Deadly fallacy: abortion safer than giving birth, study says

by Joel McDurmon on Jan 25, 2012

Reuters reports on a recent study released by the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology which concludes that “Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth.” The abstract for the article continues,

The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

The fallacy here is obvious, devious, and downright deadly: the study ignores the safety and death of the unborn child, and only considers the medical aspects of the mother. Pro-life websites have jumped on the heartless indifference of the study:

The study obviously concentrates solely on the medical risks for the mother, since an abortion always destroys the unborn child. So the study is based on a faulty premise, comparing two medical procedures that have different goals. In an abortion, one life is deliberately sacrificed. In childbirth, medical personnel do their utmost to preserve two healthy lives. It is not surprising that the latter operation is more challenging.

Accepting all of the real-life facts, of course, would lead any such study to conclude that abortion is “markedly” deadlier than child birth by a factor of hundreds of millions.

The liberal media does its best to abet the cold negligence of the murderous institution. CatholicCulture.org rightly criticizes Reuters because it “stretches the application of the new study even further beyond what the facts actually bear”:

The Reuters story (which does not identify the source of the study until the 10th paragraph) acknowledges the strains of a full-term pregnancy with the remarkably awkward admission that “women are pregnant for a lot longer when they decide to have a baby and so have more time to develop complications.” That is true, certainly. But women who “decide to have a baby”—that is, decide not to destroy their unborn child—also have a better chance of giving birth to a healthy son or daughter.

“Far, far, way, way better chance” one should add, since since only a tiny fraction of a percentage of aborted babies survive the procedure and live to become healthy. In general, the popular saying provides better focus here: only half of the people who enter an abortion clinic come out alive. The study ignores this fact, which means both the study and the media reporting it uncritically are forcing pro-choice assumptions upon their readers.

In citing the results of the study, however, Reuters claims to find meaning that the data do not, and cannot, show. The story cites unnamed “experts” who “say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.” And later the Reuters report refers to one researcher who “said previous studies have also shown the safety of legal abortions.” Both statements are inaccurate.

The study and the Reuters claim should be seen for what they are: attempts at influencing (by undermining) State legislation which hinders abortions. The fallacy both creates the illusion that abortion is safe and shifts the focus of the abortion debate to the health of the mother only. Other liberal news outlets are sharing this approach. ThinkProgess.org states, “The overall message, according to the researchers, is that both abortions and giving birth are safe.”

Sure, unless you’re the unborn child. Then it’s almost 100% unsafe—deadly, in fact. But that headline wouldn’t help the abortion lobby very much would it?

Continue Reading on www.catholicculture.org

Tags:

Categories:

Abortion Cultural Impact Family

24 Comments

January 25, 2012 at 1:11 pm
"Abortion safer than giving birth." Umm…no. Somebody still dies. So, it's not all that safe is it.
−Ducky
Reply ↓
- January 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm
  KAGAN LIED ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF CHILD BEARING AS WELL.
  SURGEON GENERAL KOOP WROTE AN OPEN LETTER TO EVERYONE ON THE HILL
  AND THE IDIOTS STILL PUT HER ON THE SUPREME COURT. DISGUSTING. SHE IS A DISGUSTING PERSON.
  −Shar
  Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Liberals say people should be open minded about things. Yet, when it comes to conservative vs liberal issues they are the most closed minded ever. The quote in the header is bright shining example. They don't understand that conservatives and Christians are arguing with a mind set that believes that the fetus inside the mother is a PERSON – a human life. So, they stick out information and quotes like this, and think that they are in the right. They don't even bother trying to wrestle with the idea that entity inside the mother could possibly be life. It is, also, hypocrisy on their part since they are always advocating for anti-execution laws and anti-war. (Which by the way I'm against un-justified and prevention wars and the death penalty.) They simply pose their values on everybody else. When it comes right down to it, their values are nothing but to live irresponsibly. Abortion is their way of seeking forgiveness of their sins instead of having to adhere to a Savior that will get rid of the real sin.
−Ducky
Reply ↓
- January 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm
  As Ann Coulter mentioned in one of her books, abortion is the saddcrament of the church of liberalism. If the Catholic Bishops had any courage they would excommunicate Catholics like Pelosi and Kerry who vote for abortion in their respective chambers of congress!
  −A. Reginald
  Reply ↓
  - January 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    Sorry for the typo, should be sacrament. Didn't spell check too well!
    −A. Reginald
  - January 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    Actually it is a pretty "sadd" situation indeed!
    −Searchlight
  - January 28, 2012 at 4:25 am
    It would be greatly effective if Catholic Bishops AND Protestant pastors taught their "flocks" to take the liberty we have in this country seriously and to read and understand the strict limits therein put on the federal government; in doing so we could eliminate this ongoing travesty almost immediately. According to the "Law of the Land" in the U.S., the Constitution, the federal government has NO authority to legislate or regulate in ANY way on this topic (or education or health or food or thought or agriculture or forests or insects or clothing or etc. etc. etc.). The citizens of the U.S. need to angrily demand, en masse, that their federal representatives "back off" and return to their "chains" (eliminate most fed anything), because the feds have no right to involve themselves in this. Thereby, we the citizens and the states would regain the rights plainly given us in the Constitution and be able to address this topic locally without having to deal with tyrannical mandates and armed bureaucrats from Washington D.C.
    Because most of us have been raised in the government schools and have been taught that bigger government can solve everything and because the media continues to reinforce this idea, we have a difficult time even knowing about, let alone wrapping our minds around the idea that we have a legal document that is "on our side" to tame the federal beast.
    We need to use the tool we were blessed with by the Founding Fathers.
    p.s. Yes, I know all rights come from our Creator.
    p.ps. Yes, I know that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and that therefore the federal government should "come out against" abortion, but it obviously isn't working out that way. Let us solve this another way by demanding the enforcement of a limited federal government.
    −CalMom
January 25, 2012 at 2:56 pm
A friend of mine once told me about a time when she was living in San Francisco. She was pregnant, and considering an abortion. Rain had been falling for about a week straight, and the skies were cloudy. She decided against the abortion, and the sun came out. Hmm….
−Richard Gibbard
Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Since I do believe that a fetus is a life, it seems to me that an abortion has at least a 50% fatality rate! And I know the death rate for giving birth is not that high.
−witsend
Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Since the mid 70s when I was introduced to an aborted and dismembered baby, holding tiny hands, arms, and legs in one of my palms. I have been passionately involved in the pro-life cause. It has astounded me that while many liberals do not want to punish a serial murderer with the death penalty, but want to kill unborn babies. I think it may be Dr. Alveda King, MLK Jr's niece, who wrote about abortion clinics being started in or near traditional African American neighborhoods to eradicate, perpetrate genocide, on African Americans. I wonder why the NAACP is not protesting this? It would seem the Congressional Black Caucus would make this one of their causes?
−CajunPatriot
Reply ↓
- January 26, 2012 at 3:30 am
  The NAACP has been co-opted by the Democrat party and dares not to oppose the "Party of Abortion."
  −A. Reginald
  Reply ↓
  - January 26, 2012 at 4:58 am
    You are correct, to their disgrace. They at least in written purpose and in public announcement claim to be for African Americans but do not speak forth against the genocide of African American children, and nor do they aptly represent the values of the majority of African Americans, which would be much better represented by an independent or at least balanced NAACP.
    −CajunPatriot
January 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm
not very safe for the baby. get a clue liberals, if everyone got abortions, sooner or later, there'd be no one left.
−Mattwm
Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 3:47 pm
The only difference between a mob hit man and a doctor that provides abortions is that the hit man at least is not killing a completely innocent and defenseless human being.
−Eddie
Reply ↓
- January 25, 2012 at 4:43 pm
  You are absolutely right! The only way for a doctor that provides abortions to continue to do so after seeing the result of his work (dead and dismembered babies), is for him to be EVIL and given over to his reprobate mind.
  −Courtney
  Reply ↓
  - January 25, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    What makes it worse is that one is treated as a criminal, and the other is not and is protected by the law. How wrong is that?
    −Eddie
January 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm
My oh my, where is our society going…oops I guess we don't have one…do what you want and the heck with the consequences.
−Hudmar
Reply ↓
- January 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm
  Unfortunately these people think that a human life is a consequence. It is sad.
  −Eddie
  Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 5:29 pm
There are inherant risks involved with even the healthies woman during a pregnancy. There are relatively few deaths that happen during a normal pregnancy however.
With an abortion, there is nearly always a death. Unfortunately, no one really seems to care about that.
−jb80538
Reply ↓
- January 25, 2012 at 5:34 pm
  Thats not quite true, I care. Babies are innocent and have done nothing to anyone. What could they have possibly done to deserve a death sentence?
  −Eddie
  Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Not for the child!
−Serenity
Reply ↓
January 25, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Wonder if the study followed the higher breast cancer rates in women who abort. J'en doute.
−Debby
Reply ↓
- January 26, 2012 at 2:25 am
  Debby you are ‘right on’ target with the increase likelihood of breast cancer for women who abort. The AMA finds that to be an inconvenient truth so far…as does Planned Parenthood…if our ‘pro choice’ folks are going to be honest, their ‘choice’ needs to include the desire of the mother to contract cancer as well. That changes the ballgame now doesn’t it?
  −Dntmkmecmoverther
  Reply ↓
January 26, 2012 at 9:18 am
I've wondered about the breast cancer thing, if there is a link. There's a fight going back and forth about it, which will last forever.
In a pregnancy, if things are going according to a healthy pregnancy, there are hormones at work and when the time for giving birth comes, hormones are preparing the body to give birth. In an abortion, all of that is shorted out and it doesn't look like the body is given that chance to continue with the cycle. In a spontaneous abortion-miscarriage, it seems that the body knows it can't carry out the pregnancy, which is more natural.
I wish the answers would come and we could count on the validity of them. Breast cancer link, or not, abortion snuffs out a helpless, innocent new little life who will never get the chance to draw his/her first breath and will die in pain, being thought of as an inconvenience and a problem to be sucked out of his/her mother's body and thrown away.
People seem to care more about the lives of puppies and kittens than human beings. How heartbreaking.
−Disgusted
Reply ↓