Planned Parenthood's "Abortions Are Just 3%" Claim is False

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So Plan B = Abortion?

Just want to make sure I got this straight.

I always viewed it on the same sin level as contraceptions but if it actually kills rather then prevents fertilization then I can see how the claim of skewed numbers is justified.
 
Hokomai said:
About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.
Click to expand...
I’ve always wondered what the numbers were, thanks for a source! I am still curious as to what the rate of implantation is though, i.e. what percent of fertilized eggs will implant under ordinary circumstances.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Consequences of nature and acts of man are two different things.
Click to expand...
So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Your ability to stretch a point out of context is neither admirable nor honest.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
No, none of these are fine if done for the intent of preventing a child from being born. I argued exactly this point in defense of the idea that licit use of the pill is possible if it is being used solely for the intent of addressing a serious medical problem. Any of the above mentioned and the pill would be wrong if used for the intent of preventing childbirth or if ignorance of that fact could be imputed to personal responsibility.

The day after pill to my knowledge has one use and that use would never be licit because the circumstances surrounding the use of it speak towards the inherent intent in doing so.

The idea that the number of natural deaths of fertilized eggs (i.e human beings) has any bearing on the morality of killing them by means of the pill or another method is worthless. Do you also attempt to show that euthanasia is alright because 99% of humans die a natural death anyways?
 
Hokomai said:
About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.
Click to expand...
The article says that “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”

I’ve seen this “estimate” before; I’ve seen it repeated in scientific journals. I’ve not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.
 
JimG said:
The article says that “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”

I’ve seen this “estimate” before; I’ve seen it repeated in scientific journals. I’ve not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Exactly and while they willingly accept this “estimate” they deny the estimates involving the breakthrough ovulation rate:
In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust (Human Life International, 1993, page 7), Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says, "As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.
Click to expand...
Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. In his booklet Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives (page 26), he cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%.
Click to expand...
World-renowned fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the breakthrough ovulation rate at 4 to 10% (“The New Abortionists,” Life Advocate, March 1994, page 29).
Click to expand...
r. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception’s November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill. In another study, 14% of Pill-taking women experienced escape ovulation (“A Randomized Cross-over Comparison of Two Low-Dose Oral Contraceptives,” H. Kuhl, et. al., Contraception, June 1985, page 583). However, this involved only twenty-two women, with three experiencing escape ovulation, so the study is too small to draw definite conclusions. In another study with a small sampling, 10% of the control group, which didn’t miss a pill, experienced escape ovulation, while 28% of those missing two pills ovulated (Chowdhury and Joshi, “Escape Ovulation in Women Due to the Missing of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills,” Contraception, September 1980, page 241- 247).
Click to expand...
J. C. Espinoza, M.D., says, “Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill “escape ovulation” occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the “conceptus” (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill.” (Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, page 28.)
Click to expand...
In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states:
Click to expand...
The newer low-estrogen pills allow “breakthrough” ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present “guesstimations,” in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies.
Click to expand...
 
JimG said:
The article says that “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”

I’ve seen this “estimate” before; I’ve seen it repeated in scientific journals. I’ve not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.
Click to expand...
But you see, their argument is that since this occurs as a consequence of nature, then there is no distinction if it “occurs” as a consequence of choice.

The “statistics” don’t matter - it’s just a rationalization of the “unnatural” occurences …

BTW - this is the first time ever in my entire life that I have expressed openly any of my personal views on this important subject, but it is quite easy for me to now see why parties on each side of the abortion debate act and respond as they do …

… - just remember, Satan is the father of all lies! Trust your beliefs!
 
ByzCathCantor said:
But you see, their argument is that since this occurs as a consequence of nature, then there is no distinction if it “occurs” as a consequence of choice.

The “statistics” don’t matter - it’s just a rationalization of the “unnatural” occurences …

BTW - this is the first time ever in my entire life that I have expressed openly any of my personal views on this important subject, but it is quite easy for me to now see why parties on each side of the abortion debate act and respond as they do …

… - just remember, Satan is the father of all lies! Trust your beliefs!
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that the argument seems to be that since abortion can be a “natural” event, it is not against nature to accomplish it artificially. Yet even those who make that argument presumably posit some point in a human being’s existence at which he or she should not be able to be killed at will. But any such point beyond the start of a human being’s existence must be purely arbitrary.

In any case, I have no particular reason to doubt the estimate in question, but it seems to be something that is repeated so often that it is taken as factual as a matter of course, without ever adverting to some original study. Yet I have no idea how such a figure could actually be arrived at, since by the statistic’s own estimate these spontaneous abortions occur before anyone is aware of them. So how do we measure them?
 
JimG said:
The article says that “It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”

I’ve seen this “estimate” before; I’ve seen it repeated in scientific journals. I’ve not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.
Click to expand...
I could not easily come up with a study, although I would think of the NIH as an authority. I did note that a Google search on the exact phrase you mention produces multiple identical references not linked to a study. I am having lunch with a medical statistician later in the week and will ask him (always easier than doing the work oneself! It seems like a commonsense figure, given the number of mothers historically who don’t have 20 children.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Do you think Catholic morality would consider innocent a mother who habitually allows her child to play on a table saw innocent in its death? The point is that an innocent life is in a pregnant woman’s hands, and therefore smoking, obesity, and drug-use as well as their effects on the life inside of a mother would be considered in this judgment.
 
Hokomai said:
I could not easily come up with a study, although I would think of the NIH as an authority. I did note that a Google search on the exact phrase you mention produces multiple identical references not linked to a study. I am having lunch with a medical statistician later in the week and will ask him (always easier than doing the work oneself! It seems like a commonsense figure, given the number of mothers historically who don’t have 20 children.
Click to expand...
You can only come up with numbers based on correlation. There is no reasonable way to measure it directly. The numbers you see are probably based on measuring how often a woman gets pregnant after having sex during her fertile period. In other words your usually seeing the percentage chance that a healthy woman has to get pregnant if she has sex while fertile.

To take 100% minus that percentage as the percentage chance of an egg not implanting is insufficient. There are lots of other things that could cause a woman not to get pregnant even if she was fertile the most obvious being that a sperm did not even reach the egg.

People may also be getting confused by stats like this:
Unfortunately, chemical pregnancies are actually quite common. In fact, between 50% and 60% of all first-time pregnancies are thought to end in miscarriage. A large majority of these can be attributed to chemical pregnancies.
Click to expand...
What medical science calls “chemical pregnancies” include any pregnancies that end within the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy. There are all sorts of stats out there about chemical pregnancies that people misuse, because they imply a lot more from them than they can or don’t understand what a “chemical pregnancy” even includes. Most chemical pregnancies have to do with an implanted egg that just does not develop correctly because of an inherent fault in the sperm or the egg.
 
Hokomai said:
Ummm - no in this case the consequences are the same: zygotes, embryos or fetuses die.
Click to expand...
Yes, the consequences may be the same, the causes are different.

If you die of natural causes, or die because you were murdered, are those the same? The end consequence is the same, but something tells me you would prefer one over the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top