Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Comments (234)
JGreg wrote:

“Abortion is safer than birth” — for whom?

Jan 23, 2012 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
judithod wrote:

So is this report supposed to serve as an apologetic for the murder of fetuses?

Jan 23, 2012 9:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lukuj wrote:

does this include psychological effects? I bet not. In fact, I don’t believe the study at all given the efforts of this administration to push abortion. Within a year or two they will “accidentally” discover the study was flawed and incorrect.

Jan 23, 2012 9:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Yosemite wrote:

This study was not looking at the big picture because I believe it is much safer for babies to be born….but the study was done by people that have a different view of human life’s value than I do.

Jan 23, 2012 9:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gafisher wrote:

“Abortion safer than giving birth”

Not for the baby.

Jan 23, 2012 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gafisher wrote:

@publiclibrary — slavery was once the law. Equating a baby to a kidney is like equating a slave to livestock.

Jan 23, 2012 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
QueenAnn wrote:

Not for the infant-to-be. It has a 100% mortality rate!

Jan 23, 2012 9:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NCMike wrote:

Safer for who? It’s pretty much fatal for every baby involved.

Jan 23, 2012 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bearsfan59 wrote:

No doubt this study is based on lies. There are many studies that prove just the opposite.

Jan 23, 2012 9:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
VickieB57 wrote:

Not for the baby…

Jan 23, 2012 9:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ironchuck wrote:

Safe for whom?

Jan 23, 2012 10:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blubrd1 wrote:

Your article is dead wrong. 50+% of abortions result in the death of at least one person.

Jan 23, 2012 10:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cpatrick wrote:

When is right to kill an innocent person to save yourself?

Jan 23, 2012 10:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sb36618 wrote:

Does the study include mental health? Thinking that abortion has no consequences is ignorant.

Jan 23, 2012 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Garathorn wrote:

Yeah and abstinence is safer than sex. Your point?

Jan 23, 2012 10:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dwalk wrote:

The latest common sense study just released: Mortality rate approaches a near 100% for aborted babies.
Same study declares that mother’s social life remains a near 100% active with absolutely no responsibilty traits left to cope with except for the conscience.

Jan 23, 2012 10:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
eddiethegeek wrote:

In EVERY SINGLE abortion, there is a fatality. It’s safer for the mother (perhaps) but I question who funded this “study” and for what purpose…follow the money.

Our nation is absolutely doomed if we do not return legal protection to our tiniest brothers and sisters.

Jan 23, 2012 10:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
woohooman wrote:

Definitely not safer for the baby!

Jan 23, 2012 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:

And using contraception or abstaining from sex is far, far safer and cheaper than either.

And as mentioned by others, abortion can have huge psychological repercussions – which are rarely pointed out to clients by the people who run the abortion mills.

Jan 23, 2012 10:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrEdu wrote:

There was a time when the Supreme Court told us that Black Individuals were property.
There was a time when the Third Reich told us that Jews were not human.

I do not give a rat’s back-side about imbeciles legislating against FACTS.
Blacks are Human Individuals, not property
Jews are Human Individuals, period

So are the Human embryos/fetuses. Science teaches with 100% certitude that the Human Embryo -from implantation onwards- is an INDIVIDUAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

Maybe if the Men in Black would consider looking at FACTS before they rule we would get DECENT Laws.

I am a Pediatrician with two doctorates in Developmental Biology and Teratology. I have the Moral obligation to denounce Abortion and what it does:

EACH ABORTION KILLS A DEFENSELESS HUMAN INDIVIDUAL…PERIOD!

Jan 23, 2012 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hawker1 wrote:

It’s definitely not safer for the baby. It’s murder, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Jan 23, 2012 11:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hosen wrote:

“Safety” isn’t even a legitimate point of comparison between the subjects. It’s like saying “eating carrots is healthier than farming.” So what if abortion is safer than pregnancy? Lots of things are more dangerous than abortion, they just don’t carry any moral dilemma with them that abortion does. Also, the female body is specifically tailored to take a child to term, whereas induced abortion is the deliberate interruption of that natural process at a stage where death of the mother is less likely anyway (since the body itself can terminate a pregnancy at that stage). Talk about stating the irrelevant, and the obvious.

Jan 23, 2012 11:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whowhatwhere wrote:

Uh, did anyone bother to inform these guys about all the resulting dead babies? That might skew the numbers in their study a little bit…

Jan 24, 2012 12:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ned_Schnittt wrote:

100% mortality rate for the baby is safe?

Jan 24, 2012 12:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
consumersam wrote:

Well, It’s obviously not safer for the baby (or babies). It’s 100% fatal.

Jan 24, 2012 12:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
TimeToReset wrote:

We are truly doomed. Our narcissism blinds us to the murder of the unborn while we seek to save murderers in prison from a just punishment. As the west abandons GOD, He in turn, abandons the west.

Jan 24, 2012 12:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
Revjayc wrote:

Really? And about 100% of the aborted babies die. You folks are seriously sick.

Jan 24, 2012 12:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
1689 wrote:

“Publiclibrary”, typing in all caps doesn’t make a lie any less of a lie.

The Truth: There is no right to abortion found in the Constitution. There is an opinion issued by 7 lawyers (2 hand’t gone insane), which invented the so-called right out of thin air — based supposedly on “penumbras” and “emanations” of other rights in the Bill of Rights (which have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion). As for the fetus supposedly “using” a woman’s body, you make it sound like the fetus somehow targeted the woman/victim. The fetus is an innocent, natural result of an act men & women are compelled by our natures to engage. And the 14th Amendment, passed right after the end of the Civil War, of course has nothing to do with “reproductive” slavery. Your comment is an idiotic, uninformed joke.

Jan 24, 2012 1:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
NutzNvise wrote:

publiclibrary … I hardly think an unborn child is using another human’s body against their will. That is about the most idiotic comment I’ve ever seen on this topic. The child did not impose itself upon the mother. The mother engaged in an act that is specifically designed to produce a child. When she said yes to sex, she agreed to parent. Case closed.

Jan 24, 2012 1:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Texasdav wrote:

Yes, killing one’s offspring tends to be safe, well at least for the one doing the killing. Someone else will even clean away the dead body and blood for you.

What a ridiculous article.

Jan 24, 2012 1:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
1689 wrote:

“Publiclibrary”, your comment is ridiculously uninformed.

There is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution – period. There IS an opinion authored by 7 attorneys (2 hadn’t gone insane), in which the so-called right is made up by attorney-fiat, in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other rights in the Bill of Rights (which have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion). As for fetuses supposedly using a woman’s body, you obviously believe that the fetus has somehow targeted the woman/victim. Sorry the fetus is an innocent result of an act men and women are compelled to engage by their natures; and it is womens’ nature to carry those fetuses to term. The 14th Amendment was enacted with 2 others after the end of the Civil War. The men who passed that Amendment had no intention to address reproduction or “reproductive slavery” – whatever that is in your upside-down world.

Jan 24, 2012 1:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
MZJMMOM wrote:

“Women who are having abortions are having a safe, common surgical procedure or taking medication for the same reason,”

Yeah, that reason is to kill/murder/slay something with a beating heart….a baby….the best reason of all to NOT have an abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 1:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
ncdave4life wrote:

This study ignored the long-term consequences of abortion to the mother, including elevated risks of depression, suicide, prematurity of subsequent births, and breast cancer. (And, of course, it ignores the fact that a child dies in every abortion.)

Jan 24, 2012 2:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
IntellectOne wrote:

There are no ‘Safe Elective Abortions’; the Baby dies and sometimes the Mother dies too.

Jan 24, 2012 2:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoanT wrote:

Oh and who commissioned this oh-so-scientific study, Planned Parenthood?

Jan 24, 2012 2:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoanT wrote:

This sounds like nonsense. They must be including every morning-after-pill sold as an “abortion”, becuase birth is safer than a surgical abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 2:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
knighttime wrote:

Well of course if you suck out the baby or destroy it its going to be safer than giving birth. Thats like saying killing your wife is cheaper than getting divorced.As far as equal protection of the Law, dont know how the hell you can compare somebody forcibly cutting open your body and taking your kidney to nobody doing anything to you and allowing a natural process to take place.And of course the fetus is not a baby till the mother says it is and wants to hit you up for child support. Then that when men are bound into economic slavery

Jan 24, 2012 2:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
paulp1 wrote:

um, safer for who?

Jan 24, 2012 2:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
luluthezulu wrote:

Why would anyone even be studying this? Who is asking the question as to which procedure is safer? Nobody. Nobody asked.

When people start answering questions that nobody asked, it is time to be suspicious.

Bet that the funding and the money and the “work” for this study came from a pro-choice organization. Reuters, of course, would rush to report it.

Jan 24, 2012 3:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
ikeman wrote:

Dr Genevra Pittman is an environmentalist. What people refuse to connect with this movement is that population control is a huge part of it, but why force you to murder your baby, like in other countries, if they can just tell you that killing your baby is not only your right, but also safer? POTUS just said that abortion makes it possible for girls to fulfill their dreams. Coincidence? you tell me

Jan 24, 2012 4:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
tommhan wrote:

Abortion may be safer and legal but also more gross.

Jan 24, 2012 4:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
cjmartel wrote:

How timely did this article come out, the day of the march for life! The monsters who advocate ripping babies apart have sunk to a new low!! There are times when people should show SOME respect for the dead, all 53 million of them!! Jerks!

Jan 24, 2012 5:29am EST  --  Report as abuse

“Abortion safer than giving birth”

Not for the baby!

Jan 24, 2012 6:18am EST  --  Report as abuse

KILLING YOUR BABY IS STILL KILLING YOUR BABY!
You can rationalize all you want!
You can dress it up all you want in legal mumbo jumbo but
you are still killing that child with a beating heart in you
womb! God may forgive you but that Child never will!

Jan 24, 2012 6:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
WMCR2001 wrote:

Abortion is “safer?” For who? The woman, who now no longer needs to give birth? Or to the child, who is killed? Last time I heard, 50% of all people who enter an abortion clinic come out alive (the women). This is a really disgusting article! Read up about partial birth abortion and then decide!

Jan 24, 2012 6:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
Phocus wrote:

Giving birth results in two living human beings. All abortions end in one living human being, and one dead human being.
A human heart stops in every abortion. You are Pro-life or you are Pro-death.

Jan 24, 2012 6:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
journalistjon wrote:

It may be helpful to know – since the reporter apparently doesn’t (or is covering it up) – that the Guttmacher Institute, the most often quoted “authority” on reproductive issues – is a creation of Planned Parenthood.

Jan 24, 2012 7:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
honestdoc wrote:

publiclibrary , you are absolutely correct.. NO HUMAN has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to give kidneys etc… yada yada, then why are we forcing the little developing HUMAN babies to give up all their body parts sucked and ripped apart in a vacuum tube in piercing agony. s a medical professional, we must also take an oath to protect and preserve life, not rip it up in pieces and watch many women that are under procedure of abortion lurch up and scream as the embryos are ripped from their womb. I have witnessed all this and this is not in my oath to perform. Any responsible woman should watch some of the video I have of how horrid and barbaric this abortion procedure is. Where are the rights of the baby? Just because some court decides a HUMAN BEING fetus is not a human or a baby doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination make it a dog or a salamander. Many judges make bad and irresponsible decisions and for you to follow them clearly makes those that follow them at par with these idiotic law twisting sub humans that deny that black is black and white is white and a baby is a baby. Shame on them and anyone that would support such bizarre madness…which by no stretch of the imagination follows the protocol of any responsible medical professional.

Jan 24, 2012 7:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
K-Wing wrote:

Safer?? For whom?? And when?? Do you know that women who have (several) abortions have a HUGER liklihood of breast cancer? The breast starts to prepare itself for nursing (it’s natural function) then when the baby growing inside is murdered the breast tissue can’t handle the change, hardening the tissue and leading to cancer. PLEASE fo the right thing and WAIT until you marry and are READY for a beatutiful child.

Jan 24, 2012 7:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikey224 wrote:

The first Orwellian big lie is the inference that Planned Parenthood plans parenthood. It plans abortion. And as for choice, the choice was made last night. With that choice comes responsibilities, which do not include murdering someone unable to speak for themselves. We have thousands of parents looking to adopt and we have thousands of women killing babies. Can we not devise a way to connect these two groups efficiently and skip the murder part?

Jan 24, 2012 7:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
roddypiper69 wrote:

What a sad and twisted study…..

Jan 24, 2012 7:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
apercu wrote:

There are millions upon millions of unborn children that would beg (if they could) to differ with the conclusion that abortion is safer than birth.Abortion is the holocuast of the defenseless.

Jan 24, 2012 8:13am EST  --  Report as abuse

Not getting pregnant is safer than having an abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Adam1233 wrote:

@publiclibrary, the baby also has right under the 14th Amendment as well as the 5th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of freed slaves, not to protect the murder of babies. My wife is six months’ pregnant now, and it is more inconceivable than ever to me that someone would murder a baby at this stage. The baby is a fully formed person, and for anyone to say that it could be dismembered and extracted as if it were a tumor is genuinely barbaric. At this stage, using an argument of a right to privacy is saying that murder is moral because we’ve interpreted a law to say it is.

Jan 24, 2012 8:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
taxpayer28 wrote:

safer for who? There are two individuals involved, the mother and the child. certainly one of the these is fataly harmed. also with the lack of regulations imposed on the clinics how do you know the accuracy of the study?. If manufacuring were allowed so little regulation this publication sight would be lobbying for strick government investigations and sure controls for public saftey would be required.

Jan 24, 2012 8:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
liongabriel wrote:

Which procedure is safer for the baby?

What a silly study. Who paid for this, my first guess would be Planned Parenthood. Seriously? What kind of person would benefit from this information? Ridiculous.

Jan 24, 2012 8:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
bill1942 wrote:

Abortionists will use any rose colored speech to legitimize the murder of unborn children. That this country no longer values the sanctity of human life is a tragic commentary on what we have become. God help us.

Jan 24, 2012 8:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
redtail151 wrote:

I find it hard to believe abortion is safer because I think most babies survive childbirth while I haven’t seen any who have survived an abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 8:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dytigaf wrote:

This is sick to think of: If a Woman was 3 mths Pregnant and going to the clinic for an abortion, and she is shot in the womb, the baby dies the woman survives, would the shooter be held for Murder of the unborn baby? It was going out anyway he just did it a bit differently…..

Jan 24, 2012 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
we_the_people wrote:

TO WHO!?

It certainly is not safer for the unborn child!
What absolute dopes this author and study are.

Except for statistically few cases, birth is as safe as it gets. Nature and evolution provided for this activity to enhance and promote healthy humans. Millions of years of testing have gone into this single MOST IMPORTANT aspect of human, or for that matter any other living creature, life. For man to THINK (?) that he knows better is absolutely absurd.

No, I am sorry, but abortion is NOT SAFER than birth. It is NOT more MORAL than birth. It is NOT BETTER for society than birth. It is not more ETHICAL than birth.

It is possibly the MOST SELFISH act a human can inflict upon another human, family, friends and society. There is no going back. Once you have taken the life that you chose to start, you mark yourself. You start a series of events that can not be justified, or explained away. You put yourself in the same league as all tyrants and murderers that have come before you.

Jan 24, 2012 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
liongabriel wrote:

@publiclibrary
“consensual s*x=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live.”

- it does = a potential unwanted fetus, which is a new life.

(this is the basics you should be told by your Mom or Dad at 10 Years old, but I’ll say it anyways for those who need to have an excuse taken away):
Having s*x often produces a baby. This is life.

If you use you’re American “right” to take that baby’s life, you are still taking away that life that otherwise would be your child. Regardless of what laws exist.

The only reason we call it a “fetus” is to create a gap so we can kill the baby and not feel bad about it, somehow euphemizing our conscience instead of calling it what it is: murder. How many babies still have to die until we realize what we’ve done?

Jan 24, 2012 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
JCabadas wrote:

So I guess death is safer than living? And should we base our lives on one study by a decidedly pro-abortion group? I think not. Nor does this story mention the long-term physiological and physical damage that abortion does to women.

Jan 24, 2012 9:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
CashL wrote:

Women who abstain from sexual activity that can lead to pregnancy have the least amount of risk.

Jan 24, 2012 9:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
DeadSerious wrote:

The comparison has an important logical fallacy. The abortion figures (1 death in every 167,000 procedures) includes abortions in the first and second trimesters. The compared figures only include live deliveries. The third trimester (when you have a live delivery) introduces a number of other risks, the size of the baby, the stress the mother undergoes, previous maternal conditions, etc. Also, in an abortion, the fetus always dies. In deliveries, if the mother dies, the delivered infant may survive.

At least compare apples to apples. As it is, the article is a red herring.

Jan 24, 2012 9:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
BenDejo wrote:

Not really. Someone dies almost every time in abortion. Stunningly stupid.

Jan 24, 2012 9:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Who wrote:

My kids are inconvenient as HE11. Can I abort them retro actively please? It is safer then letting them finish growing up and entering society.

What a farce when do/should a child start receiving rights like everyone else and why then? Do you think people need to start asking themselves this and asking our elected officials.

Jan 24, 2012 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
GAM wrote:

“Abortion safer than giving birth: study” I doubt that it is safer for the unborn baby!

Jan 24, 2012 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse

My parents’ friends were murdered a few years ago, in Southern California, near Ventura. A husband and wife, very wonderful people, with 2 children and one on the way. They were stabbed to death by a crazy man who broke into their beachhouse. The man who killed them is being charged for 3 murders, because the wife was around 5 months pregnant with her 3rd child. How can the law call that a murder, but not the millions of babies that are killed by Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics? It seems pretty contradictory. I believe that the man who murdered my family friends should rot in a cell the rest of his life. I don’t believe that it is the right of the “law” to take that scumbag’s life, and he killed 2 people that I loved dearly. How has our society become so warped that we arbitrarily dictate who is and isn’t deserving of life? Only God can sort that out. (and no, to all the atheists out there, I am NOT a Christian or a member of any religion, I am just a moral and ethical human being that has the humility to recognize that there is more mystery to this existence than I can understand). NOBODY has the RIGHT to kill ANYBODY. Not a mother, not the state, not the feds, no one. You may think you do, but you don’t. If someone wants to kill themselves that is their choice to do so, but nobody has the right to take a life from somebody else. When did this country become so arrogant? I suppose killing millions of innocents overseas has hardened people’s hearts. I’m saddened by the sickness that is killing my country. I hope everyone will realize the value of every single life. There’s a Jewish saying that I love and I think it applies here “whoever saves one life, saves the world entire”, you can invert that statement and it’ll still hold true, in my opinion.

Jan 24, 2012 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse

I give you the Guttmacher Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

Please disregard all mentions of Planned Parenthood, and that its mission is to affect policy in politics and medicine, and you will see that it is a perfectly unbiased source.

@publiclibrary, please reread the Constitution in its entirety, but especially focus on your assertion that the 13th Amendment protects abortion. The unborn child ins incapable of coercing its mother to bear it to term – the subject does not fall under the jurisdiction of the 13th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Furthermore, the Justices deciding Roe v Wade, the majority opinion was that: “fetal life after viability” even though a fetus is not “a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.) The entirety of the abortion ruling relies on the “viability of the fetus”. There are many problems with the decision, but first is that – the Constitution doesn’t get to say who is a person and who is not – or should we just go back to the 3/5 rule? Secondly, viability outside the womb is a rather precarious perch for an argument, before a certain point in gestation, labor is near impossible (the physiological conditions required result in spontaneous abortion), second, once a “fetus” is born – it is protected by the Constitution, regardless of when or how it occurs. The only way around this is to end the life of the fetus in utero, which is, I would argue, the same as dragging someone into international waters and murdering them because they are not protected by the law.

Jan 24, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
libertylost08 wrote:

“That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.”

Now, compare the number of children who die as a result of abortion as compared to live birth. 100% vs. . . .??

Jan 24, 2012 9:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
1606sps wrote:

yea, sure…the ultimate selfish act, kill the unborn so you can contniue YOUR life without hassle. Yea, so a US Report says it’s safer than giving birth. No, it’s just cheaper in the long run. A child is a child born or not.

Jan 24, 2012 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
KCT56 wrote:

That settles it: no more children!

Jan 24, 2012 9:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
city.abq wrote:

@publiclibrary – please cite the section of the U.S.C. that states that abortion is a law. I, in turn, will state U.S.C. 18 Section 1841, (part I, Chapter 90A): “(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.”

Abortion is murder of an innocent and five men in black robes do not change the truth.

Jan 24, 2012 9:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
sje wrote:

This article and study is pure crap! First of all every abortion is FATAL for the baby. Secondly, many, many studies have made a connection between abortions and breast cancer. This article is another despicable example of the media only reporting the side of the story that they want people to believe. Folks, don’t believe it, abortion hurts everyone.

Jan 24, 2012 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sman wrote:

Safe for whom…you ask? Do you ever see any plaintiff attorneys advertise for clients at the abortion clincs? No, they believe (as do the parents) that every baby should be born 100% perfect…so they prey on the Obstetricians who do everything right, but have a “bad” outcome! What we have are two imperfect prople (the parents) who thnk they should have a “perfect” product! Unfortunately, it just does not happen that way. There are some genetic and environmental events that occur over which practicing Obstetricians have no control. There are some emergency situations that, despite everything done right, there is a “bad” outcome. Maybe if plaintiff attorneys advertised at abortion clinics, there might be fewer abortions (“pain and suffering” of the unborn). Somehow, I doubt there is a market in that. Unfortunately or fortunately, abortions are “legal”, so it is a part of our landscape.

Jan 24, 2012 10:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
willuthink wrote:

FOOLS-Did you know that the word FETUS is Latin? It means UNBORN CHILD; You don’t have to believe me, go look it up for yourself… So when the courts and the lawyers and the doctors and all those relatives and friends condone the removal of a FETUS from the womb, they are all guilty of murdering an unborn child…But it’s not just the unborn child they have murdered, it’s also ALL the generations of children that that one unborn child would have had in the future…The only one that will be in heaven is the innocent unborn child that was murdered…The murderers will ALL have their destiny in the lake of fire…And I don’t want to hear these same women who have had abortions whining over their breast cancer…It is a medical fact that a woman who terminates her pregnancy before it comes to full term does not develop her mammory glands fully, exposing her to an exponential threat of breast cancer; again, you don’t have to believe me, just go ask your OBGYN…In the distant past, children were sacrificed to the Pagan gods Baal, Moleck, and Dagon (Look it up!)…This is the same thing using modern medical instruments…I will pray for your eternal soul, but I also know that God will not forgive the shedding of innocent blood(pre-meditated murder)…Good luck to you

Jan 24, 2012 10:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
AgainstLibs wrote:

Amazing how this story was published on the anniversary of Row vs. Wade. Go figure!!! Pro Abortion advocates DO have two choice to make: Keep your legs together or Practice birth control. After those choices are screwed up, then you are correct you CAN’T be trusted with another choice. It it not just your body anymore. @Dr. Who – love your sarcasm, and actually according to bHo you can, read about how he voted in Chicago on what happens to babies who live through an abortion attempt. You can also read the stories by googling Jill Stanek.

Jan 24, 2012 10:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
Twinspeedr wrote:

It is not safer for the baby. Why don’t we work on curbing our addiction to self-gratification. We need to RE-realize that sex is more serious than deciding to have one more drink to cap off an evening of pleasuring ourselves. I don’t know who sold us that idea, but there was a time when more people didn’t just “hook-up” with anyone at any time and society was better for it.

Jan 24, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
JTinCO wrote:

Saying abortions are safer than giving birth is like saying bungee jumping is safer than showering. Bungee jumping and abortion are both unnecessary risks.

Jan 24, 2012 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
IntellectOne wrote:

This article is a ‘Big Lie’! It is setting the stage for the acceptance, by the American taxpayer, to condone the idea that paying for every woman’s elective abortions, sterilization, and birth-control pills is heroism.
There are no accurate numbers, because the abortionists and Planned Parenthood have hid the correct numbers for years. There are no correct numbers from California.
There are ‘No Safe Elective Abortions’; the Baby dies and sometimes the
Mother too. The mother is left with a psychological problem, if she did not have one prior to the abortion. Also, cancer is a real probability. If nature is so horrifically attacked and interrupted,there are major consequences and violent backlashes.

Jan 24, 2012 10:15am EST  --  Report as abuse

NOW ON THE BRIGHT SIDE!
Ya know if Liberals & Democrats keep having abortions and Keep Promoting the Gay life style they may just make themselves disappear?

Jan 24, 2012 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
ssk1958 wrote:

Where are the numbers coming from? As in any politically charged study the number should be scrutinized before being accepted.
Abortions have an extremely low follow up history. And no extended psych evals. I would probably pass most maternal deaths at th ceasarean section door step. Csections is an extremely invasive procedure that was a last resort until recently. Csections are an increasing so will maternal deaths. Death occurs in surgery. How many deaths occured from natural or births without complications? Please note that most complications occur because of hospital protocals.
Biased studies prove nothing. I doubt that this study had a control group, there surely wasn’t any professional integrity.

Jan 24, 2012 10:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
troyison wrote:

@publiclibrary, just because it’s the law doesn’t make it right.

My response to the article: Whom is it safer for? Certainly not the child. It is 100% fatal to the child.

“What makes it complicated, Harwood added, is when the law interferes and requires doctors to state information that isn’t always balanced or medically sound — usually exaggerating the risk of abortion.” What you need to understand is that the concern ‘Right to Life’ people have is for the child, not the mother. The mother is (or should be) responsible enough to make sound decisions about her own safety. The child is at the mercy of the mother using that same responsibilty to provide safety for the child. Mothers who choose to abort (legal or not) are removing that assumed safety from the child with no consent and murdering them. (legal murder is still murder, like it or not. Make sophisticated excuses or not)

Go back to these former-mothers and ask them how they feel about what they did, what they allowed to happen to their child, after they’ve had a little time to think about it.

And, no, I don’t need the answer… I ‘know’ the answer.

The ‘right’ to abort their children turns humans into animals.

Jan 24, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
JTinCO wrote:

publiclibrary wrote: “NO HUMAN has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights ….”

It is the mother’s will that causes the life within her. The baby does not force a woman to become a mother. It is the baby that has no choice. A baby does not take organs from the mother, but is a temporary resident within her womb which is specifically designed for that purpose. Abortion is simply killing an inconvenient and totally innocent life. There is nothing Constitutional or moral about abortion. Abortion allows women to be as sexually irresponsible as men (were before DNA testing) to the detriment of women, men, society and especially the millions whose lives were snuffed out before birth.

Jan 24, 2012 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Chrissss wrote:

Not safer for the child, that’s for sure.

Jan 24, 2012 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
SparkleFarkle wrote:

What a load of horse hockey. Of course they have to come out with a bogus study like this after a quarter of a million pro-life people marched on Washington DC. Technology has improved so much over the last 30 years, and proves that an unborn child at just a few weeks has a heart beat, brain waves, and feels pain. The pro-abortion movement is losing young people because they KNOW the technology proves that unborn babies are human beings, not clumps of cells or “just like a tumor” as the Planned Parenthood staff describes them. Planned Parenthood is on the brink of losing its taxpayer funding, the pro-abortion movement is losing support and these people are in a tizzy trying to keep themselves afloat. Abortion leaves mental and emotional scars along with physical scars. Breast cancer and infertility have been on a steady rise since the late 70′s, and that is no coincidence. People are waking up and seeing the truth, and these pro-abortion people are running scared.

Jan 24, 2012 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
HeatherGirl wrote:

So maybe Al Gore will suggest we abort all pregnancies! Then humans go extinct and he has solved global warming……..

Ok, lets look at the bright side of abortion, there is one! Imagine how many additional liberal left loony voters there would be today, if abortion was illegal!

I rest my case.

Jan 24, 2012 10:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
gg9467 wrote:

Fact: The study was done by the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; therefore, the data has been compromised. In the best interest of women & their health, a new independent study should be conducted. An independent report should also be done on the CDC’s study as well.

Referring to http://www.guttmacher.org: “…More troublingly, there are some inconsistencies in the data on the site.” (Koblitz, A.H. “Guttmacher Institute.” CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries Oct. 2009: 400. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Jan 24, 2012 10:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Hisword wrote:

“Women who are having abortions are having a safe, common surgical procedure or taking medication for the same reason,” she told Reuters Health

“They should feel confident that the medical care they’re having is safe, long-term and short-term.”

How confident should the baby feel while this “procedure” is occurring?

Jan 24, 2012 10:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Euthyphro wrote:

*EVERY* abortion ends with the death of at least one human person.

Jan 24, 2012 10:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
guest777 wrote:

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not trumped by the 13th and 14th amendments of the constitution. its a hypocrisy and murder, call it what it is. and if one wanted to get technical, one could argue the 14th amendment is including right to life definitions.

Jan 24, 2012 10:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Reality_Check wrote:

I bet more babies die during abortions than during child birth.

Of course if you believe killing babies is a good thing, rather than a risk, then this study might make sense to you.

Jan 24, 2012 11:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
Reality_Check wrote:

I bet abortion is more risky for the baby than child birth.

Just an educated bet, but I am sure it is true.

Jan 24, 2012 11:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sammie227 wrote:

Abortions are never safe for the baby. I guess they don’t really care about that.

Jan 24, 2012 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Huldah1776 wrote:

Hmmm, how could the statistics be correct when abortion statistics are kept private and AFTER the abortion the consequences are not ATTRIBUTED to the abortion like BREAST CANCER! Take a statistics class and then you, too, can learn to fudge numbers.

Jan 24, 2012 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
thomas_people wrote:

Or to put it another way, one person dies during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.
That compares to 167,000 people who died for every 167,000 legal abortions.

Jan 24, 2012 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Lush_Worker wrote:

So if a 13 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father she should have to give birth to and raise the child?
Right wing people complain about welfare mothers so much, well if abortion was more accessible, there wouldn’t be as many crack addicts with 5 kids.
I’ve known several teens to smoke marijuana and drink throughout their entire pregnancy; who’s going to be the one paying for their welfare and potential special needs children? Do you really think the child would have a pleasant life being raised by another child?
What if the mother is having severe life threatening complications because of the pregnancy? Does she have to die because she can’t legally get a simple procedure?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for abortion as birth control and I don’t think it should be used irresponsibly. But there are some cases where you need to look at what’s best for the parent AND the unborn child.

Jan 24, 2012 11:16am EST  --  Report as abuse

It is interesting that there are privacy laws that forbid the collection of abortion data, yet these type of pro-abortion studies seem to somehow make their way through without any hindrance.

I also wonder how many of the filthy, unmonitored and unlicensed “clinics” were included in this study.

Jan 24, 2012 11:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
siramad622 wrote:

What does the baby have to say about this?

Jan 24, 2012 11:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
illinoistom wrote:

Not for the baby.

Jan 24, 2012 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse

“Lots of things are more dangerous than abortion, they just don’t carry any moral dilemma with them that abortion does.”

Is it a moral dilemma if you don’t believe in God?
Are we responsible for anyone but ourselves?
Do we even take responsibility for ourselves?

Too many people would answer the first two questions with NO.
And would turn and walk away before answering the last one.

Jan 24, 2012 11:34am EST  --  Report as abuse

What do these “People” think about Aborting the Panda Bear?

Jan 24, 2012 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
Recondaddy wrote:

@publiclibrary

An absolutely insane and logically twisted interpretation of the law. One of the cornerstone principles of the Constitution is the notion that the rights of one person end where the rights of another begin.

The 14th Amendment prohibits slavery and coercion because no other human being has an over-arching right to your body. Since, in order to protect your 14th Amendment right, a fetus (that YOU created) must have its right to life taken from it, that constitutes an over-arching right.

Your 14th Amendment right ends where the right to life of the fetus begins.

Jan 24, 2012 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
cyrano54 wrote:

But in a successful abortion, only one person makes it out every time. In a successful birth, both make it out every time. In an successful birth, usually one of the two survives. Safer for who I ask you is the abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Countryside wrote:

Not for the baby…

Jan 24, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
bartbear wrote:

100% of the innocent babies die. The statistics on safety seemed to be a tadded skewed.

Jan 24, 2012 12:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
schurmom wrote:

Maybe I missed it, but it’s important to know WHO FUNDED THE RESEARCH? Decades ago tobacco companies funded research that showed smoking was safe. Could this research have been funded by a source which could benefit from people believing that abortion is safer than child birth?

Jan 24, 2012 12:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BelindaG wrote:

Not safer for the baby, not at all! I find it disgusting that more folks get upset if you smoke a cigarette or say a curse word than get upset about murdering a baby.

Jan 24, 2012 12:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
patches12 wrote:

Good news…no fetus can defeat us…. spread the good news…baby killing is safe…

hmmm.. did anyone tell the baby that gets torn into pieces??

Jan 24, 2012 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dwood610 wrote:

Wow – really? As a pastor, I get that my perspective is different than some, but the mortality rate for infants in abortion is 100%! I can’t tell you how many women have come to my office seeking counseling years after an abortion. This slanted study is NOT a long term view.

Jan 24, 2012 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris_bdba wrote:

Liars! Are they taking into account that most women who have abortions will suffer from breast cancer in it’s most deadly form?Wake up people why do you think we see have seen such an increase in it over the past 30 years?

Jan 24, 2012 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lyssa77 wrote:

Safer for whom? Certainly not the unborn child. Really? Birth is dangerous? So what! Life is dangerous. We’re all going out eventually, but these poor souls never even get a shot at it. Terrible.

Jan 24, 2012 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Apostle wrote:

Abortion may be safer for the mother, but two people are involved in this operation. It is 100% for the other person.

Jan 24, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
patches12 wrote:

…there is NO right to privacy.. its was conjured up by the SOTUS for political reasons… use your eyes and read it..

I’ll say it again… the right to an abortion under the guise of the right to privacy is a legal fiction

a kidney is not a human being.. a three month old fetus is a human being…… aboortion is a blight on this society, legal executions used as birth control.. sickening

Jan 24, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chris_bdba wrote:

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution so just because 9 men in black robes deemed it so does not a fact make it! Some day this dark time in our history will come to an end.Even HIlter and Pol Pot didn’t kill as many people as Planned Parenthood has over the past 35 years….

Jan 24, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
patches12 wrote:

Good news.. lets stop all births.. they may be dangerous…

Jan 24, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuckFury wrote:

Abortion leads to the death of a person in nearly 100% of all procedures. Count both lives and the death rate is over 50%. That’s not at all safe.

Jan 24, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IntellectOne wrote:

The question arises, did the writer consider the ‘Late-Term Abortions’? These are the ones that Senator Barbara Boxer, House of Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein and First Lady, Hillary Clinton defended , as though their lives depended on it.( none of these women have changed their hard-heart and insane attitude, it has only increased over the years). They and all of their insane minions have not stopped, but rather promoted these late-term elective abortions for years.
Kathleen Sebelius the current head of Dept. of Human and Health Services, was Governor of Kansas, part of the time, when Dr. Tiller the Killer, as we called him did late-term abortions. Roe v. Wade did not legalize Late-Term-Abortions, however in Kansas, Doctor Tiller performed Late-Term-Abortions (abortion on demand) for years. The American public taxpayer did not know what was going on,and still have no idea, because the baby’s bodies were burned and the books were burned or were not recorded. It is unconscionable and negligent, that the people in charge, such as the government, did not know about this and blocked anyone that would have exposed this to the public.
There are no accurate number of late-term-abortions, however, we know thousands have been performed in America. The Late-Term-Abortion Procedure was invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell. The procedure is as follows: The doctor invades the womb, with his hand, and turns the baby around so that he can pull the baby, by its tiny feet, through the birth-canal. Just before he/she is one inch from being born, out of the womb, the doctor takes a scissor and stabs the back of the baby’s neck and then proceeds to suck the brains out of the baby. This horrific act is done while the baby is still alive.
Read it and weep!

Jan 24, 2012 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Nattyman wrote:

“Abortion safer than giving birth” Ummm… not for the baby!

Jan 24, 2012 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gedalya88 wrote:

they forget to mention it is not safe for the baby.

Jan 24, 2012 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
terrichris wrote:

Thank you Mom for not aborting me, that I can now read about the safety benefits of abortion over birth.

Jan 24, 2012 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StewartIII wrote:

NewsBusters: Reuters Touts Pro-Abortion Study in One-Sided Article
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/01/24/reuters-touts-pro-abortion-study-one-sided-article

Jan 24, 2012 12:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BuckFury wrote:

> Wow, what right-wing blog unleashed its minions upon Reuters today?

I dunno, but it’s encouraging to see more and more people realizing the issue really comes down to one simple question, “What is it?”. If it’s life, it’s a person. If a person, then abortion is murder.

Jan 24, 2012 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

A very misleading article that doesn’t recognize the real dangers of abortion…such as being the number one cause of breast cancer.
@publiclibrary…the job of government is to protect life. To treat a child as just another body part is a sign a cold selfish conscience. Most civilized people gave up child sacrifice years ago, but our own pretend president admitted that killing babies was ok in the name of making your own life better. Kill a child to improve your own life? Where have we gone as a nation??

Jan 24, 2012 12:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Donttread wrote:

Go figure, someone is 100% definately going to die in an abortion, and the other party will likely suffer guilt and axiety…no one wins. I regret ever considering abortion in my younger years.

Jan 24, 2012 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
troyison wrote:

@Lush_Worker, so you think that because the child is going to have a ‘difficult’ life that it’s better to just kill them? Is that what you’re saying?

Who decides what level of difficulty leads to a death sentence? Seriously… Let me think abou this… There are days when I have colds, or some other ailment. Since I got sick, as people do, perhaps it would have been better to kill me before I was born so I couldn’t get sick later? Hmmm?

Or, I’m bald, which I don’t like, so perhaps again, since there was obviously a genetic predisposition to my baldness, I should have been aborted so I wouldn’t have to face up to the shame of being bald in a society of people who mostly have hair?

You logic is flawed or your morals are skewed. Pick one, because only you know what the level of difficulty the child will experience warrants the death of the child in your reality. But all lives experience ‘difficulty’ so you’d better be ready to abort us all.

Oh, and we ‘Right Wingers’ complain about welfare mothers because we want them to work, NOT because we don’t want them to have children. Haave all the babies you like, but remember that YOU are responsible for their well being. I am a ‘Right Winger’ and you’ll never hear me say abort a baby so I don’t have to pay taxes to support the child because the mother refuses to be responsible. I don’t condone murder, nor do I condone irresponsibility. Sadly, both appear to be choices that many women take instead of life and responsibility.

Last, most babies, aborted or not, are NOT products of rape, nor do their mothers drink and do drugs during the pregnancy. You need to hang with a classier set of people, AND/OR use your time to teach the young ladies you do hang around with to make better choices.

Jan 24, 2012 12:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jim_Kress wrote:

The study is flawed (as usual). They fail to account for the long term effects of abortion, e.g. the 30% increase in probability of getting breast cancer.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

Jan 24, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bmfwa1939 wrote:

Not for the child….

Jan 24, 2012 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
52milliondead wrote:

My previous attempt to post was apparently screened and kept out by the pro-abortion police who are monitoring these comments. Admittedly, I made a graphic reference to the realities of partial birth abortion which were apparently deemed “offensive.” What a joke. The above article is apparently regarded as scholarly or informative, while the Planned Parenthood abortion mill and its liberal allies refuse to acknowledge the gruesome realities of abortion. I won’t make a ridiculous accusation about suppression of free speech, since, Constitutionally speaking, Reuters is not technically a government entity and its decision to censor my speech does not implicate any Constitutional concerns. But it sure is a sad commentary on today’s journalistic standards.

Jan 24, 2012 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I’m also willing to bet the the women who DID die due to a botched abortion would have lived had they delivered their baby.

Also, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro abortion crowd refuse to accept medical studies that link abortion to breast cancer. I imagine this study would be very different if we were to acknowledge this link.

Jan 24, 2012 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ggazic wrote:

The vast vast vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. That’s not a baby, and it’s incredibly simpleminded of you to equate the two. That’s a fetus smaller than my thumb. It has no emotions, it doesn’t even have the capacity to feel PAIN (that happens in the cerebral cortex, which isn’t there).

So your “omg the baby dies” is CUTE, but it’s not TRUE.

I am sensitive to suffering; it’s the reason that I’m a vegetarian. Factory farming causes terrible suffering to livestock. I’m also pro-choice and I see no contradiction in that; a fetus doesn’t suffer during an abortion – it’s unpleasant enough for the mother but it’s also HER uterus.. mind your own.

Jan 24, 2012 1:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeIndustry wrote:

If natural birth is so unsafe, lets make abortions mandatory and then in 40 years the pro-abortion/pro-life fight goes away!

Jan 24, 2012 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bricko12 wrote:

Lets see now….in an abortion you have at least a 50% death rate. With 2 people involved and one is killed….that seems rather high to me.

And its becoming more and more likely that the Dr. involved may need to be killed and or tried for murder once Roe is overturned. So it seems rather dangerous to me.

Jan 24, 2012 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ForestWilson wrote:

Safer for who? So sad that we consider children a burden. So barbaric that we can justify their abortion. Ahhhh…what is the nature of man?

Jan 24, 2012 1:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mjud wrote:

work up some stats on the health of the babies for us..thx

Jan 24, 2012 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ranger01 wrote:

So What Quack made this determination? Researchers, Libral ones.
It is not safer on the HUMAN BEING that is consider fetal matter, an invasive piece of flesh, an unwanted growth, was Murdered.

Jan 24, 2012 1:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crazedmadman wrote:

how can it be safer when 100% of abortions end in the death of a patient?

Jan 24, 2012 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WALLEY wrote:

not safe 4 the baby

Jan 24, 2012 1:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
midsummerfans wrote:

Yes, only a 50% mortality rate.

Jan 24, 2012 1:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
improlife wrote:

Safter for WHO???? I’m so sick of Washington playing GOD!

Jan 24, 2012 1:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Lionfood wrote:

“Abortion is safer than birth”

False, with abortion, one of the two people involved die 100% of the time.

Jan 24, 2012 1:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Lange wrote:

I don’t think it’s safe for the baby.

Jan 24, 2012 1:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Philcosmo wrote:

Not for the baby – it isn’t.

Jan 24, 2012 1:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
epd44 wrote:

Odd…SOMEONE dies whenever there is an abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Philcosmo wrote:

To the person who wrote: “NO HUMAN has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.” The unborn HUMAN baby would expect the same right. The question of reproductive slavery is SO WRONG on many levels…first, you are free to take preventive measures to not get pregnant (that is the limit to your freedom) once you are pregnant it isn’t an issue of choice. The same way attempting to commit suicide is illegal.

Jan 24, 2012 1:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnO700 wrote:

Addenda: Researchers have found sex is safer than either abortion or birth with reasonable effort. Duh.

Jan 24, 2012 1:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ndpndntvotr wrote:

I wonder why people continue referring to abortions as ‘reproductive experiences’ or ‘reproductive rights’. What is being reproduced here?

China has reproductive rights issues. If you reproduce more than once, you’re labeled a criminal.

Jan 24, 2012 1:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

“… between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.”

That figure, equivalent to 9 deaths per 100,000 births, probably includes deaths not directly related to the childbirth, or only incidentally related. For example, if a woman has a stroke or a myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the course of labor and delivery, she would be counted in this mortality number, even if there was no specific problem with the birth. Heart attack and stroke are among the commonest causes of death.

Jan 24, 2012 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mel4red wrote:

THIS JUST IN !!! It is 100% more safe to abstain from sex than to have an abortion. It is amazing we have to legislate stupidity.

Jan 24, 2012 1:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BDD_1970 wrote:

it ain’t so safe for the baby!!!

Jan 24, 2012 2:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Terryatrae wrote:

AND bathing is safer than suicide….Basic Logic makes this a non story and a perfect waste of space.
We could go on with these type of comparison, but what would be the point.
So lets just put it this way, Most people will be smarter not reading this tripe than they would be reading it….Liberal media-the commode of society.

Jan 24, 2012 2:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

I dont expect a cohesive,rational response, after all ti is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with religious fundamentalists, but…

@Lifeisprecious, please post links to a CREDIBLE study showing that abortion is ‘the number one cause of breast cancer.’ BLuster like this is exactly what the study authors where talking about when they said they conducted study just to make sure women are making an informed decision.

@bearsfan…’No doubt this study is based on lies. There are many studies that prove just the opposite.’ So then let us see your evidence?

Jan 24, 2012 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CBPA wrote:

“…that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception;…”

What a completely moronic analogy.

Of course no person could ever be forced to donate a kidney in America, ….any more that I women could be forced to abort her child….unless you are speaking of communist countries like China or North Korea which liberals in the United States seem to have more in common with.

Under your argument, killing a child in the womb, or even outside of the womb in the event that the child survived the abortion (which Obama felt was perfectly O.K.) without any consideration for the child’s life is no different than forced abortions in China. The result is the same – the child paid with it’s life for your irresponsible and selfish behavior and with no due process.

Jan 24, 2012 2:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RoboDad wrote:

Safer for everyone except the baby who is killed during the abortion. That rate = 1 baby dies for every 1 abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 2:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Lewy wrote:

Margaret Sanger would be proud of the researchers. Safer? Depends on your perspective. I’m sure the little bay getting vivisection or chemically scalded to death world dispute their conclusions. And from my discussions with women who have had abortions, they suffer. Was a study concurrently done to measure the psychological and emotional scars left by the slaughter of the woman’s unborn baby? Question for baby murder advocates, what is the difference between a baby in the birth canal and one out of the birth canal. What is the physical difference? Yet you would allow a so-called doctor to jab a scissors into the back of the skull and murder the baby not fully delivered. Preemies have been born 6mos premature and I believe there have been earlier births. Doctors and staff do everything possible to save the lives of these little babies. Yet you would allow a 6mo old baby to be slaughtered in the womb. What is the difference in the baby? Oh, it’s the woman’s body and she can do what she wants with her body. The baby is connected a cord that provides nourishment and waste removal. THE BABY is an entirely self-sustaining entity, NOT part of the woman’s body. Baby murderers, there is a day of reckoning.

Jan 24, 2012 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ReaganMaximus wrote:

safer for who?
In every abortion, at least 1 person dies (sometimes more, either due to being twins or the life of the mother as well).

“Safe abortion” is a contradiction in terms.

Jan 24, 2012 2:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mark11111111 wrote:

Death due to abortion is routinely under reported. Often the family and the butcher attribute the death to the complications rather than due to the slaughter. The family would like to avoid the shame and often the butcher has commiting a crime such as not reporting the statutory rape (sex with a minor) or wanton neglect of the health code.
Still it is refreshing to see the death peddlers admit that abortion can be lethal to more than just the baby.

Jan 24, 2012 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ac082160 wrote:

How can abortion be safer when it carries a 100 percent mortality rate for the fetus?

Jan 24, 2012 2:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perington wrote:

Fact: When two people go into an abortion clinic, only one comes out alive. Please tell me what is so safe about that.

Jan 24, 2012 2:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RogerJ wrote:

Not for the baby it isn’t.

Jan 24, 2012 2:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ReaganMaximus wrote:

Publiclibrary wrote:
“NO HUMAN has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment”

That holds true for the mother: she cannot be coerced into s*x (or, as you put it “reproductive slavery”).

But what about the baby? What about its right to “not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (14th Amendment)?

Just because someone views the reproductive act as recreational doesn’t change the facts of life – life can be created as a result of that process.

That’s like saying, “it’s not fair that this person ended up in a wheelchair as a result of bungee jumping – he was only having fun… it was recreational.”
It’s also like saying, “but we bailed you out so that you would keep jobs alive and grow the economy… you were too big to fail, but you failed anyway! That’s not right!”

Actions still have consequences, and no twists of logic can supercede the simple truth of cause and effect. Just because you claim it’s a right doesn’t make it a real right (any more than having a right to do something makes it right to do it).

Time to put your big boy pants on (and keep them on, if you don’t want to have kids).

Jan 24, 2012 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Denan wrote:

“Abortion is safer than birth” — Tell that to the baby that is headed to the biological waste disposal can in pieces…

Jan 24, 2012 2:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nomnomnom wrote:

how can that be true? there is a 100% death rate among abortions. humans are humans too…

Jan 24, 2012 2:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JWSchwartz wrote:

Women’s Rights + Baby’s Rights = Adoption. Pretty safe for all involved.

Jan 24, 2012 2:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Toroloneeneo wrote:

Are births that occur outside of a medical facility included? And if so, then abortions that occur outside of a medical facility should have been included, too.

Jan 24, 2012 2:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse

USAPragmatist Jan 24, 2012 2:10pm EST:

Here is a link to explain the breast cancer/abortion link. Doesn’t say if it is the number one cause, but women have successfully sued doctors when they were not informed of this risk. In each case, these women had not yet developed cancer, but the risk is compelling enough to award judgement to the women.

http://www.polycarp.org/overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm

Jan 24, 2012 3:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
conserfolife wrote:

I cannot believe the ignorance of most of the comments. Half the people didn’t read the article properly and lots of other people are spewing incoherent fiction, trying to pass it off as fact. It is time people joined the 21st century and realized that society is changing. Unless you have a moral objection to abortion, no one cares about what religion has to say on the subject(or they shouldn’t).
The facts are clinics that perform abortions cannot do so after the second trimester because at that point the fetus is essentially a baby capable of surviving on its own outside of the womb, and is therefore deemed illegal. Some clinics won’t even perform an abortion as late as the second trimester if they feel it is morally/ethically wrong. Most abortions take place very early in pregnancy when the fetus is still a ball of cells, or before any of the major organs have developed. The fetus doesn’t even have consciousness until a few months into the pregnancy. You cannot equate a

Jan 24, 2012 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bluelock wrote:

100% of abortions result in at least one death, sometimes two or more.

Jan 24, 2012 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dantes wrote:

Even allowing for the low bar that Reuters generally meets with its reporting, this is an appalling poorly conceived and written article.

As with all liberals, they care, about themselves, first and foremost. Innocent bystanders…bah, not so much. But dead babies don’t give money to democrats, and so the democrats are not interested in that special interest group.

Jan 24, 2012 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dwall02 wrote:

this study’s information on abortion related complications came from Guttmacher Institute. This is a think tank for the abortion industry, see below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

Hardly news that shills from Planned Parenthood say that abortion is safe. Unfortunate that Reuters prints this as an objective source.

Jan 24, 2012 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
donpopione wrote:

Number one this story leans more to having an abortion then not. As far as women who die giving birth, there’s always other factors involved. Giving birth has been here since the begining of time, I think it has a good track record.

Jan 24, 2012 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TMASON89 wrote:

NOt having sex when you don’t want children is the safest alternative of all. It is 100% effective at stopping STDs, too.

Jan 24, 2012 3:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TMASON89 wrote:

conserfolife wrote “Most abortions take place very early in pregnancy when the fetus is still a ball of cells, or before any of the major organs have developed.”

Is that ball of cells genetically differentiated and yet still the same as the mother and father? This ball of cells is a genetically complete human being, not an appendage of a mother.

And don’t try the argument that a fetus isn’t human because it relies on others for life. If that was your litmus test, then 18-month old children are in jeopardy.

Jan 24, 2012 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
12_Centuries wrote:

EXCEPT for the fact that women who have abortions are significantly more likely to develop breast cancer, according to both the CDC and the NIH, and you WON’T hear about from mass media outlets.

The breasts grow considerably during pregnancy while under the influence of high levels of the hormone estrogen. Estrogen causes the woman’s normal and cancer-vulnerable breast lobules (type 1 2) to multiply. If she has an abortion, she’s left with more places for cancers to start in her breasts. If she has a baby, then other pregnancy hormones mature her breast lobules into type-4 cancer-resistant lobules during the last months of pregnancy. She’s left with more cancer-resistant tisue than she had before she became pregnant.

Having a baby actually decreases your chances of having breast cancer, and having an abortion increases your chances. Facts.

Jan 24, 2012 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
steveiam wrote:

…well there goes another ‘factoid’ falsely promoted by the bible thumpers and lunatic fringe.
It is outrageous that women, and in many cases men, are held hostage to the beliefs of those that have no answer to any real issue related to relationship matters.

Jan 24, 2012 3:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
commenter1223 wrote:

What the heck is this all about? This is the stupidest study and article I have ever read. Everybody get an abortion, we’ll all live longer. And, have less grey hair because there won’t be any children to worry about. And, one does not need a study to conclude this. It is patently obvious that a “medical procedure” in a safe environment will have a very safe record. A small cut or a little suction compared to pushing out a nine pound baby. What do you think is more stressful to the woman’s body? Even in a hospital, giving birth is is not a 100% safe bet. Again, stupid study and stupid article. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that my tax dollars helped fund the study.

Jan 24, 2012 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NMorgan wrote:

Talk about abusing statistics, you can’t compare all births to legal abortions for the simple fact that all abortions are scheduled procedures with medical care, while not all births are under those same conditions. In order for this study to have any validity they would need to compare “standard births” (births that both the mother and child are thought to be in good health and no preexisting conditions are present) that happen at a hospital under a doctor’s care. That comparison would be a valid one not this slipshod study that is reported as news.

Jan 24, 2012 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Coastie wrote:

Birth is safer; while there are risks involved, someone always dies during an abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crippler_p wrote:

Study failed to take into consideration the rate of survival of the children.

Jan 24, 2012 4:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robin888 wrote:

“Abortion care and pregnancy care should not really be any different than consenting people for any other procedure.”

Well, except that with abortion a woman is “consenting” to the murder of another human being. Abortion is the ONLY medical “procedure” designed to end life rather than sustain it. As such, it is not at all like “any other procedure” and merits being treated differently, very differently. Is it possible that abortion advocates fear a lower body count if a few women change their minds during a 24 hour waiting period or are scared off because of the possibility of complications? Seriously, do abortion advocates measure success in terms of the number of abortions conducted like a company would count the units it sold to calculate its profit? Evil.

Jan 24, 2012 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mkamoski wrote:

Ah yes, killing is safer than taking-care. Yes, it is harder too. Dumbledore was correct– “Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right”.

Jan 24, 2012 4:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mkamoski wrote:

Pro-abortion people tend to have abortions and, as such, there will be fewer and fewer of them around as life moves forward.

Jan 24, 2012 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MainStreet1 wrote:

Except for the baby!

Jan 24, 2012 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

A sperm is not a baby, an egg is not a baby, a zygote is not a baby, and an embryo is not a baby. A person’s body and life is their own, and it is their personal right and liberty to control it.

Jan 24, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
momofsix wrote:

Abortion is safer than giving birth? I bet the baby would heartily disagree…oh, wait a minute…no it wouldn’t – it would be dead. I don’t think you can get any LESS safe than dead, can you?

This is what rampant liberalism and political doublespeak have gotten us – justification for the murder of innocents. Here’s a thought – not getting pregnant is much safer than abortion, so why don’t all of the women who DON’T want children practice birth control? You can get it for free at any clinic in the United States.

Jan 24, 2012 4:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Battlespeed wrote:

I guess it would have been “safer” to pay the King’s tea tax, too.

Sometimes it’s just about what’s RIGHT, not about what’s “SAFE”.

Jan 24, 2012 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse

It’s not safer for the baby.

Jan 24, 2012 4:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
correctomatic wrote:

This ought to serve to highlight the dreadful, shameful maternal mortality rate in the USA. There are many other developed countries with maternal mortality rates of between 1 and 5 per 100k. Our country does not practice EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE in obstetrics and many areas are outright hostile to midwifery despite evidence of its safety.

Jan 24, 2012 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
onosurf wrote:

Safer? Not for the baby!

Jan 24, 2012 4:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
forparity wrote:

Abortion safer than giving birth – for whom?

Oh, would you look at that, JGreg said that already. Well, it’s so obvious, I’m going to go ahead and do it again.

Jan 24, 2012 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mhallmanOSA wrote:

Actually, abortion is statistically radically more dangerous than giving birth: at least one person dies every single abortion.

Jan 24, 2012 4:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CrackedCorn wrote:

It is 100% safer for the mother to be, and 100% more dangerous for the would be child. Way to promote good motherhood ladies!

Jan 24, 2012 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jullou wrote:

Safer in regard to their bodies, right? Leftists push this but care not a bit about how this effects women mentally, nor do they care what happens to their souls. I know, leftests think there is no soul, and there’s nothing more higher and powerful than they are. The fact that they are killing another human being causes women to turn to drugs, alcohol and more sex. And no, this isn’t just about what the woman wants to do with her body. It’s also about another human being that won’t be allowed to live because of inconvenience.

Jan 24, 2012 5:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Chauffeur wrote:

Abortion is safer than giving birth!?!?!???? Not for the baby!!!

Jan 24, 2012 5:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ARJTurgot2 wrote:

Freakonomics revealed the quickest way to reduce the abortion rate is to increase the employment rate. So, all these committed Christians posting on this story are out there giving jobs to the overwhelmingly black-and-poor women that are getting most abortions. Right? Your church is doing that. You’re walking the talk behind your mouth. Doing what committed Christians are obligated to do by their faith.

Jan 24, 2012 5:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jullou wrote:

Do these statists ever do research on the women that have had abortions regarding their mental condition, and how many more abortions they have in their lifetime? I doubt it because they think that the end justifies the means. In this case, making abortions the norm, brings society down in many ways. And this is what the left wants. A society who are evil as they are.

Jan 24, 2012 5:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jullou wrote:

Why don’t they take the pill instead of the knife??

Jan 24, 2012 6:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccrabill wrote:

Safer for who? Certainly NOT THE BABY!

Jan 24, 2012 6:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Htos1 wrote:

Totally satanic!

Jan 24, 2012 6:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
michaelp wrote:

Who gives anyone the right to take a life ? ESPECIALLY a late term. Where they pull the child out piece by piece. Leg, arms, all body parts. remember ! the child is still alive. Many of aborted kids wake up later, crying. ect. Even though i would kill anyone that raped my child ! But i don’t have a right to take a life.

Jan 24, 2012 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Max17 wrote:

The ‘researchers’ must be using liberal math. During an abortion it is guaranteed that at least 50% of those involved die.

Jan 24, 2012 6:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Yet these same Liberal Loons will stand outside a Prison and try to save the life of a Mass Murderer on death row?
That’s it for now on we will just call these Executions a Very, Very Very Late, Late Term Abortion! Problem Solved!

Jan 24, 2012 6:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
keister7 wrote:

Abortion safer than giving birth? Humm… Don’t think so? In every abortion, one person dies… Is rare for anyone to die while giving birth. Sounds like someone doesn’t have all their marbles!

Jan 24, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mslk wrote:

This is perhaps the most idiotic and wilfully misleading headline I have ever seen. Really? What about the baby?

Jan 24, 2012 7:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ss2012 wrote:

I am appalled that the story was published with this headline. It’s not something we expect from Reuters to try and get a reader’s attention via sensationalism. This is it tabloid news. And it gives a skewed sense of what the study is saying. Furthermore, the term ‘legal abortion’ lends this an altogether angle. Surely, people who go to a proper healthcare provider are lower risks in any case. There needs to me more information. I feel studies are the worst form of news stories ever to be published. They are baseless and incomplete in most cases and there are always a million others studies refiuting the claims of another study. Perhaps, content generation shouldn’t be the only thing driving big news agencies such as yours.

Jan 24, 2012 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Boy, I’ve never seen a more Troll-bombed story.
For all the hysteria and vitriol, I’d like to point out that a) the study was published in a peer-reviewed and distinguished medical journal – it is very likely the study reached a sound conclusion based on valid data. b) the study only focuses on one point – factually reporting the relative risk of abortion to full term pregnancy to the mother. The provenance of the study deserves attention, but does not invalidate the result – that’s why these results are peer-reviewed.
If the data had been more in line with the beliefs of most of the commenters here, I think they would be celebrating the study; a key indicator that the issue for most commenters is not one of factual validity, but of morality. I would suggest that arguments for or against a moral position are more effective when they don’t deny factual information, or try to counter it with data or studies that have long been disproven (i.e. the long term mental health consequences of abortion.)
Though of course, to quote Stephen Colbert, facts have a well-known liberal bias. ;-)

Jan 25, 2012 5:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
AReich wrote:

When I got my braces, the orthodontist told me that I could lose my teeth. When I had Lasik eye surgery, I had to watch a video about the many things that could go wrong including blindness. I had outpatient surgery to remote a cyst on the outside of my finder and I was told the dangers of anesthesia which includes death. The likelyhood of these negative effects are very small, but real. In all cases, the doctor MUST warm me about them.

The same things apply to surgical and medicinal abortions. Every woman needs to know what risks she is willingly taking on. To suggest that counseling not be mandated because a live birth is more dangerous is out-of-step with medical reality.

By the way, it was mandated that I watch the video on the LASIK eye surgery days before the procedure could even be scheduled. States are not mandating any counseling about abortion that does not already apply to other medical procedures. And an abortion caused by any manner is a medical procedure.

A second note: this study was completed by the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Look for biases in the findings.

Jan 25, 2012 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
Saucey wrote:

Woah, did some anti-abortion group target this article or something? The idea that a fetus is a child in the first or even second trimester is rediculous. Women spontaneously abort (aka have a miscarriage) about 1/3 of the time in the first trimester. I don’t see you guys holding funerals for these dead “children”.
And to address the concerns of many of the posters, it clearly (if you have any sort of reading comprehension skills)says in the article that women who have abortions have a lower rate of psychological problems compared to women who give birth. The whole point of the article is to dispute the claims that anti-abortion groups make against abortion.

Jan 25, 2012 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
steveorlando wrote:

apparently they shared it on their church of moral superiority website.. If yu dont approve of abortions.. dont have one.. if you are worried about unwanted pregnancy results?? shut up and adopt and provide a REAL solution. these people talk alot but I bet only 1 out of 100 actually adopt and 1 in 10 have gone to fertility clinics because they dont want any baby but their own…

Jan 25, 2012 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ZeppelinOne wrote:

Funny how the author, Genevra Pittman, conveniently overlooked the knee-jerk question that is always asked of those who report the dangers of abortion – “What is your position on abortion?” Dr. David Grimes is an abortionist’s abortionist. In other words, he has authored textbooks for doctors telling them how to do abortions. Talk about media bias! What a joke!

Jan 25, 2012 4:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ZeppelinOne wrote:

There was not one word mentioned in this story that Gynuity Health Projects which employs one of the authors of the article – Elizabeth Raymond – is involved in spreading “reproductive health technologies” What an Orwellian term! In other words, the organization does training on mifepristone abortions in underdeveloped nations. So much for Reuters’ objectivity!

Jan 25, 2012 5:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ZeppelinOne wrote:

The British journal Lancet is the same medical journal that CENSORED three researchers who wrote letters to the editor sharply criticizing the flaws in the (fraudulent) study, Beral et al. 2004. That study has received criticism in five medical journals. The study had more to do with political propaganda in its service to the abortion industry and the myth of “safe abortion” than it had to do with science.

Jan 25, 2012 5:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
truejesus wrote:

Holy crap you people are idiots. Their saying its safer for the mom as opposed to giving birth. Im not letting any of you in the gates. Your too stupid for heaven.

Jan 26, 2012 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
Matt-Chicago wrote:

Report: Eating a sandwich safer than giving birth, study says.

Jan 26, 2012 11:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Adam_S wrote:

Safer for the pregnant woman. Good gravy. I know, I know, drag out the rhetoric. You’re all asking the same question. The study answered it. ITS SAFER FOR THE PREGNANT WOMAN. Whether or not you agree, can’t you people read?

Jan 26, 2012 12:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crell wrote:

To all those whining that abortion isn’t safe because it’s murder, that’s not the point.

Many anti-abortion activists (vis, sounds like some of you in this thread) claim that abortions are dangerous and unhealthy for the woman, therefore shouldn’t be allowed. Some states require doctors to use scare tactics to tell women how dangerous it is for them to have an abortion.

This study is calling BS on that line. Statistically speaking, a woman is not in any greater physical danger from an abortion than giving birth, and is actually at less physical risk from an abortion than from giving birth. Remember, giving birth requires a woman’s organs to contort themselves and have muscles completely reverse direction. It’s not a simple or safe process. Humans are actually very poorly built for birthing. (Prior to the development of modern medicine, child birth was the single greatest killer of women in the world.)

That says nothing about the ethical question of when a bundle of protoplasm qualifies as a legal person. That’s not the question at hand. The question at hand is whether or not telling women that “abortion is dangerous for you” is a true statement. It is not. Telling women that abortion is physically dangerous for them is a lie. And I think we can all agree that the government should not require doctors to lie.

If you want to argue against abortion, that’s your right. Just don’t use factually untrue information to do so. That only undermines your argument.

PS: To the commenter who mentioned Planned Parenthood, you are aware that abortion makes up on the order of 2% of what Planned Parenthood does, right? It is not an abortion lobby. It’s a women’s reproductive health organization.

Jan 26, 2012 12:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccdiane wrote:

Whoever asked if this includes psychological effects: obviously not. I saw nothing about postpartum depression or psychosis in here.

Every choice has an emotional effect.

Jan 26, 2012 6:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wisewoman48 wrote:

Clearly no one read the study – - it is about science not ideology.

If you believe that a woman’s safety and health is important than the study says that abortion is safer than childbirth is important. The study says that women should be given ALL the facts about abortion and childbirth, not just an skewed one-sided approach.

If you only believe that she is merely an incubator for another, than this study will not persuade you otherwise.

Jan 27, 2012 9:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
wisewoman48 wrote:

Actually it does cover emotional and psychological impact – - READ the report

Jan 27, 2012 9:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
obackarama wrote:

A successful abortion procedure results in a death 100% of the time, more than 53,000,000 times in the last 39 years, a truly awesome success rate and something for the abortion industry to be proud of.

Jan 28, 2012 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
dallasmember wrote:

Good study, but sort of a no-brainer. What woman did not already know that abortion was far safer for her than childbirth?

Jan 28, 2012 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
gangof4 wrote:

I wonder whether the authors of this study didn’t have a hidden agenda in choosing to study this in the first place?

Jan 28, 2012 12:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse

It’s not that safe for the child being killed.

Jan 28, 2012 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tracy--lee wrote:

Best Troll ever… No need to read the article…Just scroll straight to the comments!!! Lulz!

Jan 28, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tracy--lee wrote:

Best Troll ever… No need to read the article…Just scroll straight to the comments!!! Lulz!

Jan 28, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tracy--lee wrote:

Best Troll ever… No need to read the article…Just scroll straight to the comments!!! Lulz!

Jan 28, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tracy--lee wrote:

Best Troll ever… No need to read the article…Just scroll straight to the comments!!! Lulz!

Jan 28, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IMHO2012 wrote:

Safer for whom? Certainly not the baby. Shame, shame.

Jan 28, 2012 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sniper wrote:

Not for the baby…..

Jan 29, 2012 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

@ wisewoman48 (quote) “if you only believe that she is merely an incubator for another”

that is called a financial transaction with a surrogate mother or rent a room, er, womb

as it involves money, the incubator makes certain the child is safe and not sliced and diced, vacuumed or poisoned with salt

using your purview, ‘merely infanticide for another’

Jan 29, 2012 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ittim wrote:

look at all these pro-life narcissists writing comments about what other people should do with their life/uterus, to match with their pro-life beliefs. stop being so self absorbed that the world should match yours in every way possible. please let people decide by themselves what to do.

Jan 29, 2012 7:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MickBarry wrote:

Do the maths?
Out every 100 births at least 200 come out alive.
Out every 100 abortions just 100 come out alive.
Not so safe if you are a defenceless baby.

Jan 30, 2012 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
alSheik wrote:

It seems like 99% of the people who have commented did not even read the article, they just posted their knee-jerk reactions to the headline.

For instance, donpopione. He writes “Number one this story leans more to having an abortion then not”, even though if he had read just 5 paragraphs into the article it quotes Dr. Davis as saying— “We wouldn’t tell people, ‘Don’t have a baby because it’s safer to have an abortion’ — that’s ridiculous”. Donpopione also says “Giving birth has been here since the begining of time, I think it has a good track record.” Like most of the comments, it has no relevancy to the actual content of the article and doesn’t even address the findings.

Most of the comments on here are completely irrelevant: “What do these “People” think about Aborting the Panda Bear?”, written by BlownfuelCoupe, or idiotic: “Good news.. lets stop all births.. they may be dangerous…”, written by patches12.
If you are going to comment why don’t you first read the article, and then give your reasons as to why the numbers are false, biased, or should not be considered.

Jan 30, 2012 1:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

Regardless of anyone’s stance on abortion, the one fact remains: x=x

-If abortion were legal, x amount per thousand of women would be going to a clinic and having the procedure done;

-If abortions were illegal, x amount per thousand of women would be going to an “underground provider” and having the procedure done.

Jan 30, 2012 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.