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

Many nonprofits make money hand over fist. They are just required to keep it in the corporation (salaries, reinvestment, etc.) They can make obscene profits as long as they don't distribute them to shareholders, etc.

You are correct about the nastiness..Throw out the contorted stats, convoluted logic and totally out of place juvenile insults from those who suffer from "nowayamIwrongitis" and that's what is left.

The left should embrace the wisdom of the right in what should be a judicious endorsement of a feticide. That's what they should do.

tata

I have stayed out of this food fight up till now because I really don't have time to plow through all the statistics that have been tossed around from both sides. I still don't but I have a few questions and comments that might be relevant.

This discussion began by questioning whether we should be funding more more research into the link (if any) between abortion and breast cancer and whether women seeking an abortion should be advised of these risks. Putting aside the political motivations of those who may be calling for such research it would seem that if there are indications of such a link then it would be sound public policy to conduct such research.

It would also seem to be sound policy if research verifies a link between abortions and breast cancer to inform women of these risks. Certainly it would seem to make sense that the risks associated with a given procedure should be viewed in the context of the risks associated with not having the procedure. Whether the risks of not having the procedure should always be given along with the risks of having it is a question I would leave up to medical professionals.

I have no doubt that the statistics on deaths resulting from pregnanancy coming from the CDC can be relied upon. I have to wonder, however, what the numbers would look like for pregnant women who had obtained proper prenatal care. It generally well known that such care reduces the risks of pregnancy dramatically. I find it specious at best comparing raw numbers of pregnancy related deaths with daeths that have resulted from a procedure carried out legally by licensed professionals. It seems to be an apples to oranges comparison when these numbers are not controlled for proper prenatal care.

That being said, there is no doubt that there are risks associated with prenancy to term or abortion. Everything we do in life has associated risks. However, whether pregnancy undertaken with the same level of professional care is more risky than abortion is something I really don't know and I don't think the numbers we have seen so far tell us that.

I have to say that I was taken aback by the attack on John. It is one thing to question his facts and his conclusions and it is perfectly legitimate to do so. It is quite another matter to question his professionalism generally and even broadly hint that he may not be a medical professional at all. I found this to be especially stunning in light of the fact that I was given to understand that the more leftward leaning members of this forum were incapable of such nastiness and particularly coming from one who complains the loudest about such nastiness. In fact, reading through this thread, I would have to say that the pro-choice side of this argument has no lack of viciousness.

No doubt, Gryphon. However, because the profits cannot be used to feather the nests of greedy individuals (except in the rare instances when CEOs and directors have, using your word, obscenly high salaries - Red Cross comes to mind and their not so distant scandal along those lines), the greed motive is not present, and the profits are almost always used to further the missions of the non-profit organization. That is most certainly the case with Planned Parenthood.

Kindly point out the contortion, Apple. No one here has presented anything to show that they are not accurate. Granted, it's not a pat comparison chart. The fact is, I could not find a neat comparison chart of pregancy morbidity rates vs. abortion rates, no doubt because it is such a no brainer. Anyone with any knowledge on these issues knows that the instance of death (to the woman thank you very much) are practically nil while the instance of death to the mother during a full term pregancy are relatively high. In any event, from the stats I lifted in my quick search, it's a matter of simple extrapolation - abortion is much safer than full term pregancy.

You baffle me, Apple. You have indicated in the past that you agree that abortion should be left to a woman to decide. I have indicated (many times, as has Picque) in the past that abortion is a tragic choice for any woman to face. Are we really that far apart on the issue, or is it your mission to disprove anything and everything I say here?

Great post JBryan. And thanks Gryphon for the earlier post as well.
Kathy, do the research that I have requested. Do you know what latent morbidity means? Do you realize that the research you have done thus far has nothing at all to do with the latent morbidity associated with abortions? Do you realize that the research you have done so far has only addressed legal abortions performed in a medical setting?
Do you also realize that any little tiny bit of respect that I once had for your friend Pique has completely vanished? It always amazes me that when the kitchen gets hot, you liberals are the first to bitch and whine about how the conservatives are unfair and nasty but when you look back through the thread YOU GUYS are the ones that turned up the heat. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to get it right back in your face.

Fortunately, John, there is no need in our country these days for abortions to be performed other than legally in safe settings. This is one of the reasons I get so incensed with the move to take that right away from women. If it is taken away, you can sure that abortion morbidity rates will rise dramatically. And, no, I don't agree that we turned up the heat on this issue here.

There are plenty of sites that lend support to the other side as well Kathy. Yes, I know it is politically motivated, as are most sites regarding abortion, including the ones you point out. abortion morbitity

hey, the feeling is mutual! :p

first you tell us that abortions cause breast cancer, but then, it turns out the research shows no link between the two.

don't you think a physician should have known this?

then you tell me i don't know what i'm talking about when i state that full term pregnancy and childbirth are a much greater threat to a woman's health than abortion. yet, the statistics to prove that i was correct and you were wrong were very easy to find. it's a fact that is common knowledge even to laypeople.

if you do have an MD, i really have grave doubts whether you should be practicing, based on the ignorance and/or willful disinformation you have displayed here.

and yet your buddies come rushing to your rescue, in the very face of your ignorance being unmasked. is it just because you agree with them politically? if you are a doctor, aren't you a scientist first? scientists stick to the scientific facts; they don't twist them to push political agendas.

kathyk and i didn't start anything. we responded to your disinformation by setting the record straight.

as for the website you just linked to: people can write whatever they want on a website--that doesn't make it true. that is why the agenda and affiliations of the website are all-important in considering the veracity of the statements made on them.

note that they only footnote the articles they cite. they don't provide links to the actual articles. this is something i've seen over and over and over again when i've reported on public policy. advocacy groups do this so they can say whatever they like about what the study says, and you can't verify it.

however, very often, if you go and read the actual study they are citing, you find out it doesn't say what they say it says, at all!

happens all the time.

In any event, from the stats I lifted in my quick search, it's a matter of simple extrapolation - abortion is much safer than full term pregancy.

In other words, you hastily scanned for something that looked like it could support your already formed opinion, and made up the rest.

Interesting article, John, but incredibly skewed. ALthough the title would suggest that the deaths in the statistics are caused by the abortion, a closer read says not. The causes listed: Suicide, accident, homicide and natural causes. Since there was a slight elevation in those causes of deaths in the sampling of women, we are to take the leap and say therefore, that those deaths were caused by the abortion? Give me a break! Clearly, undergoing an abortion is highly traumatic emotionally for most women, and the subsequent year can expectedly be an emotional roller coaster for such women. But, the same could certainly be surmised for those same women if they had been forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

and yet your buddies come rushing to your rescue, in the very face of your ignorance being unmasked. is it just because you agree with them politically? if you are a doctor, aren't you a scientist first? scientists stick to the scientific facts; they don't twist them to push political agendas.

kathyk and i didn't start anything. we responded to your disinformation by setting the record straight.

Pique, I'm not "rushing to my buddy's rescue", I'm simply pointing out the facts. You and Kathy have *far* from set any record straight - Kathy's info is not from the CDC, it is from Planned Parenthood, the single most biased pro-abortion organization in the country. Kathy has already admitted that she didn't do any in depth research for her data, but quickly scanned it, and I have already given you a source for numerous links proving the link between breast cancer and abortions.

The truth is, you and Kathy keep repeating the same discredited statements over and over again claiming them to be fact, when they are not. Kathy's claim that she has proven that the mortality rate is higher for pregnant women than for women who had an abortion is flat out incorrect. It is based on a biased and inaccurate set of data, and this has already been shown.

ok, i can see this is a case of wasted breath when you are talking to people who don't want to be confused with the facts.

how you can state that the links you provided have more veracity than planned parenthood's or the cdc (which is clearly where planned parenthood's came from, if you look at the cdc website), is beyond me.

but then, it's already as clear as day that when it comes to the coffee room, some people would rather stick to their guns, right or wrong, than actually learn something.

i've been here since this forum's inception, i guess that is about 2.5 years by now, and i hang around thinking i will come to understand better the workings of the conservative mind. why not? since i'm a pretty conservative person myself in some areas. but i remain mystified. to me it looks like a profound attachment to ignorance. but then, i know you think the exact same thing about me.

so, i think i've gleaned all i can about the inner workings of the conservative mind. it's been fun. i'm going back to work now.

love to you all.

But your statistics did not prove that. As I pointed out with proper prenatal care these numbers cited from the CDC would very likely be much lower. Comparing deaths from a procedure carried out with proper medical supervision to deaths that could heave occured under a wide range of medical supervision from none at all to proper is invalid. To make it an apples to apples comparison you would have to include abortions performed by just anyone or only include pregnancy related deaths of those who received proper prenatal care. However, since abortion is legal and readily available these types of abortions just don't happen very much any more whereas the instances of insufficient prenatal care is, relatively speaking, quite high, especially among poorer women.

I realize that legal, safe abortion has reduced abortion related deaths among women and that is part of the quandary faced by those who are for or against legal abortion. However, this discussion as it began was centered around the issue of properly notifying women of risks associated with abortion.

It is interesting that you insist on attacking the professional credentials of one of the forum members as if that, somehow, would lend weight to your argument. I find it to be revealing in just how weak your argument really is even to yourself. These attacks are totally unnecessary to making your point and I have to say that my respect for you has suffered from this incident. However, I am sure that you could not care less what my level of respect for you is so please don't bother telling me.

jbryan,
our posts crossed. i consider you to be one of the more reasonable people around here, though i've noticed it has been awhile since we've agreed on much of anything.

here is how the cdc's statistics are useful and truthful: they describe the current state of the world.

no doubt you are right that if prenatal care would only improve, then yes indeed pregnancy and delivery related mortality would drop.

but that isn't the reality of the world today. i think kathyk made a very strong point when she said that the woman who is considering abortion and doesn't really want the child is unlikely to seek proper prenatal care and so is at higher risk for death or complications.

we began with what information should be presented to women seeking abortion. to tell her that abortion has been linked with breast cancer is false, according to the evidence we've seen here, and to tell her that her statistical odds of dying from pregnancy or childbirth are much higher than from abortion is correct.

that says nothing about how things might potentially change with advances in medicine and improvement in care. it only says how it is today, as she makes her choice.

i didn't question john's credentials to "lend weight to my argument." i questioned them sincerely and authentically, not to make a point. i questioned them because he is spreading disinformation, because he called into question a statement i made that is generally acknowledged as fact among medical professionals. if he is an MD, i find that behavior to be highly unethical, and i called him on it.

maybe he is in fact a doctor (have you yourself seen his medical credentials? if not, then why should you object if i question them?). there are plenty of doctors, i'm sure, who skew medical data to fit their own values and agenda. after all, they are only human. but i wouldn't go to such a physician, and i consider such a physician to be irresponsible.

Pique,

Your points are well taken. However, the premise in question as stated was that pregnancy to full term carries greater risk of death than abortion. The numbers you have provided do not support this premise. That was my point.

As to John's credentials I try to assume everyone here is just what they say they are unless they give me some reason to believe otherwise. John has never given me such reason. Quite to the contrary he seems to know his stuff. You may disagree with him and even choose to not allow him to treat you based on that disagreement. To say that his disagreement amounts to spreading disinformation when we are talking about a subject that is not exactly settled scientifically is something I find suspect as well.

Attacking his professional competence or ethics on a public forum is not quite in keeping with the sort of nicey nice atmosphere you all keep harping on here. I am personally repulsed by such behavior but, hey, that's just me.

Sorry Pique but you're wrong again. When I have time I'll dig up the evidence linking breast cancer and abortions. Now, why don't you go back and look over the thread. I have never once said that abortions carry more risk than a full-term pregnancy. YOU started that tangent. I only said that you really can't offer any proof that your statement is true. You still can't offer the proof. Do you know what is meant by latent morbitity, Pique? If you look it up, you'll quickly realize that, just maybe, more problems can actually occur from an abortion than from a full-term pregnancy. No, there really is no way that I can prove that because of the inherent difficulties in conducting such a test. Who do you think is a bigger drain on the psychological/psychiatrict-pharmaceutical industry; a post-abortion patient or a post-partum patient? Which patient ends up costing the medical industry multitudes more on infertility testing; a post-abortion patient or a post-partum patient? Spend some time seeing real live patients and you'll quickly realize the answers to the questions. Just because a procedure doesn't lead to immediate death does not mean that it is SAFE.
BTW, if you had been sitting in on my lecture a few years back on a detailed analysis of breast cancer causation, you wouldn't be spouting of such a load of crap right now. Pique, do you know what constitutes a well-conducted study?
I doubt it.
You and Kathy have changed the course of this thread to fit tidily into your politically narrow-minded pipe dreams.
You spend your time questioning my credentials. If you're such an intelligent journalistic phenom, then do some background research. See if you can find something juicy about me that would make for some good forum gossip. At one point I gave my exact work address and phone number on here to prove to another idiot that I'm a physician. I won't do it again because I don't want to be harassed.

As JBryan has so eloquently stated(as usual), it is your attack on my credentials that exposes your true character. Pique, you are rather immature and conceited. It was obvious in the Apple/jealousy/bickering thread and it is just as obvious in this one...it is too bad.

i've never noticed you having a problem with my professional competence or ethics being attacked, even though my professional bonafides are well known by many people at piano world. in fact, i think it was johnnie who questioned mine before i ever said a thing about his. so you certainly are discriminating in that department.

johnnie, i really don't know what you are or aren't, but i don't care enough to find out. if you are going to try to make the case that women suffer psychologically from abortion and that that risk is greater than the physical risks that are actually documented from pregnancy and childbirth, we'll go nowhere, because such a claim is amorphous and unprovable at best. most of the women i know have had abortions, and they are leading very happy fulfilled lives. a huge percentage of the population has had at least one abortion, but we don't see women committing suicide left and right. how do we know that you don't whip your own patients into a frenzy of despair by damning them for having had an abortion? your patients are hardly a representative sample. we can throw anecdotes at each other but it doesn't prove anything either.

i find you to be so unreasonable and evidently incapable of responding directly to what i have written that i strongly suspect you don't read very carefully.

i've already said everything i have to say on the subject, so i'm moving on now.

Actually, I recall the opposite. What he said about you was in response to your initial attack on him. Otherwise I would view it the same. In all the time I have been here I do not recall anyone attacking you in the manner you have attacked John here. If someone does you will hear me saying something about it. That goes the same for anyone.