What’s The Link Between Abortion, Miscarriages And Premature Births?

Erin G
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]

I too am very concerned about how this information is going to be used. Statistics are a dangerous tool. They can be easily contorted and shaped to suit motives.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:23 am: [report]

@Erin G: Hit the nail outta the park, the ball on the head.

I wish the same logic would let us test the loco weed in medical studies, but noooooo it’s schedule 1 and deemed it has no medical value, dumbass politos are going to use this against us too.

mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:54 am: [report]

Premature babies happen for so many reasons, and complications that come after abortions are also for many reasons. Nothing is conclusive.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:35 am: [report]

Could it have anything to do with the demographic of women that typically get abortions? Just a thought… maybe there’s a link between women that choose to abort, and women that choose not to take care of themselves when they decide to have the children?

I think that studies that don’t take other factors into account shouldn’t be published. As was said before, these ‘findings’ are going to twisted until they’re unrecognizable.

Colleen
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]

@resullins, There are women from every background that get abortions and miscarriages happen to women that take every precaution in pregnancy. I would know because I just miscarried at 7 weeks.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is not because 1 in 4 pregnant women choose not to take care of themselves.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

@Colleen: I agree with that comment… but the 1 in 4 stat also counts people that miscarry within the first month, meaning they usually don’t know.

I know there are women from every background that have abortions, I know there are lots of reasons to have one. However, approximately 50% of women that have abortions are from low income families that also have the greatest tendency for no pre-natal care, smoking, drinking, domestic violence, obesity, etc. I’m just wondering if they take the demographics of both parties into account.

mlyway
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]

A scary fact is that within the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, alcohol can already have a effect on an unborn baby. Often times, the mother does not even know she is pregnant and can unknowingly danger her unborn baby. So low income people are not the only ones who danger the life of the baby. There are simply too many factors that cause premature deliveries to make one conclusive statement.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:17 pm: [report]

@resullins—

If 50% of women getting abortions are low income, the the other 50% is comprised of middle-class and up women getting abortions. 

In theory the middle class on up women should have access to better prenatal care, better living conditions, and better diet.  Which isn’t necessarily always the case. 

Right there…statistics getting twisted to prove a point.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:24 pm: [report]

You’re missing the point, I’m not trying to twist any statistics. What I’m trying to say is, out of those 50% of women in the low income bracket, what percentage of THEM are having the miscarraiges? I just want a side by side comparison… a look into the demographics of what I believe could be a FLAWED study.

All I’m wondering is IF there might be a correlation between the two numbers OTHER than a medical one.

I, btw, AM the exception to the numbers you say I twist. I am in the middle class, and have had an abortion. So I’m not stating these numbers out of prejudice, out of bias, out of malice… I just want to know if the data is purely scientific, or if environmental and demographical factors could be skewing the results.

joyy
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]

@resullins - 50% is hardly much of an exception.  Also, you might want to look up what percentage of the general population is comprised of “low income” individuals to put that 50/50 thing in perspective.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:46 pm: [report]

@resullins—

You’re not an exception to the numbers…you stated 50% of women getting abortions are low class.  That leaves another fifty percent to fill, which means, that half, by default is middle class on up.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:56 pm: [report]

Oh my c*ck: First, you are missing the point! What I’m wondering (not speculating, not stating, ASKING) is if there is SOME corrolation between the demographic of women that have abortions, and the demographic of women that miscarry. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article stating a solid MEDICAL-ONLY reason for this statistic he’s putting out, which IMHO, makes it dangerous for the pro-choicers because the pro-lifers are going to skew this!

Second, you’re arguing that my 50% is flawed because that leaves 50% in other categories and evens it up. Wrong. If there are 50 white people in a room, 10 Mexicans, 10 Black people, 10 Asian people, and 20 Indian people, are the demographics evenly represented because 50% are one thing and 50% are another? No. 50% of abortion-seeking women are from families that make 50k or less (we can argue about the definition of LOW income later). Does that mean that the rest of the 50% are spread equally among the people that make up to 5 million a year? No. But I’m not here to argue statistics. Because as was said, they can be twisted to fit any argument.

You’re missing the question I asked earlier, so I’m not stating it again… if you want to fight about statistics, fight somewhere else. If you want to look at the results of this study with a grain of salt, read my basis for questioning this study again.

joyy
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 03:09 pm: [report]

@resullins - chill, no one’s fighting, we’re all just trying to ask interesting questions about other data that could make the original data meaningful and useful.  I was just pointing out that the 50% of abortion services going to low-income women may not be as meaningful as it seems if, for instance, 50% of the population meets the definition of low-income.  I still don’t understand how you are an exception to anything though, as all types of women get abortions.  A MAN getting an abortion, now that would be an exception ...

And I’m not trying to argue about the def. of “low income” here with you, but that does seem pretty high to me to be low income - could you share the source for that? (cause whoever they are, those bitches are nuts).

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]

I get the basis of your question.  But your stats are still flawed.

If 50% of the room is black, then the other 50% is comprised of other races.

What I stated in my first post is that if 50% of women getting abortions are low income, then the OTHER 50% of women getting abortions are comprised of women middle class on up.

So chill, like Joyy said.

As for what percentage of low income women miscarry—I don’t know.  But their chances of miscarrying aren’t any different, statistically speaking, than anyone else.

A pregnancy only has a 25% chance—1 in 4—of being carried to term.  It doesn’t matter about nutrition, prenatal care, drugs, alcohol, or income level (How many babies are born addicted to drugs/alcohol across the socio-economic board).  A Russian woman’s chances of pregnancy going to term is 25%, same as me sitting here in the USA.

DOES income level, nutrition, prenatal care and socioeconomic income make a difference in who miscarries?  That is almost impossible to quantify since you can’t state with certainty WHY a mother miscarried.  Can certain lifestyle choices ADD to the risk?  Sure.  But a doctor will never, ever state for certain that x lifestyle factor is the primary reason the woman miscarried.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 04:30 pm: [report]

@joyy: I’m not arguing about the definition of low either, I was just afraid someone would jump on that number and run with it. I was trying to avoid meaningless side debates. Sorry for confusion.

@writer: I’m not getting angery and I’m not yelling, so I’m not sure how to chill. I am however, getting hrribly frustrated at the fact that the fact that I pulled out a number to back my argument is over-shadowing the argument itself. And yes, I believe that socioeconomic factors will lead to a higher rate of miscarraiges. If you have 9 out of 10 of the lifestyle choices that lead to miscarraige, are you more likely to miscarry or deliver prematurely? Yes, that’s just a straight numbers game. Someone that jumps out a plane 1000 times in their life is more likely to have a chute not open than someone who does it once.

Now, let’s get back to the issue. Take away all the numbers stated here. Can you honestly say that you believe there may be NO demographic, environmental, or socio-economic factors that might link the two groups of women (ones that have abortions and ones that deliver prematurely/miscarry). If they ran the same exact studies on cows (sorry, fiance’s family runs a cattle ranch) do you think they’d get the same results.

I just believe there are more factors here than MEDICAL. If it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was medically linked, and nothing else, there might be some validity to the study. But I’m guessing there are other factors at work.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 05:12 pm: [report]

The study states that if a woman has two miscarriages or abortions her risk of giving birth to a premature baby is raised by 90%.

What I am saying is, eliminating all socioeconomic and lifestyle issues, and the woman is “normal” meaning she doesn’t have extenuating medical circumstances—the chance of a woman concieving and carrying a baby to term is still 25%. Which means there is a 75% chance that a woman will miscarry for whatever reason.

There is no way to definitive way to determine if a woman’s lifestyle choices or socioeconomic background contribute to that miscarriage.  They can’t do an autopsy on a fetus and say, “It was because she drank.”  They just can’t.

Can drinking and doing drugs cause a miscarriage—probably.  But quantifying by what percentage those activities increase a woman’s risk of miscarriage is not something that can be done.

I don’t think lack of prenatal care contributes to miscarriages—since most women have a miscarriage before the 12 week mark and you generally, unless there are problems, see the doctor only once in that time frame.  So there isn’t enough prenatal care at that point to state with absolute certainty that prenatal care makes a difference.  Will it make a difference later in the pregnancy?  Yes.

Even lack of nutrution isn’t something that can be quanitified as most women in their first trimester don’t eat healthy, well-balanced meals.  Sickness will generally eliminate a woman’s ability to “eat” healthy.  Right now, my girlfriend is surviving solely on cereal.

So stating that a low income woman who gets an abortion may have a miscarriage due to whatever circumstances is not something that can be quantified.

resullins
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:02 pm: [report]

@writer: perhaps you’re correct. But where did you get the 25% number? by my count, 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarraige. MEaning you have a 75% chance of carying to term.

Let me put it this way: What percentage of low income women have abortions as opposed to women in other demographics. Take that number and compare it to the percentage of miscarraiges (KNOWN) that happen in the same demographic. People is these demographics so most definitely have a higher instance of factors that lead to abnormal pregnancies (obesity, diabetes, poor health care, alcohol, smoking, drugs… that’s just fact…), so DO they also have a higher instance of abortions? I just don’t think they took the other variables into account.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that this study’s findings are entirely medical? If yes, then take the study and run… that’s fine. But if the findings are not purely based in physiology, then there has to be another variable linking the cases. Another variable linking the women that happen to have abortions and premies/miscarraiges.

Here’s another thought… what if they only studied the instances of miscarraige after the woman knew she was pregnant? I would have to say they did, or else the study itself would be flawed because of the number of miscarraiges that occur naturally in the first 4 weeks. Now, only taking women that know they are pregnant… would you still say that people without proper food/nutrition, health care, etc are at the same risk of miscarraige as women with these things?

I really think that if they took out every single variable that doesn’t fall very strictly under scientific/medical/physiological… they would get a very different result. The human condition is always going to flaw a study that is inherently biased to begin with.

writergirl
wrote on July 1 2009 @ 05:44 am: [report]

@Resullins—

Yeah, I realized what I had said about an hour later, but for various circumstances couldn’t get back to correct myself.

Anyway.  I don’t know if the study’s finding are entirely medical because their isn’t enough information to go on.  Stating that one miscarriage/abortion increases a woman’s risk of premature birth by 20% and two increase it by 90% doesn’t tell me much.  What is the “natural” rate of prematurity—extenuating circumstances not with standing?  What if the woman has a preexisting medical condition before she gets pregnant?  What if she had one birth without complications and one premature birth?  Does the number of months in between pregnancies make a difference?

These are all questions that the first sentence of the above article doesn’t answer and therefore I can’t make a judgement on the study.

I get what you are saying about most women not knowing they are pregnant in the first month, but that still doesn’t change the 25% chance of miscarriage.  Bottom line—you can not quanitify lifestyle as a contributor to miscarriage.  In order for a study to be viable they would have to be able to quantify the hypothesis and there is no way to do that.

//Now, only taking women that know they are pregnant… would you still say that people without proper food/nutrition, health care, etc are at the same risk of miscarraige as women with these things?//

Again, you can not quanitify this statement.  There is no way of knowing. 

Look.  My two GF’s and I were pregnant at the same time. We are all middle class and had access to the equal medical care. The first one, Tina, delivered a healthy baby boy in May of 2003.  The second one, Sarah, miscarried a baby and she was due in May of 2003 as well.  I gave birth to a boy in Jan. 2004.

Sarah was trying to get pregnant.  She was taking her folic acid, following a very healthy diet laid out by her doctor, went TO the doctor before she got pregnant to make sure she was healthy.  She didn’t drink at all, ever, exercised and did everything “right”.  She did have extenuating medical conditions which were extant prior to her becoming pregnant.

Tina, was trying but not really following as strict a regime as Tina.  Definately drank while trying to concieve.  She was/is also considered obese.  Her reproductive health was “normal”.

I wasn’t trying to get pregnant.  Was told I could NEVER get pregnant.  Hadn’t had my period for a year.  My reproductive health is anything but normal. And at the time of conception, my uterus was scarred and “frozen”. In my first six weeks of pregnancy, I drank, took at least four or five valium (not together) and a shot of a category X drug.  I was also dieting, not taking any vitamines, folic acid or anything else you’re “supposed” to do when pregnant.  Hell I didn’t even KNOW I was pregnant until I was six weeks along.

Sarah was the most prepared for pregnancy and the *ONLY* one who miscarried.  (At eleven weeks, I believe).  She asked the doctor what contributed to it and he said he didn’t know.  There was no way to tell. 

Now, based on what I wrote above, the person, according to your theory who had the highest chance of miscarriage, was me. Not only according to your theory did I have the highest chance of miscarriage, but MEDICALLY I had a higher chance of miscarriage due to my medical condition. But I didn’t.  Why?

Now, Sarah did go on to get pregnant and have a baby boy in October 2003.  So there you go.  1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage.

What I am trying to point out is: THERE IS NO WAY TO QUANTIFY what effect lifestyle, preexisting conditions, socioeconomic background or the rest of it has on the rate of miscarriage.  If the person who does everything wrong doesn’t miscarry, and the person who does everything right does miscarry…well, what’s the reason?

Exactly, that can’t be answered.  So you go with what we do have, which is: one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage.  You can not quantify a more specific number, or a more specific reason.

Colleen
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 08:05 am: [report]

I commented on this article because I went in for a 13 week ultrasound 2 weeks ago and they found that my baby had no fetal heartbeat and had stopped developing at 7 weeks. Now I bought every book ate healthy and took prenatal vitamins. They were unable to tell me why my body didn’t naturally miscarry however I had to have surgery done to remove the fetus.

This was my second miscarriage. So now along with everything else I worried about (stress being another thing that can cause complications in pregnancy) I plan to start trying to get pregnant again I have to also worry that I now have a 90% chance of delivering prematurley?

Kat
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 02:37 pm: [report]

“Could it have anything to do with the demographic of women that typically get abortions? Just a thought… maybe there’s a link between women that choose to abort, and women that choose not to take care of themselves when they decide to have the children?”

There is SO MUCH that is wrong with this statement, statistics aside. There IS no group of women that “typically” get abortions. It’s a false dichotomy.
If you mean the STEREOTYPE of the drinking, smoking, promiscuous, single gal, then you really have NO IDEA of who is actually having abortions.

resullins
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]

@Kat: Well then it’s a damn good thing you came in 3 months after the conversation ended to tell me that I’m wrong… without any proof of your own.

You’ve completely made me see the light. And you’re right, I have NO idea who’s having abortions… I’ve only been through one, my mother two, and three of my college roomates. God, I’m so STUPID, talking about something I’ve never seen.

I made no references to a stereotype, but I will not believe that this study was purely medically based. There are other variables linking these groups, there has to be. But @writergirl is right, I can’t quantify my statements simply because this article doesn’t give me the facts I need to research. But frankly, neither can you, and neither can she. I was merely trying to think outside the box… to show one way this study could be flawed. Until you can prove me wrong by some other means than merely SAYING that I’m wrong, don’t talk.

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable”

snap
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 09:05 am: [report]

people!  this is a peer-reviewed study.  you can get your ass that the authors accounted for all the extenuating factors that you lay people are coming up with from the tops of your heads!  so what if abortion DOES cause future pregnancy complications—that would be a scientific fact.  right now, women still have the right to CHOOSE whether they want that route for their bodies.  abortion is never going to be perfect—pretending like it is does not validate it any better.  appreciate your right to have an abortion, but don’t ignore the real dangers associated with it.  the more facts, the better.

snap
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 09:07 am: [report]

bet your ass*

Kat
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 04:21 pm: [report]

Okay, wow, holy sensitive, Batman.

I too, have had an abortion, so has my aunt and my best friend from high school.

Still, having an abortion doesn’t make one an expert on all women who have had an abortion!

I just don’t think it’s so hard to believe that poking around in the cervix without it being “ready” would cause some problems down the line re: later pregnancy.

When I had mine, I was TOLD this was a possibility, even that of total infertility. I figured I’d take the chances. If it’s a statistic, it behooves us to at least HEAR IT OUT, and be educated on our options. If I then decided to carry a pregnancy to term, obviously if I wanted it I WOULD be taking care of myself, as my aunt did when she had her 2 pregnancies after an abortion. Funny enough, my mother has never had an abortion and yet has had 2 miscarriages. I’d still rather hear the warning than not.

But to actually call women who have miscarriages “women that choose not to take care of themselves when they decide to have the children?” is pretty rotten. Hell, I know plenty of women of all demographics who have had miscarriages.

FWIW, my comment wasn’t meant to be a snotty rejoinder, but you took it pretty harshly!

snap
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 04:00 pm: [report]

well said, kat!

resullins
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 09:00 pm: [report]

@Kat: I didn’t take it harshly, nor did I

call women who have miscarriages “women that choose not to take care of themselves when they decide to have the children?

I merely asked if perhaps there was a demographical, geographical, some connection, between the two groups of women that these people did not take into account. And I got attacked for it. Please read my first post.

People always do studies to prove and/or further their own agenda. Who sponsered this study? Who provided the data? What variables did they take into account? If this study was commisioned by a backer with a Catholic agenda, who’s to say they wouldn’t manipulate the data to do anything they could to keep women from having abortions?

Here’s another question… Hell, I’ll probably get crucified for this, too. But his study took into account a span of 28 years! With all the medical breakthroughs, did he even account for the advances in prenatal care?

All I’m saying is that without ALL factors being taken into account, this study is inconclusive. There could be another link! It’s not only possible, it’s incredibly likely.

theattack
wrote on October 9 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

Wow….. I didn’t see this post this summer or I would have definitely commented on it. I agree with resullins. It’s not insulting to women who have miscarriages or abortions to wonder if there’s a correlation between the two. It’s a lot more dangerous to NOT consider all possible correlations and just push statistics everywhere without thinking it through. But of course we can’t examine every detail of the lifestyles of women who have miscarriages and abortions. Maybe we will have more information to look at in ten years if information about abortions doesn’t continue to be skewed and twisted. But there’s nothing wrong with wondering.

resullins
wrote on October 9 2009 @ 02:21 pm: [report]

@theattack: Thank you! I was starting to think I was a terrible person. I think that all studies are inherently flawed, because they’re always going to be run by people with a bias… and I think this one in particular could be used a propaganda by the far right to scare women out of a choice that they should have.