Talk:Abortion deceit

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)

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)

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)

#3

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)

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)