# Partial Birth Abortion & Late Term Abortion -- should they be prohibited? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725 "2003-01-15T13:42:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/61 "2003-01-16T01:09:32Z")
If the fetus is viable if removed from the mother and removing him alive does not pose a health risk greater then aborting him, why is he killed instead of allowed to live outside the mother? why not just remove him and put him up for adoption (as there is a great demand for adopted babies)? ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/62 "2003-01-16T01:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\* > Also, beagle: I see you’ve posted much more informative stats since I starting posting. > > Since you didn’t summarize it for everyone: the rate of medical reasons for abortion is listed at 6% (while rape is 1%) for abortions overall in that cite. For late-term abortions, we again are left with a multiple reason questionaire and no tabluation for all medical reasons (just for late-discovered abnormalities, at 2%) though it is perhaps slipped into the “other” category (11%). > > AGI and PFSR are both reputable, though again the cite doesn’t give me any of the data I need to evaluate the validity of their statistics or methods. > \*\* The [limitations](http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html) of U.S. stats on abortions. > [@](#): > > There are few authoritative data to support claims regarding how many late-term abortions are performed, and little understanding of the complexities involved in securing such data. This Issues in Brief describes how abortion data are obtained, what they consist of and why they have inherent limitations. At the very least, in terms of “reasons” for abortions (late term or otherwise)…the AGI surverys rely, problematically, on reasons supplied by the women getting the procedures. The reasonable reader might conclude that there are social pressures that might influence abortion recepients to offer a more “palatable” answer to that kind of question. (In a vague sense, similar to the number of people who claim that they voted in an election, compared to the number of people who actually did) For CrazyCatLady…to get back to your PBA question: They are performed in the second and third trimesters…not just after 36 weeks. Indeed, there has been (at least in the past), a campaign of disinformation about when and why PBAs have been performed. See [this](http://www.tnr.com/textonly/032497/txtpowers032497.html) piece from the New Republic…hardly a right wing journal. > [@](#): > > “A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.” --Lead sentence of a story in The New York Times, February 26, 1997, page A-12 and > [@](#): > > The media’s reticence is especially odd since the truth seems rather gettable. The difficult spade-work on the story was begun impressively last year by a few journalists who reported that the real number of partial-birth abortions did not jibe with the statements of the abortion-rights advocates. Ruth Padawer, a staff writer for The Record newspaper in Bergen, New Jersey, broke the story last September, simply by doing a little Journalism 101: she called local clinics, asked how many of these abortions they performed, did some math and wrote up her conclusions: “Interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a `minuscule amount’ are for medical reasons.” Days later, David Brown and Barbara Vobejda of The Washington Post reported similar findings. And the American Medical News reporter who wrote the Fitzsimmons story, Diane Gianelli, first reported way back in 1993 that the annual total of partial- birth abortions might be in the thousands, and that the majority are elective. At this point, I think I can point out that the claim that “99%” of PBAs are performed for serious maternal health issues or serious fetal defects has been shown to be false by a wide range of sources…including independent reporters from The Nation, The Washington Post, The Record Newspaper. Unfortunately, the Washington Post online archives do not go back to 1996…but do a search on the reporters and you’ll get the jist of their piece… > [@](#): > > The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded: > > “It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy… Instead, the “typical” patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.” ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/63 "2003-01-16T02:16:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > \*\*If the fetus is viable if removed from the mother and removing him alive does not pose a health risk greater then aborting him, why is he killed instead of allowed to live outside the mother? why not just remove him and put him up for adoption (as there is a great demand for adopted babies)? \*\* If there’s such a great demand for adopted babies, why are there kids in foster homes? ---
**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/64 "2003-01-16T02:26:49Z")
Two people had annecdotal evidence that there are women that use abortion as a method of birth control. Interesting side note, I have evidence that there are people that use guns to rob banks and/or kill people. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*If there’s such a great demand for adopted babies, why are there kids in foster homes? \*\* Because the demand is for _white_ babies that are _healthy_. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/65 "2003-01-16T03:43:11Z")
—At the very least, in terms of “reasons” for abortions (late term or otherwise)…the AGI surverys rely, problematically, on reasons supplied by the women getting the procedures. — Well, again, unless I can see the actual statistical findings, I can’t comment on the internal or external validity of their findings at all. The questions being both potentially open-ended, self-reported, and non-exclusive simply aren’t anywhere near the only potential problem. All I can say is that AGI is a pretty darn good, respected group when it comes to researching these things. ---
**Author:** ![BURNER](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@BURNER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BURNER)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/66 "2003-01-16T03:52:21Z")
After takeing the rest of the day to think about it , I have the ultimate answer to the main question of the OP. My answer is: If you cant give birth then you have no right to tell anyone anything about abortion. If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant. You cant empathize,sympathize,identify with or ever be in a position to go through with one, so stop being such bullies. It isnt your bodie, so please keep your politics and lofty morals off of it. For the women, unless you are the one carrying the foetus you dont have much of a say either. Abortion may be a horrible crime to you. Dont assume it is that way for everyone. Just like everything else, if you dont like it then dont do it. If you respect the rights of others you will have your own rights respected in return. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/67 "2003-01-16T06:37:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BURNER \* > **My answer is: If you cant give birth then you have no right to tell anyone anything about abortion. If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant. You cant empathize,sympathize,identify with or ever be in a position to go through with one, so stop being such bullies.** Does that mean men can’t be against rape either? I don’t think that analogy holds up. (I’m pro-choice anyway, though.) ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/68 "2003-01-16T08:20:23Z")
I am with **cjhoworth** and other on this. You can’t ban a medical procedure that is required to save a woman’s life. In other words: by the logic that a late-term abortion is murder, if you _don’t_ abort to save the baby, and the mother dies, then that is murder too. > [@](#): > > **Oh, so you think it’s okay to kill a full term baby in the normal prosess of being born with just the head still in the birth canal by stabbing it in the back of the neck and sucking the brains out. You call this a fetus!? Just because all of a sudden mommy decides she doesn’t want it. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” don’t you understand? How any doctor who would perform this legalized murder could sleep at night is beyond my comprehension!** **His4Ever** - I find your comments sensationalist and appalling. They do you no credit. I have no issue with people being allowed their own points of view. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/69 "2003-01-16T08:27:00Z")
Sorry - pressed return or something before I was ready. To continue […their own points of view] but I find your choice of terms a worrying misrepresentation on doctors. Do you describe heart surgery as “stabbing someone in the chest”? Also, please bear in mind that not everyone believes in your God, or any god, and even if they do they may not share the same religion/scripture/doctine as you do. “Thou shalt not kill” is not a part of everyone’s personal belief system. I don’t think you are representing your side of the fence very well at all. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/70 "2003-01-16T09:25:42Z")
—If you are not a woman then your opinion about abortion is irrelevant.— One might as well argue that if one is not currently a fetus, one cannot have a releveant opinion about abortion. —“Thou shalt not kill” is not a part of everyone’s personal belief system.— Even for those for whom it is, the real questions are “thou shalt not kill WHAT and WHY?” ---
**Author:** ![Consuela\_Bobuela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Consuela\_Bobuela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Consuela_Bobuela)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/71 "2003-01-16T11:11:11Z")
Dr George Tiller, here in Wichita, Ks. is one of the few physicians in the country who perform late term abortions. He was shot 4 years ago outside his Women’s Health Care Services clinic, but he survived. He now wears a kevlar vest when he is in public. Here is a link to the standars form patients must sign when having a preganancy terminated at WHCS. Scroll down the page and pay close attention to number 11. [http://www.drtiller.com/ic1b.html](http://www.drtiller.com/ic1b.html) I am fervently pro choice. It’s my body and my decision. Jamie ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/72 "2003-01-16T18:27:40Z")
**Apos** > [@](#): > > Which ruins the whole train of thought. Women who are at serious risk are much less likely to then HAVE a live birth… because presumably a lot of them go on to have abortions. I agree that women who are at a serious health risk are more likely to opt for abortion and that further this is likely to reduce the percentage of women who die related to pregnancy complications. More on this below (Opinion 2). > [@](#): > > Again, that’s just sloppy, because the number of women that die from live births is reduced by the number of women who choose to have abortions for medical reasons, forseeing the risk. What you really need are a population of women that can represent the current population as a whole, but who cannot choose to have late-term abortions in response to risk. I also agree that this is a crude measurement. Certainly other factors are not being accounted for here. [This](http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/pdf/mm4838.pdf) site has a table showing the maternal mortality rate all the way back to the year 1900. Then the rate was approximately 825 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. This rate continued to drop, especially during the 50’s, presumably because of advancements in medical care. The first state legalized abortions were performed in the mid 60’s. Therefore: Opinion 1. IMHO It is reasonable to assume that current day maternal mortality rates for women who had a late term abortion (assuming they decided to keep the baby instead) would be at least as low as the rate during 1960 (a year when legalized abortion was not an option). The maternal death rate during 1960 was approximately 20 deaths per 100,000 live births. Using this maternal death rate the number of expected dead for those 94,000 abortions would have been about 19. If we used 1900 era maternal death rates (again, prior to legalized abortion) then the approximate number of maternal deaths would have been around 776. Opinion 2. IMHO, even though other factors are not accounted for there is no factor I can think of that can explain the number of late term abortions solely based on a “life risk” criteria. A few questions for you then **Apos**. 1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk? 2. Assuming that the 94,027 late term abortions were performed because of a life threatening reason, what factor(s) (that haven’t been accounted for by anyone in this thread yet), in your opinion, could _reasonably_ cause the maternal death rate to raise to the level wherein that number of late term abortions would be justified. In other words, what factor(s), do you think could account for a potential maternal death rate that is over 10,000 times current day levels and over 100 times 1900 levels. Grim ---
**Author:** ![silverfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@silverfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silverfish)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/73 "2003-01-16T19:43:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Opinion 1. IMHO It is reasonable to assume that current day maternal mortality rates for women who had a late term abortion (assuming they decided to keep the baby instead) would be at least as low as the rate during 1960 (a year when legalized abortion was not an option). The maternal death rate during 1960 was approximately 20 deaths per 100,000 live births. Using this maternal death rate the number of expected dead for those 94,000 abortions would have been about 19. If we used 1900 era maternal death rates (again, prior to legalized abortion) then the approximate number of maternal deaths would have been around 776. The problem here is that you are assuming the maternal death rate for all live births to be the expected death rate in the case where the mother chose late term abortion, if the mother didn’t choose the abortion. But to assume that you have to know that the mothers are of no particular risk in those cases, which is the proposition that you seem to be trying to support. If the mothers are at risk in this case, then that could well explain why the number of deaths would be more than expected, because the expectation would be based on an erroneous assumption. I therefore think that any conclusion reached from this will be circular, in that you have to assume that these women are not at risk for the figures to make your case. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/74 "2003-01-16T21:41:11Z")
**silverfish** > [@](#): > > But to assume that you have to know that the mothers are of no particular risk in those cases, which is the proposition that you seem to be trying to support. If the mothers are at risk in this case, then that could well explain why the number of deaths would be more than expected, because the expectation would be based on an erroneous assumption. I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to convey here. I _think_ what you’re saying is something like: “Women who choose to have late term abortions are likely to have higher health risk rates then women who decided to give birth and that therefore they are also more likely to have a higher maternal death rate. Due to this higher probable rate it wouldn’t be accurate to apply the maternal death rate for live births to the aforementioned set of women who chose late term abortions.” Is this the essence of what you’re saying? If so, some thoughts and some questions for you. In 1960 there were no legalized abortions in the United States. Unless a woman had an illegal abortion (and IMHO even then it is unlikely that she would have had access to an expert medical opinion on which to assess whether the pregnancy posed a risk to her life) it seems reasonable to assume that, barring a miscarriage, the baby would have to be carried to full term and born. 1. Can a woman without professional medical training reasonably assess the risk a pregnancy poses to her life? 2. Could a woman reasonably obtain such a risk evaluation from a competent physician in 1960? 3. If expert medical assessment isn’t available (i.e. answers to questions 1 & 2 are both “No”) is it reasonable to conclude that illegal abortions performed during 1960 were prevalently for other reasons? (i.e. social, financial, emotional, etc.) 4. Unless a woman opted for an illegal abortion in 1960 is it reasonable to assume that (barring miscarriage) the baby would be born? 5. Is it reasonable to assume that some of the women in 1960 who gave birth would have opted for abortion instead had it been a legal option? 6. Is it reasonable to assume that the maternal death rate in 1960 includes those women who would have opted for abortion? Also, I’d like you to answer the same questions I asked **Apos**. Here they are again: > [@](#): > > 1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk? > > 2. Assuming that the 94,027 late term abortions were performed because of a life threatening reason, what factor(s) (that haven’t been accounted for by anyone in this thread yet), in your opinion, could reasonably cause the maternal death rate to raise to the level wherein that number of late term abortions would be justified. In other words, what factor(s), do you think could account for a potential maternal death rate that is over 10,000 times current day levels and over 100 times 1900 levels. If I’ve misinterpreted the meaning of your statement above. Please clarify what your message. Grim ---
**Author:** ![silverfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@silverfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silverfish)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/75 "2003-01-16T22:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > “Women who choose to have late term abortions are likely to have higher health risk rates then women who decided to give birth and that therefore they are also more likely to have a higher maternal death rate. Due to this higher probable rate it wouldn’t be accurate to apply the maternal death rate for live births to the aforementioned set of women who chose late term abortions.” > > Is this the essence of what you’re saying? No, that is not what I am saying. I am not making any claims on what the rate of death would be for woman who choose late term abortions. However, you seem to be assuming that the women who have chosen late term abortion have the same risk of dying as for women generally who give birth, which only applies if women now don’t tend to go for late term abortion because of medical risk, which seems to be the conclusion you are drawing. If this is the case, your argument is circular. I think it likely that women who would now have had late term abortions would probably have given birth if they lived in the 1960’s. However, if those women were at particular risk, then for obvious reasons their mortality rate would be higher than the average for all live births. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/76 "2003-01-16T23:36:58Z")
**silverfish** > [@](#): > > However, you seem to be assuming that the women who have chosen late term abortion have the same risk of dying as for women generally who give birth, … I’ve been assuming that differences in maternal death rates would not be drastically different between the two. With you so far. > [@](#): > > … which only applies if women now don’t tend to go for late term abortion because of medical risk, which seems to be the conclusion you are drawing. If this is the case, your argument is circular. Ok, is this closer to your characterization of my stance? “Women who have late term abortions are not at risk. Therefore, women who have late term abortions are not doing it because of a life threatening risk.” I can see how it may sound circular. However my actual position is closer to this: Evidence: Maternal death rates are extremely low. Conclusion: Women have late term abortions for non life threatening reasons. As far as I can tell I’m not using circular logic. I’m using the data regarding maternal death rates to form a conclusion regarding why a particular **reason** is not a probable cause. This is no different in format then a statement like: “Marge never eats cookies. Since she buys cookies anyway it must be for a different reason then eating them.” > [@](#): > > I think it likely that women who would now have had late term abortions would probably have given birth if they lived in the 1960’s. However, if those women were at particular risk, then for obvious reasons their mortality rate would be higher than the average for all live births. I can see what you’re saying here. Let’s posit a group of 100 women, 50 (Group A) who are at a high risk level due to medical reasons during a pregnancy and 50 (Group B) who are relatively risk free during their pregnancy. Further, let’s say that none of the women opt for abortion. Now let’s say that the results turn out to be 20 dead from Group A and 1 dead from Group B for a total of 21 dead due to pregnancy complications. That evaluates to an average maternal death rate of 21% for both of the groups put together, yet the maternal death rate for Group A is 40% while the maternal death rate for Group B is 2%. However, let’s look at the data on the scale that we’ve been discussing. The table showing the maternal death rate during 1960 shows those death rates in relation to 100,000 live births. Now, let’s posit several arbitrary sets of data and see how the results come out. In all of these scenarios Group A will be the high risk group and Group B will be the low risk group. Also, the maternal death rate used will be that from 1960. **Scenario 1:** Group A: 50,000 women Group B: 50,000 women Deaths from: Group A: 20 Group B: 0 Chance of dying: Group A: .04% Group B: 0% **Scenario 2:** Group A: 25,000 women Group B: 75,000 women Deaths from: Group A: 20 Group B: 0 Chance of dying: Group A: .08% Group B: 0% **Scenario 3:** Group A: 5,000 women Group B: 95,000 women Deaths from: Group A: 20 Group B: 0 Chance of dying: Group A: .4% Group B: 0% **Scenario 4:** Group A: 1,000 women Group B: 99,000 women Deaths from: Group A: 20 Group B: 0 Chance of dying: Group A: 2% Group B: 0% Even if the high risk group was comprised of only 1% of all pregnant women, and **all** of the deaths were from that group, the chances of dying are still only 2%. Grim ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/77 "2003-01-17T03:23:41Z")
But what if you carry it even further? **Scenario 5:** Group A: 20 women Group B: 99,980 women Deaths from: Group A: 20 Group B: 0 Chance of dying: Group A: 100% Group B: 0% Isn’t that silverfish’s point (using an admittedly extreme example)? If women in life-threatening situations are those that seek these kinds of abortions, then using the death rate of the general population would draw a wrong conclusion. I believe you are right (Dave’s cites support this), but I’m not sure I buy your “statistical” evidence, at least in the way you’re spelled it out. ---
**Author:** ![silverfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@silverfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silverfish)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/78 "2003-01-17T14:48:08Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve been assuming that differences in maternal death rates would not be drastically different between the two. With you so far. Yes, I see. I don’t think it is justified though, just via the data, as there may be differences between the cases, and we don’t know how big the differences are in this case. [QUOTE] Ok, is this closer to your characterization of my stance? “Women who have late term abortions are not at risk. Therefore, women who have late term abortions are not doing it because of a life threatening risk.” [QUOTE] That’s what it sounded like, yes, although less transparently circular. > [@](#): > > Evidence: Maternal death rates are extremely low. > Conclusion: Women have late term abortions for non life threatening reasons. > > As far as I can tell I’m not using circular logic. I’m using the data regarding maternal death rates to form a conclusion regarding why a particular reason is not a probable cause. This is no different in format then a statement like: > > “Marge never eats cookies. Since she buys cookies anyway it must be for a different reason then eating them.” The problem with this is I don’t think it fits you argument. Your argument seems to be more that most women don’t eat cookies, therefore marge is a typical women, so her cookie buying must be for another reason. In that case, though we might assume that she eats them, and is therefore atypical of women, because that is what most people do with cookies. This doesn’t apply in the case of late term abortion, as there are other plausible reasons. The problem is assuming that marge is typical. The argument might not be circular as such, but I thing you are assuming that late term women would have similar death rates to ‘normal’ women, which doesn’t seem justified to me. The reason it appear circular is that the assumption of similar death rates is one that is closely linked to the disputed claims that women who have late term abortions do so because they are not at particular risk, which isn’t far from saying that they aren’t at particular risk. Also, with the scenarios you seem to be using 20 dead each time, without scaling for the population concerned, whereas it would be expected that a higher population would have a higher death toll, for anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/79 "2003-01-17T17:56:00Z")
**silverfish** > [@](#): > > The argument might not be circular as such, but I thing you are assuming that late term women would have similar death rates to ‘normal’ women, which doesn’t seem justified to me. > > … > > Also, with the scenarios you seem to be using 20 dead each time, without scaling for the population concerned, whereas it would be expected that a higher population would have a higher death toll, for anyone. In the above hypothetical scenarios it _is_ scaled for population. The numbers I was using (100,000 total births with 20 maternal deaths) comes directly from the table I cited above. [Here](http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/pdf/mm4838.pdf) is the cite from the CDC again for easy reference. The 20 deaths is not an arbitrary figure I pulled from thin air, it’s the actual maternal death rate per 100,000 women in the U.S. during 1960. According to [this](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t991x01.pdf) file from the CDC the number of births in 1960 was 4,257,850. 20 maternal deaths per 100,000 births equates out to approximately 851 maternal deaths for 1960. Even if we assumed that **ALL** of those maternal deaths during 1960 were from the high risk group it would take an extremely skewed distribution between Group A and Group B in order for there to be a significant risk to the members of Group A. Please note that the distribution between Group A and Group B is what actually determines the risk to life that pregnancy poses to Group A (per my examples which show that the fewer women in Group A the greater the risk to that group, assuming that the majority of deaths came from that group). Yes, Group A will likely have higher death rates. However I don’t think that Group A will have _drastically_ higher death rates. IMHO I highly doubt it’s more than a hundred times the rate of ‘normal’ women. Just for illustration, a last example (again, this is actual real world data, only the distribution between Group A and Group B and the assumption that 100 of the deaths would be for Group A and only 1 for Group B is hypothetical): Total group amount: 505,000 (at 20 deaths per 100,000 this will give us 101 deaths, 100 for Group A, 1 for Group B. The above hypothetical “100 times higher” death rate) Group A: 2525 (.5% of the total) Group B: 502475 (99.5% of the total) Death rate for Group A: 4% Group B: .0002% Actually in this case the death rate isn’t 100 times higher. The number of _deaths_ is 100 times higher but the _death rate_ is actually 20,000 times higher for Group A. I can’t think of _any_ medical condition which boosts the death rate for _any_ health problem by 20,000 times. **Bob Cos** > [@](#): > > Isn’t that silverfish’s point (using an admittedly extreme example)? If women in life-threatening situations are those that seek these kinds of abortions, then using the death rate of the general population would draw a wrong conclusion. > > I believe you are right (Dave’s cites support this), but I’m not sure I buy your “statistical” evidence, at least in the way you’re spelled it out. I completely agree that the stats I’ve posted do not answer the question to the degree of accuracy that I would like. However, the distributions between Group A and Group B would have to be highly skewed in order for it to really make a difference. In your hypothetical scenario 5 Group A is only .02% of the total. What are the chances of that? I’ll state right out that I don’t know the actual distribution and that my stance is based on my opinion that it is _reasonable_ to assume that the number of women in Group A is not so low as to present a great risk to them even if _all_ the maternal deaths came from that group. As such I don’t claim that the case is proven. As in 100% undisputed fact. Dave’s cites support the notion that women generally don’t have late term abortions for life threatening reasons. My statistical evidence seems to suggest that maternal deaths are unlikely, even with a highly skewed distribution, and even assuming that current day medical science generates the same death rate as 40 years ago. Just one question for anyone who wishes to respond ( **silverfish** , **Bob Cos** , **Apos** , whoever). Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason? ---
**Author:** ![Consuela\_Bobuela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Consuela\_Bobuela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Consuela_Bobuela)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725/80 "2003-01-17T18:28:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grim\_Beaker \* > > Just one question for anyone who wishes to respond ( **silverfish** , **Bob Cos** , **Apos** , whoever). > > Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason? \*\* Yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-late-term-abortion-should-they-be-prohibited/148725.md?page=5)