Talk:Abortion deceit

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--RossC 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-abortion types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--Aschlafly 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. HelpJazz 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--Aschlafly 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly less for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that it is possible that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. Murray 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Part of abortion deceit is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--Aschlafly 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. Murray 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. Murray 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--Aschlafly 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't know whether they have made it freely available. It sounds like you have a copy or access to it, based on your post above and the fact that you wrote an article discussing it, but if you no longer have it let me know here and I can download and email it to you. Murray 13:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
So Andy, had a chance to take a look at the article yet? The point in the essay about large vs. small studies is incorrect and should be removed. Also the phrasing ("studies that deny harm") is overly emotional. They are reporting the data, and don't have any more of an agenda than those who found the opposite. Murray 11:35, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy? Going to take a look at the Lancet article? This essay is incorrect as it stands. Murray 21:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry for the delay, but I've finally found time to retrieve and review the Beral Lancet article again, and the statement here is directly supported by the lower section of Figure 2 in that article.--Aschlafly 23:35, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy, thanks for the reply. However, I don't understand your reasoning. The statement that I was referring to was #10, that studies showing no risk are smaller than studies showing a risk, in case that was unclear. You said that the lower section of Figure 2 of the article supports that statement. What part of the figure? I am looking at it, and as I mentioned above, the studies from the bottom part of the figure (the retrospective studies), which are the ones you state show the ABC link, have an average of about 2200 subjects. The prospective studies in the upper section of the figure, which are prospective and in combination do not support an ABC link, have an average of about 3300 subjects. If you want more specifics, the prospective studies have, on average, about 300 subjects with cancer, compared to an average of 157 for the retrospective studies. For both sets of studies, a little less than 10% of the subjects received a cancer diagnosis. Perhaps you could clarify your statement? Thank you. Murray 19:33, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought you were referring to #7, and I see you did object to it above. It is supported by Figure 2 of the Beral article. I'll look at #10 again in light of your most recent comment.--Aschlafly 20:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah. Well, I wouldn't mind you posting your reasoning for how the figure supports #7 as well, given that the confidence interval bars in the figure show that virtually none of those 39 studies shows significant harm. You can say that, when combined, there is a significant effect, but not individually. Also it seems to me that it's misleading to only refer to the 39 studies, and not to the 13 prospective ones. But apologies for the confusion. Murray 20:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Your statement seems to be plainly wrong. Many of the studies in Figure 2 show significant harm from abortion (95% confidence level), and nearly all of them show some harm at a lower confidence level. None of the studies show a benefit (95% confidence level) from abortion. And this figure compares abortion to no pregnancy at all; the harm is far worse when the real decision of a pregnant woman in choosing between abortion and childbirth is analyzed.--Aschlafly 20:35, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Just noticed your reply, my apologies. My statement is not plainly wrong. Few of the studies in the figure show harm - for that to be the case, the confidence intervals, shown with horizontal bars (trying to do this from memory as I don't have the article in front of me) would have to not overlap with 1, represented by the vertical line. Virtually all of the confidence intervals, in both sections of the figure, overlap with 1. Also, the figure uses a 99% confidence level, not 95%. Because the samples for many of the studies are quite large, even a very small and not very meaningful effect could be significant at the 95% level. That is, an effect could be statistically significant without causing much of an increase in the risk. Murray 13:51, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. Blinkadyblink 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Abortion certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--Aschlafly 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? HelpJazz 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
They are directly connected. Abortion advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--Aschlafly 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). HelpJazz 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
HelpJazz, please try harder. An abortion by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--Aschlafly 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. HelpJazz 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some liberal women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--Aschlafly 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. HelpJazz 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)


Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. The user formerly known as DLerner 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every abortion costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.
I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because abortion deceit has been so good at fooling all of us.--Aschlafly 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --Jdellaro 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. The user formerly known as DLerner 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
You seem to miss the point. The economic cost of abortion is primarily the opportunity cost of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--Aschlafly 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
So... spending a large amount of your pay to feed a child is actually /saving/ money? And actually /saving/ that money by /not/ having a child is actually /losing/ that money? Good sir, are we in the Twilight Zone? Barikada 22:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
It's called opportunity cost. Please take a good economics course and don't criticize what you don't understand. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Generally, children don't refund the money their parents spent raising them. So, while abortion may be costly to the economy as a whole, the parents would be significantly better off financially. BlinkadyblinkRAGE 00:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I was asked to help find cites

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. HelpJazz 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--Aschlafly 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually uses the claim. That's what I need help finding. HelpJazz 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Abortion and Infertility

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how abortion actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with sex... TheGySom 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Abortion promotes sexual promiscuity. I can't imagine anyone disputing that.--Aschlafly 23:32, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I dispute that. Sexual promiscuity arises from complacency and often drunkenness. A drunk woman doesn't think 'It's alright if I get pregnant 'cause I can have an abortion', she just wants to have sex and likewise, a sober woman doesn't think 'I'll get drunk and that'll lead to sex but it's alright 'cause if I get pregnant I can have an abortion', she just wants to drink. -- Pclown

Capital letters

What's with all the IN FACTS? Maestro 21:41, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

It's Andy's way of confusingly attempting to show that anything said by anyone who is pro-choice is a lie. Barikada 21:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Typical nonsensical comment, Barikada. Maestro, please feel free to suggest any improvements.--Aschlafly 00:10, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

The supposed harmlessness of abortion

Feminists and other liberals will never admit that abortion harms any human beings.

  1. The unborn baby is not "human" yet; despite being entirely made of human tissue it is, itself, not a human being legally.
    • Although if it's accidentally born premature, like at 7 months, doctors will work round the clock to save its life; but a woman can kill it if having it in her life is merely inconvenient.
  2. There can't be any emotional or physical harm to the mother, because by definition the fetus is just an "growth" like a cancer or a wart.
    • Any grief over killing another human being (or preventing a God-given life from coming into the world) is purely imposed by society; see "forced morality"
  3. It's no one else's business, so why should they get upset about it?
    • The woman's mother or the baby's father get no say; this is all about empowering women to be just as self-centered and irresponsible as men have ever been

There, I think I've set out all the arguments of their side (see Conservapedia:Writing for the enemy). --Ed Poor Talk 20:43, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it might be more accurate to say you've invented some arguments. As far as harm is concerned, the disagreements on this page and others are about what the data say. I'd love to see some evidence that anyone, liberal or otherwise, has made the argument that a fetus is just like a tumor or a wart, and can't cause any harm. I'm sure making up arguments from "the other side" is fun but that doesn't make it accurate. Murray 21:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I'm feeling rather inventive this week; see User:EdBot.
On that note, enjoy this comment:
  • Meanwhile, several state legislatures have ruled that compensation for the negligent death of a pet — due to an auto accident, say, or to a veterinarian's error — need not be limited to the purchase price of the pet, but can be a considerably higher sum. This is based on the understandable belief that a pet is not mere property, but an actual family member. With that in mind a number of state and federal lawmakers have begun to introduce new legislation regarding fetal rights. Their apparent, controversial goal is to create a legal environment in which an unborn human baby enjoys the same legal rights as does a dog. [1]

Gee Ed, thanks for the meaningful response. Murray 21:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Higher Death Rates

Record based studies show that the death rates associated with abortion are actually higher than for childbirth. See the review article on abortion and death rates cited with a link to the full text over at abortion and suicide, and consider helping to expand that article as well.--MarthaVine 13:20, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point. I added a link from the content page here to abortion and suicide, and please feel free to continue adding to content pages. Thanks for your insights.--Aschlafly 13:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Point 14

"Create the false impression that physicians support abortion. IN FACT, an abortion group's Residency Training Initiative (RTI) "requires all OB/GYN residents in the City's 11 public hospitals be trained in both medical and surgical abortion."[24]"

Unless someone can tell me what the latter example (which seems to concern New York exclusively) has to do with the former generalization, I'm going to remove it. Wandering 19:52, 30 May 2008 (EDT)