LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 10-14-2009, 01:20 PM   #1
TheBestCheapestOEM

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
378
Senior Member
Default Is this article evil or not?
Ahh. But good to know. I always assumed people disagreeing with me were all wrong
TheBestCheapestOEM is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 02:38 PM   #2
Goodwin

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
398
Senior Member
Default
Yes, because it cites a Guttmacher Institute survey. As we all know, Guttmacher is pro-death and has an agenda and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the organization's leader actually eats fetuses for breakfast.
Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner for dumbest statement of the year!

A scientific study proves that making abortions illegal doesn't reduce their numbers. It just results in the deaths of 70,000 women a year.

The most effective way of lowering the rate of abortions is access to contraception.

So Lorizael embraces the criminalization of abortions, with 70,000 unnecessary deaths a year, and has the audacity to call the people who did the story pro-death.
Goodwin is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 03:42 PM   #3
PZXjoe

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
655
Senior Member
Default
Zkribbler, the man is agreeing with you...

I'm the one you need to rebut.

Yes, because it cites a Guttmacher Institute survey. As we all know, Guttmacher is pro-death and has an agenda and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the organization's leader actually eats fetuses for breakfast. The question you need to ask, is whether an instituition with intimate ties to the abortion industry has any motivation to accurately report the number of illegal abortions every year.

The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted. False.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...tedstates.html

These are numbers from the US, in a study not conducted by Planned Parenthood, or AGI, which is an arm of Planned Parenthood.

Code:
Code
year////abortions 1926	2 1927	2 1928	2 1929	2 1930	2 1931	48 1932	71 1933	71 1934	71 1935	89 1936	86 1937	86 1938	86 1939	86 1940	71 1941	49 1942	58  1943	697 1944	706 1945	704 1946	819 1947	749 1948	16 1949	675 1950	7 1951	679 1952	551 1953	490 1954	440 1955	328 1956	337 1957	336 1958	345 1959	357 1960	292 1961	292 1962	292 1963	390  1964	823 1965	794 1966	1028 1967	2061 1968	6211  1969	27512 1970	193491 1971	485816 1972	586760 1973	615831 1974	780824 1975	865404 1976	991555  1977	1079978 1978	1158185 1979	1252756 1980	1297610 1981	1300760 1982	1303980 1983	1268987 1984	1333521 1985	1328570 1986	1328113 1987	1354951 1988	1372725 1989	1398225 1990	1431584 1991	1390657 1992	1361272 1993	1330614 1994	1268166 1995	1211119 1996	1365700 1997	1186229 1998	996372 1999	949145 2000	938972 2001	941402 2002	948712 2003	946137 2004	936542 2005	921910

As you can see the pre-legalisation rate was about 800 illegal abortions a year in America. Of 3 million or so live births, we can estimate a rate of around 1/3750 pregnancies ended in abortion. Given a worldwide birthrate of 130 million a year, this would mean that the abortion rate would be around 35 thousand illegal abortions, instead of the 45 million or so nonsense reported by AGI.

Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions - leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without a mother - and 5m develop complications.year. Ok, out of 45 million abortions, 70k result in the death of the mother. This means that 1/570 abortions results in the death of the mother.

Extrapolating this death rate to the true illegal abortion rate in the US, we would expect to see at least one, and maybe two maternal deaths every year due to illegal abortion in the US.

Now if we were to accept the rationale of AGI that there were a million abortions every year in the US prior to 1970, that would mean we should expect to see the death of 1750 women every year due to abortion.

Maternal mortality in the US was 5.0/10,000 in 1950, and halved by 1975. Given 3 million live births, this means the following:

There were 1500 deaths of pregnant woman or women giving birth in 1950, declining to about 850 a year in the US by 1975. If we assume that the mortality rate was correct, more women died of abortions than total maternal mortality in all of America. Clearly both assumptions are bogus. The rate is triple, and the total abortions are over a thousand fold higher then they truly are.
PZXjoe is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 05:05 PM   #4
Hlennisal

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
504
Senior Member
Default
Zkib is getting crotchety in his old age
Hlennisal is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 06:17 PM   #5
dosugxxx

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
497
Senior Member
Default
Bebro, you didn't add any commentary of your own in the OP.
dosugxxx is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 06:53 PM   #6
dubballey

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default
And around that time it was common for women to leave the country to get abortions. False again.

If you actually checked the source, it wasn't common for women to go abroad until the 60s. Might have something to do with airfare, no? Even then, it was easier for them to find someone in the US.

Anyone that thinks there were only 7 abortions in the entire US in 1953 is an idiot. Which is why I'm being generous and going with 800 a year after '42. There's a consistant jump after '42, and again, after 63.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate a million abortions a year, which is what AGI is claiming.
dubballey is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 07:08 PM   #7
mGUuZRyA

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
492
Senior Member
Default
Would be reasonable to me.

I still think 800 a year is a crap number. Why? Do you think 1 million a year is reasonable? People were different back then.
mGUuZRyA is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 07:20 PM   #8
deethythitoth

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
382
Senior Member
Default
Actually I do find the million number more reasonable which is why I have a big problem with the 800. Yes people were different back them, but not that different. When I was in school in the 60s' every high school had a handfull of pregos. At least half of them had abortions based on the rumors we heard. Add up the number of high schools in the US and that makes those numbers in the early to mid 60's look ridiculous. 60s were when the abortion rates ramped up severely. To me the numbers have a perfect correlation with what was going on in society, you have a big jump in the 'summer of love' in '64 and all the way through until '73. Then you have another jump right in '43, after folks went away to war, which didn't go down until after they came back in the late 40's, and stayed low throughout the '50s.

If you had a high school of several thousand people and a handful (say 5) were pregnant, and maybe 2 of them had abortions, that is a far cry from when I went to school, and you have the health nurse referring people in junior high. Things have changed from the 40's and 50's to the 60's and have changed now.

The numbers make sense, particularly those ramping up before legalisation. It's not that we see a 'sudden jump' from 800 to a million, we have a transition period in the early 70s.

But again, that is only MY OPINION. Since that type of thing was more scandalous back then, so no one was open about it. Which is the main reason why I don't believe any of the early numbers. But you'd accept a million? I don't understand that.
deethythitoth is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 07:48 PM   #9
tigoCeree

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
459
Senior Member
Default
But you'd accept a million? I don't understand that.
People are much more open now, so it's more possible to do reliable research on it. If we put an online survey out and asked women about it, I believe they'd be truthful about it. (which I doubt would have been the case in 50's and 60's) And it is my belief that the numbers you quote support my opinion. I don't see how anyone could trust any of those early numbers after seeing a 7.
tigoCeree is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 08:37 PM   #10
Seilehogshell

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
People are much more open now, so it's more possible to do reliable research on it. Well I've done a fair amount of work on this one topic. One of the things we are dealing with here in Canada is that the agencies (paid for by the taxpayers), are no longer reporting any statistics at all. We are going back to the dark ages. The latest 'estimates' by statistics canada have simply quoted the last year and gone from there. This year, they have finally decided that they will not release the total because they don't trust the agencies anymore to report the true figures.

I agree that the early numbers are more difficult to get. If I were using these numbers I would just set up a trendline. Why only 7 in 1950? I don't know. I'd have to ask the researcher. I'm not assuming that there were only 7 that year, nor am I assuming that the numbers as stated represent the full picture. I agree with you that there is likely to be some underreporting. This is why I'm estimating 800 a year, which is sometimes 2, 2.5 times these numbers reported.

The problem with the million number is that if you assume there were a million illegal abortions, why is maternal mortality so low? You have maybe 1000 women dying in the early 60s from maternal mortality each year in the US. If we assume that the illegal abortions have a 1 in 5000 chance of killing a woman, you would expect to see 1750 women dying each year in the sixties, just from abortion alone, notwithstanding the other women who die during childbirth.

This is why the million abortion number is complete hogwash. We do know that the maternal mortality numbers are far more reliable than the abortion numbers. You simply cannot have twice as many women dying from abortion, as all women who die during pregnancy.
Seilehogshell is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 08:58 PM   #11
soineeLom

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
328
Senior Member
Default
May I ask what prompted the research? I'm not objecting to the conclusions, just curious why an ad firm would find that number valuable to their own research. FWIW my research was on contract with a prolife organisation up here, which is why they needed those numbers.

Any number under 200 thousand or so would be consistant with the maternal mortality, but given that it goes down while abortions go up, I'd say that illegal abortions were never a significant component of maternal mortality. If there's only 850 by 1970, and roughly 250 thousand abortions, that would mean 438 of those deaths were due to abortion. I can see around 125 thousand, but nothing higher then that would work with the overall maternal mortality.
soineeLom is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 09:18 PM   #12
Styparty

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
604
Senior Member
Default
IIRC, a New Orleans back-alley-type was convicted in the mid-50s for doing over 50 illegal procedures in 1950 (the year with "7" in the survey). Again only one person in one city.
Convicting innocent people
Styparty is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 09:23 PM   #13
errolurberozy

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
538
Senior Member
Default
May I ask what prompted the research? I'm not objecting to the conclusions, just curious why an ad firm would find that number valuable to their own research. FWIW my research was on contract with a prolife organisation up here, which is why they needed those numbers.
We're not an ad firm. We're a market research firm. We do a lot of work for health care service groups and drug companies. And the numbers I looked at were based on the raw data not on what was finally published/used so I can honestly say that there was no bias at that point.
errolurberozy is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 09:35 PM   #14
Klorissana

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
375
Senior Member
Default
You get a number around 15,000 or so, if you consider the number of cities the size of SF and NO or larger, and the numbers considered here. Also, Puerto Rico ran a thriving business in quickie abortions for sea cruse passengers from about 1925 to at least 1960. Hustle the young lady to the "doctor," then back to the ship to a pre-agreed upon recovery room for the remainder of the cruise until the ship finished a two-week cruise and landed in Miami. All arranged by a certain cruise line for several "family groups" per voyage. Tsk, Tsk.

Yes, a lot less than 1,000,000. But not "7," or "86."
Klorissana is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 09:51 PM   #15
Arratherimi

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
384
Senior Member
Default
We're not an ad firm. We're a market research firm. We do a lot of work for health care service groups and drug companies. And the numbers I looked at were based on the raw data not on what was finally published/used so I can honestly say that there was no bias at that point. Ahh ok. Interesting.

As for the numbers, I'd say that SF generally tends to be one of the more liberal environs, and thus more likely to have things like abortion clinics. They will 'hit above their weight' so to speak.
Arratherimi is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 09:54 PM   #16
bely832new

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default
I was just addressing the earlier year numbers you posted, which I think we can all now agree are mostly crap. I really wasn't interested in anything else.

But I will still go along with the almost 1 mil now based on everything that's been presented here.
bely832new is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 10:47 PM   #17
yurawerj

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
NO based on all the studies that I've seen on-line but more importantly the raw data that I was privy to on certain studies our company did. If these numbers don't correlate with your other numbers, i'd be more likely to question those numbers. But since I have no knowledge of them, I'm not in a position too, and I really don't care.
yurawerj is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 11:22 PM   #18
soonahonsefalh

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
603
Senior Member
Default
Well the fellow who did the study here has all his links. Plenty of sources right there.
7 total in 1950.
soonahonsefalh is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 11:45 PM   #19
Nurba

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
Even if it was as low as you estimate of 1500 that's 15 time higher than the number reported in your table. More proof that those early numbers are not reliable.
I like how he stereotyped NYC as being a den of abortion.
Nurba is offline


Old 10-14-2009, 11:47 PM   #20
RerRoktoido

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
370
Senior Member
Default
I've learned to stay focused when dealing with Ben since he like to slide around so much. I was only interested in one aspect and refuse to be sucked back into benverse.
RerRoktoido is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity