Just a brief reflection upon the concept of recall bias with which we have been contending. Several authors, including the notoriously pro-aborts, Palmer and Rosenberg, have held out the contention that women who are healthy control subjects are more prone to not tell the truth when asked in a detailed health history if they have ever had an abortion than are women with breast cancer. This is the purported fatal flaw of retrospective studies, which employ self-reports from patients.
Supposedly women with breast cancer are busily searching for any culprit to blame.
We have seen consistent evidence of an increase in BC in women who have had induced abortions, and we shall see much more to come.
We have seen in paper #7 in this series a large prospective study (declared by the pro-aborts as the only valid type), one employing national health databases, that couldn’t hide that risk even when the authors did all in their power to dilute the magnitude of the reported risk by combining into a single category, risk groups of divergent incidence rates.
And we have not even seen the worst. Beginning on the first day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month we shall turn our sights on the Queen of All the Liars, Dr. Louise Brinton, epidemiology chief for the National Cancer Institute whose repeatedly alternating scientific papers and public policy statements have had the head-turning effect of a game at Wimbledon.
It is odd that the assertion is for healthy women to lie on one question out of so many, and for BC patients to be truthful on said question, especially when the stated rationale for much of the lying is that many of the women in the studies had abortions in the years before they were legal. Yet many of the BC patients too had their abortions in the years when abortion was illegal. So what makes BC patients given to greater veracity when their traumatic illness is grounds for denial that they could have inflicted this on themselves through the killing of their own baby?
We have seen the ABC link in the Greek study, and the declaration that abortion was widely accepted and openly practiced in Greece for years before its legalization; a reality that crushes the assumption of guilty silence in the control group creating an illusion of increased incidence in the BC case group. So the Greeks have the same elevated risk without any of the alleged confounding guilt
We have seen Rookus’ and van Leeuwen’s paper that supposedly established this phenomenon (and has been extensively held out as proof) to be founded on statistics so absurd that they are beyond taking seriously.
Finally, we have the assertion by many that the same relative risks of BC in most studies constitutes proof of error, proof of recall bias. Herein is perhaps the greatest lie of them all.
The data support the model that we know from the physiology of the breast and the data that we have from animal studies as well. The gold standard in science is the ability of an experiment to be reproduced by others with the same results. It’s called reproducibility, and we see it over and over in the ABC literature. Vatten, et al. really did the scientific community a grave disservice by obviously covering up the ABC link in their disgraceful analysis of nearly 700,000 subjects in the Norwegian prospective study.
They could have ended the debate, one way or the other. But the war rages on because of a series of cover-ups on the part of those who are in a position to control the conversation, in no small measure by controlling the grant funding.
Lest any think my statement partisan, I am not vested in any way in a particular outcome in all of this. If the data, honest data, showed absolutely no ABC link I would be the first to say let’s move on. Abortion is wrong on so many other levels that we don’t need the added fuel from an ABC link to stoke the fires of opposition. Besides, we live in an age of shrinking research grant pools. Every dollar is precious. If there were no ABC link, then we could move on and use that money more productively.
But there is a link, a very real and disturbing link. And there are very committed idealogues who value the right to slaughter babies over the lives and health of the women they claim to champion.
Some sisterhood.
Some sisterhood indeed, and KOMEN is among the most blameworthy for perpetuating not only the lie that there is no ABC link, but in actually causing more incidences of breast cancer by their funding of Planned Parenthood, whose goal it is to delay FFTP by either birth control methods or abortion, both of which are linked to breast cancer. Disgusting!
I don’t get why they think healthy women would be more likely to lie about having an abortion considering that at almost every doctor visit a woman is expected to reveal how many pregnancies she’s had, how many children she has, and the date of her last menstrual period. That’s just considered standard medical history for women. So, if they’re lying on polls than their lying to every doctor they have.
You know….I actually DO know one woman who lied to doctors about her abortion (and I might know more, but this rarely comes up in conversation). She said she leaves it off her health history, because, as she says, “it was early first trimester, it doesn’t make any difference.” She was a teenager, and she doesn’t want anyone to know she was sexually active because she learned her lesson and stopped, she said.
She was afraid that her family would somehow see her medical records, and learn about her secret teenage abortion. I have lost touch with this woman, but I can imagine her having the same (irrational) fear that her husband might somehow learn of it, and so maybe she is still out there lying about.
One anecdote is not statistically significant, but there are all kinds of reasons women might lie, just as people lie about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.
I like your blog. You are very knowledgeable on the subject. I have plugged in seventeen of my doctor friends to your blog. May I make a suggestion: when you call some researchers “pro-aborts, it may turn off some; it is a pejorative term for them. Pro-lifers or pro-choicers: we all have to learn the truth about the relationship between induced abortion (and the Pill and its multiplyer effect) and BC. As for Dr Brinton, may be she is beginning to see the light. In her 2009 study: Risk Factors for triple-negative…, she list induced abortion among risk factors for BC, p. 1163. Keep up the good work. This is quite a commitment you have made. I’m in for the quest.
Many women do not tell their doctor (or anyone) about past abortions. Many physicians do not ask, either. It should stay off the medical record in some cases, for privacy reasons. Electronic medical records are not more private, contrary to what we are told.
PTSD, from any source, combat or witness to violence or domestic abuse, creates a person who walls off the damaged area. This is why you do not go into the veterans home and ask about the Battle of the Bulge. If you break down the wall, things crumble or get healed. Same with past abortions, as a clinician has to be careful treading on emotionally fragile ground. This is why abortions are hidden away, and clinicians mistake this for “not a big deal since it is never brought up”, when it is quite otherwise. Some of these women are now in their mid-sixties, having hidden a secret abortion for decades. Ideally, when these women reach old age and death, the loose end of a secret abortion can be healed. Otherwise, I forsee a lot of anxious deaths.
Louise, I always took the term “pro-aborts” to be shorthand for “pro-abortion rights,” which is entirely accurate.
It is a different thing than saying, “pro-abortion,” because the latter term implies that just as pro-life people hope all pregnancies end in live births, pro-abortion people must hope that all pregnancies end in abortions.
Or saying, “pro-life” and “not pro-life” also covers it.
Hi Louise.
Thank you so much for your kind words and referring the blog to your doctor friends.
The term “pro-abort” is used by me to cut through the euphemistic “pro-choice” and describe exactly what choice is under discussion. Many believe the ‘choice’ in pro-choice is choosing to have a baby (buying the lie that there is not a baby from the outset in pregnancy).
The perjorative that I stay away from is anti-lifer (as opposed to my being tagged “anti-choice”).
L,
While I see your point about why women might lie about a past abortion, even to their doctor, I don’t see how having breast cancer (as a particular form of cancer) would make them more honest. Heck, some of them are lying to themselves (“it doesn’t really count because it was so early”), and that’s not likely to change in a significant number of women.
Mattthew (nice name, by the way it’s what I named my youngest son), I was only making that point that women lie about the medical histories of abortion.
I don’t know anyone (that I know of) who had an abortion and developed breast cancer, but two relatively young friends of mine at work both had Stage II breast cancer recently, and I noticed that both of them were guessing at causes — smoking? use of hormonal bc? living close to an oil refinery? not getting enough sleep? They examined their lives for answers.
But I honestly have no idea how anyone could accurately study whether cancer patients are more or less honest than anyone else, about anything.
L,
you actually DON”T know with 100% certainty if your friends have had an abortion.
I have had friends whom I’ve known for years who have divulged unwed pregnancies (who knew??!!), STD’s and other things that I would never have thought of.
I would not be surprised if one of my close friends has had an abortion and it is a deep dark secret.
The fact that abortion can be obtained easily today and with great secrecy makes this entirely plausible.
And I also favor the term pro-abort since pro-choice is not accurate at all.
These people are not for choice otherwise they would be working for actual choice. The choice they promote is the choice of abortion and that choice exclusively.
Yes, Mary Catherine, that is exactly why I said, “I don’t know anyone (that I know of)…”
I don’t mind at all if someone calls me a “pro-abort,” but I certainly do not “exclusively” promote abortion as the only — or even the best — choice.
People who favor abortion rights rarely call themselves “pro-aborts.” I think “pro-abortion rights” is the most accurate description, but it’s a mouthful.
“People who favor abortion rights rarely call themselves “pro-aborts.””
no of course they don’t. Because they believe they are for choice – the choice of abortion. But they are very close-minded about the choice to let the baby live. That is not a choice to them. It’s all about the woman’s “choice” and choice is synonymous with abortion.😦
“But they are very close-minded about the choice to let the baby live.”
Hmmm, you are simply wrong there. I have known very few “pro-aborts” who weren’t in favor of carrying babies to term. If my own teenage daughter got pregnant, I certainly wouldn’t be close-minded about letting her baby live. If I got pregnant myself, it would be a very much unwanted pregnancy, but I would consider my husband’s wishes and my doctor’s advice before I made any decision. And I am hardly unusual for a “pro-abort.”
I do know one woman who fits your description, and might more properly be called “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-abortion rights,” but she is the exception. (She believes women have a moral obligation to end all crisis pregnancies.)
“But they are very close-minded about the choice to let the baby live.”
Hmmm, you are simply wrong there. ”
YOU are wrong L.
Go onto any proabort website or blog and you will see that the only choice is the choice to abort.
Pregnancy=abuse/slavery/torture/of a woman’s body
In fact, many of these women are disgusted by pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. They mock pregnancy, write poems about how they will kill their babies and celebrate abortion.
PP which is most definitely a proabort organization promotes contraceptives and abortion. They do not promote the choice to have the baby. EVER. In fact, if you want to have your baby they offer little in the way of help.
Believe me, you are completely out of touch with this reality.
Have you ever been in a PP clinic, Mary Catherine?
I have. I was a regular patient there for over 10 years, beginning when I was 16.
They were my main health-care provider when I was in my 20’s, and had no U.S. health insurance. I was living and working in Japan, and had only Japanese health insurance with didn’t cover any preventive OB/GYN check-ups or contraception.
So whenever I went home to visit my parents, I went to PP of Connecticut. (And I still donate money to them whenever I can afford to, because I was grateful they were there for me when I needed them.)
I personally know someone who faced a crisis pregnancy as a teenager, and received counseling and pre-natal care at our local PP, as well as information and referrals for adoption, although she decided to raise the baby herself.
“Go onto any proabort website or blog and you will see that the only choice is the choice to abort. ” —>
Okay, I will. Here’s one compliled by abortion professionals: http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2010/08/her-body-her-life.html
“I wish that every single person working in abortion care understood that our job is about making sure women know they can decide what to do with their bodies for themselves regardless of any one elses personal views.
The other day I had a 17 year old express her wish to keep her pregnancy so I wrote gave her information regarding seeking medical care and advised her to take care of herself and her body.”
Mary Catherine, I am not saying that the “pro-abort” extremists you describe don’t exist. I know they do.
I am just saying that they don’t speak for we who call ourselves pro-abortion rights anymore than the doctor shooters/clinic bombers speak for you who call yourself pro-life.
“…making sure women know they can decide what to do with their bodies…” and “…take care of herself and her body…” – as opposed to her baby…. kind of telling. Even the name of the blog is chilling – “her body her life”
I’m sure the other advice was – no it’s not a baby – it’s just a blob of cells…. no it is not alive yet…. no of course you won’t regret it….
If you don’t allude to the other living being in the equation – sounds like a pro-abort extremist to me.
L,
You said: “If my own teenage daughter got pregnant, I certainly wouldn’t be close-minded about letting her baby live. If I got pregnant myself, it would be a very much unwanted pregnancy, but I would consider my husband’s wishes and my doctor’s advice before I made any decision”
That is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read here. What decision? To pay a doctor to shred your baby. Yet you say it so dispassionately, as if discussing your next haircut. “I’ll consider the fact that my husband likes long hair before making a decision with regards to color and style”?
Sorry, that isn’t a hair follicle we’re talking about, or a fingernail.
How about taking that little life into consideration?
Matthew, I’m a “pro-abort,” but I would indeed take “that little life” into consideration. The point made above was that abortion was the “only choice” that “pro-aborts” supported, so I made my statement to say, not always so.
Unlike some “pro-aborts,” I believe it is a child that is killed in an abortion. Some of us realize just how horrible abortion is, and therefore do all we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Believe me, I have absolutely zero desire to have either an abortion or a baby (unless someone leaves the latter on my doorstep in a rush basket).
I know how horrible rape is, and therefore want to do all I can to educate people about “safe walking” (avoid dark alleys!), and prevent unintended risk, but don’t think rape should be illegal. Rape should be a choice.
Matthew, I didn’t say “I want to do all I can to educate people about ‘safe walking'” — I was speaking very personally. And your comparison is quite apt. I have never been raped, but if I were, it is one of the situations in which I believe I would have an abortion. I think my consent is vital for both intercouse and carrying any pregnancy to term in my body, and I shouldn’t be legally compelled to do either.
Okay, here’s a question I asked on another thread, but no one answered there: Should a mother who supports abortion rights/contraception be allowed to raise her born children?
If a mother declares she has no moal qualms about killing her toddler, her other children would surely be put into foster care. So if she admits she would abort any baby she conceives, or admits to the use of abortificiant contraception, should the state’s actions be the same?
I ask this because I always try to imagine how I would fit into a world in which abortion and contraception were criminalized, and I would be a criminal.
L.,
One heinous act with an undesired result (rape resulting in pregnancy) does not make another heinous act (killing an unborn baby) permissible. And while you can’t be compelled by law to engage in intercourse, you likewise should not be legally entitled to end the life of an innocent human being for the “crime” of being conceived through an illegal, violent act.
But you missed my point. Not desiring abortion but tolerating it is the same as not desiring rape but tolerating it. Or not desiring murder, but accepting that it remain a legal option for people to choose.
In answer to your question, a mother who supports abortion rights should raise her born children. It’s not “allowed”, since it is an intrinsic right for a parent to raise her child, and not a right granted by a government. As she poses no threat to born children, there would be no need for Child Protective Services (or whatever their name is now) to get involved. I would, however, be concerned about her decisions in the case of a later pregnancy. In such a case, it is the duty of the State to protect the lives of residents (the unborn baby is not yet a citizen, due to lack of birth, but a resident…he or she resides in the state, within the mother’s womb). Therefore the state should protect the unborn baby’s life, the human life.
Read the original Hippocratic Oath. There’s a clause that has been dropped in many places that still administer the oath…” similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion”. It comes right after swearing to not administer lethal drugs. The Greeks understood that both were human lives. Both of those seem to be completely forgotten by some modern doctors.
I would prefer that abortion and abortifacient contraceptives were illegal, but non-abortifacient contraceptives were legal. While I find all contraceptives to be immoral, the non-abortifacient ones don’t kill another human life, and therefore there is no valid reason to make them illegal.
“I wish that every single person working in abortion care understood that our job is about making sure women know they can decide what to do with their bodies for themselves regardless of any one elses personal views.
The other day I had a 17 year old express her wish to keep her pregnancy so I wrote gave her information regarding seeking medical care and advised her to take care of herself and her body.”
very interesting:
women KNOW what to do with their bodies but in pregnancy there is ANOTHER body and it’s that of the baby.
“she wished to keep her pregnancy”
ah yes. The BABY is a pregnancy. notice there is not a word about the baby. This is a very common way proaborts use to get around having to actually admit there is a baby. It’s a pregnancy.
Do you know how many women refer to the fact that they felt their “pregnancy” move or kick them. 😦
The word baby is NEVER used by these people.
L, you haven’t a clue what you are writing about.
These people use euphemisms all the time because it’s all about the woman ABORTING. Heaven help them if they admit that she might be carrying….. A BABY!
Notice the woman mentions that she gave the teen information on taking care of HER body but did she give her information on health during pregnancy, fetal development and looking after the baby. I doubt it.
These people have a whole language that has been developed. It is a language the doesn’t include the baby.
They are proabortion and prodeath. Period. You havn’t convinced me and yes I”m quite familiar with all the trash put out by the abortioneers.😦
Good try though.😉
“Should a mother who supports abortion rights/contraception be allowed to raise her born children?
If a mother declares she has no moal qualms about killing her toddler, her other children would surely be put into foster care. So if she admits she would abort any baby she conceives, or admits to the use of abortificiant contraception, should the state’s actions be the same?
I ask this because I always try to imagine how I would fit into a world in which abortion and contraception were criminalized, and I would be a criminal.”
you have highlighted a very interesting disconnect that exists in our society today and one that Pete Singer has also brought up.
If it is ok to abort an 8mon, 5 mon, 6 week unborn baby why is it wrong to kill a baby 3 weeks after birth?
Why should it be? Thus his rational for having ALL babies certified to be human in a definable period after birth. If they do not meet the criteria they are killed.
Proabort logic supports exactly this sort of behavior. In fact, it would be illogical not to support it if you are in favor of abortion rights. And one country has legalized this sort of thing to an extent (Groningen Protocol)
“The word baby is NEVER used by these people.
L, you haven’t a clue what you are writing about.” —>
Mary Catherine, I am one of “these people.” Why would I not have a “clue,” when it comes to my own opinion?
Matthew, I thank you for your reasoned answer in explaining your position.
I’m not sure, though, how the state could protect the lives of the unborn without being like Nicolae Ceauşescu’s Romania, in which women were required to receive regular pregnancy tests at their schools and places of employment. If they were found to be pregnant, they were expected to produce a baby, and all miscarriages were investigated as potential crimes.
For instance, I am at “high risk” of an abortion, if I were ever to conceive again, due to my stated opinions. Should the state have the right to regularly test me, to make sure that there is not a new citizen inside me that needs protecting from my stated intent?
I also wonder about the “disconnect” that Mary Catherine describes above.
In fact, it is NOT an “intrinsic right for a parent to raise her child” without government interference, if the state determines that a mother is at risking of harming her child.
I agree that I pose absolutely no threat to born childern (except perhaps to their moral and spiritual education, but again, this is no concern of the state).
Mary Catherine asks, “If it is ok to abort an 8mon, 5 mon, 6 week unborn baby why is it wrong to kill a baby 3 weeks after birth?”
So therefore, if it is wrong to kill a baby 3 weeks after birth, isn’t it an equallly murderous crime to kill one in utero at 8 months…or even 8 hours after conception, if a zygote were given full legal rights from the moment of conception?
I ask all of this hypoethically, but also because of a personal experience of mine. I had an unwanted pregnancy once, and my partner, who wanted a baby very badly, was greatly disappointed by my reaction. I went to the doctor to confirm the pregnancy and see the heart beating in the ultrasound.
A few days later, I was no longer pregnant, and my partner believed I had obtained pills from my doctor to cause an abortion. This was based only upon the circumstantial evidence of my horror at my condition, followed by what he believed to be my callous disposal of the embryo, and my relief and joy when my unwanted situation resolved itself.
It occurred to me at the time that though there was nothing unnatural about the miscarriage, my reaction might have earned me a prison time in Ceauşescu’s Romania.
Also, what if the situation I described above were applied to a born child?
What if I had a baby, and I was horrified a my condition of being a mother. But then my baby died of natural causes, and I disposed of her with my household trash, with relief and joy that my unwanted situation had resolved itself.
Surely, there would be an investigation to determine that the baby did indeed die of natural causes, and there would be charges of inappropriate disposal of a corpse. There would also be questions about whether a mother with callous disregard for her baby’s life was a fit parent.
Therefore, if we are to avoid “disconnect,” and abortion/abortificiant contraception is indeed exactly the same as killing a baby outside a woman’s body, then I don’t see how the state could avoid monitoring and restricting pregnant women, and investigating all suspicious miscarriages as potential crime scenes.
Also, if the state has a duty to “protect the unborn baby’s life,” should the government have the power to force a woman to submit to an unwanted c-section, if doctors determine that any other kind of birth would post a high risk to her baby?
What I am saying to you L, is that for proaborts, a baby suddenly becomes a human person upon birth. Birth can take place at 20 weeks, 22 wks, 24 wks, 29 wks etc. So this means that personhood for these people is a completely arbitrary thing.
Yet it is perfectly legal to kill that same baby at those ages simply because of where it resides – in a woman’s uterus. A baby has no where else that it can live at this point in its life. Therefore it is in a unique situation that ought to be protected.
But since personhood according to proaborts is a completely arbitrary right dictated exclusively by the whims of the mother, therefore if we follow the line of reasoning to its rightful end, there really should be no problem with killing very young babies, especially premature ones and especially babies with problems, which is what the Groningen Protocol sets out – becuase this protocol also has the loophole of letting the parents decide.
At least Pete Singer is intellectually honest to a degree in admitting that this must be where this kind of thinking will take us.
As I see it your examples are not analgous at all.
A state has a duty to make sure that all it’s citizens are not murdered. A woman having a risky vaginal birth is not deliberately seeking to murder her baby. There is much conflicting opinion in medicine about what exactly constitutes a “risky” delivery anyway.
A woman procuring an abortion however, is deliberately seeking to kill her child usually because that life is inconvenient to her.
As for the state monitoring miscarriages they do in fact to some degree and rightly so. However, this disconnect is once again shown by the fact that the state also allows the cadavers of babies who are aborted (and thus unwanted and deemed NONPERSONS) to be dumped in the trash, put down garburators and used in research and experimentation.
We also continue to see this disconnect within the medical profession itself – we have physicians on one floor of a hospital saving the lives of (wanted) babies at 26 wks and abortionists on another floor dismembering 26 wk unborn and unwanted babies.
So once again we have this disconnect and dis-integration of thought. Either an unborn baby is a person with dignity and the right to life at the moment fertilization occurs and it protected by law or it is not. And if it is not, as proaborts believe, then personhood may be confirmed at any time by anyone whenever they so wish. That is the logic of proaborts. And this way of viewing unborn life is pushing its way into neonatal medicine. Women pregnant with babies who have genetic problems or disabilities are presssured to abort – in fact, sometimes they are simply even denied healthcare UNLESS they do abort. There is a strong movement in hospitals now to not treat babies who are not perfect – DS babies who are starved etc.
The bottom line: for proaborts babies = slavery for women
Women will never be truly emancipated until they are free from having to bear children. This is feminista manifesto.
The question surrounding recall bias is not, “Do women lie about their abortions?” The fact that some women conceal their past abortions does not mean that the hypothetical flaw of recall bias is real and that the results of epidemiological studies that have reported a link between abortion and breast cancer are artificial. Rather, the correct question is, “Do breast cancer patients lie about their abortion histories at a greater rate than do healthy women?” Or, conversely, “Do healthy women lie about their abortion histories at a greater rate than do breast cancer patients?” If one group is more likely to be accurate in reporting than the other, that will skew the results of a study.
If breast cancer patients are more likely to accurately report their abortion histories than are healthy women, then the results of the epidemiological studies reporting an abortion-breast cancer link would be artificial. That would explain why researchers found more abortions among patients than healthy women.
On the other hand, if healthy women are more likely to accurately report their abortion histories than are breast cancer patients, then researchers are underestimating the breast cancer risk of abortion.
This phenomenon has been tested on many occasions, but in fact, there are no scientists today who claim to have found credible evidence of recall bias. Moreover, a prospective study conducted on New York women avoided any possibility of recall bias by matching fetal death records with patients’ medical records. Holly Howe and her colleagues reported a statistically significant 90% increased risk among women with abortions in their 1989 paper.
“Moreover, a prospective study conducted on New York women avoided any possibility of recall bias by matching fetal death records with patients’ medical records. Holly Howe and her colleagues reported a statistically significant 90% increased risk among women with abortions in their 1989 paper.”
If the medical community has any sense of duty and any amount of ethics left, it would work to get to the bottom of the ABC controversy. The first thing would be a requirement to issue a fetal death certificate for every abortion along with a recording of every mother’s name. There could then be follow-up studies on the health of the mother over the next 20 to 30 years. Tnis would also not only include the occurence of breast cancer but could also include research into fertility issues and the incidence of premature births (both consequences of abortion).
However, apparently, feminists, abortionists and many women are not interested in learning IF abortion IS safe. Once again, it is a situation of people wanting what they want regardless of the consequences to themselves, their baby and their future families.
I wonder how many women would choose “choice” when that “choice” might also include the increased risk of breast cancer? It might put 9 months of pregnancy into perspective against years of worrying about and battling breast cancer. How many women would choose induced abortion if they knew future children might run the risk of being born prematurely?
It all boils down to this in the end:
Women will never be truly emancipated until they are free from having to bear children. This is feminista manifesto.
MC,
We HAVE gotten to the bottom of the ABC link and attendant controversy. The response has been a uniform denial/distortion/deception campaign.
Dr. Nadal, I agree that we have the truth on our side but I really believe that if records were kept in North America – and it seems to be the North American scientists who have the big problem, then information about abortion and its consequences might be more forthcoming.
It would seem that abortion is so politicized in North America that governments are unwilling to even track the number of abortions – which is ludicrous.
“Feminista manifesto?” There is none — and I suppose if there were, it would just be that women are entitled to basic human rights, the same rights as men. You might also be surprised to know there are true feminists who are on your side:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
You say, “A state has a duty to make sure that all it’s citizens are not murdered.” Yes, and much more — there is such a thing as negligent homicide. A woman who makes poor decisions and puts her born children at risk of harm stands a decent chance of having them removed from her care.
Why should this be any different for pre-born children? Sure, a woman facing a risky vaginal birth is not deliberately seeking to murder her baby, but aren’t her selfish birth choices exactly the same as the poor decisions of the negligent mother, from which her child has a right to be protected? Why should a pregnant mother be allowed to risk harm to her baby, anymore than the mother of a born child can?
It’s illegal to leave a baby unattended in a car even for the few minutes to run into a nearby store to do a quick errand — why should it be legal to subject them to a vaginal birth in cases where several medical professionals agree this would put them at great risk of harm?
It’s not only the intent of the mother than matters — it’s the actual risk of harm to the baby.
Refusing to talk about why you can’t call it a baby is pretty extremist if you ask me.
AMC, you weren’t addressing me, were you? I often do use the word “baby” to refer to the unborn. But I also refer to zygotes and embryos as developmentally appropriate.
I”m not clueless L. I also know about feminists for life too.
“The other day I had a 17 year old express her wish to keep her pregnancy so I wrote gave her information …”
Your arguments make no sense L. So I”m not really interested in rehashing the same thing over and over.
The fact remains that your above quote proves my point that proaborts do not see an unborn baby as a person. They can’t even bear to use the word “baby” but instead dehumanize the unborn child by calling he/she a pregnancy.
(I note you never actually explained why this might be.)
And again I point out to you (although it seems quite lost on you) that abortion is 100 per cent fatal. The intent in the abortion is to kill the child. The intent in childbirth is to safely birth a live baby who at least have the chance to grow up. There is no comparison between intent nor in risk.
End of discussion.🙂
Mary Catherine, maybe you’re done with the discussion, but I’m not.🙂
While I agree there is no comparison in intent, there is certainly one in risk, and if abortion were criminalized and the unborn were given ful legal rights, I predict lots of natural birth proponents will face unwanted c-sections as doctors weigh the right to life of their smallest patients, and seek to minimize risks.
Why don’t all “pro-aborts” use the term “baby?” As I said, I do. I referred to my “babies,” both wanted and unwanted, ever since I saw two lines on a pregnancy test. I know many others who do, too. Yes, there are the “blob-of-tissue” people, but they don’t speak for all of us “pro-aborts.”
On the other hand, the obituary of my friend who died from pregnancy complications referred to twin fetuses, not babies. Perhaps they just wanted to highlight that the twins were at an unviable point in their development? I don’t know what her family was thinking when they wrote that.
“I predict lots of natural birth proponents will face unwanted c-sections as doctors weigh the right to life of their smallest patients, and seek to minimize risks.”
nonsense.
Patients will chose their doctors much more carefully.
Instead doctors are going the other way since most women today are trying to have c-sections to “schedule” their births. C-sections carry more risk than does natural childbirth for both mother and baby and should only be used when the baby’s life or the mother’s life is in danger.
Maybe your friend’s relatives blamed her death on her “fetuses”. I think that is sad that they referred to their unborn children in this way. It’s terrible to lose a mother this way but their is something very wrong about calling these children “fetuses”. Regardless of what the intent was, to me it seems cold and uncaring.😦
C-sections “….should only be used when the baby’s life or the mother’s life is in danger?”
So therefore my elective c-sections shouldn’t have been permitted, if you had your way, because my life wasn’t in danger? I should have been forced into having a different kind of birth than I wanted, one that would have had higher risks for the baby (since I’d had a previous c-section)?
And women who insist on natural deliveries, even in high-risk situations, should be allowed to go through with that choice?
I see a pretty big inconsistency there. I’m not sure it’s what you mean, but it sounds very much as if the mother’s right to have a natural birth matters more than the actual risks to her baby.
One more question: If you already knew about Feminists For Life, why do you still insist on ascribing a narrow, extreme “pro-abort” set of values to ALL feminists?
Because the vast majority of women who self-identify as “feminists” are strident men-hating harridans who believe that the only way for women to become fully and truly emancipated is when childbirth is a “choice” and their reproductive capacity is completely subdued and controlled. To achieve this they believe women must have the unilateral right to murder their unborn children when and where and by the means they like. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me when one class of people can prey upon another with impunity.
Generally speaking C-sections should only be used when there are serious problems.
You and I both know that many women have C-sections who do not need them, and whose labor is poorly managed. Many women are also poorly prepared for labor and many women have C-sections simply because they want the birth done with. (I see this whole topic as a straw man argument.)
There is much to be done is this area of women’s health care. Of course, feminists aren’t so keen to help women HAVE their babies as they are to help women murder them.😦
oh and many women do have VBACs.😉
Yes, I believe we had the c-section conversation on another thread — I was a great candidate for a VBAC, and had to resist my doctor’s subtle pressure to attempt one. But you’re right, I was steering the conversation away from abortion.
The “vast majority” of feminists are “strident men-hating harridans?” Wow, I have honestly met very, very few of those. (And I went to Smith.)
If the “feminist” label is so ugly, why would a pro-life women’s group choose to identify with it?
“If the “feminist” label is so ugly, why would a pro-life women’s group choose to identify with it?”
Because some people ARE trying to reclaim the goals of true feminism that existed prior to the 1960s.
Even JP II has written of a “new feminism” with emphasis of the feminine genius of women which is woman’s unique ability to be open to the “gift” of others especially new life.🙂
Mary Catherine, is it possible for us to agree that maybe, just maybe, abortion is NOT a “feminist” issue, and stop painting all feminists with the “strident, man-hating” brush?
I am a feminist. I am also a supporter of legal abortion. While I might draw some links between the two, I think it is quite possible to be the former without being the latter. It is also possible to be latter without being the former.
Some of the feminists I admire most are nuns.
L.,
The mainstream feminist leadership has turned abortion into something of a sacrament. In proof whereof, men who oppose abortion are held out by the feminist leadership as anti-male. I generally do not debate you on much, but this is a pretty cut and dry issue.
Dr. Nadal, I invite you to read up on “third-wave feminism.” The “mainstream” of which you speak (the Gloria Steinem, Linda Hirshman, NOW, “Ms.,” etc. generation) is aging.
The younger generation agrees on equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender, and also accomodates those with different opinions on reproductive issues, including the modern feminist choice to be a stay-at-home wife and mother.