prevent them from losing this “right” for women. No matter what the cost.
And to the abortion industry – there’s just too much money involved.
The only thing that may help change this is the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The survivors of abortion speak out. The proaborts are deathly afraid of these people because they know the real truth. They’ve lived it.
BTW SoMG: please answer Jasper’s question.
Patricia, you wrote: “Gentles and Ring-Cassidy claim that because abortion is so politicized in North America, the results of research on the true effects of abortion on the overall health of women is not being publicized- to the detriment of women.”
It’s all a big pro-abort conspiracy to suppress the truth, right?
You wrote: “We have also seen the huge silence about the aobrtion (sic) and breast cancer link. ”
That’s because there isn’t one.
You wrote: “Of course, as Jill has already posted, the line cancer orgs are giving is that they are focusing on research.”
What “cancer orgs” give that line? The breast-cancer question is regarded, nearly unanimously, as settled in the medical community. Because of the Melbye study. Which by the way comes from Europe, not North America.
So Patricia, you don’t accept the word of the AMA, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American Cancer Society, the editorial board of the New England Journal of Mediciine, and the Danish Government. You know better than the professionals. Whose word WOULD you accept? If the medical sciences division of the National Academy of Sciences opined on this, would you believe them? Or would you say they are a pro-abort organization too? How about the Surgeon General? Whose word would convince you?
SoMG – you’re back. I’m assuming you are done editing that lab report.
Are you a man?
Patricia,
Maybe he fell asleep after that lab report on a Saturday night.
Oh, he woke up. Never mind.
Unfortunately, carder, I can’t comment on SoMG’s post because he can’t answer Jasper’s question or mine.
It’s really sad. All he has to do is type one word.
Maybe he went back to bed.
Patricia, you wrote: “I’m assuming you are done editing that lab report.”
I got about 2/3 of the way through–through the Materials and Methods section–before I crashed. This morning I am bleary-eyed. I should have done more–I’m being paid generously enough for doing it.
Before you get to asking me personal questions, please answer my (non-personal, debate-related) questions in the above post, which I reproduce with enhancement for your convenience below:
1. You wrote: “Of course, … the line cancer orgs are giving is that they are focusing on research.”
What “cancer orgs” are giving that line? All or nearly all legitimate cancer-related organizations that express an opinion at all on the question [of the abortion-breast cancer non-link] regard it as pretty much settled.
2. So Patricia, you don’t accept the word [on the abortion-breast-cancer non-link] of the AMA, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Cancer Society (I don’t think ACS even has an opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal. Abortion is not their issue.), the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine (which published the Melbye study), and the Danish Government. … Whose word WOULD you accept? If the medical sciences division of the National Academy of Sciences opined on this, would you believe them? Or would you say they too are part of a vast pro-abort conspiracy to hide the truth? How about the Surgeon General? Or your own primary-care doctor, whom you pay to tell you the facts? Whose word on this would convince you? What evidence would convince you, if the Melbye study, which has convinced virtually the entire medical world, doesn’t?
Mary, you wrote: “If there were plenty of doctors so willing to perform abortions this [Nurses and NPs being allowed to do abortions in Arizona] wouldn’t be an issue. ”
You don’t know this. It was a nursing board that made the recommendation, not a board of MDs. Maybe the nurses and nps want to get in on the action. No way to tell without more information.
You wrote: “Can an NP handle follow up emergencies and have admitting priveleges or would a doctor have to be found?”
I don’t know how they will work this but if I were an NP doing abortions in Arizona I’d make an arrangement with a GYN group (or a surgical group) to handle any serious complications.
Wenn Tugend und Gerechtigkeit
Der gro
SOMG,
If there were so many willing doctors why was an NP violating state regulations in the first place by performing abortions up to 16 weeks since 2001? The Planned Parenthood clinic where she worked should certainly have known something about state regulations.
Do you know if any other NPs are performing other surgical procedures against state regulations or under what other circumstances this would even be tolerated?
Well, I guess there is Tiller’s clinic in Kansas where people hired off the street, with no training or licensure, administer drugs and supervise patients in the process of aborting.
Mary, you wrote: “If there were so many willing doctors why was an NP violating state regulations in the first place by performing abortions up to 16 weeks since 2001? The Planned Parenthood clinic where she worked should certainly have known something about state regulations.”
I don’t know but I can tell you this: there are many abortion docs who won’t work with PP. PP is a MINIMAL-COST outfit–part of their mission is to keep the costs of their services as low as they can. Consequently they are also the lowest-paying employer of abortion docs in the country. You can more-than-double your compensation per procedure by avoiding PP and working elsewhere.
SOMG,
There are any number of doctors who donate their services at minimal cost or free of charge to causes they feel strongly about, such as missions or serving the poor and underprivileged in their communities.
Certainly an organization such as PP, that hauled in $903 million in fiscal 2006-06 and has received millions from the family foundations of David Rockefeller, David Packerd, Bill Gates, and George Soros can scrape up a few extra dollars to pay for a doctor’s services, assuming of course they can find one.
Sorry SoMG,
My questions came first. And I see your tactice as a way to divert attention away from yourself. Are you a man?
The answer is important because it helps me understand you.
Mary,
There is such an incredible shortage of doctors willing to do abortions in the US, that the ACOG has tried to implement a policy whereby only those ob/gyn’s who will perform abortions or at the very least refer for abortions will be borad certified. This has caused a huge outcry from Catholic and Christian practioners. Talk about choice!
Not only do proaborts want to tell us how to think, they want to tell us how to run our professional lives too.
It’s well known within the medical profession that abortionists are the bottom-feeders and the lousy doctors. Where I live, it’s well known that the abortionists are the ones with the huge homes with high security fences and gates.
In Canada, there are so few doctors willing to perform abortions that some areas of the country are now without this so-called “service”. It’s truly wonderful!
I see it as supply and demand. If there’s no demand why supply the doctors and the medical space to kill more of our citizens. Eventually, it may be that society will demand that out health care resources be allocated a little more responsibly to treatment some of the “real” diseases instead of treating pregnancy as a disease to be cured.
Patricia,
I didn’t realize the situation had become so critical that ACOG would make such requirements. How right you are. Freedom of choice indeed!
There are doctors who choose not to do any number of procedures such as open heart and plastic surgery and are not denied the right to be board certified because of it. Its called, uh, freedom of choice.
Wasn’t there a situation in the US where medical students were required to learn abortion techniques, I believe it was in New York City, and medical schools forced to teach them?
Perhaps SOMG could enlighten us as to why this situation even exists. Obviously there are any number of people unaware of the abundance of doctors willing to do abortions!
You are certainly correct about abortionists being seen as bottomfeeders. They are tolerated, and a doctor’s pregnant mistress or two will likely be sent to them, but they are looked down on.
I can remember when the local abortionist was interviewed by the newspaper. The man would not admit he did abortions. He gave some lame excuse about patient confidentiality. Uh doc, no one is asking you to name patients and doctors list what they do in the phone book. Where is there violation of patient confidentiality? Its not like the whole city doesn’t know, its the first thing I heard when I moved here. Why wouldn’t this man proudly proclaim what he does, or at the very least acknowledge it?
Why is ACOG doing this? Because the doctors who sit on the board are likely 50 somethings who’ve done abortions, had abortions or cooperated in abortions. It is therefore part of their professional agenda. You know the saying, “misery loves company”.
The abortion culture is very entrenched in western society. It’s tentacles are far reaching. These people tolerate no dissention.
Patricia, you wrote: “It’s well known within the medical profession that abortionists are the bottom-feeders and the lousy doctors. ”
That’s a stereotype, a myth, and I know many counterexamples.
You wrote: “Where I live, it’s well known that the abortionists are the ones with the huge homes with high security fences and gates.”
I wonder how they afford huge homes. You don’t make that much money doing abortions unless you do late-term abortions which only a very few people do because there’s so little demand for them.
The alleged shortage of abortion docs is also a myth, often exaggerated by feminist organizations in order to scare members into donating money. There is no shortage except in very rural places where there’s a shortage of docs generally, places like West Virginia and parts of the Deep South where they offer to pay your student loans for you if you’ll go there and work as a primary-care doc.
The number of abortion docs is determined by demand for their services, which has been falling in the USA and continues to fall as the baby-boomers age past reproductivity. Feminists often complain that 83% or whatever the number is of counties in the USA have no (visible)abortion provider. Well if we had one in every county, most of them would stand idle most of the time because there aren’t that many women who want abortions. When and where there’s demand, new abortion facilities open.
There were scares about shortages in the late 80s and mid 90s when abortion docs were being shot by right-to-life terrorists, but the creation of an organization called Medical Students for Choice (which was formed as a direct response to the shootings and to a right-to-life booklet denegrating abortion docs (it was titled “Bottom Feeder”) which was mailed to all medical students in the country by a right-to-life organization, I forget which one) pretty much took care of that. MSfC now represents thousands of medical students and residents and has branches at most medical schools.
Mary, you wrote: “Wasn’t there a situation in the US where medical students were required to learn abortion techniques, I believe it was in New York City, and medical schools forced to teach them?”
Yes, that was in NYC. A city run by hysterical feminists. Although I don’t think anyone should be forced to do abortions if they prefer not to, I think every doc should be trained in the basic technique, should see them done, and know what’s involved because virtually every doc will have some patients with abortion histories and some patients who will have abortions while they are your patients. You need to know the basics. We can afford to have docs who refuse to do or refer for abortions because we have enough abortion docs to meet the demand. If we lived in a country where abortion was illegal or difficult to obtain, then sooner or later a doc who refused to do or refer for them would have the experience of having a woman ask for one, turning her away, and seeing her come back dead from complications of a black market abortion. That’s a death you could have prevented by referring her to a safe provider but you chose not to because of your fetus fetish, and now you’ve lost your patient.
Gotta go. I’ll try to post more on this later.
Patricia, you wrote: “My questions came first.”
Your questions are personal. I think you’re just trying to avoid answering my question which once again is
“So Patricia, you don’t accept the word [on the abortion-breast-cancer non-link] of the AMA, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Cancer Society (I don’t think ACS even has an opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal. Abortion is not their issue.), the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine (which published the Melbye study), and the Danish Government. … Whose word WOULD you accept? If the medical sciences division of the National Academy of Sciences opined on this, would you believe them? Or would you say they too are part of a vast pro-abort conspiracy to hide the truth? How about the Surgeon General? Or your own primary-care doctor, whom you pay to tell you the facts? Whose word on this would convince you? What evidence would convince you, if the Melbye study, which has convinced virtually the entire medical world, doesn’t?”
I think you are avoiding answering this question because you know there is no (truthful) answer you could give without making yourself look like an idiot or an ignoramus, or rather, more like an idiot or an ignoramus than you already look. That’s not intended as an insult but as a statement of fact.
Now I remember: the organization that sent the booklet “Bottom Feeder” to med students was Mark Crutcher’s organization Life Dynamics, Inc.
There’s also a sibling organization called Nursing Students for Choice.
I think you are avoiding answering this question because you know there is no (truthful) answer you could give without making yourself look like an idiot or an ignoramus, or rather, more like an idiot or an ignoramus than you already look. That’s not intended as an insult but as a statement of fact.
Posted by: SoMG at May 18, 2008 2:31 PM
Hah! You have yet to make a statement of fact on this website SoMG.
You were the one that brought up the personal question NOT I!
When you decide you can debate with intellectual honesty and integrity then I will debate you. Not until then.
Have a nice life.
Patricia, you wrote: “You were the one that brought up the personal question NOT I!”
No, Patricia, you raised the question when you referred to me as a man. Remember you wrote:
“SoMG HAS to keep repeating over and over again just how much safer it is to have an abortion than a baby. It’s the proabort mantra chanted by a man …”
You wrote: “You have yet to make a statement of fact on this website SoMG.”
As a counterexample I refer you back to my post of May 17, 11:00PM. I count at least eight statements of fact in that post.
Nope, you’re just afraid to answer my question because you know the answer will be embarrassing to you.
Additional statements of fact can be found in my posts of May 18, 11:44AM and 2:05PM.
“If we lived in a country where abortion was illegal or difficult to obtain, then sooner or later a doc who refused to do or refer for them would have the experience of having a woman ask for one, turning her away, and seeing her come back dead from complications of a black market abortion. That’s a death you could have prevented by referring her to a safe provider but you chose not to because of your fetus fetish, and now you’ve lost your patient.”
This is complete fabrication and quite simply more proabort rhetoric. Funny thing is this exact situation exists today as women with complications are being turned away from abortion clinics AFTER undergoing abortion. If they get lucky they’re dumped at the nearest hospital. Usually however, they’re sent home to die in agony there. So much for safe legal abortions.
It has been admitted by numerous doctors, abortion clinic directors and feminists involved in the legalization of abortion, that death figures due to illegal abortions were completely fabricated.
The AMA, APA, ACOG are not the unbiased medical organizations that some would have us believe. The very fact the ACOG has attempted to tie certification to the performance of abortion demonstrates that this organization is blatantly proabort and does not support women in their pregnancies. No doctor should be required to violate his ethics and conscience by referring or performing abortions. The forcing of OB/GYN’s to kill one of their patients is sick. The draconian heavy-handedness of ACOG is frightening.
Both the American and Canadian Cancer societies also support the current thinking by proabort biased researchers re: the abortion/breast cancer link. Their opinion is based on the seriously flawed DANISH study done by Dr. Mads Melbye.
However, numerous rigorous research has established a link between abortion and breast cancer. AMong these, a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute found an overall 50% risk increase in women who undergo abortion. In women with a history of breast cancer, the overall risk jumped to 80%. The study was headed by Dr. Janet Daling, (who personally supports abortion)who stated
“I have 3 sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or prolife. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing; it’s a matter of what it is.”
As for abortionists not making money, consider the case of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who by his own admission makes TEN MILLION Dollars per YEAR from his clinics in Canada.
Oh and SoMG:
“I think you are avoiding answering this question because you know there is no (truthful) answer you could give without making yourself look like an idiot or an ignoramus, or rather, more like an idiot or an ignoramus than you already look. That’s not intended as an insult but as a statement of fact.”
Resorting to name calling is proof once again that you can’t debate and prove your point intellectually.
You always run and hide, under the pretense of “lab reports”.
SOMG,
Well, NYC apparently had an hysterical mayor as well since he went along with this. Please answer my question SOMG why this is even necessary since as you say there are enough doctors to meet the demand.
Medical schools that did not teach abortion apparently felt comfortable that their students were trained to treat complications. Any OB/GYN should be well trained to treat any kind of obstetrical or gynecological complications he/she may encounter though may not necessarily see them in their training. I know our OB/GYNs have treated women suffering complications of “safe legal” abortion though do not themselves perform them, you know, women who went to one of those “safe” providers you mentioned. They used surgical techniques they routinely use and did nothing different or exceptional.
The shortage of abortionists is due to them being shot? Please SOMG, we have top quality medical personnel working in our big city emergency rooms, some of them located in neighborhoods that are virtual battlefields, not to mention some of the armed and dangerous patients. These are people who truly put their lives at risk but there’s no shortage of them willing to do so.
By the way SOMG, one of your abortionists was killed after leaving a porno theater in the dead of night in a dangerous neighborhood. While I’ve heard some feminists try to make this into some “mystery” killing police ruled it a random crime. It really wasn’t smart of him to park his cadillac in a dangerous neighborhood or to confront the muggers rifling it. There was also the possibility of someone settling a score with him, namely his thousands of dollars in gambling debts and some unsavory character who’s tired of waiting for his money.
Oh by the way a group of Medical Students For Choice invited the abortionist Hodari to speak to their group and were none too pleased word got out about his talk. You know, the guy that admitted he doesn’t always wash his hands between patients and feels justified in lying to them as well. Why wouldn’t the students be proud of his visit and to advertise what they stand for? Idealism is one thing, the real world another.
Patricia,
I understand that Dr. Daling, a supporter of abortion, set out to prove there was no abortion/breast cancer link and was forced to acknowledge there indeed was.
Could you find that source, Mary?
Woudl be interesting to see how SoMG can justify that one.
Carder,
I got that from http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com, the lady who runs the website. I’m darned if I can think of her name. She has posted here a few times. Very knowledgable. I’m sure you could google Janet Daling as well.
Patricia, 3:39PM
Doesn’t abortionist Hodari own vintage cars? Doesn’t sound like he has to scrape pennies.
SoMG,
Just keep on talking, it only shows your bigotry and intolerance towards those who belief differently from you.
Mary,
you might also want to know that Dr. Daling’s research commenced by studying the effect of abortion on VARIOUS types of cancers such as ovarian and cervical cancers. She found no correlation AND she had NO problems publishing her results. However, when she found a correlation with breast cancer she had great difficulty getting her research published.
She was stunned by the public and professional rejection of her research.
Patricia,
Thank you. I remember reading that now that you mention it.
Carder,
I think her name is Karen Malic.
“First of all, while they make the claim that abortion is 11 times more safer than childbirth, they do not provide documentation (in most cases). However, this can be easily found at the website for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, who moniters mortality rates in all areas of health in the United States. There are some issues with the comparison of abortion mortality and maternal mortality rates. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report for pregnancy-related mortality rates: “In this report, a woman’s death was classified as pregnancy-related if it occurred during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy and resulted from 1) complications of the pregnancy, 2) a chain of events that was initiated by the pregnancy, or 3) the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of the pregnancy or its management” (3). This means pregnancy-related mortality rates are broadly defined to included the following: aggravation of a maternal pre-existing, non-pregnancy-related medical condition, pregnancy-induced maternal medical condition, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, still birth, post-partum complications, and includes induced abortion. Therfore we are not comparing with the pregnancy mortality rate alone. In addition, regarding the CDC and AGI reports for Induced Abortions, mortalities resulting from induced abortion are typically under-reported as such. One reason is that a medical examiner may code the underlying cause of death on the autopsy report as the complication alone, i.e. embolism, septsis, hemorrhage, or anesthesia complications, rather than correctly as a legally induced abortion with specified complication. A good explination of this can be found here. Therefore it is misleading to compare pregnancy-related mortality rates to abortion mortality rates to obtain the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth.”
From “Abortion Conversations Part 6: The De-regulation of Abortion”
Sorry, I didn’t close the codes
“First of all, while they make the claim that abortion is 11 times more safer than childbirth, they do not provide documentation (in most cases). However, this can be easily found at the website for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, who moniters mortality rates in all areas of health in the United States. There are some issues with the comparison of abortion mortality and maternal mortality rates. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report for pregnancy-related mortality rates: “In this report, a woman’s death was classified as pregnancy-related if it occurred during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy and resulted from 1) complications of the pregnancy, 2) a chain of events that was initiated by the pregnancy, or 3) the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of the pregnancy or its management” (3). This means pregnancy-related mortality rates are broadly defined to included the following: aggravation of a maternal pre-existing, non-pregnancy-related medical condition, pregnancy-induced maternal medical condition, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, still birth, post-partum complications, and includes induced abortion. Therfore we are not comparing with the pregnancy mortality rate alone. In addition, regarding the CDC and AGI reports for Induced Abortions, mortalities resulting from induced abortion are typically under-reported as such. One reason is that a medical examiner may code the underlying cause of death on the autopsy report as the complication alone, i.e. embolism, septsis, hemorrhage, or anesthesia complications, rather than correctly as a legally induced abortion with specified complication. Therefore it is misleading to compare pregnancy-related mortality rates to abortion mortality rates to obtain the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth.”
From “Abortion Conversations Part 6: The De-regulation of Abortion”
Patricia, you wrote: “This [the hypothetical case of a doc in a restricted-abortion society who refuses to refer a patient for an abortion and gets her back dead from complications from a black-market abortion] is complete fabrication …”
It’s a hypothetical case occurring in a hypothetical society. All hypothetical cases are fabrications. The point is we can afford to have docs who refuse to do or refer for abortions–PROVIDED THEIR PATIENTS CAN GET SAFE ABORTIONS ELSEWHERE.
You wrote: “Funny thing is this exact situation exists today as women with complications are being turned away from abortion clinics AFTER undergoing abortion. If they get lucky they’re dumped at the nearest hospital. Usually however, they’re sent home to die in agony there. ”
Where did you get this idea? It’s a slander. I bet you made it up. Remember the numbers: In the USA fewer than one patient dies per hundred thousand abortions, and fewer than eight patients need hospitalization per ten thousand abortions.
You wrote: “The very fact the ACOG has attempted to tie certification to the performance of abortion demonstrates that this organization is blatantly proabort and does not support women in their pregnancies.”
ACOG is pro-choice, yes, but they DO support women in their pregnancies. It’s the American College of OBSTETRICS and Gynecology, after all. Obstetrics means delivering babies.
Are you saying you think pro-choice organizations cannot or do not support women in their pregnancies? Get serious. NOW calls for expanding government aid for indigent pregnant women, and for poor single moms. NARAL campaigns (or used to, anyway) against involuntary sterilizations of women and thereby works to preserve their CAPACITY for pregnancy. The Democratic Party supports the WIC program which provides federal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk. These are pro-choice organizations supporting women in their pregnancies.
You wrote: “As for abortionists not making money, consider the case of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who by his own admission makes TEN MILLION Dollars per YEAR from his clinics in Canada.”
He makes this money by owning the clinics, as a businessman, not from fees for doing abortions. Owners of successful businesses often make big bucks.
The fee per procedure is not large enough for any one provider to make ten million dollars in a year on abortion fees alone.
Let’s do the math: suppose you do first-trimester abortions. If you’re fast and you don’t have to spend any time talking with the patients or doing anything at all except scrubbing vaginas and emptying uteruses you can do four in an hour, maybe. Say you work ten hours a day. That’s 40 abortions in a day which is more–a lot more– than I’ve ever heard of anyone actually doing in real life. You’d be seriously bug-eyed by the end of the day. But no matter. Say you work 350 days a year, which means you get just 15 days of vacation time and no weekends off. That’s 14000 abortions per year. Say you collect $500.00 for each abortion, which again is more than most people get. PP for instance pays the docs somewhere in the neighborhood of $50.00 to $100.00 per abortion. But suppose you do somehow manage to collect $500.00 per abortion. That’s still only seven million dollars per year, and it assumes you have enough patients to keep running at maximum capacity all the time (which nobody does), and does not account for expenses such as rent (which can be very costly for a medical facility), tools, drugs, liability insurance, disposal of medical waste, your receptionist’s salary, and paying the people who handle your billing. Late-term specialists like Dr. Tiller and Dr. Hern can charge more per procedure, but they have to spend a lot more than 15 minutes per procedure so they can’t do as many of them. And they’re a tiny minority anyway.
You wrote: “Their opinion is based on the seriously flawed DANISH study done by Dr. Mads Melbye. ”
In what way is the Melbye study “seriously flawed”? Explain what you mean by this (if anything), please.
You wrote: “A Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center study commissioned by the National Cancer Institute found an overall 50% risk increase in women who undergo abortion. …”
A 50% increase can be a very small increase. Remember, if something goes from being very very very very rare to being only very very very rare, that difference can be expressed as a large percentage increase, even a several-fold increase, but it’s still very very very rare.
You wrote: “In women with a history of breast cancer, the overall risk jumped to 80%….”
Are you saying that if you have a previous history of breast cancer and have an abortion then you’d be 80% likely to have a repeat occurrence of breast cancer? Nuts. These days you’d probably have both your breasts removed after your first breast cancer, so it wouldn’t be an issue.
You wrote: “The study was headed by Dr. Janet Daling, …”
The important question is, how BIG was the study? How many women did they follow, for how long? The answer to this makes the difference between meaningful data and worthless statistical noise. Big studies matter more than small studies. A lot of right-to-lifers don’t seem to understand that. Perhaps they are just pretending. You need to find out how big this study you cite was in order to determine whether or not it means anything.
Mary, you wrote: “Well, NYC apparently had an hysterical mayor as well since he went along with this. Please answer my question SOMG why this is even necessary since as you say there are enough doctors to meet the demand.”
I think it’s probably not necessary.
You wrote: “Medical schools that did not teach abortion apparently felt comfortable that their students were trained to treat complications. ”
Maybe they didn’t think about it at all. Not all decisions are rationally based. For instance, when magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) first hit the hospital scene, it was called “Nuclear magnetic resonance” (“NMR”) or “NMR-imaging”. The word “Nuclear” was removed because it frightened people, even though MRI does not involve any radioactivity or uncommon nuclear isotopes or nuclear reactions at all. The decision was based entirely on a non-rational (or at least, non-medical) motivation.
Especially, right-to-life policies can result from non-medical motivations such as the desire to avoid offending (some) people. Some big donors to medical schools are right-to-lifers. Google Richard Mellon Scaife if you don’t already know who he is.
You wrote: “The shortage of abortionists is due to them being shot? ”
I didn’t say that. What I said was: “There were scares about shortages in the late 80s and mid 90s when abortion docs were being shot by right-to-life terrorists….” In other words, the public FEAR of a POSSIBLE shortage (that’s what I mean by the phrase “scares about shortages”) was (partly) due to them being shot. You should read more carefully.
Once again, there is no shortage of abortion docs in the USA. When was the last time you heard of a woman in the USA being forced to grow her pregnancy and bear a child against her will, or seek a black-market abortion, because she couldn’t find a doc to do her abortion legally for her? Answer: Never. It doesn’t happen in this country. If there were a real shortage of abortion docs, it would. By definition of the word “shortage”. The fact that it doesn’t happen shows that the supply of abortion docs corresponds to the demand for their services. In other words, there’s no shortage.
You wrote: “By the way SOMG, one of your abortionists was killed after leaving a porno theater in the dead of night in a dangerous neighborhood. While I’ve heard some feminists try to make this into some “mystery” killing police ruled it a random crime. It really wasn’t smart of him to park his cadillac in a dangerous neighborhood or to confront the muggers rifling it. ”
His name was Wayne Patterson. And you are right, his murder was (almost certainly) not connected with abortion. I have read (but not in a reliable source, just internet gossip) that his murder was the result of a cocaine deal gone bad. So what?
OK, I looked Janet Daling’s study up for you all. There’s a description of it here:
http://members.aol.com/DFjoseph/daling.html
I believe this is a right-to-life site because it quotes Joel Brind, a well-known right-to-life propagandist who masquerades as a scientist. Anyway, according to this description, the size of Dr. Daling’s study was 1,806 women. Compare that with the Melbye study which followed 1.5 million women. The comparison is like a sumo wrestling match between an elephant and a flea. And for you who believe in the abortion-breast-cancer “link”, the elephant is not on your side. The Melbye study is about 850 times bigger than Daling’s study. You’d have to repeat Daling’s work 850 times in order to acheive the convincing power of the Melbye study.
Do you begin to see why I call some of you, those of you who imagine Daling’s study to be a convincing reply to the Melbye study (that means you, Patricia, Mary, Carder, and Rachel), stupid?
Another point: Daling’s study only followed its subjects into their forties. According to the National Cancer Institute the large majority of breast cancers occur in women older than age 50–see
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/about-tool.aspx#q3
That means Dr. Daling left the large majority of breast cancers completely out of her study. Weak.
SOMG,
Apparently the “hysterical feminists” and the mayor of NYC should have consulted with you before deciding there were not enough abortion docs.
SOMG, when it comes to the issue of the medical schools you ramble. You do not address the fact that medical schools chose not to train in abortion techniques and apparently considered their students well trained enough to handle both obstetrical and gynecological emergencies.
Why would anyone be offended by medical schools teaching abortion? Is Richard Mellon Scaife the sole contributor to medical schools? Why would the schools succumb to the pressure to teach abortion if they had Scaife’s millions to back them up? I’m certain the medical schools could have asked for help from the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, and George Soros if they were determined to teach abortion techniques. These are the multi-millionaires that donate hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, if you don’t already know who they are.
There was a public fear of a shortage because of abortionists being shot? Please SOMG, is there a public FEAR about a POSSIBLE police shortage because police officers are shot, and in greater numbers than abortionists? So far around 37 have been killed this year.
Please SOMG, don’t give me this argument about women not going to term who don’t want to as proof of an abundance of abortion docs. Its a ridiculous argument. Maybe its because NPs are violating state laws by performing abortions? How can you know for an aboslute fact that no woman goes to term because of a lack of an abortionist?
You were talking about abortionists getting shot SOMG, I just pointed out how one of them got shot. Maybe he should have spent the money he raked in from his abortion clinics on a VCR instead of gambling and possibly drugs. It would have been a lot safer than the late nite porno theatres.
SOMG,
Do you also have a problem with Daling’s research that showed NO connection between abortion and cervical and ovarian cancer?
Mary, you wrote: “Do you also have a problem with Daling’s research that showed NO connection between abortion and cervical and ovarian cancer?”
Mary, I haven’t read it so I have no problem with it. Maybe if I were to read it I would.
SOMG,
Get real, since it says what you want to hear you will have no problem with it. Personally I’m delighted to hear she found no connection between abortion and cervical and ovarian cancer.
I wish the same was true concerning her research on abortion and breast cancer.
Mary, you wrote: “Get real, since it says what you want to hear you will have no problem with it. ”
Wrong. Provide a link to these studies and I’ll look at them. If they are small, or flawed, or weak, I’ll have no problem saying so.
You wrote: “Personally I’m delighted to hear she found no connection between abortion and cervical and ovarian cancer.
I wish the same was true concerning her research on abortion and breast cancer.”
I wouldn’t worry about it.
Mary, you wrote: “Apparently the “hysterical feminists” and the mayor of NYC should have consulted with you before deciding there were not enough abortion docs.”
True. They should also have paid me a large consulting fee.
You wrote: “Why would anyone be offended by medical schools teaching abortion?”
Why indeed? I wonder.
You wrote: “Is Richard Mellon Scaife the sole contributor to medical schools?”
What kind of stupid question is this? Of course not. He’s not even the only right-to-lifer who contributes to med schools.
You wrote: “I’m certain the medical schools could have asked for help from the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, and George Soros ”
The difference is the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, and George Soros would contribute their money regardless of whether or not the med schools taught abortion. Whereas Scaife and his crowd might withhold their money.
You wrote: “Please SOMG, don’t give me this argument about women not going to term who don’t want to as proof of an abundance of abortion docs. ”
I wouldn’t call it an “abundance”. I’d call it a non-shortage. “Abundance” describes the situation in NYC where there are more abortion docs than anyone needs and the question for a woman who wants an abortion is which one to go to.
SOMG,
Google Janet Daling and you should find them. As was pointed out, Daling set out to disprove an abortion/breast cancer link. If anything, her research should have been biased in favor of there being no link.
Patricia posted that the studies denying a link between abortion and ovarian and cervical cancer were published, those showing a breast cancer link were not. Odd that her research methods were acceptable for the politically correct results but not the politically incorrect one.
SOMG,
If the likes of Soros, the Rockefellers, and Bill Gates contributed to the med schools, there would be little need for Scaife or any other pro-lifers to contribute. Also, why did the schools succumb to the pressure to teach abortion if they had all these pro-life millions to back them up? Your argument doesn’t hold water SOMG so don’t talk to me about stupid questions.
Please SOMG, back up your claim that no woman goes to term who doesn’t want to because of the lack of an abortionist.
Mary, you wrote “Patricia posted that the studies denying a link between abortion and ovarian and cervical cancer were published, those showing a breast cancer link were not. Odd that her research methods were acceptable for the politically correct results but not the politically incorrect one. ”
We don’t know that’s the reason. Maybe the ovarian and cervical cancer studies were bigger. We can’t judge unless we read them.
But I agree that IF the journals are choosing articles by the political popularity of their results, that’s very bad and needs to be corrected.
SOMG 9:26PM
Let’s just say that it was incredibly coincidental.
Mary, you wrote: “If the likes of Soros, the Rockefellers, and Bill Gates contributed to the med schools, there would be little need for Scaife or any other pro-lifers to contribute. ”
To a corporate entity like a university here’s always a need for more money rather than less. No matter how much you already have. Especially in a scientific research institution like a (good) Med School.
You wrote: “Also, why did the schools succumb to the pressure to teach abortion if they had all these pro-life millions to back them up? ”
Some pressure to teach abortion techniques comes from the med students themselves.
You wrote: “Please SOMG, back up your claim that no woman goes to term who doesn’t want to because of the lack of an abortionist.”
I think if it were happening with any significant frequency, I’d have heard about it. It’s the sort of story the media would just slobber over.
It would have to be a woman who could not travel. Maybe someone absolutely destitute. Or someone who refused to drive for religious reasons like the Ahmish? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem very likely though.
SOMG,
If they had all these PL millions that you allege they have, they would not have to succumb to the pressure to teach abortion.
Pressure from the students? Right. The school is going to cave because of the powerless student? What’s the student going to do, threaten to drop out? I’ve been in post graduate education SOMG, and my “pressure” on the school wouldn’t have meant diddly squat. They would have tossed me in a minute.
The fact we don’t hear about something proves nothing. Do you expect that women would make the trek to tell you they had babies because they couldn’t get abortions? Women would run to the media and tell them they had their babies because they couldn’t have abortions? You think this would be something truly newsworthy? I sincerely think that the media, as well as the public, wouldn’t give two hoots.
“SoMG is a lot smarter than many people on Jill’s blog.”
Jasper: smart doesn’t mean wise though Doug. Judas was the smartest disciple.
There’s no necessary agreement on what “wisdom” is, here, though. All in all I’d say it’s more wise to allow women to keep the legal freedom they now have.
The Amish don’t “refuse to drive”. They are just a very simple people, choosing not to use modern conveniences.
I remember the McCaugheys (they have Septeplets) being pressured to “Selectively reduce” during her pregnancy. They refused to do so – and later they said they probably would have lost their son Kenny, Jr.
Not sure if the Dilleys were pressured, I just remember the McCaugheys.
First there’s this post:
Do you begin to see why I call some of you, those of you who imagine Daling’s study to be a convincing reply to the Melbye study (that means you, Patricia, Mary, Carder, and Rachel), stupid?
Another point: Daling’s study only followed its subjects into their forties. According to the National Cancer Institute the large majority of breast cancers occur in women older than age 50–see
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/about-tool.aspx#q3
That means Dr. Daling left the large majority of breast cancers completely out of her study. Weak.
Posted by: SoMG at May 18, 2008 8:17 PM
Then there’s this post:
Mary, you wrote: “Do you also have a problem with Daling’s research that showed NO connection between abortion and cervical and ovarian cancer?”
Mary, I haven’t read it so I have no problem with it. Maybe if I were to read it I would.
Posted by: SoMG at May 18, 2008 8:36 PM
Why are you commenting on a studies you don’t know a damn thing about, haven’t read, and therefore have absolutely NO idea as to whether the commentary you’ve posted is accurate or not.
You have absolutely NO idea why Dr. Daling chose the subjects she did. And you are in the medical field? NOT!
You see what I mean by intellectual dishonesty, SoMG.
Ah, probably not. Forget it.
BTW: keep up the ad hominem attacks, that really builds your case.
“There’s no necessary agreement on what “wisdom” is, here, though”
For the pro-lifers there is. Do no harm, Do not kill, Do not shed blood.
Patricia, SoMG wasn’t commenting about the details noted within the studies, he was merely comparing the number of women studied and some of the methods Daling used.
That’s not intellectual dishonesty. If I were looking for studies on a particular subject, I’d look for the one with the biggest number of diverse participants too, to ensure a wide range of results. If a pattern was located, great! If not, well, the hypothesis fails and another test begins. This hypothesis – that abortion leads to breast cancer – failed.
Perhaps it’s a sign from God to stop trying to scare women away from abortion with the false breast cancer link.
If abortion is so simple, and quick and painless and so safe, legal and rare how could we “scare women away from it?”
Do any of you who claim to be PC believe that abortion is completely RISK FREE? Just a little nothing procedure, no consequences…skip to my lou,
my darling.
Very few would be skipping to their lou, but I think the risks are downplayed. Just read SoMG’s explanation of the matter on the “Obama Preacher poster” thread. And he’s an abortion veteran!
Carla,
Of course not. No surgical procedure, no drug, is completely risk free. But to say we should ban abortion because there are risks makes as much sense as saying we should stop doing heart surgery or prescribing insulin shots because there are risks.
And saying abortion causes breast cancer is a scare tactic, and a lie for that matter. Thankfully, there are people who don’t feel the need to scare or lie to people in order to encourage them not to have abortions. For the rest of you … well, that’s shameful and pathetic. If you cannot convince someone with the truth alone then you don’t have a good argument.
Oh Edyt,
Look at Blessing. She is the truth.
SOMG,
Certainly a great thinker such as yourself, who can so arrogantly refer to others as “stupid”, is aware that in the field of epidemiology, no one study is definitive. Studies are ongoing and may support each other, contradict each other, or draw no conclusions of any kind. This applies to such areas as the vaccine/autism link, second hand smoke, and yes the abortion/breast cancer.
The abortion/breast cancer link is hardly some plot conjured up by pro-lifers. The first evidence of such a link was published in the April 1957 edition of the well known Japanese Journal of Cancer Research which is published in English.
You like to refer to the Danish study by Dr. Mads Melbye as if this study settles the question once and for all.
This study had some serious flaws. One of them was the use of only computerized records that went back to 1973, but abortions have been legal in Denmark since 1939. Records that went back before 1973 were available but not used. 63,401 women were classified as not having abortions when in fact they had. The misclassified women were older and more likely to develop breast cancer.
Second, the authors were aware their study compared younger women(more likely to have abortions but less likely to have cancer) with older women (who have fewer to no abortions and more cases of breast cancer). This was a potential source of error for which the authors made adjustments that effected the outcome of the study.
As of 1997, the Canadian cancer society was studying abortion as a cause for breast cancer.
An underreported study conducted in 1993 traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women, 500 had breast cancer, 500 did not, as they grew older. “Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience” confirmed the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than those who had not.
By the way, black women do indeed have higher rates of breast cancer and a disproportionately higher number of abortions.
What is especially noteworthy about Dr.Daling SOMG is that she was determined to prove there was NO abortion/breast cancer link. Unlike Melbye she interviewed her subjects exhaustively, she did not just review selected medical records. If her study would have been in any way biased, it would have more likely so been in support of her theory, not the opposite of what she was certain she would find.
All in all, most women who have breast cancer did not have abortions, most women who have abortions will not get breast cancer.
The studies are out there and women have every right to know they exist, to do their research, and to draw their own conclusions, just as we would urge parents to do their research on the various studies covering the vaccine/autism link.
“If you cannot convince someone with the truth alone then you don’t have a good argument.”
That’s what we’ve been trying to get through to you, PC. Apparently pictures of the truth isn’t enough.
Hodari’s kids in the trash wasn’t enough.
Ultrasounds aren’t enough.
And that other clown’s dumpster with the eyeball isn’t enough.
Or maybe we don’t recognize truth when it’s staring us in the face.
Or maybe we don’t recognize truth when it’s staring us in the face.
So you need to lie to prove a point?
Look, some people will see those photos and not choose abortion. Others will see them and be grossed out but not care. Some will see those photos and still believe abortion should be legal.
I don’t know how effective those photos have been. But showing pictures of animal cruelty has not stopped people from eating meat, nor has seeing violence on TV stopped people from killing others, nor have skulls and crossbones stopped people from smoking cigarettes.
Yes, they may affect some people, but not all. However, it’s dishonest to suddenly say “cigarettes cause people to turn green according to this study of 3 people!” to get people to stop smoking.
Photos can be truthful. Certainly they’re more truthful than a made up fact (unless the photo is doctored, or mislabeled). The question is how useful they are to prevent certain circumstances.
Mary, you wrote: “Certainly a great thinker such as yourself, who can so arrogantly refer to others as “stupid”,…”
Not arrogantly. Truthfully. Citing a small study like Daling’s as an answer to a giant study like Melbye’s without looking up their relative sizes IS stupid. It’s just a fact.
You wrote: “…is aware that in the field of epidemiology, no one study is definitive.”
True, but some studies are more meaningful than others. Some studies are MUCH more meaningful than others.
You wrote: “The abortion/breast cancer link is hardly some plot conjured up by pro-lifers. ”
Yes, that is EXACTLY what it is, today.
You wrote: “You like to refer to the Danish study by Dr. Mads Melbye as if this study settles the question once and for all.”
Not just me–virtually the whole medical community. Worldwide.
You wrote: “This study had some serious flaws. One of them was the use of only computerized records that went back to 1973, but abortions have been legal in Denmark since 1939. Records that went back before 1973 were available but not used.”
That’s a limitation, not a flaw. All data are limited.
You wrote: “Second, the authors were aware their study compared younger women(more likely to have abortions but less likely to have cancer) with older women (who have fewer to no abortions and more cases of breast cancer). This was a potential source of error for which the authors made adjustments that effected the outcome of the study.”
If they made adjustments for it, then it doesn’t matter. Unless you can show that they made the WRONG adjustments.
You wrote: “An underreported study conducted in 1993 traced the breast cancer experience of about 1,000 black women, 500 had breast cancer, 500 did not, as they grew older. “Breast Cancer Risk Factors in African American Women: The Howard University Tumor Registry Experience” confirmed the risks of breast cancer increased much more for women who had aborted than those who had not.”
A thousand women. Compare that with the Melbye study which followed 1.5 million women. The Howard study you cite would have to be repeated 1500 times in order to acquire the persuasive power of the Melbye study.
You wrote: “By the way, black women do indeed have higher rates of breast cancer and a disproportionately higher number of abortions.”
The higher rate of bc among negros could be for any of a large variety of causes. Genetics. Diet.
You wrote: “What is especially noteworthy about Dr.Daling SOMG is that she was determined to prove there was NO abortion/breast cancer link. Unlike Melbye she interviewed her subjects exhaustively, she did not just review selected medical records. ”
It’s better to review the medical records. If you get your information by interviewing, then you’re relying on the patient’s memory, which is not always right.
You wrote:”If her study would have been…”
Bad grammar. You should write: “If her study HAD been biased”, not “If her study WOULD HAVE BEEN biased.” A common grammatical error.
You wrote: “…in any way biased, it would have more likely so been in support of her theory, not the opposite of what she was certain she would find.”
I did not complain that her study was BIASED. I complained that it was SMALL.
You wrote: “The studies are out there and women have every right to know they exist, to do their research, and to draw their own conclusions, just as we would urge parents to do their research on the various studies covering the vaccine/autism link.”
That’s what they pay US to do FOR them. Most patients don’t know how to read epidiomological studies or how to judge how meaningful they are.
Like you, Mary.
Carla you wrote: “Do any of you who claim to be PC believe that abortion is completely RISK FREE?”
Nothing is completely risk-free. We claim that abortion is LESS risky than the childbirth it prevents.
By the way, Mary, there is no vaccine-autisim “link”. Don’t believe everything you read.
Carla, you wrote: “If abortion is so simple, and quick and painless and so safe, legal and rare how could we “scare women away from it?””
ANSWER: By lying. By exaggerating the truth-value of small, noisy studies. By selectively citing the studies that claim to show a link and leaving out the studies that show a protective effect (that abortion LOWERS the risk of subsequent breast cancer.)
SOMG,
Its not the numbers that make the difference. Didn’t I point out to you that 63,401 of the women in the study were determined not to have had abortions when in fact they did? You consider a study like this impressive and accurate just because it has a large number?
I would definitely consider a smaller study that meets strict criteria, including accuracy, and is based on interviews of subjects, not selectively picked medical records a very valid one.
Yes medical records are fine, but so is interviewing the subjects in addition to reviewing their records. You may obtain other valuable information such as lifestyle habits and activities. People are not always completely honest with their doctors nor do they tell them everything.
The “potential source of error” you cite did in fact effect the outcome. This “adjustment” all but guaranteed the results would show no risk. Until that was taken into consideration a 44% increase in the risk of breast cancer was indeed found.
I’m glad we agree SOMG that no one study is definitive and that this applies to Melbye’s as well.
While you ridicule the studies of both Daling and Howard University you do nothing to prove their inaccuracy. You talk of “size” which does not in itself discredit them.
Yes the higher rate among “negroes” may have to do with other factors or it may not. The study found abortion to be a factor.
By the way SOMG since you are kind enough to point out my “grammatical error” I will reciprocate by pointing out the term “negroes” is considered deragatory and the terms “black’ or “African-American” are preferred. I’m surprised that so enlightened a soul as you needs to be told this.
Read again SOMG, PL people did not conjure this up, we only bring up what has been in medical literature for the past 50 years.
Still arrogant and patronizing aren’t you SOMG, looking down on the peasantry. The American people need great thinkers like you to explain things to them. Quit flattering yourself.
Stuff your condescension SOMG, I can read studies just fine. I did not say I believe there is an autism/vaccine link I said the studies are out there that indicate there is, while others indicate there is not. I used it as an example. That’s why, unlike you SOMG who considers the common people too stupid to do so, I urge people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.
Any thoughts on the emotional or spiritual devastation that abortion brings? The suicides, the attempts, depression, drug abuse, hopelessness, guilt, shame and regret?
Oh never mind. They must have all been mentally ill and unstable before they had an abortion. It’s all in their heads.
Mary, you wrote: “While you ridicule the studies of both Daling and Howard University you do nothing to prove their inaccuracy. ”
I do not “ridicule” either of those studies. I only state that they are small. Compared to the Melbye study, VERY small.
Nor did I say that they weren’t “valid”. Just small.
I thought “black” was considered more derogatory these days than “negro”. I guess I’ll have to ask a black person. I object to the term “African-American” because it is not descriptive. For instance, Kim du Toit (the right-wing gun-freak blogger) is African-American but not black or negro (he is a white immigrant from South Africa).
Mary, you also wrote: “Its not the numbers that make the difference.”
Yes, I’m afraid that numbers like 1.5 million vs 1,806 or 1000 DO make a difference. A very important difference.
You wrote: “Didn’t I point out to you that 63,401 of the women in the study were determined not to have had abortions when in fact they did? ”
Yes you did, and if this is true it is a potential source of error. But 63,401 is still a small number compared to the overall size of the study. It would not affect the final results very much. Here’s a good exercise for you–go read the details of the Melbye study and see if you can calculate how different the final results would have been without the error.
“You consider a study like this impressive and accurate just because it has a large number?”
Again, not just me. Virtually the whole medical community worldwide. Again, ask your doctor or look up the opinion of any mainstream medical or scientific or epidemiological organization that has expressed an opinion.
To understand WHY big studies mean more than small studies, consider an extreme case. Suppose I want to determine the probability that a flipped coin comes up tails. In order to do this I flip a coin once. If it comes up heads I conclude that flipped coins ALWAYS come up heads. If it comes up tails, I conclude that flipped coins ALWAYS come up tails.
Why does this study give me a wrong answer? ANSWER: It’s too small.
Carla, you wrote: “Any thoughts on the emotional or spiritual devastation that abortion brings?”
Only three–that it’s very difficult to measure, enormously exaggerated by right-to-life propagandists, and probably not very common.
Remember, Ronald Reagan’s right-to-life Surgeon General C. Everett Koop estimated the cost to society of “Post-Abortion Syndrome” as approximately nil.
You wrote: “They must have all been mentally ill and unstable before they had an abortion.”
You said it, I didn’t.
You wrote: “It’s all in their heads.”
Isn’t all spiritual or emotional devastation in the head?
Thanks Somg.
Since I have had an abortion and suffered all of the above and more I would say you are wrong.
It is the same crap I have heard about all women who have had abortions. It’s all in my head, I must have been mentally unstable. Downplay the negatives and in the end you still have millions of dead babies and millions of hurting women and men.
Spiritual and emotional devastation is of the soul.
Carla, you wrote: “Since I have had an abortion and suffered all of the above and more I would say you are wrong.”
“All of the above”– does that include “suicide”, which was in your above list of bad effects of abortion?. Are you currently posting from the afterlife?
How do you think you should be punished for hiring someone to murder your unborn baby? Death? Life in prison? How?
Do you really believe the abortion you had is THE cause of your suffering? If you’d had a baby instead everything would be hunky-dory with you?
Ok skip suicide. I attempted, Smarty Pants.
You asked me the how should I be punished question before. I never answered. Do I have an answer for you now? Nope.
I really believe that my abortion was the cause of suffering in my life. Yes, I really believe it. If I had had that baby it would not have been easy but I would have given her life. She would have been 17 years old this year.
Who’s life is hunky dory??!! I am happy for you if yours is.
I have to agree with MK that at least you are honest. I admire that. As much as I disagree with you, I admire your honesty.
Carla, how did you attempt suicide? By what method?
Just curious. Don’t answer if it’s too personal.
SOMG,
I’m sure 63,401 misclassified subjects is a small number in your totally unbiased opinion SOMG, especially considering these were older women and more likely to have breast cancer than younger ones. I already pointed out to you that when the data was adjustmented to address the errors, a 44% increased risk of breast cancer was found.
Another fact not mentioned was that the study found a decrease in both abortion AND breast cancer rates for women born since 1950, after adjusting for age.
Showing a correlation perhaps?
The statement “by exaggerating the truth of small noisy studies” doesn’t ridicule them? Calling people stupid for reading and considering a study isn’t trivializing and ridiculing it?
Oh, so you do agree the study us valid since you deny suggesting it wasn’t?
Furthermore I said the researcher went into this study with a bias in favor of there being NO abortion/breast cancer link. I didn’t say you thought it was a biased study.
In fact it has been recommended that subgroups be studied to better determine a breast cancer/abortion risk such as women who breast fed, the number of menstrual periods, miscarriages and when they occured, etc.
Are the medical associations you mention all epidemiologists? Furthermore, they may change their minds if they knew of the decrease in abortion AND breast cancer rates that occured in women born since 1950 and the raw data which showed a 44% increased risk of breast cancer that did not appear in the study.
SOMG, 12:07PM
Why on earth would you ask Carla a question like that? Why is it even relevant?
Mary, you wrote: “I’m sure 63,401 misclassified subjects is a small number in your totally unbiased opinion SOMG, …”
You wouldn’t call 63,401 a small number compared with 1.5 million???
You wrote: “I already pointed out to you that when the data was adjustmented …”
What does “adjustmented” mean?
You wrote: “…to address the errors, a 44% increased risk of breast cancer was found.”
I don’t believe that. There’s no way such a small number of misclassifications could make the difference between results of zero increased risk and 44% increased risk of b/c resulting from abortion.
Also, if you were right, Dr. Melbye would have had to publish a retraction of his NEJM article which described the study. If Melbye had had to retract his article, it would have been BIG NEWS in the gyn and cancer communities and probably the epidemiology community as well. There’s no way this could happen without my being aware of it. Besides being big news, such a retraction would have to be published in NEJM, and I would have seen it.
I think I can tell where you’re making your error. According to right-to-life propagandist Joel Brind, “Melbye and his colleagues show enough data to compute the unadjusted relative risk, and this calculation shows a 44 percent risk increase…. ” That suggests that the 44% you mentioned was the UNADJUSTED RELATIVE RISK resulting from the original data, NOT the result obtained after correcting the misclassified data.
(“Unadjusted relative risk” means the risk calculated WITHOUT first adjusting the data to account for confounding factors such as age and parenthood).
You wrote: “Calling people stupid for reading and considering a study isn’t trivializing and ridiculing it? ”
Calling people stupid for failing to learn the size of a study before citing it in an argument does not trivialize or ridicule the study in question, no. It trivializes and ridicules the people who fail to learn the size of the study before using it in an argument. In other words, you.
You wrote: “Oh, so you do agree the study us valid since you deny suggesting it wasn’t? ”
Sure it’s valid (that is, I have no reason to think it isn’t; I suppose I should read the actual study before saying it’s valid) as far as it goes. It just doesn’t go very far, that’s all. “Valid” doesn’t mean “right”. Especially if the valid study is small.
You wrote: “Why on earth would you ask Carla a question like that [how she attempted suicide]?”
Because suicide (and attempted suicide) is another subject in which I am interested. Despite what you may think, abortion is not the only thing I think about.
By the way, the Brind quotation I mentioned comes from here:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9705/opinion/brind.html
“Carla,
Of course not. No surgical procedure, no drug, is completely risk free. But to say we should ban abortion because there are risks makes as much sense as saying we should stop doing heart surgery or prescribing insulin shots because there are risks.”
Posted by: Edyt at May 19, 2008 3:09 PM
No doubt, and if we’d ban abortion due to risk then having kids would have to be banned first, since there’s a lot more risk to giving birth than for almost all abortions.
Yes, Jenna ban childbirth.
SOMG,
No I don’t consider that a small number of misclassified subjects. Apparently Dr.Brind does not either.
“It is extremely disturbing that this number did not appear in the paper”. A quote by Dr.Brind concerning the 44% increase in breast cancer risk from abortion. This is the raw data.
If you read the entire article SOMG, you would realize that Dr. Brind gives a very sound argument as to why this Danish study is flawed. Thank you for making me aware of it.
Dr.Brind a PL propagandist?
Do you mean the same Dr.Brind,Ph.D who is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch University and who since 1982 has researched on the connection between hormones and human disease, especially breast cancer?
The same Joel Brind who’s peer-reviewed paper on the subject of abortion/breast cancer “Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis, which he wrote in collaboration with colleagues (I’m sure they were all PL propagandists also) at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey PA, appeared in the 1996 Journal of Epidemiology
Oh darn I hit the “post”button! Let me continue where I left off above,
and community health, published by the British Medical Association.
Since the publication of this paper Dr.Brind has been invited to discuss this issue on major news channels such as CNN, CBC, NBC, NPR, and ABC, as well as in various newspapers and magazines.
Not bad for a “propagandist”
Again, thanks for the article SOMG, it was the best one I read yet on how flawed the Melbye study was.
SOMG,
In my quote of Dr. Brind (3:12PM) from the article you so kindly linked me to I must correct something. He in fact said
“It is extremely disturbing, from a scientific point of view, that this number did not appear in the paper”.
Mary, you wrote: “No I don’t consider that a small number of misclassified subjects. ”
It’s less than five percent of the study. What do YOU call “small”?
You wrote: “Dr.Brind a PL propagandist?”
Yes, a very well-known one.
“Do you mean the same Dr.Brind,Ph.D who is a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch University …”
Yes, that’s him.
You wrote: “…the same Joel Brind who’s peer-reviewed paper on the subject of abortion/breast cancer “Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis, which he wrote in collaboration with colleagues (I’m sure they were all PL propagandists also) at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey PA, appeared in the 1996 Journal of Epidemiology
and community health, published by the British Medical Association.”
Two comments: First of all, meta-analyses (of ANY topic) are, with few exceptions, bullshit; authorship of one proves only that the author knows how to read. Secondly, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health is not a very impressive journal.
You wrote: “Since the publication of this paper Dr.Brind has been invited to discuss this issue on major news channels such as CNN, CBC, NBC, NPR, and ABC, as well as in various newspapers and magazines.”
Doesn’t mean a thing. When the mainstream media report on a question like this, they usually try to present both sides, regardless of how silly or discredited one side may be. This policy was recently satirized by a writer (I forget who) who invented a headline referring to the Flat-Earth people: “Shape of the Earth: views differ”. The fact that Brind got to do the public lecture/TV circuit only means he’s one of the few people with advanced degrees who are still willing to argue in public for the discredited hypothesis that abortion increases the risk for subsequent breast cancer. I bet if you looked you’d find that his work is funded by right-to-life organizations, not by scientific granting agencies.
Michael Behe, a second-rate biochemist, has done the TV lecture circuit and published in the NYTimes because he’s one of the most visible proponents of the overfunded pseudoscience called “Intelligent Design Theory”. It doesn’t mean he’s especially smart or likely to be right.
The phenomenon of scientists who choose to swap their scientific careers for public fame by throwing their support behind popular crank-theories deserves further study. Another interesting example is Professor Peter Duesberg, the UC Berkeley retrovirologist who became a cult hero among HIV-positive people and got himself on the mainstream-media lecture circuit (including NPR’s program All Things Considered, no less) and authored a lucrative book by claiming to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that HIV does not cause AIDS. His claims went far beyond reasonable scientific skepticism–he claimed he was so sure he was right and everybody else was wrong that he was willing to inject himself with HIV (although he never actually did this). You could write a book, or at least a dissertation, about these guys.
SOMG,
Come on SOMG, you’re starting to sound petulant. Dr.Brind is a propagandist, (all in the point of view), his credentials and his extensive research in the area of hormones and human disease, especially breast cancer, well we’ll just ignore that. I suppose his colleagues were propagandists as well since they collaborated with him on the paper, and his paper, though peer reviewed is irrelevant and printed by an insignificant journal.
Despite all this total irrelevancy he is invited onto various news programs, none of them bastions of right wing thought or PL sympathies, who would just be itching to get the word out that there may be an abortion/breast cancer connection. They’re the people who would least want this to get out!
Nice try SOMG. By the way, thanks again for the article. Did you read the whole article by the way? Very interesting and informative.
Mary, regarding Brind’s meta-analysis, read this:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/aane1178.htm
Money quote (but read the whole thing): “…other medical researchers were either cautious or highly critical
about the Brind study. Some insisted that even using the study’s own
statistics, the increase in breast cancer is “barely statistically
significant.” They also point out the the authors of the report call the
increase ”relatively low.”
Others criticized the methodology of Brind and his team. Yesterday’s
report was actually a combination of 23 different epideiological studies done
over a period of 35 years. … Critics note that “meta-analysis” is not always
useful, and cannot take into account the different designs and control
factors used in different research trials and studies. ”
Brind is a right-to-life born-again Christian and frequent speaker on religious radio programs. See http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/joel-brind/
This doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s wrong, but it’s worth knowing.
Continuing….
The following is from http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n2/chamberlain_politicized_science.html
“The most prominent advocate of the position that abortion is linked to breast cancer is a good example of an agenda-driven scientist. Joel Brind, a Baruch College professor, identifies his conversion from Judaism to Christianity as the turning point in his career which until that time had been focused on general endocrinology. After his conversion experience, he joined the National Right to Life Committee.5 “With a new belief in a meaningful universe, I felt compelled to use science for its noblest, life-saving purpose,…”
The site also points out that “Brind does not conduct basic research himself, he reviews data collected and analyzed by others.”
Gotta go. More later.
SOMG,
Is an atheist publication less biased than a born again one?
Your source states that scientists conclude there could be an abortion/breast cancer link, it could be hormone related, and more studies are needed.
I couldn’t agree more. Keep the studies going.
“There’s no necessary agreement on what “wisdom” is, here, though”
Jasper: For the pro-lifers there is. Do no harm, Do not kill, Do not shed blood.
Well, yeah, I know you feel that way and so do some others, but that abortion is such a debate shows you the lack of agreement. There is much greater harm, IMO, in not allowing women the legal freedom they now have.
Mary, you wrote: “Is an atheist publication less biased than a born again one?”
If the subject is abortion, then yes, a born-again author arouses suspicion of bias. Not certainty, but suspicion.
SOMG,
In your totally unbiased opinion.
SOMG,
Its the considerably less biased(in your opinion) atheist publication that reported the scientists who acknowledge the possibility of an abortion/breast cancer link that may induced by hormones. They urged more studies.
I think they may be less biased than you expected SOMG.
If the subject is abortion, then yes, a born-again author arouses suspicion of bias. Not certainty, but suspicion.
Posted by: SoMG at May 20, 2008 11:38 PM
If the subject is abortion, an abortion doctor arouses suspicion of bias as well.
It wouldn’t be to your advantage to report anything that would hurt your cause. That’s human nature. There’s no getting around this perception for either side that I can see.
I don’t think Dr. Melbye is an abortion doc.
SoMG: I didn’t say he was.