Alabama court ruled frozen embryos are children.

Facts not in evidence nor proves of such a rate to outweigh all others when it comes to abortion which we know is DEADLY to the child.

But again as much as you falsely claim the issue HERE, read the title and linked article) is NOT about abortion and never was.

 

It's not an assumption as I cited from the medical textbooks. As I showed from the science the single cell zygote is a human and remains a single cell for between 24 to 48 hours then it is no longer single cell, are you saying it takes a maximum two days to become a human?

What is you fallacious point anyway?

 

You claimed sperm and ovum were complete human organisms when they are not as I showed you. And you are correct a zygote is not one of them nor a specialzed heart or skin or liver or blood cells. Zygotes are complete human beings at that stage on a human being's life.

So enough of your specious and fallacious claims that there are millions of separate individual human beings in my body

 

THIS case had NOTHING to do with abortion, the knee jerk pro-abortion side just automatically took it there without even reading what it WAS about.

 

Declaring an embryo to be a person ABSOLUTELY has ramifications for abortion.

How could it possibly NOT???

This is a central problem with many of these anti-abortion laws - they are not well enough thought out as to what the full ramifications actually are.

 

What others are there to "all others"? There is the rate of deaths from abortion related issues, and rate of deaths from pregnancy related issues. Again, your article might show an inflated rate to deaths due to pregnancy related issues, but what it doesn't do is show that rate near or below those from abortion related issues.

There is no false claim here on my part. Once again, you have tried, falsely I might add, to assert that I and others are claiming that the case, and now the article, is about abortion. But that is not what we have claimed. We have claimed that this decision, which is not about abortion (see? I do agree with you that the case itself is not about abortion, and have been all along), will affect future cases that are about abortions. That is the entire premise of the OP.

 

Only 2% increase?? Every other country in the world has a declining maternal mortality rate. And this is pre Dobbs so it does not reflect a post Dobbs Impact on maternal mortality and interestingly what this study does NOT do is compare and contrast MMR statistical collection methods with other countries, which I gather are much as the original methodology described in the paper.

https://mmr2020.srhr.org/methodology
As you can see from the WHO stats MMR is declining world wide
https://mmr2020.srhr.org/data#download
https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/maternal-mortality/
Statistica shows where the USA lies in relation to other countries

 

Yeah not a comparative study

THIS is a comparative study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar... bans or,reproductive age, and greater racial

 

To be fair, if the study is showing that in data collection, it is somehow being recorded as a pregnancy when death was from a gun shot wound, even if it was where the shot hit the fetus and then that caused complications, then it is a false reading towards the MMR. That said, the study still does not show that this makes the MMR less than or even close to abortion mortality rate. Those are two different claims.

 

It was a study of the methodology which prove the methodology was wrong therefore the data you are using and that has been used is faulty but a WIDE margin.

 

This is about comparing like to like. My point was that most countries collect the data this way. From what I gather the data is like the VAERS data - raw. However an argument could easily be made that death from gunshot is part of a wider societal impact on MMR reflecting an issue with domestic violence that requires redress ergo when reviewing MMR stats America STILL comes out as a massive outlier in relation to other industrialised nations

 

No it simply proved that raw data is raw data. A comparative study, such as the one l linked to showing increase in MMR in states with abortion restrictions are far more pertinent

 

A woman dying because a gunshot caused the ZEF to die and then affecting her system is not the same as the woman dying because the ZEF died due to developmental causes and then affecting her system. The later is a risk of pregnancy. The former is not and should not be counted for MMR.

 

Again we are talking RAW DATA. All MMR stats, to a degree are raw data. This is why research must be evacuated. Now it could be that the data used in the comparative study I linked to is also based on raw data but it still shows a correlation between abortion restriction and maternal death. It may well turn out that some of that increase is women being killed by partners because they were pregnant and it was easier and cheaper than paying for her to go interstate to have an abortion. To me that is still an increase in MMR as she would not have died had she not become pregnant. If you want stats on specific conditions I.e. sepsis from untreated partial abortion versus GSW then you have to look at either refining and sifting the gross MMR stats or data collection from other research studies. I have done extensive reading on this and I can guarantee some of the difference in MMR between the USA and say, the UK is that the USA does not have a centralised health care system and ergo no centralised EBP guides like the UK’s “NICE” guides

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance

 

No it showed how the data being used is GROSSELY flawed because of the manner in which it was collect. Garbage in garbage out............

 

It had NOTHING to do with abortion and that is NOT what the ASC ruled. This was not about clinics who exist to KILL unborn babies but one that exist to try and help babies GET BORN. The ASC ruled that a lawsuit brought by the parents of embryos who were killed due to negligence by a clinic could sue under the Alabama law protecting minor children that has been in existence for over 100 years due to the wording of a recently passed amendment. It pointed out to the the state legislature this noting that it would be up to the legislature NOT the court to fix it. The State legislature quickly acted to do so and the governor signed it clearing up the wording and the clinics are back in operation. THAT is ALL this was about the MSM hair on fire knee jerk screaming and shouting otherwise notwithstanding.

 

The data was evaluated and FOUND TO BE FLAWED.....................HIGHLY flawed because of the manner in which it was collected. Garbage in garbage out. We have extensive and centralized reporting in this country please stop making such uninformed statements.

 

These are connected.

If IVF facilities can't kill fertilized eggs, then why would women be allowed abortions?

 

If a woman dies of leukemia, or a gun shot to her head, and then, because she is pregnant, it's counted for MMR, then that's not raw data, it's false data. MMR needs to be what is related to the condition of pregnancy and birthing, not someone's reaction to her pregnancy, nor simply added to because she was pregnant when she died.

Correlation/causation fallacy. Mind you I am not claiming that they are not related, but it needs to be shown that the correlation is due to the claimed causation, not just claimed.

What I am talking about, and what the referenced study is supposedly saying (with no claim that it is correct or actually saying this), is that deaths that are not actually related to being pregnant or giving birth are being counted as MMR, and that should not be.I'm not looking for anything specific within MMR. I just want to be sure that what is listed under MMR is actually related to maternity and birthing. The actions of another should never be considered as caused by pregnancy. That's like saying that we should be tracking what the victim was wearing for causes of rape.

 

You can keep saying that, but it won't change the fact that our assertions here are not making that claim. You are the only one claiming that we are making that claim.

Our claim is that the ruling from this case can, and most likely will, be used, or at least attempted to be used, as precedent for abortion cases, specifically that part of the ruling that says that the embryos are persons, in order to ban abortion entirely, not only in Alabama, but across the country. Claiming what the ruling will be used for in the future is not claiming what it is for in the present.

 

It’s complicated and you can refine the data just as they do with the VAERS data. This involves looking more closely at causality. Some we can toss early I.e. traffic accidents, some though will have a more subtle connection I.e cancer. Many cancers are accelerated by pregnancy or cause a delay in treatment due to fear of impact on the foetus. The article quoted is looking at this from a purely O&G standpoint saying that what they want is data specific to pregnancy and treatment of pregnancy related complications. Fair enough, but instead of grizzling about it the authors should have spent the time breaking down the data itself to get those answers. This is how VAERS works. You collect ALL data (raw data) and then formulate your question I.e. does pregnancy increase or decrease risk taking behaviours when driving then you extract the relevant data from the collected data ( in this case number of traffic accidents involving pregnant women) compare it to the population as a whole and determine if there is a statistical difference. Yes the inclusion of GSW into data would artificially raise the overall raw data results on MMR for America but again there is a causal link through domestic violence and a good public health system would look at that and formulate strategies to reduce those deaths

 

No the data is not flawed - simply that it is raw data same as VAERS

You grok the term”raw data” yes? Understand how and why VAERS data is what it is?

 

This is what should be happening to the data


https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-australia

You can see here the raw data has been refined to give succinct and specific answers

And yes! Absolutely this is what should be being done for American MMR stats not just so it looks better but because we can drill down into WHY women are dying.

This from the CDC site

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm

 

The more I read about MMR stats in America the more I am puzzled by the paper Bluesguy linked to

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/erase-mm/index.html

 

I don't care what the rate is in your country and the rates here are nothing abnormal at all, the previous data as shown was highly flawed so stop..............