Katie, sure you're smart enough. You're very intelligent. But I think you're torn because you agree with me, just a little...just a wee little bit? :p

Thanks Jolly and Apple. You guys may ask for personal/private medical advice anytime. Don't ever hesitate. I'd be glad to help.

In all fairness to Katie, you accidentally deleted the seperation between your response to the above quote, and the beginning of Pique's next quote and it makes it look like it's part of your response.

pique,

From my point of view, telling people the truth is never irresponsible. But hay, what do I know?

I'm not a journalist.

And Johnny: I'm not saying this for free medical advice, but consider me a fan too.

telling partial truths or only facts that distort the larger picture is irresponsible.

so "doc," would you like to retract this statement before it is too late? there is tons of info out there on the dangers of pregnancy. women die from pregnancy and childbirth every day.

here's just one link, and then i have to go back to work. maybe kathyk or katie will pick up the ball in my absence.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/aag_drh.htm

oops! just one more:

http://www.who.int/archives/whday/en/pages1998/whd98_05.html

now if you want to refute my statement about comparable risk, you will have to find an INDEPENDENT source of statistics (i.e. not connected to right to life activists) that shows comparable or worse risks facing those who have a legal abortion in a medical clinic.

good luck!

Thus, for their own safety, we need to stop women from getting pregnant by outlawing actions that lead to pregnancy.

I did note, however, from the link posted that death from pregnancy appears to be racist (using the same type of stats used to argue that the death penalty is racist).

I'll be damned. Our esteemed "journalist" can actually find the shift key.

In the original example, there is no bias in requesting more data, except that bias perceived by the Senator's opponents as political. The problem, as pointed out, is when the political can triumph the medical, and the secondary problem (as pointed out by Katie) is exactly how much information the patient needs to receive to make a well-informed decision.

But to shift gears, I can now say with full authority, that on the case of Dr. Moonlight's credentials, pique couldn't hit her butt with both hands, if you handed her detailed instructions and a road map. I work with physicians everyday (one walked out of my office 5 minutes ago), and anybody with even a smattering of medical knowledge can immediately ascertain that Dr. Moonlight has the advanced medical training of a physician.

Perhaps that inadequate smattering was our "journalist's" problem.

Although I suspect the smattering was of different material.

Got any good cures for the scours, piqueola? :rolleyes:

"piqueola"--i kind of like that term of endearment. cute. nicer than "zionist breath" anyway.

Yes, they always do return to the scene of the crime.

I believe the statement was first attributed to pique, hence,
......Picking up the ball & bouncing it briefly .....

With all due respect, Dr. John, pique poses a credible research question: Is a full term pregnancy and delivery more risky to a woman's health than abortion?" I don't doubt that medicine has already defined some or perhaps many of the variables that pique has mentioned in her statement, and formulated/tested selected hypotheses ..... Yet is there presently a body of research that has fully examined all the risks inherent with all term pregnancies and weighed them against those associated with all abortions? What are the limitations of the research to date? Are the conclusions generalizable? A fascinating statement pique ...... It makes me think.

Now back to my piano practice ......

You forgot the CAPS LOCK key.

My gosh I hate these bifocals ..... I think I misquoted someone again. I believe what's mentioned here is pique's original statement. Still it presents fuel for some fascinating research and debate.

Lord help us when it's fatal to reproduce.

Owen (age 9)says: "There are always risks associated with abortion".

Especially for the baby.

Pique, because you're posting an article regarding the many risks of pregnancy, just where does that lead me to the conclusion that pregnancy is MORE risky than abortion? Notice that I have never once said that you are wrong on this particular statement. Heck, you may be correct. But you have not offered any proof, whatsoever. In medicine, unlike in journalism, you shouldn't just spout off what you THINK to be correct. It will get you into hot water every time. There are many risks to abortion that i'm sure you don't even know about Pique. So let's assume "Doctor" Pique is correct, that pregnancy, overall, is more risky than abortion. Does that somehow make an abortion more acceptable? Your conclusions hold no merit at all.
Now, I need to go to work as well. Pique, if you happen to be passing through my part of the world and are met by some unforseen emergency, I'd be glad to show you my credentials... as I attempt to save your life.

Snippets from an article on this issue. URL is below for those who might want to read the whole article. As I said earlier, there is no shortage of studies and research and the more I look into this the more glaringly obvious it becomes that this is nothing but dirty politics. - - - - - -

Neither the National Cancer Institute nor the American Cancer Society recognizes the reliability of such an association (ACS, 1999; NCI, 2002).[that induced abortion does not place women at greater risk of breast cancer]

Anti-abortion foes are also lobbying for legislation that would require telling women who are considering abortion that having one would place them at in increased risk for breast cancer (Querido, 1999). Anti-choice claims linking abortion and breast cancer fly in the face of scientific evidence. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have all refuted the reliability of such an association (ACS, 2003; ACOG, 2003; NCI, 2003).

In February 2003, NCI convened the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop to "provide an integrated scientific assessment of the association between reproductive events and the risk of breast cancer." After reviewing the body of scientific literature, NCI concluded that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk" (NCI, 2003).

In August 2003, after conducting its own review of the scientific literature, ACOG issued a committee opinion concluding that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk" (ACOG, 2003).

The theory linking pregnancy termination and breast cancer is based on the hormonal disruption that occurs when a woman's pregnancy is interrupted. Pregnancy initiates a surge of sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin), which leads to differentiation of the cells in the breast glands in preparation for lactation. The changing concentrations of hormones during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy lead to increased differentiation. In a first pregnancy, the results of these hormonal changes permanently alter the structure of the breast. Adherents of this theory claim that interruption of the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation that may result in a subsequent increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues (Brumsted & Riddick, 1990; Westhoff, 1997). Attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed.

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and major universities say that the most reliable studies show no increased risk, and they consider the entire body of research inconclusive (ACS, 1999; NCI, 2002; Rosenfield, 1994?; RCOG, 2001; WHO, 2000).


Article in full

That line should be up in neon lights.

Okay John, here are some stats for you - international as well as national.

Each year over 585,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth; 99 percent of these women are in developing countries (WHO, 1996). In much of South Asia a woman has a one in eighteen chance of dying over the course of her lifetime as a consequence of pregnancy or delivery; the risk is one in fourteen in many areas of Africa (Belsey and Royston, 1987). By contrast, the risk in North America is one in 6,366 (Merchant and Kurz, 1993). The causes of these deaths are essentially the same around the world. It is estimated that 25% of women die due to haemorrhage, 15% due to sepsis, 12% due to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 8% due to obstructed labour and 13% due to abortion. Around 20% of women die as a result of disease which is aggravated by pregnancy. Full Article

And now let's compare with a statistic on UNSAFE abortions done worldwide

WOMENSENEWS)--Globally, unsafe abortion claims the lives of nearly 70,000 women every year. Nearly half of those deaths--and countless related injuries--occur in Africa. In Ethiopia alone, more women die in hospitals from complications of unsafe, usually illegal, abortions than from almost any other cause, the World Health Organization reports. In Ethiopia, as in other countries, most of the women affected are very poor and very young.

Full article

So there you have it. Even using unsafe abortions as a source of comparison, pregancy related deaths are eight times higher.

And some national statistics:

Health departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City provided CDC with copies of death certificates and available linked outcome records (i.e., birth certificates or fetal death records) of all identified pregnancy-related deaths. RESULTS: During 1987-1990, 1,459 deaths were determined to be pregnancy-related. The overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 9.2 deaths per 100,000 live births.

Full article

Since 1983, the number of legal abortions reported to CDC increased by 5% to 1,333,521 in 1984; in 1985, that number decreased by less than 1% to 1,328,570. The national abortion rate was the same for both years--24 per 1,000 females ages 15-44 years. The abortion ratio for 1984 was 364 legally induced abortions per 1,000 live births; the ratio for 1985 was 354 per 1,000. Abortion ratios were higher among women of black and other minority races and among women younger than 15 years of age. Women undergoing legally induced abortions tended 1) to be young, white, and unmarried, 2) to have had no previous live births, and 3) to be having the procedure for the first time. Curettage was the procedure used in 96% of the reported cases. Eleven deaths were associated with legally induced abortions in 1984, and six in 1985. Full article

So we have death ratio of 9:100,000 with births and 6-11:1,300,000 with abortions.

Nonsense dollface: apples an oranges. Births are, let's say, six months longer than abortions--six months more of complications. People could get hit by trucks in six months. What happened to the women that had abortion in those six months? How are they? The stats are not equal.

You did all that work for nothing.

Tom, as utterly cadish as you will be, I have complete respect for your absolute view on abortion - it's wrong, no ifs, ands or buts. It's the people who try to hide behind skewed statistics and feigned partriarchal concern for the mother that I take issue with. (So, just stay out of it Tomtom! ) The fact is, abortion, (even lousy, awful third world ones) is safer than childbirth.

kathyk, i knew i could count on you.

and the statistics you raised are well-known. johnny "the doc" moon certainly should have known about them if he is the professional he claims he is.

Sugar,

First of all thank you for respecting me. I respect you, too.

(Secondly, I'm not cadish, just an optimist where women are concerned--and that lilt on life has served me well.)

But thirdly, I'm not arguing with you--I just see a problem with your stats. Abortion cuts off the stats early on. Birth takes much longer. I'd like to see stats that take into account the WHOLE 9 month cycle for both the blessed mothers and the women that have killed their childen. That's all.

Is that too much to ask?

And all this is not to mention psychological damage. You gotta think those women feel a bit bad about killing their childen, don't you think?

More suicides long run? Just a question.

With all due respect.

KathyK,
Awesome analyses ..... with rapid delivery ..... You have a mind like the edge of a scalpel.

not too bright, are you, tommie? let me spell it out for you:

the anti-choice people on this thread began this discussion by saying that abortion providers were wrong to not disclose to women that abortions can cause breast cancer (a statement that is apparently not based in fact, even though we have it here from a supposed MD).

i responded by saying that it is irresponsible to make such statements to women, if true, unless they are put in context. that context being:

1. that early menarche, not breast feeding, early miscarriage, having children late, and a whole host of other things that women may have little control over also cause the same possible correlation between pregnancy loss and breast cancer.

2. that women are far more likely to die of complications from pregnancy and childbirth than from abortion. when it comes to risk, pregnancy and childbirth present clear and immediate dangers. abortions present only vague and unsubstantiated ones.

so, presuming that the abortion/cancer connection was correct (which it apparently isn't), it is only fair and reasonable to advise women of it if you also put it into a larger context.

are you still with me?

since abortion puts to an end the potential for death from full term pregnancy and delivery, and since those are the two choices the woman is choosing between, this is not apples and oranges. this is a woman making an informed choice about which presents the greater risk to her health. clearly continuing the pregnancy constitutes the greater risk.

but that isn't the reason, usually, the woman is at the abortion clinic. usually it is because of the circumstances of her life that make it advisable that she seek an abortion, not because of risks to her health.

all i'm saying is, if you are going to start throwing at her the health consequences of her choices, then throw them all at her, don't cherry pick.

not not not not not not not not not not not! Jee whiz!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you mean that Kathy - support that one with stats.

A statement like that is appropriate for one whose brain is a scalpel.

she did support it with stats, apple. read what is in front of your face.

KathyK, thank you for pulling all the stats and references in one place (and for excerpting the highlights). It is much appreciated.

Let me see if I understand what it is that KathyK is preaching:

Point 1: Women need not be told about the possible complications when dealing with abortion because it's possible that if she does not[/b] have an abortion she might die.

Point 2: We really don't need to continue medical research because we already know enough.

Okay, now my point: even if we choose to stop medical research because there might be some politician somewhere who might benefit from it, that does not change the truth[/b]. The truth, is that we don't know everything about medical science. The truth, is that we must continue to research the consequences (even if the procedure to be researched has some political charge around it), in order for future procedures to be as safe as possible. The truth, is that women (at least most of the ones I know) want to know of all of the possible complications (no matter how significant).

Dear pique,

Read my posts. OK?

Listen: I had a particular problem with kathy's statistics--they don't take into account the long view of what happens to a person over the 9 month process. I feel the statistics are flanged in the direction of the "early ending". THAT WAS ALL I SAID.

My comments were quite specific to a particular problem that I felt was relevant.

The rest of your essay is just your angst spilling out, isn't it?

With all due respect.

My suggestion: spend some time on the tea thread.