Planned Parenthood's "Abortions Are Just 3%" Claim is False

[juliee]

Planned Parenthood's "Abortions Are Just 3%" Claim is False

As we’re all VERY familiar with by now, Planned Parenthood absolutely insists that abortions only comprise 3% of their “services.” Now, even if this were an accurate representation of the truth, it would be abhorrent.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/03/p...laim-is-false/

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by juliee

Planned Parenthood's "Abortions Are Just 3%" Claim is False

As we’re all VERY familiar with by now, Planned Parenthood absolutely insists that abortions only comprise 3% of their “services.” Now, even if this were an accurate representation of the truth, it would be abhorrent.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/03/p...laim-is-false/

They simply need to understand that is 100% too many!

[LiveCatholic]

Originally Posted by juliee

Planned Parenthood's "Abortions Are Just 3%" Claim is False

As we’re all VERY familiar with by now, Planned Parenthood absolutely insists that abortions only comprise 3% of their “services.” Now, even if this were an accurate representation of the truth, it would be abhorrent.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/03/p...laim-is-false/

So, uh, it would be easy to dispense with that tiny fraction of its services... right?

[Birdpreacher]

So Plan B = Abortion?

Just want to make sure I got this straight.

I always viewed it on the same sin level as contraceptions but if it actually kills rather then prevents fertilization then I can see how the claim of skewed numbers is justified.

[Hokomai]

About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.

[LiveCatholic]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.

Are you forreal?

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.

Consequences of nature and acts of man are two different things.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Consequences of nature and acts of man are two different things.

Ummm - no in this case the consequences are the same: zygotes, embryos or fetuses die.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.

I've always wondered what the numbers were, thanks for a source! I am still curious as to what the rate of implantation is though, i.e. what percent of fertilized eggs will implant under ordinary circumstances.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Consequences of nature and acts of man are two different things.

So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.

Your ability to stretch a point out of context is neither admirable nor honest.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

So if a woman increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by smoking, being overweight, or having uncontrolled diabetes that is fine, but if she increases the chance of spontaneous abortion by taking oral hormones, that is unacceptable.

No, none of these are fine if done for the intent of preventing a child from being born. I argued exactly this point in defense of the idea that licit use of the pill is possible if it is being used solely for the intent of addressing a serious medical problem. Any of the above mentioned and the pill would be wrong if used for the intent of preventing childbirth or if ignorance of that fact could be imputed to personal responsibility.

The day after pill to my knowledge has one use and that use would never be licit because the circumstances surrounding the use of it speak towards the inherent intent in doing so.

The idea that the number of natural deaths of fertilized eggs (i.e human beings) has any bearing on the morality of killing them by means of the pill or another method is worthless. Do you also attempt to show that euthanasia is alright because 99% of humans die a natural death anyways?

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

About half of all fertilised eggs abort naturally. Many embryos and fetus die later.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/001488.htm

Even if the criticisms of the OP and others in this thread are accepted, they must be discounted by these natural events.

The article says that "It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."

I've seen this "estimate" before; I've seen it repeated in scientific journals. I've not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by JimG

The article says that "It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."

I've seen this "estimate" before; I've seen it repeated in scientific journals. I've not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.

Exactly and while they willingly accept this "estimate" they deny the estimates involving the breakthrough ovulation rate:

In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust (Human Life International, 1993, page 7), Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says, "As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.

Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. In his booklet Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives (page 26), he cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%.

World-renowned fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the breakthrough ovulation rate at 4 to 10% ("The New Abortionists," Life Advocate, March 1994, page 29).

r. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception's November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill. In another study, 14% of Pill-taking women experienced escape ovulation ("A Randomized Cross-over Comparison of Two Low-Dose Oral Contraceptives," H. Kuhl, et. al., Contraception, June 1985, page 583). However, this involved only twenty-two women, with three experiencing escape ovulation, so the study is too small to draw definite conclusions. In another study with a small sampling, 10% of the control group, which didn't miss a pill, experienced escape ovulation, while 28% of those missing two pills ovulated (Chowdhury and Joshi, "Escape Ovulation in Women Due to the Missing of Low Dose Combination Oral Contraceptive Pills," Contraception, September 1980, page 241- 247).

J. C. Espinoza, M.D., says, "Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill "escape ovulation" occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the "conceptus" (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill." (Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, page 28.)

In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states:

The newer low-estrogen pills allow "breakthrough" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present "guesstimations," in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by JimG

The article says that "It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."

I've seen this "estimate" before; I've seen it repeated in scientific journals. I've not ever seen the methodology described by which it could actually be ascertained to be accurate.

But you see, their argument is that since this occurs as a consequence of nature, then there is no distinction if it "occurs" as a consequence of choice.

The "statistics" don't matter - it's just a rationalization of the "unnatural" occurences ...

BTW - this is the first time ever in my entire life that I have expressed openly any of my personal views on this important subject, but it is quite easy for me to now see why parties on each side of the abortion debate act and respond as they do ...

... - just remember, Satan is the father of all lies! Trust your beliefs!