tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post1740746539080885456..comments2024-03-06T19:21:15.708-05:00Comments on RealChoice: Reducing maternal mortality versus embracing abortionChristina Duniganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-9335890175284452302010-09-25T07:50:28.980-04:002010-09-25T07:50:28.980-04:00Her "summation" is that both maternal mo...Her "summation" is that both maternal mortality (from all causes) and induced-abortion mortality both dropped precipitously while abortion was still illegal. Do you dispute that? If so, where are your facts?Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118292622669944944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-59677149379415344872010-09-24T18:42:04.245-04:002010-09-24T18:42:04.245-04:00Rupert, live births is used as a denominator becau...Rupert, live births is used as a denominator because they're readily countable. Unless you're claiming that since stillbirths and women who die without giving birth at all aren't being counted.Christina Duniganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785550737493692252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-55279347979039074402010-09-24T18:38:23.055-04:002010-09-24T18:38:23.055-04:00Kathy, the graph says 'per 100,000 live births...Kathy, the graph says 'per 100,000 live births'. Therefore the capture of abortion versus delivery mortality rates are not presented. The CDC site extrapolates extensively on this. The bottom line is that GG's summation is invalid.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141432408537488025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-61600430591427698592010-09-24T10:10:14.038-04:002010-09-24T10:10:14.038-04:00OC, would you tell Rupert (since he may listen to ...OC, would you tell Rupert (since he may listen to you, since you are both in agreement on abortion) that ALL DEATHS from maternal mortality are included in the numerator, regardless of how the pregnancy terminated (whether live birth, still birth, miscarriage, or induced abortion), whereas only live births are included in the denominator? <br /><br />This means, Rupert, that if a woman dies of an ectopic pregnancy at 8 weeks gestation or from an induced abortion at 8 weeks, her death will be counted in the MMR, even though her baby will not be counted in the denominator. If you want to complain about it, talk to the WHO, the CDC, the UN, and the various ob-gyn organizations around the world, to see if they can't come up with a better system. Until then, quit whining and learn how to navigate the system.<br /><br />It's what has been used for decades, and is considered standard. When abortion advocates like you complain about women who die from abortion, where do they get their statistics? Yup, the MMR. Sometimes the MMR is subdivided into different groups, such as "deaths from induced abortion," (whether legal or illegal), which is how Christina came up with her pretty little purple and orange charts.<br /><br />The fact is, maternal mortality in the US, which was similar to many countries' MMRs of today, dropped dramatically even though abortion remained very much illegal -- from 600-900/100,000 from 1915-1935 to about 20/100,000 in 1970. If you look at only abortion deaths (the last two charts), you'll see that deaths due to induced abortion only -- not counting other maternal deaths -- dropped dramatically from 1940-1970, just like total maternal mortality fell during that same time-span.<br /><br />Now, the MMR is a *rate*, and the bottom two charts show actual *numbers*; but it's not meaningless just because it doesn't show the number of abortions. All you have to do is come up with statistics of how many abortions (legal and illegal) were performed during this time span, and divide it by the number of maternal deaths from abortions (legal and illegal), and you get your own handy-dandy abortion mortality rate. Since the number of abortion deaths dropped prior to legalization, that either means that the number of abortions also dropped while the rate of abortion maternal deaths remained the same; or that the rate of abortions remained the same, while the rate of abortion maternal deaths dropped; or possibly a combination of those two factors.<br /><br />~*~<br />OC, you're wrong that legalization abortion in these Third-World countries will make it safe. Women who are dying in these countries due to infection and hemorrhage, brought about by illegal abortion, will still die from infection and hemorrhage, brought about by legal abortion. Legalizing abortion does not make antibiotics appear out of nowhere, nor does it magically give access to safe blood transfusion.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10118292622669944944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-65156097319432568532010-09-24T03:36:31.792-04:002010-09-24T03:36:31.792-04:00The WHO is talking about abortion in Third World c...The WHO is talking about abortion in Third World countries, not in USA. Illegal abortions in the industrialized world are much less dangerous than they are in the Third World. Therefore, legallizing abortion and making abortions more available would likely prevent much more maternal mortality in the Third World than here.OperationCounterstrikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11877707857942926743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-58918670675401040892010-09-24T03:35:16.984-04:002010-09-24T03:35:16.984-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.OperationCounterstrikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11877707857942926743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8395646.post-40708759595718312192010-09-24T00:51:30.355-04:002010-09-24T00:51:30.355-04:00You've done it again! The Maternal Mortality r...You've done it again! The Maternal Mortality rate chart is per '100,000 LIVE BIRTHS' - it does NOT include abortions, miscarriages and such.<br /><br />So your whole premise is flawed, again! Everything else you say which you hang off this is fallacious.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141432408537488025noreply@blogger.com