From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: KILLfile created to prevent flamewar
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:20:34 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <ysgy3aj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:

>>dsh@zeus.csc.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> If you don't believe a problem exists, then perhaps you should
>>> take a look at the following article:

Well frankly, Dougie, I'm stumped here.  Why do YOU keep calling
fetal survival "a problem"?  I don't think it's a "problem" at
all, as I explain later.

I dunno, Dougie, would you really rather those fetuses had died?
Do you think a 100% death rate would make a better "case" for
"your side"?

>> [126 lines that had nothing to do with the rate of late-term
>> abortions deleted]

And of course, Holtsinger's reply has nothing to do with the part
of the article I deleted.

>In the most popular late abortion procedure, the D&E, the fetus
>is always killed, and it never gets a chance to survive.  Abortion
>live births can occur in the less popular abortion procedures.  The
>net result is that the rate of late-term abortions would necessarily
>be higher than the rate of abortion live births, since most late-
>term fetuses are always killed during the abortion.

"Most are always"?

In any event, my impression is that the D&E is done when surgery
would be too dangerous to the woman.  Since no one has yet established
that third-tri abortions are done for any reason BUT medical
contraindications to continuing pregnancy, this statistic makes 
sense.  If it is tremendously dangerous for a woman to carry the
pregnancy to term, she's not likely to be a good candidate for a 
C-section.

So all you're saying is "The fetal survival rate for late-term
abortions is not 100%."  I've got news for you, Dougie.  The
infant survival rate for full-term normal BIRTH is not 100%.

>>>     Only one large-scale study has been done of live  births  after
        ========================================   [restored]
>>>   abortions--by  George  Stroh  and  Dr. Alan Hinman in upstate New
>>>   York from July 1970 through December 1972 (a period during  which
>>>   abortion  was  legal in New York alone). It turned up 38 cases of
>>>   live births in a sample of 150,000 abortions.

>> This was the only solid statistic in the entire article.  If my math
>> is correct, this works out to the horrifying rate of .0253 PERCENT.
>> Clearly, this is where the "about once a day" contention came from.

>I'm sorry you feel that 38 live born babies are not significant.   
 
Please point out where I said this.  In fact, I think that the
survival of the fetus from a medically-indicated late-term abortion
has the potential to be a wonderful event.  Many of these women
might have been looking forward to having a child, and might have
been devastated by their medical inability to carry to term.  Imagine
being told that your child would die, and then finding out that it
didn't!

Then get a book on statistics.  You'll find that .0253% is _not_
considered statistically significant.

>Did you miss reading this paragraph in the article:
> 
>     Other studies, including one that found signs of life in  about
>   10  percent  of the prostaglandin abortions at a Hartford, Conn.,
>   hospital, date from the mid-1970s. No one is so naive as to think
>   there  is  reliable  voluntary  reporting  of  live births in the
>   present climate, according to Dr. Cates of the Center for Disease
>   Control.

No, Holtsinger, I deleted it because I felt your case was weak to
begin with.  What this says is "Even though we gave you a number at
the beginning of the article, we fully admit that it was probably
wrong."  How much of their so-called "widespread problem" is simply
extrapolation from stats that are admittedly flawed to begin with?

>Prostaglandin abortions have largely been replaced by the D&E procedure
>since it's cheaper, faster, and it's less painful.  Perhaps you should
>call yourself ``pro-expedient'' instead of pro-choice.  

Why should I do that, Dougie?  Have I ever expressed a preference
for a particular abortion _method_?

>>>     Evidence gathered during  research  for  this  story  suggests,
>>>   without  proving  definitively,  that much of the traffic in late

>> Well.  This WOULD explain why Holtsinger likes this story so much.

>Try reading that sentence in context:
> 
>     Evidence gathered during  research  for  this  story  suggests,
>   without  proving  definitively,  that much of the traffic in late
>   abortions now flows to the New York and Los Angeles  metropolitan
>   areas, where loose practice more easily escapes notice.

>     ``The word has spread,'' the Daily Breeze, a small Los  Angeles
>   suburban  paper,  said in July 1980, ``that facilities in greater
>   Los Angeles will do late abortions. How late only the  woman  and
>   the doctor who performs them know.''

What exactly was your point in restoring this part?  Was it just
to remind us that the vast majority of this "news" story consisted
of baseless speculation?

>Doug Holtsinger

                        -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion