New Stanek WND column, “Planned Parenthood aims at mom and pop chop shops”
I obviously don’t have the cutthroat business drive that Planned Parenthood executives have. Few do.
So I couldn’t understand why PP was erecting its huge Aurora, IL, abortion mill in DuPage County, which was already disgraced by four independent mills, while neighboring, baby-booming Chicago collar counties remained abortion free.
But it hit me when listening to one of 124 citizens speak against the Aurora mill during the 7-1/2 hour city council meeting last week. This person told council members their accountability reached beyond Aurora, since PP would feed mothers and children to this mill from PP expresses in neighboring communities.
Of course, I realized. Master plan. My mind began defragging random newspaper clippings and dates it had stored…. Master plan. Build satellites first. Then build the anti-mother ship. Then zap the competition to pieces, like a D&E abortion….
Planned Parenthood, the Wal-Mart of the abortion industry…. Who will rescue these poor mom-and-pop chop shops from the savage Planned Parenthood abortion cartel?
Continue reading my column today, “Planned Parenthood aims at mom and pop chop shops”, on WorldNetDaily.com.
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, outstanding job! You framed their tactic in a way that would hopefully open the eyes of a few of PP’s supporters.
I’ve been reading up on this PP mill in Aurora…
I thought to myself: Wouldn’t ANYONE else that LIED on their building permit app be penalized in some way?? I can’t imagine their city officials being okay with a business that conceals it’s identity and the purpose of a development.
I’ve been involved in a number of residential building projects and I KNOW their would have been major problems with the city if we hadn’t disclosed or lied about usage of the property. This being a large commercial project, wouldn’t it be an even bigger issue?
Doesn’t the city council have a problem with this?
PP: The “Wal-Mart” of the abort industry. Good characterization.
What do you think there motive is if not the medical well being of their clients? Is anyone at Planned Parenthood making a lot more money as a result of increased presence? It’s easy to say they’re “cutthroat business people” but why would they be doing this?
Hal, motive: Sell contraception. Big profit margin. Sell abortions when contraceptives undoubtedly fail.
Yes, it’s all about money and the power that comes with it, Hal.
who’s getting the money?? What individual or group has more money or power as Planned Parenthood extends its services to more women? If no one personally profits, I don’t see how we can accept your premise.
Jill, do you really think PP’s clients would be abstinant if they couldn’t get contraceptives from PP?
If the goal is to make profit off abortions when contraceptives fail, then why does PP teach that abstinance is the only way to be perfectly secure?
Just wondering.
as conspiracy theories go, this one is a bit out there. Can’t you consider the possibility that they are sincere in their effots (misguided in your view) that they are providing useful services to women?
Hal –
Planned Parenthood Federation of America had an “Excess of Revenue and over expenses” of 55.8 million dollars with a total net asset for the year ending June 30, 2006 of 839.8 million dollars.
This is according to their annaul report for 2005-2006.
You really think no one is benifiting from this?
———
Also, wouldn’t such a large building for minimal heath care services make the patients more of an assembly line product than patients?
*** what I mean by “minimal health care” is that they do not do “all” forms of health care, only ones related to the reproductive system.
who is getting this money??? the fact that the non-profit federation has money doesn’t mean any individual is profiting. Do the people making the decisions to open new clinics get anything out of it? If not, we can assume their motives are pure.
Re: “Minimal health care”. Part of PP’s mission is to provide reproductive care AT MINIMAL COST TO THE PATIENTS.
Abortion accounts for only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/pp-services-5552.htm
Planned Parenthood Services
Planned Parenthood
EXCELLENT column. How sad that the mark of your excellence has to be applied to such a horrific list of facts of death, deception, and horror to child, mother, family, and of course country.
Jim,
So women’s reproductive health care (not abortions) is a fact of death, deception and horror to child, mother, family and of course country? Interesting.. I though a woman keeping her baby would need prenatal vitamins and check ups. God forbid she get them at PP, even if she has no health insurance.
SOMG:
They do say abstinence is the only way to be perfectly clear. Then they go on to tell you how difficult it is to abstain.
From the Planned Parenthood website section on abstinence:
Possible Problems:
– People may find it difficult to abstain for long periods of time.
– Women and men often end their abstinence without being prepared to protect themselves against pregnancy or infection.
***here they imply that it is best to have a birth control method available, just in case. Most studies have shown that when people have accessability to BC they are more likely to have sex and break an abstinent committment. Actually, you don’t even need to look at those studies. BC became readily available around the same time as the “sexual revolution”. After BC was more available, pregnancy rates increased and new STI have been passed between people in greater numbers.
“Staying Abstinent
Before you need to make a sexual decision
Women and men need to be clear about their reasons and values to stay abstinent. When you are in a sexual situation, it helps to be able to remember why you made the decision to be abstinent in the first place. How can you stay abstinent? Think about your answers to these questions:
– Am I aware of situations that could make staying abstinent difficult for me? Can I avoid them?
– I know alcohol and other drugs can affect my judgment and decision-making ability. How do I feel about not using them?
– Are there people in my life I can talk to about my decision to abstain from sex play? Will they be supportive?”
************ Let’s start with the first question – The word “avoid” is what is called a negative word. It gives the reader a negative view of the situation that is being discussed. Something that needs to be avoided is something that you should stay clear from. they are not saying “how do I avoid sex. ” They are saying “how do I avoid the situation that leads to sex”. Many may take this as “no parties, no drinking, no having fun.” Postive words for this situation would be “confront” – “How would I confront this situation if it arises”. This gives one a feeling of empowerment. They don’t have to “avoid” they can confront it. Another word would be “go around” as in “How do I go around any situation that may lead to sex.” This would be more of a neutral word, it still says you can be “in that situation” without avoiding that situation.
second question – You cannot use alchohol? or do you need to be more responsible when drinking. Once again – a negative feeling about the situation.
third question – almost all adults say “They are going to do it anyway”. How are people suppose to find some sort of support system. Especially when popular culture is against abstaining.
*************
More to come…. Son just got off bus. Daughter is waking up from nap….
It isn’t all some vast conspiracy to ‘kill’ our ‘unborn children.’ (Words are in quotes because I dispute their accuracy.) PP offers a variety of very important reproductive health services to women. One of my friend’s mother went to PP for prenatal care.
Midnite –
Out of 10,112,642 services provided by Planned Parenthood Federation of America they only had 12,548 prenatal clients. That number is down 5,062 clients from the year before.
From the Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2005-2006.
They did 264,943 abortions in that same year. That is an increase of 9,928 from the year before.
Hi laura.
“Abortion accounts for only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services”
This is meaningless if you kill 264,943 babies in one year. I don’t care if you’re about to cure cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes. If your organization kills babies, I can’t support it. Period. I’ve mentioned it before, but the same thing can be said of the Nazis. They did other things than terminate Jews. There is a reason we don’t concentrate on the “good” the Nazis did because the bad they did was so horrific. Nothing else matters if they kill babies, which needs to be the heart of the debate. Not to mention that many of these other “services” involve dispensing contraception, which is the heart of abortion. Look at this article http://www.tldm.org/news4/contraception_abortion.htm
or numerous other articles that can be found on the internet that point out this link. They create a “need” for contraception, and then when the contraception fails, PP is waiting their with open arms all to eager to fix the “problem.” I’m sure there are many employees of PP that mean well and that really do believe that they are helping women, but when you step back and look at the information rationally and objectively, it should become clear that PP is doing just the opposite. God love you, Laura.
Valerie, you wrote: “They do say abstinence is the only way to be perfectly clear. Then they go on to tell you how difficult it is to abstain.”
So what? It IS difficult. And “abstinance-only” education doesn’t make it any easier. This was shown by the recent study that showed that “abstinance-only” education does not prevent people from engaging in sexual activity.
You wrote: “[PP says that] Women and men often end their abstinence without being prepared to protect themselves against pregnancy or infection.”
This IS a substantial cause of unplanned pregnancy. Why shouldn’t PP warn people about it?
You wrote: “Most studies have shown that when people have accessability to BC they are more likely to have sex and break an abstinent committment.”
Sounds like BS to me. Can you cite even one of these alleged “studies”? How would you conduct a study like this, in a country like the USA where virtually everyone has easy access to BC? Who would your control group be?
You wrote: “…Actually, you don’t even need to look at those studies. BC became readily available around the same time as the “sexual revolution”. After BC was more available, pregnancy rates increased and new STI have been passed between people in greater numbers.”
That was because of the sexual revolution, not because of the BC. Without BC pregnancy rates would have increased MORE, and without condoms STIs would have increased MORE.
Bobby Bambino, you wrote ” They create a “need” for contraception, and then when the contraception fails, PP is waiting their with open arms all to eager to fix the “problem.”
You think PP creates the need for contraception?
Does the electrician create the need for light?
Valerie:
I am not saying that the rates may or may not be up or down (regarding abortions). But that is not the only thing that PP performs. They do other wonderful services that help women’s reproductive health. and yet no one seems to notice, or even care about the other services.
Planned Parenthood, the Wal-Mart of the abortion industry…
Gotta love that meme. Here’s hoping it catches on.
Laura –
“Abortion Services
Hi Anonymous.
“You think PP creates the need for contraception?”
Yes. According to Planned Parenthoods “Declaration of Sexual Rights” http://www.plannedparenthood.org/sexual-health/sexual-health-relationship/sexual-rights.htm
number 5 says that I have the RIGHT to sexual pleasure. According to PP, that is yours, and mine, and everyones right. Also, Sexual right number 1 is the right to sexual freedom. So it is in my rights to have sexual pleasure and sexual freedom. Well, biology tells me that if I want to take advantage of these rights and engage in sex, I risk pregnancy. So if I don’t want to get a women pregnant, I need contraception. This is just one way to see how they create this need. God love you, sir/madam.
So Bobby Bambino, are you saying that if we closed down all the PPs, people would no longer need contraceptives?
number 5 says that I have the RIGHT to sexual pleasure. According to PP, that is yours, and mine, and everyones right. Also, Sexual right number 1 is the right to sexual freedom. So it is in my rights to have sexual pleasure and sexual freedom. Well, biology tells me that if I want to take advantage of these rights and engage in sex, I risk pregnancy. So if I don’t want to get a women pregnant, I need contraception.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, Bobby – you can exercise your right to sexual pleasure ALL BY YOURSELF.
No risk of pregnancy.
No need for contraceptives.
Hi SoMG.
“So Bobby Bambino, are you saying that if we closed down all the PPs, people would no longer need contraceptives?”
Wow, that would be a great start. Our culture would then need to recover the true meaning of human sex and sexuality, though. But I certainly believe that PP is a HUGE part of the problem. The thing is, they’ve done so much damage already that it will be difficult to reverse. But I’m optimistic. God love you, SoMG.
SOMG:
“So what? It IS difficult. And “abstinance-only” education doesn’t make it any easier. This was shown by the recent study that showed that “abstinance-only” education does not prevent people from engaging in sexual activity.”
My point is that when describing the difficulties only negative adjective/words were used. This gives one the feeling that this method is hopeless. If I know this about the english language, you know most everyone else does! (Don’t say it! Bad SOMG!)
Also – I’ve been showing left and right how one (anyone!) can skew statistics to meet their needs. It is amazing actually how much it is done. I knew it was done in commercials, but all these studies (from all sides) is amazing to me. With the abstince only, I read (don’t know where, could be bogus – but worth thinking about) that they only studied 2 programs. If that is the case, that is not a good representation of the population. I’m trying to find more info on that though…I’ll let Jill know if I do find anything….
“This IS a substantial cause of unplanned pregnancy. Why shouldn’t PP warn people about it?”
Once again – they should warn. But should they be so negative about their warnings? (Like statistics – words can be deceptive giving one a false sense of security, or giving one a negative sense of actions…)
“Sounds like BS to me. Can you cite even one of these alleged “studies”? How would you conduct a study like this, in a country like the USA where virtually everyone has easy access to BC? Who would your control group be?”
Hook, Line and Sinker! Sorry, SOMG – I said that on purpose. Wasn’t the whole control group issue my argument once? Didn’t you say I was being rediculous? I believe I showed how the whole “ten times more likely” is BS because there is no control group and the study is unscientific. However, I did read that statement several times. Completely biased sources. I could post them, but I know they are biased and won’t be accepted (even by me is some cases).
“That was because of the sexual revolution, not because of the BC. Without BC pregnancy rates would have increased MORE, and without condoms STIs would have increased MORE.”
The whole Birth control argument started with Margaret Sanger at the ending of the 19 century and beginning of the 20th century. Birth Control was available to women before the sexual revolution began in the late 1950’s / early 1960’s.
Something like 18 million new STI’s are reported every year. (this is not 18 million new STI’s identified, it is new cases of the STI’s out there). 9.1 million are among people 15 – 24. I just don’t think condoms are working against this, do you? (Statistice from the Guttmatcher website)
There is a higher number of teen pregnancy in the last part of the 20the century than in the first part. I don’t need a research paper to tell me that.
Midnite –
“They do other wonderful services that help women’s reproductive health. and yet no one seems to notice, or even care about the other services. ”
(ug…can’t believe I’m about to go here….but it is the only “comparison” I can think of right now.)
Many serial killers did alot of nice things. However, the termination of many lives caused them to be considered unsuitable to stay in society. It didn’t matter that the nice things outweighed the deaths, what mattered is the deaths.
(see how words can be manipulated? Termination of lives = murder…hmmm… couldn’t help it.)
Laura –
“you can exercise your right to sexual pleasure ALL BY YOURSELF.
No risk of pregnancy.
No need for contraceptives.”
yes but it can be very frustrating when B.O.B. runs out of batteries.
(I couldn’t help it. I’m in a strange mood today!)
*pppbbbbbtttttt*
Valerie: There is a higher number of teen pregnancy in the last part of the 20the century than in the first part. I don’t need a research paper to tell me that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, there were WAY more teen pregnancies in the early part of the last century, and the very worst year for teen pregnancies was 1957.
(There’s a great book on this called “The Way We Never Were.”)
“Teenage birth rates have gone up and down over the last 60+ years. Where do the teenage birth rates stand now? The statistics point to a downward trend, which hopefully can be continued in the coming years.
From 1940 to 1957 the teenage birth rate climbed a staggering 78 percent. It then dropped until the mid-1980s when it jumped 24 percent. Then in the early 1990s, it began to decline and has continued to decline since. What has helped fuel this decline in the recent years?
Research is pointing to teenage pregnancy prevention programs, contraception availability and just overall more education on the problems associated with teenage pregnancy and unsafe sex to the drop in numbers. In looking at a state-by-state comparison, the drop in numbers varies (please see the article on teenager pregnancy statistics for more information). As of 2004, the number of live births to teenage mothers across the United States was 415,408. And the number of births to teenagers in the United States aged 15-19 was 41.2 out of a 1,000.
Unfortunately the United States still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies when compared to other counties of similar status. Some have questioned this because they do not feel the teenagers in the United States are any more sexually active then those in similar countries. It goes back to education about sex and pregnancy prevention within the schools and homes. More should and can be done to help the teenage birth rates decline even more.
Teenagers who have babies are more likely to not finish high school and have their future plans interrupted. This leads to less income and more people in poverty. Also, babies born to teenager moms have a more likely chance of having a low birth weight and this can lead to all sorts of medical problems later in life. And if these children grow up in homes where their families have a hard time supporting them, they grow up in poverty and do not always have access to good and sometimes any healthcare.
Teaching teenagers about safe sex and the problems associated with pregnancy can go a long way in helping the teenager birth rate to continue to drop. Some scholars point out that more readily available contraception can help teenagers make safe sex decisions while still others feel this will only aggravate the problem. The only true way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy is abstinence. However not everyone values abstinence so pregnancy prevention programs also promote safe sex practices.”
Teenage Birth Rates Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Fastats,
Valerie:
Point taken. But the law does not see what they do (abortions) as illegal. So, it’s not really “fit” to compare them to a serial killer (only my opinion though)…
Valerie, you wrote: “I believe I showed how the whole “ten times more likely” is BS because there is no control group and the study is unscientific. ”
No, dear, you ASSERTED that it’s BS but you didn’t PROVE it. You made one (weak) argument: you suggested that Guttmacher may be overreporting the number of abortions to make the death rate look lower, but that’s silly.
When comparing two groups (the group that has abortion vs the group that has childbirth) no control is necessary. Or (to put the same thing another way), you could say that the childbirth group is the control (the group that doesn’t get abortions).
Laura is right–teens in the USA are not any more sexually active than teens in Europe, in the USA the pregnancy rate is higher. The reason: Europe does a better job of educating teens on the use of BC.
You also wrote: “Something like 18 million new STI’s are reported every year. (this is not 18 million new STI’s identified, it is new cases of the STI’s out there). 9.1 million are among people 15 – 24. I just don’t think condoms are working against this, do you? ”
That’s not a legitimate conclusion. Without condoms, there would be MORE than 18 million new STI’s every year.
For someone who claims some expertise in statistics, you do not reason very logically.
Midnite –
As I pointed out on another thread.
The law used to say slavery was legal.
The law used to prevent women from voting.
Just becuase it is legal, doesn’t make it right. And just because it is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.
This is why teaching morality is important. Not religious morality, just morality as a whole. We didn’t need religion to prove that the slaves were human and deserved human rights. We needed morality to teach us that color doesn’t change anything, a person is a person deserving of all human rights. We didn’t need religion to prove that women can think and have a right to vote, moraltiy taught us that sex doesn’t change anything, a person is a person deserving of all human rights.
Never lose the concept of what is right and what is wrong based on legality. If society had always done that, we would still be watching Gladiator fight to the death in huge arena’s.
Yes but comparing abortion to slavery or the Holocaust is silly and pointless. They’re completely different things and don’t need to be grouped together…
Hi Valerie.
“[Valerie] claims some expertise in statistics”-SoMG
Are you a statistician? I’m a mathematician. That would make us, like, what, academic cousins? BTW, I really like your blog; I’ve been reading it for a long time. God love you.
Laura –
“No, there were WAY more teen pregnancies in the early part of the last century, and the very worst year for teen pregnancies was 1957.”
The sexual revolution started at the end of the 1950’s so this doesn’t suprise me.
Also, the big push for contraception for all began in 1917 according to Margaret Sanger’s autobiography that was published in 1939 – I think ’39)
So if the beginning trend of teenage pregnancy began around 1940 – it still proves my point. Once people thought the could prevent pregnancy, the pregnancy rates started to rise.
Following is part of an interivew with Eric Harrah former abortion clinic chain owner addressing PP and their intentions. To read the whole interview go to:
http://www.abortionfacts.com
Eric Harrah was part owner of one of the nation’s largest chains of abortion clinics. He recently converted to Christianity and walked away from the lucrative business of killing unborn children. Dr. Willke and Brad Mattes interviewed him regarding his involvement in the abortion industry.
W: You
Hey there midnight.
“comparing abortion to slavery or the Holocaust is silly and pointless. They’re completely different things and don’t need to be grouped together…”
Well, try and look at it from our point of view for a minute. I know and respect the fact that you don’t believe the fetus/embryo is not a human person, but just assume for a moment that it is. If it is a human person, then we have destroyed 47 million (or so) human beings who all hadn’t been born. The Nazis destroyed 5 million (or so) human beings who were Jews. We also had an entire group of people that weren’t considered human beings and hence were given as property. So if you look at it from our point of view, the comparison makes perfect sense. I know that you don’t agree with us on the personhood of the unborn, but my point is that these comparisons should follow logically from the assumption that an unborn is a person. The personhood of the unborn is really where we differ, but then from there, we should at least understand the logical conclusions that each of our positions take based on our assumptions. God love you, midnight.
Bobby,
As a mathematician could you look over Valeries posts on statistics and explain it in a language that SoMG could understand? She put up a very long, very well researched post which SoMG ignored. I reposted it and he still ignored it. He keeps referring to her “short” post which she later expounded on…
We would LOVE your help and input…
Your column – absolutely right on! Could I say dead on? I have always known that PP’s plan was to be the only “hold out” as many other smaller mills shut down. They have the public funds (ie your money) to support their “business” while other mills have to earn their money the old fashioned way.
In California, years ago, Edward Allred sued PP for unfair business practices. PP was a non-profit, competing with his for-profit empire. I was at the trial lapping up my two enemies insults they hurled at each other.
Then on day two of the trial, an amazing thing happened and the whole lawsuit settled in an instant. PP ran a bill through the house, senate, and Gov Davis signed it into law at lightning speed — one day! The new law allowed PP to compete with the for-profits butchers.
I was stunned at their political muscle. And Allred’s mills have been on the decline ever since.
PP is so well connected that the destroy their enemies. I know, I’ve been sued by them.
Tiller is in it for the money, like Allred. We can get to them fairly easy. But PP is an evil monolith who’s agenda is not money. They have the same goal as their lying daddy; steal, kill and destroy.
My main goal is to put PP out of business. But first Tiller and all the lesser demons.
Hi MK. I actually don’t know too much statistics, but I’ll do what I can. Is it a post on this thread? God love you.
“But PP is an evil monolith who’s agenda is not money.”
See? that’s what I’ve been saying. Not the “evil” part, but that they’re not motivated by money.
Bobby-
OK, what about the fact that for a long time women were viewed as property?? Up until not so long ago, a woman’s only mission in life was to be a homemaker and a baby machine.
Also, I never “claimed” that fetus was not a person. It is a human. We just differ on who has more rights. I can not be forced to give you an organ or a blood transfusion, nor can I force you to do that same for me. That has been deemed “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court (look up Shimp vs. McCall). I don’t understand why you are affording more rights to the unborn that we as born people do not have.
Excuse me, MK, I did reply to Valerie’s post (go read my reply) and her post was NOT well-researched.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 5, 2007 4:20 PM
Good point Bobby-also the proabort argument is the same the proslave argument was ie the slaves were not person ergo had no rights. It was a bad argument then and it’s a bad argument now and just because 7 twits didn’t get it right in 73 doesn’t mean it will stick forever.
I’m an economist so does that make me a cousin to the stat and mathematicians?
midnite678-
If you admit an unborn child is a human being, by what standard to you weigh one human beings right to life against anothers?
SOMG –
“No, dear, you ASSERTED that it’s BS but you didn’t PROVE it. You made one (weak) argument: you suggested that Guttmacher may be overreporting the number of abortions to make the death rate look lower, but that’s silly.”
What a way to pick and choose what you read. That was one argument, which I did bust by the way. My whole argument wasn’t the Guttmacher institute, that was just one factor amoung many. Even the CDC gives a “disclaimer” about the unscientific measures of the abortion stats in their servalience reports.
From their 2003 report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf
“Description of System: For each year since 1969, CDC has compiled abortion data by state or area of occurrence.
During 1973?1997, data were received from or estimated for 52 reporting areas in the United States: 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and New York City. In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data from 48 reporting areas.
Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma did not report, and data for these states were not estimated.
During 2000?2002, Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting areas to 49, and for
2003, Alaska again reported and West Virginia did not, maintaining the number of reporting areas at 49.”
*************Let’s play musical states shall we?
“For 2003, CDC compiled data that were voluntarily provided
from 49 reporting areas in the United States: 47 states
(excluding California, New Hampshire, and West Virginia),
the District of Columbia (DC), and New York City (NYC).”
************How can someone say they have all the data when California, I think the third larges state, doesn’t report. Not to mention this information is voluntary without any set standards or regulations on how they report.
Now – lets go over my ability to statistics shall we. You obviously have selective memory.
According to your JAMA study:
0.6 maternal deaths from abortion out of 100,000
9.1 maternal deaths from childbirth out of 100,000.
When these numbers are put in statistics, which is a number compared to 100 you get:
.0006% maternal deaths from abortion
.0091% maternal deaths from childbirth.
Your ten times more likely is in the “enth” degree. Which means the difference is miniscule.
This means that a woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion.
Not to mention that the study in your JAMA report childbirth had one more year added to the statistics than it did for abortion. does that really sound scientific to you?
Hi midnight.
“Also, I never “claimed” that fetus was not a person.”
Ah, okay. Some people use the phrase “human being” and “human person” to mean different things (I don’t). Some say that the fetus is a human being, but not a human person because it doesn’t have the same rights as you and I. But okay, fair enough.
“OK, what about the fact that for a long time women were viewed as property?? Up until not so long ago, a woman’s only mission in life was to be a homemaker and a baby machine.”
I agree with you 100%. Women are not baby machines; they are human beings with moral dignity, and men and women are equal. I believe women and men should be paid the same amount for equal work, and that men and women should have all the same opportunities to have any career they want (I don’t like the phrase “women should have the same opportunities as men” because it implies that men are the standard to shoot for, rather than men and women being equals.) So if that was the case that women were viewed that way, shame on those who did. But I don’t believe that abortion is the answer to that problem. God love you midnight.
Hal,
Go to this sight and read the interview. I dare you.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/dr_willke/connector_july_98.asp#1
Hi Jessie.
“I’m an economist so does that make me a cousin to the stat and mathematicians?”
I’d say first cousin once removed :; God love you Jessie.
SOMG –
So according to you – condoms cannot protect against the 18 million new STI’s? Wow, why are we pushing condoms then?
(See, I can twist words too.)
Ok Sandy, what’s your point?
Bobby –
“Are you a statistician? I’m a mathematician. That would make us, like, what, academic cousins? BTW, I really like your blog; I’ve been reading it for a long time. God love you.”
No, I’m not. My husband is a Metrologist and he deals with statistics all the time. He deals with something called “Six Sigma”. He has gone over all my numbers to double check me.
I’m glad you like the blog. Unfortunatly I haven’t had much time lately. Thanks to SOMG – I have decided to change the whole concept of my website. I’m going to have it be a fact finding place. It is amazing to me how easy it is to use statistics in deceptive ways. I’ve become totally fascinated with it.
I’ll still have editorials and the like… so I can still vent my opinions….
;-)
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 5, 2007 4:37 PM
I would say, not only is abortion not the answer or help with equality but it is damaging to women mentally, physically, and emotionally. No human person/being (I think they are synonomous) should be treated like property and that includes the unborn.
I have met many women who have had children out of wedlock and have worked their tale of to keep the child, get a college degree and go on to be quite successful. It can be done.
“Unfortunatly I haven’t had much time lately. ” Yeah, I’ve noticed. Well, get it up and running soon!
“It is amazing to me how easy it is to use statistics in deceptive ways”
This is soooooo true! I pretty much just avoid statistics all together, both when discussing issues like abortion and in my mathematical work.
God love you.
Midnite- You bring up McVall vs Shimp.
The difference between M vs. S and the maternal/fetal relationship is that the mother has caused the situation upon which the child has become reliant on her for life.
While you may argue that her role in the situation does not change the legality of the situation regarding the necessity of infringment of rights, it does place the mother in a unique situation.
Because the mother has created the situation upon which the child is dependent, she has a vested interest in the child nto dying due to removal. Should she remove the child, and it subsequently die, she would be held responsible for the death.
If I were to dangle my son off the side of a building, I would in effect make him dependant upon me for survival. Though I could certainly claim that he did not have the right to use my strength and body in order to stay alive, I would be held responsible if I simply detached him from myself and let him hit the pavement.
Because I placed him in this perilous, reliant situation, the donation of my body becomes imperitive. While legally this has not been established, it stands to reason that someone who created the need would be best served by filling it.
Perhaps a better scenerio would be a situation in which I shot my son in the kidney. While I am not legally obligated to donate one of my own kidneys, it would be in my interest to do so. In this scenerio were I not to donate my kidney, my son would die as the result of my actions. I would then be charged with manslaughter. This could be avoided if I were to abandon my bodily domain and allow him to live.
Again, legally, I would not be forced into donation. However, were I not to donate I would be sited for causing the situation which first placed him at my mercy and which ultimately led to his death.
Bobby,
Seriously not trying to be mean here, but please don’t say “God love you” to me. I am agnostic, and it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks. Glad we cleared that up.
Also, you didn’t answer my point to the fact that I can not be forced to keep you alive. That’s basically the premise in pregnancy. The woman would be forced to keep another human alive. When on the flip side, if she needed blood (during her unwanted pregnancy) NO ONE would be forced to keep her alive. Do you get the point I am trying to make here??
midnite678–you do realize what agnosis means in greek right?
Midnite, see my post it addresses your concerns.
Valerie, the JAMA article is not a study. It’s a report of the results of other studies, surveys.
You wrote: “How can someone say they have all the data when California, I think the third larges state, doesn’t report.”
So what? No one claims to have EXHAUSTIVE data on abortion in the USA. That’s only available in countries like Denmark, where they have socialized medicine and the state records everything.
Faced with limited data, you report on the data you have. That’s a LIMITATION, not a DEFECT. All studies have limitations. Unless you are suggesting that abortion is more dangerous in California than in the rest of the USA and that therefore leaving California out skews the result, it makes little or no difference. If you knew anything about how statisticians and epidemiologists work, you would already know this.
You wrote: “This means that a woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion.”.
I agree that both are very unlikely. But you often see right-to-lifers making the false claim that abortion is dangerous. (They often accompany this claim with a list of the names of victims of rare events, which proves nothing.) In fact abortion is less dangerous than the childbirth it prevents. Whether you express the differential as “ten-fold safer” or “0.0085% safer” makes no difference.
You wrote: “Not to mention that the study in your JAMA report childbirth had one more year added to the statistics than it did for abortion. does that really sound scientific to you?”
As long as you report deaths as ratios, in terms of the number of deaths PER HUNDRED-THOUSAND ABORTIONS or PER HUNDRED-THOUSAND CHILDBIRTHS, it doesn’t matter that one group is larger than the other. (Again, if you knew the first thing about biostatistics or epidemiology, you would already know this. You say you understand statistics but you argue like a high-school student.)
MK: Normally I don’t reveal personal info on a site like this, but I’ll tell you: I used to teach statistics and probability, and I briefly considered taking a PhD in Biostatistics and Epidemiology. I don’t need anyone to explain Valerie’s arguments to me. What needs to happen is: Valerie needs to make more convincing arguments.
Lauren-that was a good argument, especially the dangling building.
In Greek? No. I am Scotch-Irish and Cherokee. But I know what I believe:
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
Damn, forgot to enter my screen name again. Sorry.
Lauren,
Thank you for responding, but dangling the child off of a building, is not the same thing. You are not sacrificing your organs or nutrients in that so sweet example. My post was also directed at Bobby.
gnosis is greek for knowledge
A in front of a greek work negates that word like an ‘un’ in English.
I appreciate hearing the word because it reminds my of the Apostle Paul saying “Brothers, I do not want you to be agnostic”
or in the latin
ignorant
Hi midnight.
“Seriously not trying to be mean here, but please don’t say “God love you” to me. I am agnostic, and it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks. Glad we cleared that up.”
Fair enough, thats fine. Here’s the way I see the other part of your post. When it comes to a pregnant women who does not want the child, we are in a situation which is a conflict of interests. On the one hand, the women does not want to give birth and raise a child. On the other hand, as you have said, the thing in her womb is a person who would have to be killed in order for the women’s interests to be met. So what are we to do? Let me make a comparison. I go to Dartmouth college, and on campus we have this intersection. All the time at this intersection, you will see students crossing when they shouldn’t be. In fact, they have no hesitations about walking out into oncomming traffic. The question is, what happens in that situation? The car has the green light, and hence should be able to drive through the intersection. However, the law falls on the side of the student. Why? Because the student has more to loose. One one hand, the driver will break and slow down his trip by a few seconds, put some wear and tear on his car, etc. But on the other hand, the student can be seriously injured or possibly lose his life. So when two parties are in a situation where there is a conflict of interests like this, the law falls on the side of the party that has more to lose. Thats the way I see abortion. Certainly slamming on your breaks is nowhere NEAR as traumatic or life changing as having a child (I would never suggest it is; it’s just a comparison to illustrate a point). But the human being growing in the belly has his LIFE on the line. So it’s the pleasure/career/ etc. (all important things) of the mother vs. the life of the baby (the most important thing). I hope this makes some sense.
Midnite, you will see that I also included a scenerio in which your organs would be directly affected. While I do not believe bodily domain to be a “sacred” right, I anticipated that some would reject the argument unless I balanced the right infringements. I believe we can all agree that donating a Kidney is allowing an your bodily domain to be invaded.
While you were directing your comments at Bobby, this is an open forum and often times we feel led to respond to something that someone has said to someone else. My arguement directly responds to you, but also to a larger over reaching pro-choice ideal that I believe to be false.
WOW, thanks for that Jesse. I don’t remember calling you ignorant or any other derogatory word today. Good job on being a loving Christian though.
And I am not ignorant, stupid, slow, uneducated or any other synonym you wish to come up with. Also, I don’t ever remember specifically addressing you besides telling you that I don’t speak Greek.
Bobby Bambino, the person who needs a transplant also has his LIFE on the line. Why should you be allowed to refuse to donate, say, a kidney, for your convenience and comfort, when the patient’s life is on the line?
By the way, donating a kidney is substantially less dangerous than childbirth.
Also, midnight, the not forcing one to donate to a dying women; In that case, no one is directly killing the women. Thats the big difference. In your case, the women dies from a lack of blood (or whatever). In an abortion, you have a direct killing.
I’ve long been fascinated with the mindsets of people involved with running groups like Planned Parenthood. Do they know they are doing extreme evil and flaunting it like the group PAGAN in the 1987 movie “Dragnet?”
Or are they in such spiritual darkness that they are truly clueless about what they are doing?
I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but one thing I do know is that evil in the world simply must be defeated. It cannot be merely negotiated away.
Lauren:
I noticed that after I posted, sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I got side tracked by being referred to as “ignorant”. Yes but the woman is not maliciously trying to hurt/kill the other party in this situation. If you go batty and shoot your son, you’re still not required to give him a needed organ. It’s just not constitutional.
——————————–
Bobby:
But my point is, if a driver (in your scenario) hits a person crossing the road, yes he (the driver) is at fault. But if that student needed a liver transplant b/c of the car accident, the driver would still not be required to donate his liver…
I may of course be wrong, but I generally don’t see “ignorant” as an insult. It means simply to lack the knowledge of something.
In Christianity one who rejects Christ would be ignorant of His teachings, even though that person may have “heard them all before”. Rejecting the truth of Christ is being ignorant to His majesty and the true knowledge of Him.
Again, this isn’t meant as an insult, but rather a call to believers to NOT be ingnorant of Christ, but rather seek knowledge and Truth in Him.
However, I could be wrong and Jesse was simply making a snide remark. I honestly don’t think this was the case, but if it was I agree that it was not appropriate.
Lauren:
Ignorant is not a compliment in any shape or form. Never has been, never will be. Now then, why say something like to someone if you’re not being snide??
no..I’m not being snide….it just cracks me up for some reason when people say that because I know what the root word is and I have a hard time keeping a straight face over it…that’s my own hump to get over. I know what people mean though…I’m a true egg head in the sense of the term.
It makes more sense for people to say, I’m spiritual..that just my opinion.
Where is my MK??
(never thought I’d say that honestly)
and where is Mary, Bethany, “my friends”??
I’ll be your friend, midnight!
and Lauren is right in regards to what Paul was saying. He was addressing believers.
You are very nice and respectful Bobby. I’ve never seen you on here before, new??
Midnite, I acknowledged that there is nothing forcing you to donate your kidney. However, not doing so will result in the death of the person who you shot. (Assume for a moment that for whatever reason another person could not easily donate a kidney…perhaps you have a very rare blood type or something of that nature).
If you donate your kidney the person will not die as a result of your gun shot. However, if you do not relinquish your kindey, they will. Should the person die, you will be held responsible for the death. Again, legally you are under no responsiblity to donate your kidney, but it is in your best interest. The option of donation presents you with the option for your to rectify the situation you created.
This scenerio assumes no morals other than simple self preservation, and could certainly not be claimed to be “pushing someones belief” on another.
Ehh, pretty much. I’ve been reading this blog for a year or so and doing a little bit of posting for the past few weeks, so yeah. So, um, I don’t even know if you are a man or a women…
Well it would seem that I am a non believer would it not? I do not know if there is a God or not. I believe deeply in Karma, and have a small obsession with Angels. They’re all over my house.
Do you believe in angels, midnight?
Bobby:
I guess woman (yes I am a female, just to clarify). I am too young to be a girl, but I don’t think I am a true adult yet. I am almost 23, in school, working full time blah blah blah. Yes I am female though :-)
________________________
Lauren:
Even if you did give up your “rare” kidney to this person you shot, you’re still going to go to jail for at least attempted murder. Still prison time. Not a good argument if you ask me. No matter what you do, you shot him, maliciously with intent to kill. Whether he dies or not doesn’t really matter. It’ll just add on jail time if he does, or possibly get you life without parole or the death penalty.
Which school, if you don’t mind me asking?
Oh, and are you taking any math classes?
I never said you have any intent to kill. You may have accidently lost shot your gun while thinking the safety was on. It matters not your intent, you still created a situation that made someone reliant upon yourself for survival. You may not have had any ill will twoards the person you shot, you may even love them, you still made them reliant upon you. It matters quite a bit if you kill someone or simply shoot them. (Ask our vice pesident…)
Regardless, the point is that there are situations where it is prudent to support someone you have placed into a compromising situation.
Bobby:
Yes I believe in Angels, but not in God so much (strange beliefs, I know). I am @ UAB (University of Alabama @ Birmingham) and no math classes (thank God). Math and me have a unique understanding, I hate it, and it hates me. We’ve had this agreement since I was about 9 years old. I already finished my math requirements and thank god, it did not require algebra, geometry or calculus. I am a Psychology Major and my minor is Criminal Justice.
Lauren:
Still does not matter if there was intent or not. If a child finds his father’s shot gun and accidentally shoots another child, and that child requires a lung transplant b/c of the shooting: the child that shot him/her is still not required to give up his/her organs to keep the other child alive. You are missing my point here.
OK, time to leave work and go home. I shall check in later. Tootles!!
Cool. I’m a PhD candidate at Dartmouth College in mathematics. I once got a D in psychology in high school. Well, it’s nice to “meet” you and talk with you. Look forward to talking some more. I must get home to my wife and (unborn) baby. Good Journey, midnight.
No, you are missing the point. The person is not obligated to donate the organ, but doing so is in the self interest of the person who caused the situation.
Even if a woman could not be *obligated* to continue a pregnancy, it would be in her best interest to do so were fetal personhood established.
My point is that there are no “special” rights given to a fetus, but rather only the rights that would be afforded any other person in a given situation.
Since you do not deny fetal personhood, nor that someone can be held accountable for making someone reliant upon them, you can not assert that a pregnant woman has no accountablity to the child that she has created.
Hi Midnite,
I’m flattered you would ask about me and that you consider me a friend. I’ve had a long and demanding day at work today so I’m going to sit things out. I even had to give up my plans for scuba diving tonite. Too tired and worked too late. I will check in some time this week, and I am cruising the blog as you can tell.
This is going to jack up the animosity between PP and the for-profit abortion businesses. There’s already backbiting and infighting. I got to listen to a tape of a National Abortion Federation meeting where the independent owners complained that PP is able to undercut them on abortions because they can use their non-profit status to get tax money to pay for their overhead, staff, and ancillary services, and therefore can charge far less for abortions. PP’s attitude it, “Yeah, it sure sucks to be you.”
Pray that this split breaks out into open warfare, with PP and the independents fighting it out in public, where people can finally see and hear what’s been going on in the dark for such a long time.
Have a great night, Mary!
Valerie: .0006% maternal deaths from abortion
.0091% maternal deaths from childbirth.
Your ten times more likely is in the “enth” degree. Which means the difference is miniscule.
This means that a woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion.
GOOD GRIEF – is this still going on? Oh Valerie, Valerie, why, why, why oh why?
No, when you say “than in abortion” you are comparing the two, not subtracting the percentage chance of mortality of one from the other.
You can say it is quite unlikely for a woman to die from either, in the US.
Yet when we compare the risks, that actual answer from those figures is that a woman is 1416.1667% more likely to die from childbirth than from having an abortion. That’s an awkward way to express it though, one we’re not used to using.
Think about it – if the rate for one is twice the other, then that’s going to be 200% of the other, or “two times as great.”
Using the above numbers, the mortality rate for childbirth is 15.1667 times as great as the rate for abortion. If you want the percentage difference in risk, then it’s 1416.1667%..
Doug
“Cool. I’m a PhD candidate at Dartmouth College in mathematics. I once got a D in psychology in high school. Well, it’s nice to “meet” you and talk with you. Look forward to talking some more. I must get home to my wife and (unborn) baby.”
Bobby, I bet you’re pretty smart, degrees in Math are no walk in the park. I took up till Calc3 and that was enough for me. And Congratulations on your unborn baby!
Bobby, good luck with your baby! Is this your first?
Laura,
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read your comment.
I couldn
Okay guys,
sorry about that last post. I just got such a kick out of what Laura said, I couldn
Kidney/Baby
One is giving something to someone (an organ) and the other is taking something from someone (their life)
Doug –
Great, you can manipulate math back around to 15 times of minutia.
We are in fractional nothingness.
We are dealing with: 0.6 over 100,000
0.6
————-
100,000
that is a fraction.
9.1 over 100,000
9.1
————-
100,000
Now, basic math. What is the percentage. A percent is something based on 100.
0.6 over 100,000 is .0006%
9.1 over 100,000 is .0091%
So it is .000006 deaths out of 100
and .000091 deaths out of 100
Now, lets deal with survival –
99,999.4 people out of 100,000 survive abortion
99,990.9 people out of 100,000 survive childbirth
99.9994% survive abortion
99.9909% survive childbirth
Is this still 10/15 times more likley….yes…. but it is in fractions…….
That has been my whole point all along. SOMG keeps saying that a person is 10 times more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion. This is deceptive language. It makes it sound higher than what it really is. It is a fractional nothing. That is my point.
Do you want to start arguing the specific colors of grains of sand on a beach? It is fractional nothingness. But I can make it look impressive.
We are looking at a standard deviation that is outside of six sigma.
I have never argued the 10/15 times more likely. I have argued how deceptive the language is.
Valerie, as long as you understand that abortion is less dangerous for the woman than the childbirth it prevents, I am satisfied.
SOMG –
“I agree that both are very unlikely. But you often see right-to-lifers making the false claim that abortion is dangerous. ”
Yes, and I have repeatedly mentioned that while showing the numbers to everyone. I have made sure I say all sides do it. I am only trying to point out that the “10 times more likely…” is deceptive language and you know it!
Now for how they obtain the data, this data is secondary data….
From “The complete Idiots Guide to Statistics”
Chapter 12
“Virtually all statistical results are based on the measurements of a sample drawn from a population…..Choosing the proper samples is a critical step to ensure accurate statistical conclusions….”
We are dealing with sampling…. also from Chapter 12
“Nielsen Media Research surveys 5,000 households nationwide to infer the television habits of millions of people. Because the results of these surveys are the basis for decisions such as show cancellations and advertising revenue, you better believe they select this sample very carefully.”
Do you think Nielsen would leave out the 3rd largest state? I don’t think there are more people dying from a bad abortion in California than anywhere else in the statistical sense, but we are dealing with samples. California has more abortions than say Wyoming which reported only 7 abortions from 2001-2002. To leave out California could skew the numbers. Leaving out Wyoming (which the CDC did in their 2003 survelience report) doesn’t change much.
Also from Chapter 12:
Random Sampling – refers to a sampling procedure where every memeber in the population has a chance of being selected.
Biased sample – a sample that does not represent the intended population and can lead to distorted findings.
The selection of a proper sample is critical to the accuracy of the statistical analysis.
Sampling error occurs when the sample measurement is different from the population measurement. It is the result of selecting a sample that is not a perfect match to the entire population…..
One way to reduce the sampling error of a statistical study is to increase the size of the sample. In general, the larger the sample size, the smaller the sampling error. ”
do you honestly believe that by not reporting on several states that you have an approprate sample of population.
Let’s say that they left out NYC. In the 2003 CDC survelience report – NYC had 758 abortions per 1,000 live births. Don’t you think leaving this out of a statistic would be cause for error? If I’m not mistaken that is 43.1% of pregnant women have abortions in NYC.
California is a state that has more abortions than say Indiana, Kentucky…why? Because the state has more people in it! To leave these numbers out is a poor sample.
SOMG –
“Valerie, as long as you understand that abortion is less dangerous for the woman than the childbirth it prevents, I am satisfied.”
I am not saying that and you know it! Abortion and Childbirth have the same degree of dangers. There is virtually no difference when it comes to maternal deaths….. GOT IT!
Stop being so *bleeping* deceptive so we can get on to discussing the real issues.
Valerie, death is not the only danger. A woman who undergos childbirth in the USA has a one in five chance of having her belly slit open (C-section–that’s major surgery with all its attendant risk, trauma, and pain).
Valerie, here’s an exercise for you: find the population of California and the population of the rest of the USA and estimate how much leaving California out should affect the resulting mortality ratio.
Answer: Because California, while it’s a big state, contains only a fraction of the population of the USA, the answer is NOT MUCH!
Valerie: 99.9994% survive abortion 99.9909% survive childbirth
Is this still 10/15 times more likley….yes…. but it is in fractions…….
That has been my whole point all along. SOMG keeps saying that a person is 10 times more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion. This is deceptive language. It makes it sound higher than what it really is. It is a fractional nothing. That is my point.
SoMG is right. You are looking at the overall chance of dying, but that is not what is being compared. The rate is 10 or 11, or 15 times higher for giving birth than it is for abortion.
…….
Do you want to start arguing the specific colors of grains of sand on a beach? It is fractional nothingness. But I can make it look impressive.
Not at all. The rate is 15+ times higher, from those numbers. Yes, they’re fractions, but that doesn’t affect the truth of what SoMG said.
……
We are looking at a standard deviation that is outside of six sigma.
So what?
……..
I have never argued the 10/15 times more likely. I have argued how deceptive the language is.
It’s not deceptive at all. That is the rate differential. It’s not saying that “most women die in childbirth” or anything like that.
Doug
Valerie: Abortion and Childbirth have the same degree of dangers. There is virtually no difference when it comes to maternal deaths…..
It sounds to me like you are presuming that everybody makes horrible mathematical and statistical mistakes.
Noting how much more dangerous continuing pregnancies and childbirth is versus abortion doesn’t say how overall dangerous they are. That is a separate question.
Same as for Americans, where you are roughly 1.2 times as likely to die of heart disease as you are of cancer, or a 20% higher death rate. Does that magically mean that “few” people die of them? No – again, it’s a separate question.
Doug
Valerie,
Are we certain that abortion related deaths are always reported as such? If not, then how can we be so certain the death rate from abortion is lower than childbirth?
Doug,
It’s not deceptive at all. That is the rate differential. It’s not saying that “most women die in childbirth” or anything like that.
You seem to be having a problem with the word “imply” tonite…
We all know that women are fifteen+ times more likely to die in childbirth.
But this IMPLIES that there is a great, not just great”er” risk.
Please don’t pretend that you don’t see that!
SOMG,
C-Sections are a manmade risk and are done far too frivolously. There was a time when a hospital with a 5% c-section rate would have a major investigation. Now they are done only for convenience. I definitely fault the medical profession on this one.
I forgot to mention that c-sections were at one time only used for emergency situations such as placenta abruptio, placenta previa, or trauma, to name just a few. That was why a 5% c-section rate at a hospital generated concern that sections were being done for reasons not considered medically justifiable.
It seems our pampered celebrities can’t be expected to push babies out the natural way. That’s for us peasantry. They all seem to have sections and I seriously doubt they are medically necessary.
Christine, 6:52p: Great comment. It dovetails with Troy’s 4:24p comment.
I had not considered this idea before yesterday. Was fascinating to mull. The government subsidizes PP’s abortions but not those of independents. The market price is kept falsely low while PP thrives and independents fail.
More evidence that PP is all about abortion. It monopolizes abortion. I thought liberals hated monopolies. In fact, haven’t we all been taught they’re bad? AT&T anyone? Why the double standard for PP?
And Christine, I agree that the exposure of all this, such as in Aurora, must certainly be generating more in-fighting in the abortion industry.
MK –
They just don’t want to see reality.
When was the last time you went to the doctor and you had an option of procedure X or procedure Y and they said:
“You are ten times more likely to die in procedure Y than in procedure X”
or
“You are 1,416.1167% more likely to die in procedure Y than in procedure X”
hmmmmm… just don’t think so….
They will say that the risks are minimal for both. Or they will say the risks have a various of .0085% which means there are less than 1% deaths in both procedures.
They want to continue their deception and not deal with reality. Reality is a percent is based on 1 part per 100. If you want to base anything on one part per 1,000 that is a permille. If you want to base anything on one part per 10,000 that is a basis point.
Since the majority of Americans know that a percent is based on 100, that is why my math reflects this. Doug wants to continue his path of basis points and PPM.
This difference of the two is minicule and not even worthy of discussion. No medical doctor is going to us the terms 10 times more likey or give a percentage in the thousands. That would be considered malpractice because of the deceptive nature of the wording.
Doug:
“We are looking at a standard deviation that is outside of six sigma.
So what?”
Do you have any idea what six sigma is? obviously not……
SOMG –
“Answer: Because California, while it’s a big state, contains only a fraction of the population of the USA, the answer is NOT MUCH!”
You’re right. But as we are finding out, a fraction can mean the difference between 10 times more likely or 20 times more likely. So, California is very important.
Mary –
“Are we certain that abortion related deaths are always reported as such? If not, then how can we be so certain the death rate from abortion is lower than childbirth?”
You can’t. The places where the CDC gets their info go over what looks to be a “questionable” death by abortion. And they review it. The decision is based on two (I can’t think of the word – professionals specialized in disease pathogens…I think) and they decide if it is death from abortion or not. This is considered scientific on that end. However, since there are no set standards or regulations from state to state it is impossible to say how accurate this is. When dealing with childbirth stats the states are regulated on how it is done and who to report to. When dealing with abortion most states report directly to the CDC and some states only report to their states health department who in turn report to the CDC. Some states don’t report at all, but they do give their information to the state health department so the information is available, just not reported or regulated.
Hi Jasper!
“Bobby, I bet you’re pretty smart”
Yeah, not so much… The truth is I just really enjoy math, and I figure why let my lack of ability and talent stop me from doing math for a living? God love you, Jasper (you and your dog!)
Heather; Yes, she is our first child. She’ll be born in November and we are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo excited! God love you, Heather.
Congratulations, Bobby!!
Bobby,
You know she’s a she? Sooooo, what’s her name?
Oh she’s a she alright! We actually don’t have a name yet, though. I, of course, am pushing for Mary. Actually, we do call her something. Let me share a quick story with you, kinda funny. My wife has this dream around week 10. She dreams that she is vacuuming and she notices that she has this huge scar on her belly from a c-section. So she runs to me and says “Bobby, whats going on? Did I have the baby?” I respond “um, yeah, I guess so…” Then she gets frantic. “Was it a boy or a girl and where is it?” I reply “A girl, I’m pretty sure shes still at the hospital.” My wife is livid now. “At the hospital? What is it doing there? We have to go there now!” she screams as she runs around in a fit. “We have to come up with a name.” she says. “Oh don’t worry about that… I named her for us.” I said. My wife stops dead in her tracks. “You did? Well, what did you name her?” I replied “Beas.” (rhythms with peace) “Beas?” says my wife. “Yeah, Beas.” I said. At this point, my wife is thinking to herself “Okay, this is okay, it’s his baby too, and the nae is kinda cute.” She then asks “How do you spell ‘Beas’?” to which I reply “B-E-S-B-U-S. Beas.” So apparently the “B-U-S” is silent. Anyway, that was the dream she had, and since then we refer to her as “Beas”. It’s really sticking, though, and we might actually use it as a middle name cause I really think I need to have her first name named after a saint. We’ll still probably refer to her as “Beas” even when shes out of the womb. Probably much more than you wanted to know. God love you, MK.
Bobby, great story. Thanks for making me smile. That’s what it’s all about.
Beas be with you, brother.
“Beas be with you.”
Thats what my wife and I say to Beas during the kiss of peace during mass! God love you, Jill.
Bobby –
When I was pregnant with my son, my husband and I debated names. I knew what we were going to name him, I just liked to tease my husband. (We named him after my Hubby’s Grandfather). So I said with a serious look on my face that I really wanted to name him after a saint. I wanted to name him Aloysius. I teased him with this for about a month. Then I said if we can’t name him Aloysius, then I’ll just call him Bubba.
To this day, his nickname is Bubba.
;-)
Congrats!
Bobby,
How about Mary Beatrice? And you can call her Mary Beas for short?
Gender:
Girl
Meaning: Voyager through life
Origin: Latin
Categories: Literary Characters, Shakespeare, English, French, German, Italian
Pronunciation:
(BAY ah trees); (BEET riss); (BEE ah triss) [ Guide ]
Form of: Beatrix
Variants: Bea, Beatrijs, Beatris, Beatrisa, Beitris, Betrys, Peakalika, Trissie, Trissy
Bobby,
Origin of name: Gaelic
Meaning: Feminine form of Beattie: Bringer of joy; blesses.
We have thought about Beatrice. In fact, my last name begins with an S so, we could make her initials B.E.S. Thats close to Beas.
Bobby,
wait till you see your daughters face for the first time, you will be overcome by love. It’s a beautiful thing. ( of course you already love her very much right now ).
Well, we actually have seen her face with the 4-d ultrasound. It doesn’t give a perfect picture and some stuff is cut off, but it was still pretty cool. She’s actually on my desktop. But it will be great when I get to actually SEE see her face. Counting down the days… God love you, Jasper.
SOMG:
This statement of yours got me thinking:
“”Answer: Because California, while it’s a big state, contains only a fraction of the population of the USA, the answer is NOT MUCH!
Doesn’t California have one of the highest electorial votes? Why yes, yes they do. With around 55 votes for just one state.
Why would that be? While they are ranked as the 3rd largest state, they are ranked as the 1st largest population. Did you catch that?
According to census reports:
California has a population of 36,457,549
The USA population – 302,388,000 (estimates from 2007 census report)
This means that California makes up 12.05% of the US population.
2nd most populated state: Texas – 23,507,783 which is 7.77% of US population
3rd – NY – 19,306,183 – 6.38% of population
4th – Florida – 18,089,888 – 5.98% of population
Now – according to the CDC – 2% of women of reproductive age have abortions. Also according to the CDC women make up 51% of the population. Also, out of women – 50% are of reproductive age.
Now lets do some estimates:
California:
population – 36,457,549
51% women – 18,593,349.99
50% women of reproductive age – 9,296,674.995
2% are abortion – 185,933.4999
That means that California has a potential, going by national statistics, to have 185,933.4999 women having abortions per year.
The national average of abortions per year is 848,163
Lets add in California, which was omitted: 1,034,096.4999 this is the new estimated abortion total.
How many is california responsible for?
17.98% of abortions would be in California
So my answer would be yes! California numbers would change alot.
what is the difference of abortions from the 1st most populated state to the second most populated state:
Texas –
population – 23,507,783
51% women – 11,988,969.33
50% reproductive age – 5,994,484.665
2% for abortions – 119,889.6933
Difference of numbers from California to Texas:
66,043.8066 more abortions is California than in Texas.
*****Of course this is based on just averages and estimates. Not all states have the same percentages of women/abortions etc. These numbers are based on national averages. This means that this is not scientific. But I do think that this does make one think…….
So maybe if you count California, it turns out that abortion is only nine times safer than childbirth, rather than ten.
I can live with that.
Valerie,
Thank you for the info. Given such inaccurate reporting and statistics, how can anyone say with certainty the abortion is safer than childbirth?
Valerie: When was the last time you went to the doctor and you had an option of procedure X or procedure Y and they said:
“You are ten times more likely to die in procedure Y than in procedure X”
or
“You are 1,416.1167% more likely to die in procedure Y than in procedure X”
hmmmmm… just don’t think so….
They will say that the risks are minimal for both. Or they will say the risks have a various of .0085% which means there are less than 1% deaths in both procedures.
V, same as before – there is a difference, a huge difference, in this case, between looking at the overall morality of each one or both, and comparing the rates of risk.
If you ask about the relative risk, then it’s correct to say that abortion is 10 or 11 or 15 times safer than continuing pregnancies and giving birth.
If you ask about the mortality rate for either one, then the specific percentage or odds can be stated.
Two different things.
Doug
Valerie: “We are looking at a standard deviation that is outside of six sigma.
“So what?””
Do you have any idea what six sigma is? obviously not….
You rascal – I imagine you are talking about deviation or how many standard deviations are present. All I can say is that you are comparing unrelated things, with no mathematical truth to the situation.
Doug
“It’s not deceptive at all. That is the rate differential. It’s not saying that “most women die in childbirth” or anything like that.”
MK: You seem to be having a problem with the word “imply” tonite…
Oh Horsefeathers….
…….
We all know that women are fifteen+ times more likely to die in childbirth.
But this IMPLIES that there is a great, not just great”er” risk.
Good grief – it does not. There could be one solitary woman dying within a certain number of women who have abortions, and if in the same number of women continuing pregnancies and giving birth, there are fifteen who die, then it’s 15 to 1.
The rate does not say anything, necessarily, about the raw numbers, overall risk of either one (except in this case, for example, that the risk of dying from giving birth would max out just under 94% – and there is no lower limit), etc.
I heard a rumor that there’s a Doctoral candidate in math around here… I imagine he’s not real hot on weighing in here.
…….
Please don’t pretend that you don’t see that!
I see that some people mistakenly think that. The truth is, as SoMG said a good while back, that the overall risk does not matter to the rate multiple – that where the decimal point is doesn’t matter.
Instead of .0006 and .0091 it could be .000000000006 and .000000000091, and the multiple (15 times more risky) would still apply.
Doug
Doug –
You are hanging your hat at 15 times, which no one is arguing. We are arguing deception. These miniscule numbers are what the airline industry aims for in its quality programs. This is how miniscule this is.
“You rascal – I imagine you are talking about deviation or how many standard deviations are present. All I can say is that you are comparing unrelated things, with no mathematical truth to the situation.”
Yes, sigma is standard deviation. Let’s go back to basic math. Sigma is the greek symbol for deviation…six standard deviations would be 99.997% of everything that will fall within. Learn how to plot a histogram and we can discuss this further.
You understand that you are doing probability. The probability that you will die with either procedure is beyone miniscule.
*** You do realize you are not arguing the math with me right? I am asking my husband how to respond. His job is statistical process control. Do you really want to continue?
Yes, sigma is standard deviation. Let’s go back to basic math. Sigma is the greek symbol for deviation…six standard deviations would be 99.997% of everything that will fall within. Learn how to plot a histogram and we can discuss this further.
,i>You understand that you are doing probability. The probability that you will die with either procedure is beyone miniscule.,/i>
You do realize you are not arguing the math with me right? I am asking my husband how to respond. His job is statistical process control. Do you really want to continue?
Valerie, we are indeed arguing math. The relative rate of mortality has nothing necessarily to do with the probability of death for either one.
They are two separate things, as I’ve said repeatedly. Histograms – I use them all the time with MACD (moving average convergence/divergence) for investment charts – and standard deviations have nothing to do with this.
Doug
Valerie you wrote: “The probability that you will die with either procedure is beyone miniscule.”
I told you before, death is not the only danger. With childbirth, you are much more likely to:
–need major surgery
–need a transfusion
–need to stay in the hospital
–feel severe-to-excruciating pain
Why should anyone be forced to undergo this when it’s preventable? You wouldn’t allow me to force you to undergo these privations, even if my life depended on doing so.
SOMG:
Here are the lists of problems that can occur during abortion:
From Webmd.com
First trimester:
– Injury to uterine lining or cervix
– infection – bacterial infection from the insertion of surgical equipment entering body
– Uterine perforation – most commonly happens during forced cervical dialation
– Blood clots – happens when uterus doesn’t contract to pass blood
– Misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancy that isn’t found until after D&C
– infection within the whole body
– severe pain in abdomen that is not relieved with pain medication
– tissue left in uterus
– severe vomiting
– sudden abdominal swelling and rapid heart rate
– increased vaginal discharge increasing in rate and smell
2nd trimester: (all of the above and…)
– Uterine rupture – which could lead to other organs being damaged
– accidental injection of saline or other medications into the mother’s body
– damage to uterus during injection of procedure
– Excessive uterine complications and pain
Medicated:
– Passing blood clots that are bigger than a golf ball lasting 2 or more hours
– heavy bleeding for 12 hours
*** All have risk of post-partum depression (I only add this because I was surpised it was listed and it wasn’t hidden in a sentence…)
***Having 2 or more D&C’s (most common procedure with abortion) could create enough scar tissue to affect your future abitlity to become pregnant and increases risk of pregnancy complications. These include but not limited to:
– ectopic pregnancy
– miscarriage
– placenta previa
– according to the CDC 2003 report 19% of abortion were performed on someone who had at least 2 previous abortions.
“Why should anyone be forced to undergo this when it’s preventable? You wouldn’t allow me to force you to undergo these privations, even if my life depended on doing so.”
Wow – Can you believe that women have survived all these century’s? You know, since woman are too weak to handle this natural event that happens among almost all warm blooded animals as well as some cold blooded animals.
**also, your last statment in that paragraph. I admit that I unclear of the definition of privations so I looked it up and now I am even more confused:
1 : an act or instance of depriving : DEPRIVATION
2 : the state of being deprived; especially : lack of what is needed for existence
What am I missing here?
Also, why would your life depend on me being deprived?
I have to be reading this wrong…….
Also…we all know how much “your much more likely to” really translate to. Virtually nill.
Doug :
“Valerie, we are indeed arguing math. The relative rate of mortality has nothing necessarily to do with the probability of death for either one.”
Mortality rate is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in some population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit time.
Probability is the likelihood that something is the case or will happen.
So gee, you are 15x times more likely to die from childbirth than aboration, but the probability (odds) of it happening are virtually nill (less than .001%).
I am not even going to explain how standard deviation, degrees of error or other errors in statistical sampling, that exceed the probability of death here as it applies here, if you can not understand basic math.
SOMG, your logic is twisted. Childbirth is a natural act for the body. Abortion is not. In each abortion, a baby must die. I’m not going to kill someone, because it might be “safer” for my body. Besides, you can’t guarantee that every abortion will go smoothly. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish. Not to mention that the woman could suffer a lifetime of despair over the abortion. Isn’t that included in “safety?”
Valerie: Serious complications from abortion are rare events. There’s no point in listing them again.
Heather: Have you donated a kidney or a lobe of liver? If not, you have condemned a patient to deatha because it is “safer” for your body.
Valerie: Serious complications from abortion are rare events. Serious complications from childbirth are not rare. It’s as simple as that.
“Valerie, we are indeed arguing math. The relative rate of mortality has nothing necessarily to do with the probability of death for either one.”
Mortality rate is a measure of the number of deaths (in general, or due to a specific cause) in some population, scaled to the size of that population, per unit time.
Sure, but when we have a multiple, as of one rate compared with another, we need not know what either individual rate is. The ratio is all that need be stated, regardless of how generally prevalent either case is.
……..
Probability is the likelihood that something is the case or will happen.
Sure, but you don’t know the probability from the “giving birth is 15 times more dangerous than having an abortion.” It’s silly to assume anything past what is stated.
…..
So gee, you are 15x times more likely to die from childbirth than aboration, but the probability (odds) of it happening are virtually nill (less than .001%).
Nobody told you anything differently about the odds, there. Again – it’s merely an incorrect assumption to think the overall incidence is “high” or “low” having only heard the multiple.
……
I am not even going to explain how standard deviation, degrees of error or other errors in statistical sampling, that exceed the probability of death here as it applies here, if you can not understand basic math.
We all understand basic math. You’re just making an incorrect assumption here – that “15 times more dangerous” means a “lot” of cases.
Doug
Mary: Are we certain that abortion related deaths are always reported as such? If not, then how can we be so certain the death rate from abortion is lower than childbirth?
The CDC: “These statistics count all deaths associated with abortion, not just those attributed to abortion, and include significantly more abortion-related deaths than are reported on death certificates.”
“The risk of death when a pregnancy is continued to birth is about 10 times as great as the risk of death from induced abortion. (Note: The calculation of mortality from childbirth omits deaths from miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.)”
Thus, the decision to continue a pregnancy can incur increased risk even greater than the stated “10 times.”
Doug