Monday, July 6, 2015

Hearts Stopped Each Year

We got a bit off topic here and again the MP moderators are blocking a facts and data response. MinnPost Who is harmed?  I will never understand their criteria.
"I am more interested in the number of human hearts that have been stopped since Roe V Wade. Though it may have been for the best of the child and society since the woman did not want the child, I think harm is still committed." G2A

 "I assume that you're asking how many third term abortions have taken place since Roe v Wade.  Most estimates are that the actual number of abortions have not increased -- they simply take place in clinics where they are recorded rather than in back alleys where they kill the mother as well (do you think that that's an improvement? It is the likely effect of appealing Roe v Wade).

From the (conservative) Washington Times: "This population is small — about 15,000 abortions, or about 1.5 percent of the annual U.S. number, are performed after 20 weeks, wrote Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport, authors of the study in Guttmacher Institute’s new Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health." Welcome to the real world." Paul
Now learning that ~15,000 abortions occur each year in the third trimester was bad enough, especially since Paul seemed to think that was a small number. What was even more disturbing to read upon further research was that there ~1,060,000 abortions each year in the USA and that ~10% occur in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. That means >106,000 hearts are being stopped each year.

43 comments:

Laurie said...

If you are concerned about reducing the number of abortions perhaps you should support a higher minimum wage as 3/4 of women who choose abortion say they cannot afford a child.

John said...

100% of Women have abortions each year because they got pregnant when they did not want to... How about women just do a better job of handling their birth control and sexual behaviors?

What is your point?

Did you know there are ~1,000,000 aborted "pregnancy accidents" per year?

Let's say there are 316,000,000 American's
Assuming 50% that means ~158,000,000 Women
Assuming 25% are in their child bearing years: 39.5M
So ~1 out of 40 get pregnant and terminate it each year

I wonder what number accidentally get pregnant and keep the baby through birth.

John said...

"3/4 of women who choose abortion say they cannot afford a child"

Single Parent Family Stats

John said...

WT Fathers Disappear

The starting sentence fascinates me... No wonder they are too poor to have more kids. I guess adoption never entered their mind.

"Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life."

Sean said...

If you want women to have their abortions earlier, then you should tell your GOP friends to stop putting medically-unnecessary restrictions and hurdles between women and their doctors. From your link, "Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money." and "As of January 1, 2014, at least half of the states have imposed excessive and unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics, mandated counseling designed to dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion, required a waiting period before an abortion, required parental involvement before a minor obtains an abortion, or prohibited the use of state Medicaid funds to pay for medically necessary abortions."

John said...

So you are saying we should make abortions easier to get and pay for them with tax dollars... Now you did read that 1,060,000 of them were performed in 2011?

That number still shocks me for some reason. How can that many women unintentionally get pregnant...

I don't disagree that birth control should be cheaper and more readily available. However I am not quite ready to sign up for free readily available abortions. Somehow people need to suffer some punishment for irresponsibly starting and then flushing a human life.

Though I do wish more of the single parent and/or welfare folks would choose abortion if they can not abstain or be disciplined in their use of birth control.

Sean said...

No one is calling for all abortions to be free. But Medicaid funds don't even pay for medically-required abortions. Many conservatives would have the victims of rape or incest be forced to carry the child to term.

John said...

And many Liberals want the fetus to have no rights until the baby is born... There are crazy people on both sides.

Your statement "Medicaid funds don't even pay for medically-required abortions" seems incorrect based on these sources.

KFF Abortion Funding
Medicaid Funding

Laurie said...

Since you like to keep bringing up the same topics with seemingly no point other than imply how hypocritical liberals are, I'll just reply with my same statistic. Why do conservatives care so much more about abortion than they do about the 3 million children who die each year from malnutrition?

Also, if conservatives really cared about reducing abortion more than controlling women they would support free birth control.

Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success

John said...

"3 million children who die each year from malnutrition" Please provide a source.

I agree that free birth control is a very logical investment and would have a much better payback than welfare. And as I said" There are crazy people on both sides."

By the way, the Colorado experiment was excellent. I hope they find a source of private funds to continue their good works.

John said...

As for the choice of topics... If my extremely Liberal friends at MinnPost would stop attacking and demonizing everyone who thinks differently than them, I would probably run out of material.

Laurie said...

UNICEF: Too Many Children Dying of Malnutrition

It seems to me govt funding of contraception for low income women would be very cost effective.

John said...

Now are you really saying we should use USA tax payer dollars to buy birth control for people in third world countries?

I think we should first focus on reducing the American abortion rate down from 1,000,000 /yr. Talking about a wasteful pointless preventable medical expense. Now that seems much more attainable.

Sean said...

I think Laurie brings up a good point. Over half of GOPers in the Minnesota State Legislature voted against changes in the law to protect pregnant women and new mothers. These changes included requiring employers to accommodate pregnant women who need a chair, or more frequent bathroom breaks. It allowed women to take up to 12 weeks unpaid after the birth of a child (pretty much the rest of the first world gives new mothers at least 12 weeks of paid leave), and allowed them to have a private place to pump breast milk during their breaks. The GOP talks a good game on valuing mothers and children, but sides with business when push comes to shove.

jerrye92002 said...

Sounds to me what is needed here is a bit of perspective on the numbers. If you tell me that 1.5% occur after 20 weeks, and 10% occur after 12 weeks, that seems consistent with the vast number-- 98.5% occuring within the bounds of Roe v. Wade, and a quite sizable percentage-- 90%-- falling in the first trimester where, while tragic and "stops a heart," a reasonable compromise might be had. As for those done after 20 weeks, we must assume that those, too, meet the "life and health of the mother" exception of Roe v. Wade for the most part so, agree with it or not, the number of late-term abortions may be about what courts have said is "right."

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, that's an interesting cite, but in the race to reduce teen/unwanted pregnancy, what has happened to committed relationships vs. "hookups," and to VD rates from all of that "casual sex"? There are social costs other than unwanted kids.

Some keep talking about "safe" abortions, but never acknowledge that at least ONE human being dies every time.

John said...

Personally I think they just believe government has no need to be involved in the minutiae of employer / employee relations.

I am always curious if the DFL can ever say no to government intervention in personal lives. From my perspective it seems their goal is to pass enough laws to protect everyone form everything.

And then we wonder why the cost of government keeps eating a larger and larger portion of our GDP...

"The GOP talks a good game on valuing mothers and children." Actually they believe people should take responsibility for their beliefs, behaviors, actions and consequences. Whereas DFL folk typically want to pass those negative consequences on to tax payers and businesses.

Definitely 2 different paradigms.

Sean said...

"I am always curious if the DFL can ever say no to government intervention in personal lives."

You're the one here who wants to stand between women and their doctors.

Laurie said...

My source and the comment following were unrelated. I think we could greatly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies with free contraception in the USA and it would save the govt $.

John said...

Sean,
Correction: I want to stand between a scapel and a beating human heart after the first trimester. It is amazing how the typical pro choice folks can rationalize that those little human hearts do not exist. And that it is okay that 100,000+ of them get sliced and diced every year.

On the upside... I do support physician assisted suicide if that helps...

Laurie,
I agree, however nothing is free. Tax payers will be paying so those women can be sexually active/permiscuous. It will be a hard sell.

jerrye92002 said...

How about this as a fundamental: Freedom
Free to get and use contraception, or not.
Free to have sex, protected or not.
Free to obtain an abortion in the early months, before viability (or not).
Freedom for the rest of us from paying for your freedom and your choices.
Freedom for society to expect you to assume the consequences of your choices.

Laurie said...

"Tax payers will be paying so those women can be sexually active/permiscuous"

That is what it is all about for religious conservatives, imposing their abstinence until marriage morals on everybody.

I am curious about what would be your ideal in terms of relationships for your daughters. Would it be abstinence until marriage? is this realistic (or ideal)? What if they don't marry until age 30 (or ever)?

In my house we have had conversations with my son's girlfriend's mother about trying to be sure they are using contraception (they just graduated high school). I figure they are adult at age 18 and can make adult decisions about being sexually active.

Sean said...

"It is amazing how the typical pro choice folks can rationalize that those little human hearts do not exist. And that it is okay that 100,000+ of them get sliced and diced every year."

That isn't what pro-choice folks believe. Have a nice day.

Sean said...

A first trimester cutoff for abortion is absurd.

When my wife became pregnant in late 2009, we had the screening test early in the second trimester, and it came back with a result indicating that our child might have a serious chromosomal defect. Children with this defect only make it to birth alive about half the time, and those that do typically live for less than two weeks. My wife had amniocentesis to confirm, and while we were waiting for the results we had hours of discussions over what we would do if the result came back positive. By the time the results were back, it was late in week 21. If you're going to tell me that families in that circumstance shouldn't have the ability to make what is in essence an end-of-life decision, you're not really standing for personal rights and liberties.

John said...

Okay... How about first trimester unless specific abnormalities are present? Apparently Texas went for 20 wks unless significant defects are present and the Pro Choice group still is not happy.

Slate Late Abortions

Just curious. Are you okay we euthanizing a born baby with those same defects?

Sean said...

"How about first trimester unless specific abnormalities are present? Apparently Texas went for 20 wks unless significant defects are present and the Pro Choice group still is not happy."

Third trimester is the earliest I am willing to accept any restrictions. Your link explains why folks aren't happy -- the wording about the defects is written such that almost no defect qualifies as an exception to the 20-week rule.

No, I am not OK with euthanizing a born baby with the same defects.

John said...

So you are ok with people euthanizing a 27 week old living "fetus", however you are not willing to support euthanizing a 27 week old "baby" in it's incubator. Now I really need to hear your rationale...

Worlds Smallest Preemies

Laurie said...

I think parents should have the option to deny extrodinary care / life support for a premie with serious health issues / disabilities.

Also, John, you are kind of being a jerk with your lack of empathy over what could be very difficult circumstances / decisions for any parent.

jerrye92002 said...

"That is what it is all about for religious conservatives, imposing their abstinence until marriage morals on everybody." -- Laurie

There is a vast difference between imposing abstinence, expecting abstinence from your kids as the 100% effective means of birth control and STD prevention, and asking people to be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions. For example, Little Missy decides to have casual sex, to forgo contraception, and becomes pregnant. How does any of that become the problem and responsibility of the taxpayer? And if the taxpayers are NOT standing by, is it possible that Missy makes better decisions?

John said...

Laurie,
I feel greatly for families that go through what Sean's went through. My parent's experienced something similar with a sibling of mine who was stillborn. On the other hand I also feel greatly for the 100,000 babies whose hearts are stilled per year, some for much less serious reasons. (not to mention the 900,000 in the first trimester)

Please remember that I proposed what I thought is a very rational compromise. "How about first trimester unless specific abnormalities are present?" And I can even go for a more generic "specific prognosis" wording.

I am happy to meet in the middle ground somewhere, but the hard pro choice folks who think that society should have no say in if a healthy fetus is delivered just because it is in a living incubator are a bit extreme for my tastes.

The irony is that the same people who are livid regarding capital punishment, foreign wars, LGBT discrimination, etc seem to be able to ignore the stilling of all those healthy innocent human hearts.

John said...

Jerry,
I agree whole heartedly with your comments.

However my pragmatic side says give away a lot of long term birth control, thus cutting the number of abortions significantly, reducing the welfare expenditures, reduce the achievement gap, reduce the crime rate, reduce poverty, reduce public healthcare costs, etc.

It seems like a cheap investment with a big payback for all.

Sean said...

"So you are ok with people euthanizing a 27 week old living "fetus", however you are not willing to support euthanizing a 27 week old "baby" in it's incubator. Now I really need to hear your rationale..."

Because live birth is a critical milestone that bestows more rights. The reality is that any person under the age of 21 in this country does not have full civil rights, and we draw different lines at different ages for bestowing those rights.

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, ignoring the extremists on both sides, the exceptions of "rape, incest, life and reproductive health of the mother and gross fetal deformity" are widely accepted. The pro-choice side seems to like the phrase "abortion on demand," which pro-life people misinterpret (or maybe not), as "abortion for convenience" or "abortion for any reason whatsoever, anytime." It would be a lot easier to accept a "woman and her doctor" (plus husband and counselor) making the decision after careful consideration, with specific exceptions in the later term, rather than in the latter case. I'm not buying that "burden on society" argument, either. People have to be responsible for themselves first, and ask "society" for help if they need it.

jerrye92002 said...

John, long-term birth control should be available for those that want it, but you KNOW that handing it out like candy is going to lead to an awful lot of casual sex that is not "good" for society and the formation of successful two-parent families. (young married couples being the exception, of course). Now if you want to go back to the idea of sterilizing the "unfit," we can talk about that; it is what you are suggesting, is it not? Eugenics, anyone?

John said...

That of course is a cop out rationale and likely incorrect.

I think per Roe v Wade, "viability" is actually the critical milestone, and that continues to get earlier and earlier with each medical advancement. I was amazed per that link that some of the 25 week old preemies were being saved.

I actually believe that society needs to set some clear rules based around "quality of life", and then the Parents would be free to choose to euthanize a fetus or infant if they wished. The desire to save everyone, even those that are near a vegetative state is not beneficial to anyone. Not even the child who is bed ridden and unaware.

John said...

Jerry,
Handing out BC like candy may allow people to self sterilize and fornicate like rabbits... And if there are no kids... I don't care if they get married or not. It is the kids I am worried about.

I think you made an important point:
"to accept a "woman and her doctor" (plus husband and counselor) making the decision"

The idea that the "Father" has no say in the decision fascinates me.

Sean said...

"I think per Roe v Wade, "viability" is actually the critical milestone, and that continues to get earlier and earlier with each medical advancement. I was amazed per that link that some of the 25 week old preemies were being saved."

The fact that a few preemies have been saved before 27-28 weeks does enough move the viability standard off of the current third trimester designation.

Sean said...

Should read "doesn't do enough to move"

John said...

This is a pretty interesting link that seems to disagree with your perspective quite radically.

Wiki Fetal Viability

"The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures."

jerrye92002 said...

" It is the kids I am worried about." -- John

It's the kids I am worried about, too. Especially when they start "fornicating like rabbits" rather than establishing lasting pair-bonds, feelings of self-worth and trust and such that lead to establishing successful families. I'm worried about all the children that are NOT born because the "big kids" are having too much fun to take on the responsibility of continuing the society. What's the old saying, "Why buy the cow..."? That's not to say those couples who responsibly choose contraception for a time shouldn't be allowed to, nor that singles shouldn't choose abstinence, for that matter, but it should be a responsible choice, not some government encouragement to casual sex. Talk about "bread and circuses."

Sean said...

That's a matter that will have to be litigated in order to reach a final conclusion. Federal courts have struck down some states' efforts to move it up to 20 or 24 weeks.

(For Jerry's edification, it is worth pointing out that at least nine states that have the 20-week ban do not include rape as an exception.)

jerrye92002 said...

Thanks, Sean, but for once I was more or less aware of that, and it doesn't really matter. A woman should know within 20 weeks of conception whether she was raped or not.

John said...

Jerry,
I think other countries are doing their best to over populate the world.

We can just let the smartest and most capable immigrate to the USA...