Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

[Servo]

Abortion: Disturbing Numbers
The Edge ^ | December 2003 | Cathy Cleaver Ruse


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published its latest survey on
abortion in the United States on the day after Thanksgiving. The
survey, reporting legal induced abortions obtained in the U.S. in the
year 2000, contains some eye-opening findings you will not likely
read in the mainstream press.

Keep in mind that the survey presents data which is voluntarily
reported by cities and states, the mechanisms by which cities and
states gather the data in the first place can vary widely, and some
states don't report at all. California, which in 1997 was responsible
for 23 percent of all abortions nationwide, decided in 1998 to remain
mum on abortion within its borders, as did New Hampshire and Alaska.

Since the CDC has no information from jurisdictions which together
account for nearly one-fourth of abortions nationwide, it is
impossible to have any real analysis of national trends. Still, the
publication gives a startling, if incomplete, picture of abortion in
the U.S. at the end of the last century, and is worth review. Some of
the findings include the following:

Women die from legal abortion. The survey reports that 14 women died
as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.

Abortion rates change with race. In the areas for which race was
adequately reported, "the abortion rate for black women was 3.1 times
the rate for white women." In addition, "the abortion ratio for black
women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white
women (167 per 1,000 live births)." This means that black babies are
aborted three times more frequently than white babies.

Multiple abortions are the norm, not the exception. According to the
survey, where the "number of previous abortions was adequately
reported," 53 percent of women had an abortion for the first time in
2000. That means 47 percent of women having abortions in 2000 were
not having their first abortion. How many abortions do women have?
The survey breaks it down by state, but stops counting at "three or
more previous legal induced abortions." In 2000, Maryland had the
highest percentage of women having their fourth (or more) abortion:
16.7 percent. New York City had the second highest ratio, with 14.7
percent of women having at least their fourth abortion in 2000.

The highest number of reported legal induced abortions in 2000
occurred in New York City: 94,466. Florida and Texas have the second
and third highest abortion numbers, 88,563 and 76,121 respectively.
California likely ranks among the top, but they won't tell.

What is lacking from the survey is any indication why these abortions
occurred. The report states simply that they were elective
procedures. The abortion lobby dismisses the question of why,
insisting that "who decides?" is all that matters. But "why" does
matter very much. Why did each of these women wake up one morning,
get into a car or a cab, and take that fateful drive? This is perhaps
the most important question of all.

 

[Sozo]

Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Originally posted by Shimei

The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.

Yea... well, you reap what you sow.

 

[Talib]

Originally posted by Shimei
Women die from legal abortion. The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.

You probably won't find the survey mentioned in mainstream press because stats like the above have no context...

It is important to note that women also die from pregnancy itself. The CDC also reports that during a study conducted from 1991-1999 maternal mortality was about 12 for every 100,000 women.

 

[Anne]

Actually those statistics of abortion deaths are very conservative.

A former abortionist who operated several abortion clinics that prided themselves in performing so-called 'safe' abortions admitted that she realized that for about every 500 abortions they were killing or permanently maiming the mother.

As mentioned above the abortion death statistics are based on those from abortionists that volunteer the information. Many don't. Surely someone who kills babies (for profit) is less likely to be honest. They will put down a cause of death that doesn't seem related to the abortion.

A number of mothers have died from tubal pregnancies after having an 'abortion' on an empty uterus. Abortion clinics don't check for tubal pregnancies. Then the mother doesn't suspect that she is pregnant until it is too late. Then the mother's death ends up being included in the pregnancy deaths when it belongs in the abortion deaths statistics.

Then many years after the mother's abortion/s she may die of cancer as a result of the abortion/s. (There are many studies showing a definite link between abortion and breast cancer)

So abortion is a killer: first of babies, then of mothers.

 

[the Sibbie]

Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Originally posted by Shimei

Abortion rates change with race. In the areas for which race was adequately reported, "the abortion rate for black women was 3.1 times the rate for white women." In addition, "the abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births)." This means that black babies are aborted three times more frequently than white babies.

Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Originally posted by Shimei

Abortion: Disturbing Numbers
The Edge ^ | December 2003 | Cathy Cleaver Ruse


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published its latest survey on abortion in the United States on the day after Thanksgiving. The survey, reporting legal induced abortions obtained in the U.S. in the year 2000, contains some eye-opening findings you will not likely read in the mainstream press.

I think everyone should read the actual report: here and not depend on someone else's interpretation of the data.

Keep in mind that the survey presents data which is voluntarily reported by cities and states, the mechanisms by which cities and states gather the data in the first place can vary widely, and some states don't report at all. California, which in 1997 was responsible for 23 percent of all abortions nationwide, decided in 1998 to remain mum on abortion within its borders, as did New Hampshire and Alaska.

I'm willing to be California did it for budgetary reasons.

Since the CDC has no information from jurisdictions which together account for nearly one-fourth of abortions nationwide, it is impossible to have any real analysis of national trends.

Certainly it is. READ THE REPORT for yourselves!

Unless thousands upon thousands of pregnant women are flying to California, New Hampshire, or Alaska to have abortions, the trend is ABORTIONS ARE DECLINING. Both the numbers of abortions have been steadily declining since 1990 and the ratio of abortions to live births (called the abortion ratio) has steadily declined every year since 1983.

This presents a serious problem for pro-life groups since if they publish this information of declining abortions and abortion rates history shows that their contributions will drop off...

Women die from legal abortion.The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in 1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available.

Sadly enough, women die from pregnancy too. Even sadder, is that the death rate for women in childbirth is in the US is 1 in 10,000 that is compared to 1 death per 100,000 abortions.

In English, what that says is that birth is ten times riskier than abortion for the mother.

Again, not very good press for the anti-abortion movement. :think:

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Re: Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Originally posted by Sibbie

Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region.

Pastors are merely human and frequently repeat something they hear from another pastor if they think it is a good illustration or bolsters their point. A lot of misinformation gets spread that way. I was embarrassed several times as a pastor by taking for truth what some fellow pastor said without checking the facts.

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Re: Re: Abortion: Disturbing Numbers

Originally posted by Sibbie

Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region.

I doubt it. I figured he (or whoever he heard that from) was comparing raw numbers of abortions rather than abortion rates. They didn't divide by the the total populations or the total number of live births within the populations.

 

[Anne]

Zakath

Have you heard the saying: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

The statistics are only as true and accurate as the reporting of the information. Abortionists often do not record that the death was abortion related. They may put something like "spontaneous hemorrhage" (i.e. trying to suggest that the mother hemorrhaged for no apparent reason when in reality it was due to the abortion). That statistic would then be excluded from abortion deaths and perhaps added to the pregnancy deaths. There is a lot of evidence that abortionists cover up deaths as related to abortion. A person who can kill babies must find it even easier to lie. It has happened many times that an organization knows the specifics of more abortion deaths than were reported in the statistics of the CDC (for example) for the same period and region.

Therefore your suggestion that killing unborn babies rather than giving birth is supposedly safer is absolute rubbish.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Anne

Zakath

Have you heard the saying: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Yes, I've heard the phrase.

The statistics are only as true and accurate as the reporting of the information.

That much is correct, yes.

Abortionists often do not record that the death was abortion related. They may put something like "spontaneous hemorrhage" (i.e. trying to suggest that the mother hemorrhaged for no apparent reason when in reality it was due to the abortion). That statistic would then be excluded from abortion deaths and perhaps added to the pregnancy deaths. There is a lot of evidence that abortionists cover up deaths as related to abortion.

Oh really? Perhaps you can post some of those "statistics" for us...

A person who can kill babies must find it even easier to lie.

That is merely an ad hominem, trying to demonize your opponent. Tsk. Tsk.

It has happened many times that an organization knows the specifics of more abortion deaths than were reported in the statistics of the CDC (for example) for the same period and region.

So if it has happened "many times", perhaps you have "statistics" to back up this claim, as well?

Therefore your suggestion that killing unborn babies rather than giving birth is supposedly safer is absolute rubbish.

I merely used published figures, let's see you do the same. :think:


I forgot to mention another kind of lie: lying by innuendo. That's where you imply that something is so, based on vague or anecdotal information... kind of what you're doing.

 

[Anne]

OK, here are some actual examples:

When the Chicago Sun-Times investigated Chicago area abortion clinics in 1978, it uncovered the cases of twelve women who died of legal abortion but whose deaths had not been reported as abortion-related. Twelve unreported deaths from abortion in one small part of the country is a revealing number when the 'official' statistics indicated twenty-one deaths from abortion in the entire country during the same period.

Statistics on death by abortion are dependent on the voluntary reporting of abortion clinics who have much to lose and nothing to gain by doing so. What makes abortion related deaths hard to trace is that the majority of the deaths do not occur during the surgery but afterward. Hence, any number of secondary reasons are routinely identified as the cause of death: e.g. A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis and then death. The official report of the cause of death would list pelvic sepsis and septicemia. Abortion would not be listed but the death was actually abortion related.

Writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr Dennis Cavanaugh stated that since abortion has been legalized, "there has been no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion in the U.S. After all it makes no difference whether a woman dies from legal or illegal abortion, she is dead nonetheless. I find no comfort in the fact that legal abortion is now the leading cause of maternal death in the U.S."

 

[Turbo]

Anne, welcome to TOL. :thumb: Good post!

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Anne

OK, here are some actual examples:

When the Chicago Sun-Times investigated Chicago area abortion clinics in 1978, it uncovered the cases of twelve women who died of legal abortion but whose deaths had not been reported as abortion-related. Twelve unreported deaths from abortion in one small part of the country is a revealing number when the 'official' statistics indicated twenty-one deaths from abortion in the entire country during the same period.

Let me say first, that it was a tragedy that people died, probably unecessarily. I hope those involved were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

On to your "numbers"... OK, so 25 years ago something was reported incorrectly in Chicago. This raises several questions:

• 1. Was this an error or an intended mis-recording of information, i.e., something illegal?
  
  2. If this was wrong or illegal, did the facility that was doing this get charged?
  
  3. Is the facility that was doing this even still in existence 25 years later?
  
  4. Is it any more reasonable to extrapolate this kind of problem to the entire country than it would be to extrapolate clergy child abuse to the entire Church based on cases at a few churches? If we were to apply this principle to religious groups we could extrapolate out to millions of children being abused by clergy. I think that is a little ridiculous, don't you?

Statistics on death by abortion are dependent on the voluntary reporting of abortion clinics who have much to lose and nothing to gain by doing so. What makes abortion related deaths hard to trace is that the majority of the deaths do not occur during the surgery but afterward.

I recognize this quote. You are citing someone else's work here without attribution. That is a form of stealing. Please give the sources for the text you cut and paste.

I understand the principle, it's the same issue that makes any post-surgical death difficult to track and relate back to the surgery.

Hence, any number of secondary reasons are routinely identified as the cause of death: e.g. A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis and then death. The official report of the cause of death would list pelvic sepsis and septicemia. Abortion would not be listed but the death was actually abortion related.

People seldom die from pelvic abscesses and sepsis at home or on the job. These deaths would most likely have occured at hospitals, wouldn't they? All hospitals in the U.S. are required to report mortality statistics including cause of death. So that would be a simple matter for pro-lifers to research wouldn't it? Has anyone done so?

If so, let us know about it.

If not, then your speculation remains just that - speculation.

Writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr Dennis Cavanaugh stated that since abortion has been legalized, "there has been no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion in the U.S. After all it makes no difference whether a woman dies from legal or illegal abortion, she is dead nonetheless. I find no comfort in the fact that legal abortion is now the leading cause of maternal death in the U.S."

Do you know when this was this written? Have you actually read the primary source or are you relying on something you read in an article allegedly quoting Dr. Cavanaugh?

Just out of curiosity, how many abortion-related deaths of women annually do you think occur on an annual basis? Upon what do you base this number?

If you're going to use statistics, be prepared to explain how you derive your numbers.

 

[Anne]

You seem to be assuming that abortion clinics are legally required to clearly state when a death is abortion related. As you say, one seldom dies at home of sepsis etc. but a call to 911 is made and then one is rushed to hospital, and dies in hospital. Unless the mother admits that she had recently had an abortion, the hospital staff would be reporting her cause of death to the best of their knowledge. Unless the case seems really suspicious and they do a thorough autopsy.

Statistics are public record, but I doubt pro-life organizations would be legally permitted to access individual death records, and insisting on thorough autopsys for all deaths of women of child-bearing age, to ascertain the exact cause of death, due to the right to privacy laws.

They guess-estimate that only 10% of rape victims report the crime therefore how can anyone be sure of the exact numbers. Even the 10% figure may not be accurate! In some areas more women may report the rape in others, less. Both the statistics of the number of women raped and number of women who die from abortion will never be accurate because they are based on voluntary reporting.

Unless they made it a legal requirement (and enforced it ruthlessly)
for abortion clinics to accurately report deaths related to abortion as well as that hospitals had to do thorough autopsys (without exception) of apparent natural deaths of woman of child-bearing age, the statistics are speculative.

Most abortion procedures are basically 'blind' procedures, i.e. the abortionist cannot see exactly what he is doing and then perforates the uterus with the aspirator, for example. Child-birth is a natural process, so that many mothers who don't have any complications associated with their pregnancy can opt to give birth to their new baby at home. I doubt that you would be touting home abortions.

So, based on the differences between abortion (which is unnatural) and child-birth (which is natural), I would think that the number of mothers dying from abortion is at least the same, probably more than those who die from child-birth.

I am closing off with the following quote (including the source:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Anne

You seem to be assuming that abortion clinics are legally required to clearly state when a death is abortion related. As you say, one seldom dies at home of sepsis etc. but a call to 911 is made and then one is rushed to hospital, and dies in hospital. Unless the mother admits that she had recently had an abortion, the hospital staff would be reporting her cause of death to the best of their knowledge. Unless the case seems really suspicious and they do a thorough autopsy.

Statistics are public record, but I doubt pro-life organizations would be legally permitted to access individual death records, and insisting on thorough autopsys for all deaths of women of child-bearing age, to ascertain the exact cause of death, due to the right to privacy laws.

Permit me to assure you, as a former project manager for several large scale national data collections, an organization can get access to the most amazing records if they merely go through channels. Death certificates, like birth certificates, are not medical records they are legal records and are frequently used as data sources in studies. Access does not require releases from the deceased or their families if the data derived are used in aggregate form so no individuals are singled out and no families are embarrassed.

They guess-estimate that only 10% of rape victims report the crime therefore how can anyone be sure of the exact numbers. Even the 10% figure may not be accurate! In some areas more women may report the rape in others, less. Both the statistics of the number of women raped and number of women who die from abortion will never be accurate because they are based on voluntary reporting.

Of course we'll never be "absolutely sure". But is there a need to be? What is likely is that, over time, a similar percentage of people will continue to avoid reporting so the lack of reporting is consistent. This makes the figures more useful than they would appear at first glance.

Unless they made it a legal requirement (and enforced it ruthlessly)
for abortion clinics to accurately report deaths related to abortion as well as that hospitals had to do thorough autopsys (without exception) of apparent natural deaths of woman of child-bearing age, the statistics are speculative.

What you are suggesting is infreasible for the following reasons:

• 1. Abortion is generally an elective, outpatient procedure. With a few rare exceptions, it is done during a single office visit as an outpatient. Once the patient has gone home, the clinic may never see that patient again. In some cases, that is the way the patient wants it to be. It would be similar to having a heart attack after a visit to the dentist's office. It happens, but the dental office usually doesn't find out until the person misses their six-month cleaning appointment...
  
  2. It is generally against the law to secure people's medical records against their will. For a clinic to track their patients after the abortion procedure, they would have to institute voluntary medical records exchanges with hospitals and emergency clinics. But which hospitals and emergency facilities? If a person did not go to a hospital near the abortion clinic, how would the clinic know where to seek the records? Unless the patient volunteerd the information, how would the hospital know to notify a clinic so they could update their records?

These are examples of the types of difficulties faced when trying to follow patients and require medical record keeping for "former" patients.

Most abortion procedures are basically 'blind' procedures, i.e. the abortionist cannot see exactly what he is doing and then perforates the uterus with the aspirator, for example. Child-birth is a natural process, so that many mothers who don't have any complications associated with their pregnancy can opt to give birth to their new baby at home. I doubt that you would be touting home abortions.

You are correct that I would not suggest non-chemical abortions outside of an appropriate medical facility.

So, based on the differences between abortion (which is unnatural) and child-birth (which is natural), I would think that the number of mothers dying from abortion is at least the same, probably more than those who die from child-birth.

I will take issue with the idea that "abortion is unnatural." The estimates I've seen from the WHO is that approximately 20-25% of all pregancies end in miscarriage or resorption of the embryo. Miscarriages are medically known as "spontaneous abortions" and are natural occurences.

So you have no statistical information to back your presumption about numbers of women dying from abortion, merely your desire that the numbers are higher than childbirth because it fits your theological or philosophical viewpoint that "unnatural" practices must have higher mortality that "natural" ones.

I am closing off with the following quote (including the source:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

I posted that quote in its entirety here yesterday, as an example of what a poor communicator Rumsfeld is. I'm glad someone appreciates his remarks. :chuckle:

 

[Anne]

Actually pro-aborts are more hung up on the number of women who die from (induced) abortion. From the beginning of their campaign to de-criminalize (induced) abortion they lied and made claims that thousands of women were dying from backstreet abortions. (Hmm... I wonder where the abortionists hid all the women's bodies because they claimed more women died from backstreet abortions than the total number of women who died, including homicide etc.) Ever since pro-aborts have been harping on the number of women dying from (induced) abortion.

Pro-lifers know that every (induced) abortion kills at least one person. The same can't be said about child-birth. Most child-births result in both healthy mother and baby.

Perhaps pro-aborts are hoping women will buy into the lie that (induced) abortion is supposedly safer than child-birth and hardly any babies will be born.

Induced abortion is unnatural and some miscarriages are caused by previous induced abortions.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Anne

Actually pro-aborts are more hung up on the number of women who die from (induced) abortion. From the beginning of their campaign to de-criminalize (induced) abortion they lied and made claims that thousands of women were dying from backstreet abortions.

So thousands of women were not dying from illegal abortions obtained in poor conditions by poorly trained practitioners, yet you claim that thousands are dying from just the opposite situation.

The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a relgious argument, it was a medical safety argument. Well, the medical safety argument has been addressed and the process is considered safe enough by the government and the public to be generally accepted.

So, anti-abortionists must now fall back on either a religious argument, which doesn't fly at all with many people, or a "hidden bodies" argument which has no statistical, factual basis.

Do you see the logical flaw in your position? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Anne. You cannot have it both ways because you can no more prove your point empirically than your predecessors could empirically prove that back street abortions were "killing thousands of women"...

(Hmm... I wonder where the abortionists hid all the women's bodies because they claimed more women died from backstreet abortions than the total number of women who died, including homicide etc.) Ever since pro-aborts have been harping on the number of women dying from (induced) abortion.

It would seem they werre "hiding them" the same place you are trying to hide yours - in anecdotal data. :think:

Pro-lifers know that every (induced) abortion kills at least one person. The same can't be said about child-birth. Most child-births result in both healthy mother and baby.

And most abortions result in a healthy mother, that's the intent of abortion. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Perhaps pro-aborts are hoping women will buy into the lie that (induced) abortion is supposedly safer than child-birth and hardly any babies will be born.

I'm certain there are some on the "lunatic fringe" of population control proponents that see it that way. Though, in my experience, they represent only a very small group of the total number of people who see abortion as a useful option for society.

Induced abortion is unnatural and some miscarriages are caused by previous induced abortions.

"Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath

The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a relgious argument, it was a medical safety argument.

Can you support that statement?

You cannot have it both ways because you can no more prove your point empirically than your predecessors could empirically prove that back street abortions were "killing thousands of women"...

There is no question that abortion "kills millions of babies." But babies aren't that important, are they?

And most abortions result in a healthy mother, that's the intent of abortion. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Healthy mother? Her baby is dead. At least you acknowledge that unborn child are indeed children by calling a woman who has an abortion a "mother." The problem is, you defend the murder (yes, murder: immoral killing) of these babies.

So you're "pro-choice" after all, then?

"Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we?

Absolutely not.

 

[okinrus]

So, anti-abortionists must now fall back on either a religious argument, which doesn't fly at all with many people, or a "hidden bodies" argument which has no statistical, factual basis.

Or the living argument?

I'm certain there are some on the "lunatic fringe" of population control proponents that see it that way. Though, in my experience, they represent only a very small group of the total number of people who see abortion as a useful option for society.

It seems to me that most of the ultra-feminist pro-choicers have been abused by men somehow, most likely rape. Sadly, the women who are pushing for the rights to their own body are doing so because they have been violated in someway.

"Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we?

People die of natural causes everywhere. Death never justifies itself.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
Can you support that statement?

At the time of the Roe decision, according to the U.S. Dept. of Health 17% of all deaths related to maternity were abortion-related. (Rebecca Benson Gold. Abortion and Women's Health - A Turning Point for America?) Additionally, I was an adult prior to 1973 and personally recall that was a primary argument in numerous heated debates over reproductive rights. This is also a primary argument being put forward in other countries including Mexico, and some African nations.

There is no question that abortion "kills millions of babies." But babies aren't that important, are they?

Millions of babies die of starvation and disease each year around the world as well. Infant mortality is a reality of the life allegedly given to humans by your diety. Whatever else it is, abortion is a societal issue. You happen to live in a society that accepts that unborn children are of less societal value than an adult woman. Whether you find that valuation acceptable or not, I believe that valuation decision is part of the current driving force behind abortion.

Healthy mother? Her baby is dead. At least you acknowledge that unborn child are indeed children by calling a woman who has an abortion a "mother." The problem is, you defend the murder (yes, murder: immoral killing) of these babies.

You are attempting to argue from a religious viewpoint. That is your privilege, but an argument I, as an atheist, will not engage.

Murder is "illegal killing". Abortion is not murder, in a legal sense, in the U.S.

So you're "pro-choice" after all, then?

Not really, no. I am anti-shoddy arugments. I think anti-choice folks damage their credibility and weaken their argument when they mis-use statistics.

Absolutely not.

According to your Creationist and Intelligent Design friends, your deity allegedly designed the system for human reproduction - a system that fails and results in spontaneous abortin approximately one out of five times.

You cannot have it both ways - either he built a defective system or he didn't...