Channel: Home | About

Deadly fallacy: abortion safer than giving birth, study says
--by Joel McDurmon

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

The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.
The fallacy here is obvious, devious, and downright deadly: the study ignores the safety and death of the unborn child, and only considers the medical aspects of the mother. Pro-life websites have jumped on the heartless indifference of the study:
The study obviously concentrates solely on the medical risks for the mother, since an abortion always destroys the unborn child. So the study is based on a faulty premise, comparing two medical procedures that have different goals. In an abortion, one life is deliberately sacrificed. In childbirth, medical personnel do their utmost to preserve two healthy lives. It is not surprising that the latter operation is more challenging.
Accepting all of the real-life facts, of course, would lead any such study to conclude that abortion is “markedly” deadlier than child birth by a factor of hundreds of millions.

The liberal media does its best to abet the cold negligence of [this] murderous institution....

 [Read the entire article]

-------

Here's another fact, or inconvenient truth:
Only half of the patients that enter an abortion clinic
come out alive...

Which makes abortion deadlier than childbirth.

1 Comment:

  1. Marshal Art said...
    It is typical of the type of improper comparisons made to make an improper point so common to those supporting immorality. As you suggest, the improper comparison is in the aim of each procedure. It would be far more proper a comparison to match the safety of natural birth to C-sections, or one type of abortion to another.

    Another fallacious comparison was illustrated in a recent article comparing homosexual parents to hetero. They spoke of the willingness of homosexuals to be parents compared to how many pregnancies are unplanned by heteros. But this is not an equal comparison. Which is better for the kid? Homosexuals who adopt (because they cannot procreate) or heteros who adopt (because they cannot procreate)?

    It showed up in a debate at my blog based on an improper comparison made by Dan T regarding adult consensual homosexual unions and adult consensual incestuous unions. He compared the former as healthy and the latter as only the result of oppression and manipulation, but not actually comparing consenting adults of each groups.

    This tactic is a mainstay in defending indefensible positions, as apples to apples comparisons never work in their favor.

Post a Comment