Debunking Abortion Myths

[lukin]

Here is an interesting article form the Montreal Gazette. Why isn't the truth told to the Canadian people?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Busting+abortion+myths/3100361/story.html

[msj]

Here is an interesting article form the Montreal Gazette. Why isn't the truth told to the Canadian people?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Busting+abortion+myths/3100361/story.html

I will admit to my bias of not really liking Margaret Somerville. She has always come across as a sophist.

Unless I'm mistaken, she fails to mention that Canada has tens of thousands (close to 100,000 abortions) per year.

But she sure is good at estimating the number of late term abortions to something under 1,000 per year.

So, yes, late term abortions are rare compared to the total number of abortions.

This is how most people understand that claim by the pro-choice side.

[M.Dancer]

I will admit to my bias of not really liking Margaret Somerville. She has always come across as a sophist.

Unless I'm mistaken, she fails to mention that Canada has tens of thousands (close to 100,000 abortions) per year.

But she sure is good at estimating the number of late term abortions to something under 1,000 per year.

So, yes, late term abortions are rare compared to the total number of abortions.

This is how most people understand that claim by the pro-choice side.

1000 unnecessary ( non medical reasons) late term (viable) is 1000 too many.

[Guest TrueMetis]

1000 unnecessary ( non medical reasons) late term (viable) is 1000 too many.

The article actually says 400 a year but she thinks it probably double that.

[msj]

1000 unnecessary ( non medical reasons) late term (viable) is 1000 too many.

Sure, and maybe we should have a discussion about policies to deal with late term abortions (and only late term abortions).

But late term abortions are rare (in the relative sense) and Somerville is being intellectually dishonest by ignoring this part of the argument.

By focusing on the absolute number of late term abortions and ignoring the comparison to total abortions she is purposefully being dishonest about what the pro-choice claim is (i.e. relatively rare).

[M.Dancer]

.

By focusing on the absolute number of late term abortions and ignoring the comparison to total abortions she is purposefully being dishonest about what the pro-choice claim is (i.e. relatively rare).

Saying they are a very small proportion would be accurate...saying they are rare is not...if the 1000 # you mention is accurate..then they happen at an alarming rate of almost 20 per week..would we say murder is rare in Canada? 1000 late term abortions is almost twice as many murders in canada, in total in a year (average).

[fellowtraveller]

By focusing on the absolute number of late term abortions and ignoring the comparison to total abortions she is purposefully being dishonest about what the pro-choice claim is (i.e. relatively rare).

Facts and reality are not Ms Somervilles strong points, she has a strong Pro-Life bias. Not surprsingly, she is awalking talking oxymoron, a 'social scientist' and a dangerous one since she has a salary and a podium.

1000 unnecessary ( non medical reasons) late term (viable) is 1000 too many.

Waht do you base those claims on?

1. That there are a thousand?

2. that every one is viable outside the womb?

3. that every one is not medically necessary?

[waldo]

Saying they are a very small proportion would be accurate...saying they are rare is not...if the 1000 # you mention is accurate..then they happen at an alarming rate of almost 20 per week..would we say murder is rare in Canada? 1000 late term abortions is almost twice as many murders in canada, in total in a year (average).

again, Dancer takes self-serving liberties with referenced data (correct data, or not... it really doesn't matter to Dancer).

is it ethical for the linked article author, Margaret Somerville, the director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, to manipulate the referenced late-term abortion stats (that we don't see offered for availability and/or scrutiny)?

the actual definition/position for induced abortion, as interpreted by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), is "the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability. In this context viability is the ability of the fetus to survive independently of the maternal environment. According to current medical knowledge viability is dependent on fetal weight, degree of development and length of gestation; extrauterine viability may be possible if the fetus weighs over 500 g or 20 weeks have passed since conception, or both."

pro-choice proponents within Canada maintain that in the rare instances that abortion is performed after the 20 weeks gestation period, it is due to grave or fatal impairment of the fetus, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk. Of consideration is that, 'many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation'.

the linked article's author has, without justification and acknowledgment, taken her described numbers for late-term abortions and given them a broad-based viability assessment... without regard to the state of the fetus... without regard to the state of the woman's life or physical health risk. And, of course, Dancer follows... lock-step!

[M.Dancer]

According to current medical knowledge viability is dependent on fetal weight, degree of development and length of gestation; extrauterine viability may be possible if the fetus weighs over 500 g or 20 weeks have passed since conception, or both.[/i]"

Interstingly my daughter was born weighing 434 grams...

pro-choice proponents within Canada maintain that in the rare instances that abortion is performed after the 20 weeks gestation period

Given that the author states that the statistics of the how many and when are hard to come by, it is curious that a pro abortion group could be so adamant and definitive about it...yet you have no problem goosestepping with this...

[eyeball]

1000 unnecessary ( non medical reasons) late term (viable) is 1000 too many.

Waht do you base those claims on?

1. That there are a thousand?

2. that every one is viable outside the womb?

3. that every one is not medically necessary?

Interstingly my daughter was born weighing 434 grams...

The claims are based on emotion. I can understand why, I love my kids too, but all the same I can't see basing our public policies on instances that are just as rare with albeit more joyous outcomes.

[waldo]

Given that the author states that the statistics of the how many and when are hard to come by, it is curious that a pro abortion group could be so adamant and definitive about it...yet you have no problem goosestepping with this...

ah yes, Dancer reverts to the inflammatory... never let any semblance of reasoned discussion get in the way of Dancer's dancing goosestep!

as you readily latched on to your linked articles referenced number of (unsubstantiated) late-term abortions, why did you automatically consider them all viable without regard to considerations of fetal impairment and/or woman's life and health risk? I guess it's easier to wildly throw out your "murder labeling" if you choose to negate viability considerations - hey Dancer?

[M.Dancer]

ah yes, Dancer reverts to the inflammatory... never let any semblance of reasoned discussion get in the way of Dancer's dancing goosestep!

as you readily latched on to your linked articles

My linked articles?

referenced number of (unsubstantiated) late-term abortions, why did you automatically consider them all viable without regard to considerations of fetal impairment and/or woman's life and health risk? I guess it's easier to wildly throw out your "murder labeling" if you choose to negate viability considerations - hey Dancer?

I negated the considerations? I made it clear that I am talking about abortions that are without medical consideration...I guess your reading ability depends on whether you are struggling to make a point...and with the killing of viable infants in the mame of wimmins rights, you do have to struggle...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Because I don't think it was made clear the number is 400 hundred not a thousand.

From these unsolicited reports, it's known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year...

[M.Dancer]

Because I don't think it was made clear the number is 400 hundred not a thousand.

based on 45% of hospitals that note the gestational age...

[Guest TrueMetis]

based on 45% of hospitals that note the gestational age...

I missed that part, sorry.

Edited June 2, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

ah yes, Dancer reverts to the inflammatory... never let any semblance of reasoned discussion get in the way of Dancer's dancing goosestep!

as you readily latched on to your linked articles referenced number of (unsubstantiated) late-term abortions, why did you automatically consider them all viable without regard to considerations of fetal impairment and/or woman's life and health risk? I guess it's easier to wildly throw out your "murder labeling" if you choose to negate viability considerations - hey Dancer?

I negated the considerations? I made it clear that I am talking about abortions that are without medical consideration...I guess your reading ability depends on whether you are struggling to make a point...and with the killing of viable infants in the mame of wimmins rights, you do have to struggle...

standard Dancer weasel response - buddy, the article speaks to viability, per the Canadian Medical Association definition/position... a position that reflects a possibility of extrauterine viability... a possibility subject to considerations of fetal impairment and woman's life/health risks. You choose to take the number of late-term abortions mentioned within the article (stated as, "at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice that")... and classify them all as, as you say, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration". Other than your self-serving want, what gives you the liberty to classify all late-term abortions as, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration"?

[Guest American Woman]

Just because the gestational age of a fetus puts it in the "viable" category doesn't mean there wasn't a medical reason for the abortion. Referring to the abortion as "post viable" means it was past the 20 week gestation period and that's all it means. There's nothing to indicate if there were birth defects involved or if the mother's health was endangered; from what I've read, all that's recorded is the "gestational age" at the time of the abortion.

[fellowtraveller]

Just because the gestational age of a fetus puts it in the "viable" category doesn't mean there wasn't a medical reason for the abortion. Referring to the abortion as "post viable" means it was past the 20 week gestation period and that's all it means. There's nothing to indicate if there were birth defects involved or if the mother's health was endangered; from what I've read, all that's recorded is the "gestational age" at the time of the abortion.

This is the point I tried to make earlier.

There is no reason to assume that any or all of the 400 late term abortions were not medically necessary.

I leave that determination to the evaluation of medical professionals, not hysterical polemicists.

[eyeball]

This is the point I tried to make earlier.

There is no reason to assume that any or all of the 400 late term abortions were not medically necessary.

I leave that determination to the evaluation of medical professionals, not hysterical polemicists.

The trouble is, with this issue one person's expert is usually another's polemicist.

[M.Dancer]

This is the point I tried to make earlier.

There is no reason to assume that any or all of the 400 late term abortions were not medically necessary.

I leave that determination to the evaluation of medical professionals, not hysterical polemicists.

And equally there is no reason to assume they weren't...and given we have no law to stop a "post viable" abortion if there is no medical necessity...no medical evaluation is needed.

[M.Dancer]

Other than your self-serving want, what gives you the liberty to classify all late-term abortions as, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration"?

If you had any moral or ethics you might ask how someone has the liberty to unnecessarily abort a post viable fetus at all...

...instead that touchy subject is avoided and we are asked to ignore it 'cause we are told (without any proof), it is rare...

...turns out it ain't that rare..what other lies are there to be discovered?

[waldo]

standard Dancer weasel response - buddy, the article speaks to viability, per the Canadian Medical Association definition/position... a position that reflects a possibility of extrauterine viability... a possibility subject to considerations of fetal impairment and woman's life/health risks. You choose to take the number of late-term abortions mentioned within the article (stated as, "at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice that")... and classify them all as, as you say, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration". Other than your self-serving want, what gives you the liberty to classify all late-term abortions as, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration"?

If you had any moral or ethics you might ask how someone has the liberty to unnecessarily abort a post viable fetus at all...

...instead that touchy subject is avoided and we are asked to ignore it 'cause we are told (without any proof), it is rare...

...turns out it ain't that rare..what other lies are there to be discovered?

rare? Yes, it is... 0.4% of all abortions are late-term. It's quite telling, but not unexpected, that you'd pull the morality-ethics card... one could ask where yours is, when presuming to categorize all late-term abortions as, as you stated, "unnecessary ( non medical reasons), without medical consideration". Your earlier juvenile use of the phrase, "mame of wimmins rights", clearly shows your emotional underpinnings and complete and absolute disregard for considerations of a woman's life/health risk, particularly within this most rarest of procedures, the late-term abortion.

[M.Dancer]

rare? Yes, it is... 0.4% of all abortions are late-term.

How do you know that % is correct? We already know that only 45% of hospitals report gestational age...on top of that you transpose a % and call it rare...rare is something that ...um....rarely happens...a very very few Canadians will be murdered this year..would you say murder is rare? ....if there are twice as many post viable abortions than murders....is it still rare?

It's quite telling, but not unexpected, that you'd pull the morality-ethics card...

Abortion is an ethical question. The amoral don't think so...

[eyeball]

Abortion is an ethical question. The amoral don't think so...

Its more accurate to say abortion is an ethical issue that raises questions. Perhaps if people stopped insisting it's strictly a moral issue these questions could be discussed more reasonably.

[M.Dancer]

Its more accurate to say abortion is an ethical issue that raises questions. Perhaps if people stopped insisting it's strictly a moral issue these questions could be discussed more reasonably.

You think you can divorce morality from ethics?