Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Best Interests

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 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. 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.

The highest rate of mortality connected with childbirth, is stated as hemorrhage.

Excuse me, Doctors Pique and KathyK, but would you explain whether that is a direct bleed, or a case of DIC post-partum?

I think I've mentioned that every Saturday I go for a run.

After I've finished the run, I drive down the street to my health club. Along the way, I pass an abortion clinic.

I never feel good about that.

There are a few folks praying in front of the clinic. Sometimes, they are reading scripture. Other times, they may have candles. A month ago, it was 15 degrees below zero with a good wind to make it worse. They were there.

But there are also some people who stand in front of the door to assist the women who wish to use the clinic -- to ensure that they are not vilified.

I am grateful every Saturday that both groups are there.

No I don't support abortion. I abhore it - but I don't want it to be illegal for the costs of that seem worse to me -- back room abortion stuff has little luster for me. In my town, a friend of mine told me how she watched a woman die in a hospital because she was refused treatment following a botched abortion. The hospital personnel did not help her, for this would encourage others...

There is some common ground. That is, I think it is important for young people to THINK about the consequences of their actions. Secondly, I applaud the notion of making it easier for young folks to choose to have a child and put him/her up for adoption.

For parents confronted with the potential of a severely handicapped child, this is between them and God. I would hope that they would pray for guidance - but I do not favor the state eliminating options from them. As an aside, one of my neighbors who has been very active in the pro-life movement at the national level - was confronted with this very dilemma - horrible irony - they followed their precepts and had the baby.

Ken

Using the same logic, then my dentist should be telling me to wear my seatbelt, because not wearing it could lead to serious injury or death in an accident; and my chiropractor should be telling me to brush my teeth three times a day with a flouride toothpaste, as improper brushing could lead to cavities, which could lead to an infection which could kill me.

This argument is one odf the most ridiculous I've ever heard coming from somebody whose arguments I've always enjoyed and found very intelligent, even if I disagreed. If a woman is there to have an abortion, the doctor should warn her of the risks of that procedure, period. The other possible causes are irrelevant, as they are not part of the procedure. Another fault with the argument is: abortion is something the woman does have control over (breast feeding as well). It is a choice she is making, not a force of nature, an accident, or just chance.

Actually, the death ratio is 1,300,006 for every 1,300,000 abortions .

Lovely post, Ken.

:rolleyes:

No, you don't understand. And excuse for being so obtuse and appearing to preach. Allow me to clarify.

To point 1, women should (and I dare say, are) fully informed of the consequences of the procedure before undergoing it and you can be assured that they've signed consent forms up the wazoo indicating as much beforehand. I challenge you to visit any abortion clinic to enquire about the informed consent process.

To point 2, of course research should not be halted. What should be halted are disingenous calls for research in attempt to prove something (which has already been researched to the hilt, BTW) for purely political reasons. Did you read the earlier post, Z, on the masses of research done on the nexus of abortion and breast cancer (the one this guy from Oz seems so bent on proving).

Damn straight. Lots of killing, lots of killing.

Happy kathy? happy pique? Feel better?

Personally, I wouldn't use capital letters in my name if I were you guys either. I'd just feel that small.

I would just feel that small.

My position and related question:

(1) As a matter of principle, a patient considering abortion must be informed of the risks involved. As a matter of implementation, regulators and insurance companies would likely draw up a list of risk items that doctors and counselors must discuss with their patients. Additional items may be discussed as time, resources, patient's particular situation, and patient's comprehension capacity permit.

Question related to (1): Of all the risks involved with pregnancy and artificially induced abortion, is breast cancer down the line big enough a risk to be included in that required list or risk items?

(2) As a matter of principle, yes, we can always use more medical study to help us understand better the consequences of the choices we may have to make.

Question related to (2): As a matter or implementation, if we are talking about using limited public funds to finance the medical study, given what we know now, is the study of abortion-breast cancer link important enough among all studies that could be funded to warrant funding?

Stated another way: In the grand scheme of things, from what we know now, is breat cancer risk (as it relates to artificially induced abortion) practically big enough a deal to warrant mandatory disclosure and publically funded research?

I have not the knowledge to address either question. I suppose practicing physicians, counselors, and NIH funding proposal reviewers would be more qualified to address such questions. I look forward to reading your comments.