Abortion: Disturbing Numbers
- Thread starter Servo
- Start date
I doubt that I would be able to find statistical evidence because so many rapes go unreported; it's soley on intuition at the present moment. Many women whom have been raped want the security of being able to abort the possible child, and will seek this for other rape victims. Since the pro-life view is that all abortions, with exception to diseases that would kill the mother anyway, are wrong, the rape victim will likely support pro-choice. Furthermore, because the rape victim has suffered emotional damage, it is unlikely that latter relationships will develop properly. Now, if you've read the reasons for abortions, most of them do not even apply in a stable marriage, or for that matter any stable relationship.
Death is caused.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Thank you for your honesty. It's refreshing.
I could see this point, yet the number of pregnancies resulting from rape is actually fairly low, around 5% according to Starke and Blackie in their paper "The relationship between serial monogamy and rape in the United States (1960-1995)". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 1259 - 1263 (2000)." Though the researchers admit that since it's likely that not all rapes are reported that the pregnancy rate may actually be much lower.
Yet a considerable number of legal abortions in the U.S. are obtained by married women. In the report under discussion, 22% of abortions were obtained by married women, that's over 1 in 5.
Sometimes. Other times it's merely the ending of a long and fruitful life.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
I'd like to clarify a few points before we go any further...
The numbers are on your side, seemingly. Use them to your advantage!
- 1. READ THE REPORT FOR YOURSELF.
Do not rely on other people to tell you what to think. Get the information and make your own informed decisions on topics.
2. Both the number of abortions and the rate of abortions are going down and have not leveled off yet.
In a sense, the pro-choice side is winning, albeit slowly. That should be good news.
3. Don't try to make statistical arguments without being able to back up your figures
It unecessarily damages the credibility of your position and weakens your argument. Your opponents assume that you do not have accurate information to support your position and are either appealing to emotion, or outright misstating the truth, to try to win your argument.
The numbers are on your side, seemingly. Use them to your advantage!
The possibility is still there, and abortionist are all to often to bring up unlikely hypothetical cases.
I would presume that some rape victims are married. Any analysis would have to include the state of the mariage and whether the couple was happy or not. But I'm sure that you could find a correlation between mental health and abortion because women who commit abortion are ten times more likely to commit suicide than a similar women who goes through with the pregnancy. http://www.afterabortion.org/suicide.html
Last edited:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Both statements you made are quantitative and neither one is useful in proving your point.
The possibility is also still there that someone will find the Loch Ness monster before tomorrow too, but I'll bet you money it doesn't happen...
Terms like "all to (sic) often" and "possibility" are very vague and while they imply that you possess some empirical information regarding the point, I'd be willing to bet you don't, or you would have presented it to us.
I"ve never seen such a study - trying to define "happiness" of rape victims. Perhaps you could apply for a grant to fund one, though I'm not sure what being happily married has with bearing a child from a non-marital partner implanted through rape...
Did you read the link? The reference is based solely on a study by Dr. Barry D. Garfinkel. This study is widely cited on anti-abortion websites, yet is mysteriously unavailable from the university that allegedly published it. The fact is that it appears it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was merely presented internally at the University of Minnesota.
Further research shows why: "Dr Barry D. Garfinkel, psychiatrist, (was) convicted of a criminal offense related to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct. "
The crime was a federal felony. Source. Read the case documents, you'll see that his fraud was related to research studies he conducted...
In 1997, Dr. Garfinkel was permanently debarred "from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on its finding that Dr. Garfinkel was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug product and for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the act." Source: U.S. Federal Register, April 2, 1997 page 15713 For those who may not know, the Federal Register is the official publication record of the U.S. government. All official government actions by any federal agency or the Congress are published publically in this document. (The exception are those which are classified for national security reasons.)
This means that no pharmaceutical company desiring FDA approval for any product can hire Dr. Garfinkel or a team of which he is a member. Dr. Garfinkel is no longer employed by the University of Minnesota and I could locate no more recent references to him after the Federal Register reference.
Does this cast a shadow on the credibilty of his other work? Certainly it does. Before I'd use him as a source I'd check the original study out very carefully. That is, if you can find a copy somewhere.
.
Human beings naturally see the most unlikely cases. It doesn't matter that only 5% of rape victims gets pregnant because these cases do happen. Naturally, someone who is a rape victim is more likely to support views that they think are in favor of rape victims. That is, more time will be spent on the consideration of the pregnant rape victims who might want that choice. Now, not every rape victim who has a child will abort the child. Only like 50% will.
No, I would think rape victims would be rather unhappy. What I meant was couples in marriage who have had one or more abortions.
Yes, I posted it because I saw it appear on another site.
It would be difficult for me to get original studies because I'm not a member of any medical database.
Last edited:
Are you sure this is the right guy? In the year of 1986, "Drs. Barry Garfinkel and Harry Hoberman (University of Minnesota Medical School), for outstanding cooperative efforts with Extension in implementing "Teens in Distress" programs statewide and nationally. Garfinkel and Hoberman were director and staff psychologist respectively in the child and adolescent psychiatry division of the UM Medical School."
http://www.extension.umn.edu/administrative/information/components/teamnonexten1.html
This is a source off of the university's host. It seems that Garfinkle is still held in some respect by the other the professors and is cited.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/youthdevelopment/DA3081.html
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/youthdevelopment/DA3083.html
The problem being that it is "unpublished raw data"
Zakath
Resident Atheist
okinrus,
As nearly as I can tell, it's the same fellow. Check the dates to find a possible solution. He was convicted of the felony counts in 1993. The two links you posted referencing his research are dated 1986. The Dean's presentation was also in 1986. Both are seven years prior to his felony convictions.
As we all know a lot can happen in seven years - remember Enron.
As nearly as I can tell, it's the same fellow. Check the dates to find a possible solution. He was convicted of the felony counts in 1993. The two links you posted referencing his research are dated 1986. The Dean's presentation was also in 1986. Both are seven years prior to his felony convictions.
As we all know a lot can happen in seven years - remember Enron.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Ah, the last refuge of the losing argument... "Those statistics don't matter! It's the people that are important."
I don't think anyone would argue that the people aren't important, certainly I wouldn't agrue that.
I'm merely trying to illustrate how weak the arguments are when you try to invoke statistics, as the first article on the thread did, and then no one is able to follow up with valid statistics to back their arguments.
The abortion issue is very emotional, believe me, I know this from years of experience as a clinician. I have counseled women who did and who chose not to have abortions. It's not infrequent that both sides are wounded psychologically, but from what I've seen I tend to think they went into it that way. That is my own anecdotal observation though, I have no numbers to back that up.
Do you have a source for that number? The report we were initially discussing does not appear to contain that information.
No, I would think rape victims would be rather unhappy. What I meant was couples in marriage who have had one or more abortions.[/qyote]Then I think I'm missing your point here.
You have run across, and been bitten by, an aggravating bug on the Internet - the ease with which information will spread, whether it's true or not. I can still find sites on the Internet where fradulent fossils are posted as "god's truth" even though they were discredited and admitted as frauds years ago. It's a lot easier to post or link to something one hears or reads that seems to support their position, than it is to do the primary research (i.e. tracking down and reading the articles oneself.) Quite a lot of misinformation is spread this way.
Remember TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The information on the Internet is often worth exactly what it costs you.
I'm willing to take a small bet that it never was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, but was presented at a conference and cited from that presentation. It's a common enough practice and the fact that I couldn't locate even a single journal reference in any of the twenty or so sources I ran would seem to indicate that is what probably happened.
I'm sure there might be an interested nurse, physician, or physicians's assistant reading this who could see if the article was ever published and prove this old atheist shrink wrong...
No, your claim was that there was only a small number of rape victims who actually became pregnant. However, my claim was that pro-choicers, especially ultra-feminist, are often times sexually assaulted. Thus, it's not a rational conclusion to become pro-chioce, but an emotional appeal to protect themselves. While the statistics would be helpful, there is practically no way to get statistics on this without asking alot of people embarrasing questions.
I was giving the figure from memory, but it's around 30% who will abort.
http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/altern.htm
Well, depending on the topic. Most .edu sites have accurate information.
Yes, I don't think it was ever published. Must only have a small result set.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
A claim that I supported with scientific study...
Often times? Here we go again. Often implies a high frequency relative to some other baseline. So you are saying that men rape "ultra-feminist pro-choicers" than other groups?
That is something I'd really like to see some backing for.
Something to remember - just because a paticular group in America gets a lot of press doesn't mean it represents a large percentage of the population in question.
But following your logic, weren't they already "ultra-feminist" and "pro-choice" when they got raped? You sound like you're putting the cart before the horse here. :think:
Yet that is no reason not to do studies to answer questions. If researchers used your logic, then hardly any studies about behavior would ever be done.
OK, let's try the exercise one more time...
This is another illustration of the difficulty some pro-choicer's have in carrying on a coherent argument. Notice that you've now changed your numbers without conceding that you've done so...
In post 27, you originally claimed that around 50% of pregnancies resulting in rape will end in abortion. I then asked you to provide source information, you did so, and I appreciate that.
Then, in the same post that you provide the source info you:
- a) change your number from 50% to 30% and
b) provide a source that supports neither number!
You kindly provided the article "Rape Victims Find Abortion Alternatives" from the "Catholic Insight" web site. In the article it states the following in the very first paragraph:
Since you now have actual numbers, a simple mathematical calculation (dividing the number of abortions by the number of pregnancies resulting from rape) gives you the figure you need.
Dividing 20,000 by 32,101 and converting it to percentage gives you 62.3%. That tranlsates into "almost 2/3rds of pregnancies from rape were aborted". That's a very different number from the one you remembered and then even more different from your new changed number.
This is the kind of credibility issue that I am commenting on. You make a statement using numbers. Your opponent challenges you to prove those numbers are accurate. You then change your number without mentioning why and provide statistical evidence that contradicts your figures. :doh:
I used to do national survey research for a living. Accuracy in a survey depends on design issues like validity as well as response rate. Some surveys are well-designed, some are not. But even the best design will not overcome a poor response rate. Non-academics can hope that sites with an education domain will have accurate information but that is unfortunately not always the case. It pays to read the article thoroughly. If you do not have a science background, you'll have to rely on your intuition (always a risky thing in research). When a number seems out of line with what your gut tells you, check it out and verify it elsewhere...
Could be. Without tracking down the author, we'll probably never know for certain.
Yes, I wrote too fast. What I'm saying is that many of the ultra-feminist have had bad experiences with men. Is that so implausible? Remember, I'm not writing a scientific research paper here. Some of these claims are impossible any way to back up with statistical evidence. For example, an ultra-feminist is not well-defined.
I didn't change my numbers. I said like 50% because I was recalling it from memory. I figured it was not too important to my argument because I was only pointing out that a fair percentage of women who were raped choose to keep the child. Then you asked for statistics, so I looked for them. But there are many surveys that would have different numbers.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Thank you for clarifying. Certainly it is possible that any kind of woman feminist or otherwise has had a bad experience with one or more men.
Yes, I realize that. But when you start throwing out numbers, don't be surprised if you're called to explain them, along with definitions.
There you go again - "many surveys" with "different numbers". Do you know that for certain, or are you merely "recalling it from memory"?
You have proven on several occasions in this thread that your numerical memory is not reliable and that you use vague terms that are not clearly defined. Such techniques do little to convince an opponent that you even know your subject, let alone that you might be correct.
Yes, I've seen quite a few on the web, and other countries would have their own surveys as well. Surveys with state demographics would also be common, but we would hope that the numbers not drastically different. Almost no two surveys will have the exact same numbers, so the fact that there are more than one survey on this matter would pretty much prove the different numbers part. I lost the site that contained the numbers that I thought I saw, and not knowing the original survey, it's practically impossible to find it. Like 50% is not 50%.
It, on the other hand, behooves me that we have to produce statistics. Abortionist claim that the fetus is not a person. How sure can they be of that? Are these people prophets to some unknown, but ever personal, god I do not know of? If we put one baby in one million wooden barrels, closed it so that no one could see, and then offered a million dollar prize for shooting one of the barrels at random, clearly the women who shot at one of the barrels is guilty of attempted murder, and if the bullet kills one of the babies, then that person is guilty of first degree murder. This scenario, however, is played out millions of times each year, and are we not to take notice? Even if not a single baby is murdered, the intent, the harm, and the damage is still there. Now our conscience, not the contrived human law, tells us that if the mother of a child harmed her fetus by cutting the fetus' arms off, then that women is responsible for the arms of that child. Further, if such crimes would effect the child, causing irreparable damage, is it not unreasonable to assume that the mother would be responsible for the more grievous injuries?
a fine example of relativist newspeak
a fine example of relativist newspeak
I refer you to my first posts here at TOL, which were directed toward you:
BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
post 58
post 81
Some people never learn. :zakath:
Should abortion be legal or not? (Why not just tell us where you stand?)
Did your old church push Calvinism?
a fine example of relativist newspeak
What point are you trying to make with the statistic you cited? It does not support your original assertion that:
- The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a religious argument. (I assume you use religious and moral interchangeably.)
- The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was a medical safety argument.
Millions of Jews die of natural causes each year, too. So does that mean it’s OK to slaughter them?
Alleged by you. In reality, man’s sin brought death into the world.
And that makes it OK, right? If Nazis want to slaughter Jews, and most people in their society support them, then there is nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews, right?
:chicken:
The definition is not limited to illegal killing, no matter how much you wish it were so. I even specified that I was using the word murder to mean "immoral killing" rather than using the word “in a legal sense.”
I refer you to my first posts here at TOL, which were directed toward you:
BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
post 58
post 81
Some people never learn. :zakath:
You claim you are not pro-choice, yet you refer to “anti-choice folks” with exclusive terms. :think:
Should abortion be legal or not? (Why not just tell us where you stand?)
No, God’s creation was perfect. Man’s sin brought death and suffering into the world.
Did your old church push Calvinism?
:turbo::up:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: a fine example of relativist newspeak
Re: a fine example of relativist newspeak
I also stated that infant mortality was given to humans by your deity. Since your Bible teaches that YHWH made all things, that includes death. millions of infants die each year from spontaneous abortion, even though it is within the province of the Christian deity to prevent those deaths.
That is as separate argument and not the point being discussed here.
Re: a fine example of relativist newspeak
To demonstrate that there was legitimate reason for concern over fatalities related to illegal abortion.
I stated clearly that the evidence I was presenting was based on my own recollection. Not to accept the validity of my recollections of that time is your privilege.
Really? According to the numbers I've seen (adherents.com), as of 1999, there were only about 15 million Jews in the entire world. You claim millions of them are dying each year. Do you have statistics to back up this claim?
I stated that infant mortality is a reality of lilfe. Do you actually dispute that?
I also stated that infant mortality was given to humans by your deity. Since your Bible teaches that YHWH made all things, that includes death. millions of infants die each year from spontaneous abortion, even though it is within the province of the Christian deity to prevent those deaths.
I did not say that. Read my post again.
Let's try to stay on topic here, Turbo. If you want to debate the legitimacy of nationalism, and the ability of nations to have laws differing from their neighbor states, start another thread.
You are merely re-defining a word to suit your purose. You remind me of the story Abraham Lincoln told about calling a horse's tail a leg. Just because you say a word has a particular meaning, does not automatically make you correct. Murder is a legal term and that is the sense in which I was using it.
You admit in the posts that the argument was not over murder, per se, but over another poster's definition which assumed the point he was trying to prove. That is for your definition of murder to be accepted, one must assume the existence of abosolute morality.
That is as separate argument and not the point being discussed here.
You appear to be one of them. :chuckle:
Ah, you folks never did like it when folks play the advocatum diaboli in discussions here, do you?
Under certain circumstances, I beliee so, yes.
According your version of the Christian myth. Yet your Bible says that YHWH creates evil as well as good, doesn't it?
I attended several churches over the 30+ years I was a Christian. Some did, many more did not.