jump to navigation

Yet another DERANGED Pandagon post, now saying abortion is safer than childbirth August 3, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Mechanistic Relativism, Pandamansanity.

That’s right. Amanda has gone completely around the bend and is now saying that abortion is healthier than child-birth.

The key quote:

but that’s unethical, as Kevin at Sufficient Scruples explains, because they refuse to tell you how much safer abortion is than the alternative, which is childbirth.

Go ahead and click the link. Where, at this MoonBat medical “ethics” site, does it back up Amanda’s monstrous claim? Answer: No where. It just gives Amanda a chance to foam at the mouth.
So at least now we know where Amanda is at: That organ which is such a focus for her rants -the vagina- is good only for sex, entirely on the woman’s terms. Any subsequent consequences, most especially thos pesky chlidren that come about from intercourse, interfere with the vagina’s (and consequently, the woman’s) main purpose).

The face of feminism’s third wave in reality looks much like this:


Here is something else to consider, given some less-than-useful exchanges that have occurred in the comboxes: Amanda, in backing up the claim that abortion is safer, is equating pregnancy with a diseases that needs to be treated. That’s right. A natural process is -in the minds of the MoonBats- a disease.

And the dance of de-humanization marches on and on.



1. Kevin T. Keith - August 3, 2006

Hey there!: Moonbat here.

It’s true that my post was actually about RU-486 more than about abortion in general, but Amanda’s summary was correct.

A recent review of all known deaths of women taking RU-486, and similar incidents, conducted by the American College of Gynecology, showed that there were more deaths by Clostridium-related toxic shock (the culprit in all of the RU-486-linked cases) among pregnant women who did not take RU-486 than among those who did. It also clearly demonstrates that the death ratio (deaths per 100,000 pregnancies or live births) among RU-486 users is vastly lower (by almost 10 times) than among those who carry pregnancy to term. So, yes, you’ll be glad to know: the miniscule number of deaths, however tragic, among the 560,000 US women who have used RU-486 in the past three years demonstrates that medical abortion is, in fact, much safer than pregnancy itself.

As I also mentioned, the death ratio for all forms of abortion overall is at just about the same level as that for RU-486, meaning that all forms of abortion, taken together, are much safer than pregnancy.

It’s possible that your readers may not have known this widely-available information, however, because, as I further pointed out, critics of RU-486 invariably report the few known deaths following its use without ever mentioning the vast number of safe and effective uses of the treatment, or the fact that its relative risk is much lower than that of pregnancy.

So Amanda is correct: RU-486 and other forms of abortion aremuch safer than pregnancy, and it’s also true that this fact is obscured by critics who consistently cite death figures for only one alternative, without relative context. (The data are widely known, but you can look up maternal death rates and abortion deaths on the CDC Web site; the data on RU-486 are linked from my blog post.)

I’m sure I speak for Amanda and her vagina when I say: “Glad we could help!”

2. demolition65 - August 3, 2006

. . .you miss the point, sir. Abortion cannot be considered safe or healthy for the child, no matter what the statistics for safety for women may show. But then I suspect that is not your concern, as it (as mentioned above) gets in the way of the 3rd-wave’s avowed function of the vagina. . .

But all the same, I thank you for a lucid and coherent response.

3. Kevin T. Keith - August 3, 2006

Abortion cannot be considered safe or healthy for the child, no matter what the statistics for safety for women may show.

Well, I don’t think there’s a “child” involved, as we normally use that term, or for that matter anything whose death stands in comparison to a woman’s life. But at any rate this argument cannot be a response to my post.

The critics of RU-486 constantly trumpet the handful of deaths among over half a million users of the treatment as a reason not to allow its use. This is a completely unsound, and dishonest, argument, for the reasons I mentioned before, and it has absolutely nothing to do whether or not “children” are killed. The argument that RU-486 causes deaths among women is not the argument that it kills fetuses – those are two different points. If you think the death of the fetus is a reason not to have an abortion, that would be true no matter how high or low RU-486’s safety rate was – there is no reason, in the argument about the death of the fetus, to mention whether RU-486 is safe for women, and the argument about its safety for women is obviously not aimed at its consequences for the fetus. (You can believe both these arguments – notwithstanding that at least one is obviously false – but that still does not make them the same argument.)

So you are changing the subject by raising the question of the death of the fetus. That is an issue of concern to some people – those who regard 30-day-old fetuses as standing on a moral plane with adult women. But there are many more who criticize RU-486 because, they claim, it is dangerous to women. That is a completely different claim; one that happens, in fact, to be false in comparison with available alternatives. That was the argument addressed by my post, and by Amanda when she refers to “how much safer abortion is than the alternative”.

4. demolition65 - August 3, 2006

I hold no brief on the dangers of RU-486, save for the lunacy to claim that a form of surgically (or in this case, pharmacologically)-achieved murder is somehow on an equal if not superior moral plane to a natural process by which the human race perpetuates itself is logic set on its head. To separate the two processes is similarly tortured logic.

The two are intertwined.

But, in your big-city, 3rd-wave logic you have it all mapped out soundly, it seems, allowing you the luxury of picking what you believe are morally superior debating points with a Far Western “wingnut”.

Good for you.

In the meantime, I stand by the statement that Amanda is at sea in claiming that abortion -in any form- is safer for the woman/pregnancy. If you wish to continue to atomize the facets of the argument, I could muster concerns such as PTSD. . .but I expect you’ll find some other, glib way of reducing that argument as well.

5. Mister Nice Guy - August 3, 2006

Hoody, if you know of any medical study which shows medical consequences to a woman from abortion which are equal, or even greater than, those of pregnancy, please post a link to it.

Former Reagan-appointed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who would have loved to find such a study, couldn’t find it, and was forced by his well-developed sense of medical ethics to admit as much.

So if you have new evidence not previously available, please trot it out.

6. demolition65 - August 3, 2006

Nice Guy, I refer you to my earlier comment. If you insist -as so much of the culture of death does- that pregnancy represents little more than parasitism, then you are correct. But pregnancy as parasitism is NOT the reality. . .though you will likely never recognize that.

7. Mister Nice Guy - August 4, 2006

Hoody, if it will make you happy, I (Far West, small-town, Caucasian) will stipulate that abortion does, in fact, kill fetuses.

If that’s all you had to say, then never mind.

Here I thought you were saying that abortion was less healthy for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term. That’s what Amanda said, and that’s what you called her “DERANGED” for saying, so silly, me.

8. demolition65 - August 4, 2006

It IS deranged whenever a procedure designed to murder one who is intimately involved in pregnancy.

9. Sophist - August 5, 2006

Amanda, in backing up the claim that abortion is safer, is equating pregnancy with a diseases that needs to be treated. That’s right. A natural process is -in the minds of the MoonBats- a disease.

Diseases are also natural processes, you know. Also, nobody is saying that pregnancy is a disease, they are simply pointing out the relative risks of two potential courses of action to refute a specific claim. Anything else is you putting words in people’s mouths. Which is par for the course.

10. demolition65 - August 6, 2006

Gorgia, why else is th point brought up? Amanda is intent on separating pregnancy from sexual activity. She gets so angry about this issue because they CANNOT be separated, just as in this argument.

Why not spend your time ranting over at Logomachy? Or is your intent merely to rant on the words of others? What’s wrong? Can’t you write of yor own ideas?

11. Sophist - August 6, 2006

Gorgia, why else is th point brought up?

Uh, to refute people who claim that things like RU-486 ought to be banned because they’re dangerous to the mother?

She gets so angry about this issue because they CANNOT be separated…

No, it’s quite easy to effective uncouple one from the other. The argument you are making is that you shouldn’t, not that you can’t. Or are you saying that birth control and abortion are totally ineffective?

Oh, and Gorgia? Where did that come from?

12. demolition65 - August 6, 2006
13. demolition65 - February 8, 2007

Revisiting this thread after the recent Marcotte/Edwards dust-up:
The argument you are making is that you shouldn’t, not that you can’t.

Fine. It is not a case of “You CANNOT shoot those that antagonize you”, rather ,it is is “you MUST not.”


This does nothing to buttress your argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: