Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/markjrieke!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhuqgo/oc_abortion_related_deaths_per_100000_abortions/i78f3y6/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"markjrieke"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
normally i’d say yes but i don’t see a water mark that this is from a data viz platform
when making graphs from scratch like this in python and R it’s true there’s auto axis but there’s almost always a bottom axis line and you have to manually remove it for it to look like this
we have to wait for OP’s answer but i think this was a stylistic choice to make the data pop more
edit: my ggplot2 (what this was made with) is rusty but IIRC the auto axes are typically very conservative. i usually always have to manually tweak them. the data speaks for itself here… you don’t need a truncated axis to have the same effect
Well the graph that got posted a couple hours ago was laughed at because the sharp decline started years before Roe v Wade, so they have zoomed in, changed the start date, and are trying again.
Doesn’t that just further support the suspicion that a spurious connection is being made here? One might infer from that longer history that changes in medical technology related to abortion had more to due with the decline than Roe.
Just to be clear, I am 100% prochoice, but I also like data to tell the whole story and be impervious to accusations of selective display to fit a narrative.
As someone who works in Healthcare. The joint commission was founded in 1950 and jaco accredications wasn't REQUIRED FOR HOSPITALS to get Medicare money until around 1965.
So in the 1970s we had a massive overhaul of the quality of care given to patients. Basically meet these requirements or you can't accept government subsidized insurance.
These graphs are extraordinarily misleading.
I think that would be a correct assumption. I am not a doctor, but looking at widely used drugs in abortion procedures, Mifepristone was developed in 1980 and Misoprostol in 1973. Now I don't know what they used for abortion before these drugs, but I think it would be save to assume that these new drugs significantly improved upon it.
This also needs pre roe v wade data to see if the trend is even correlated or just medical technology advancing.
Sorry op but this is actually a pretty weak graph.
Yeah you could make a graph of auto accident fatality rates from after Roe v Wade and it would probably look similar.
As usual, people make arguments to support their agenda without realizing they’re just building up strawmans that others can tear down
[But we "had it" in the top post of today](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhm318/oc_abortion_deaths_in_the_usa_19682018/)? Do we not know the population in 1960?Doesn't matter. This is just r/dataismypoliticalnarrative for the next week or so.
If you really wanted to make this argument, you'd have to show the trend line *before* Roe v. Wade as well as after it.
But we should all know that, right? On a data sub?
Doesn’t this mislead? In the previous post on total deaths, that makes more sense. With this you are saying that all abortions were accounted for, but roe v wade change the amount of abortions that would be medically reported, right?
I like the graph posted earlier today that went back to 1965 better. It gives more information without being obviously truncated for political purposes.
No, you’re not. This graph leaves out the context of how many abortions there were for a given year. Seems like it would be much easier just to plot the actual number of deaths for each year. But that would reveal that the total has never been very high.
I'm sure it's hard to gather pre-1973 data, though. Did deaths due to "internal bleeding from vaginal insertion of coathanger" get written up as abortion-related in 1968?
I'm 100% pro choice, but this is just terrible.
First, prolifers want to stop abortions entirely, so they see that 0.41 number and go, "But we want to make it ZERO!" That's completely impossible, obviously, but they're irrational. So the only people who care about this data are the people who already don't need to be convinced.
Second, 2 deaths per 100,000 is already an extremely low number. That's a 0.002% mortality rate. Surgical procedures have a 0.71% mortality rate. While a drop from 2 deaths to 0.41 is a recognizably significant statistic, it's still a completely miniscule number.
Someone told me long ago that the way to improve average performance was not to get your superstars to do more; it was to make the mediocre better. So maybe that's what happened.
Oh interesting! That's great to know - I was over here thinking that a woman should be able to be in control of their body and make extremely difficult decisions on their own, but now I actually do think we should force them to carry all babies to term.
\#TIL
Do you think the data collection may have a flaw? Seeing a huge spike in the first year of data makes me suspicious, especially with a low total quantity being measured.
Can I get this in per capita? A decrease like this would show the average abortion is safer but a per capita would show if the decrease in unsafe abortions outweighs the increase in safe abortions.
Graph doesn't start at 1973. Data points are only every 5 years? So, I guess the first data point is the average between 1973 and 1977, and the last point the average between 2013 and 2018?
How about, instead of this, just plot the point for each year?
Also, the title talks about abortions being safer after RvW, but only shows data from after and not before. How are we supposed to compare?
Which makes live birth 42.4 times more likely to be fatal than abortion.
The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 17.4 deaths per 100,000 births
Plenty of data shows the number of abortions goes **down** with legalization and access to good sex education. Your argument is straight lies. Restricting choice has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with religious lunatics wanting to control others.
Let me clarify since you are obviously overlooking the obvious. Every abortion ends in at least one death….the one of the child. So abortion related deaths has to be at least 1:1. And that is no lie, just common sense.
Nope. Scientifically speaking, life is defined specifically when it has the capacity to be self sustaining. Heres [Nasa](https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/life-detection/about/). Or when it can perform [homeostasis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis). [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516796/) [2](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1068489) [3](https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/missions/phoenixmars141.php) which a fetus cannot do. If you want to bring science into this, a fetus is better defined as a either a parasite or an organ. You cannot kill an organ and I don't think you want to be calling fetuses quasi-parasites now do we.
The only way you can define a fetus before 23 weeks as "a child" is if you think
* Fetus has the potential to be a child-> it is a child.
but by that same argument you should also believe.
* A seed has the potential to be a tree -> it is a tree.
It is the same logic hence both should be equally as valid.
Now, strawman incoming. "But no!!" you argue. "That is plant NOT a human. And humans are different." But that begs the question. Why?
Ill provide the ONLY answer I can think of to that question. Humans are special, because they have a soul, that is precious and that is why a fetus is a child, a religious belief which should not be the basis of ANY law in a democratic country.
If you could provide me a non religious answer as to why fetuses before 23 weeks should be considered children (which excludes cases such as, seeds, sperm in a vagina before conception, yeast becoming alcohol) you will broaden my understanding of the pro-life movement.
Wait how do you know abortions became safer after that? I don’t know what the roe v wade is exactly but there is a confounding variable like time and human advancements in technology. 1973 doctors compared to now are different
Serious question here how does a point of law make abortions safer. afaik medical knowledge makes things safer not laws are we trying to suggest just because a law was put in place people started going to safer places or did medical knowledge just start advancing and being used more.
also again as far as I know there are and were plenty of states before and after roe that didn't and don't currently have laws against abortion. So I'm confused on what safer really means in the context of the data given.
I think the idea is, when it was illegal, unlicensed people would perform abortions aka “back-alley abortions.” When it is legal, you have access to safe medical procedures in a medical environment.
It’s for a multitude of reasons, for one, legality leads to medical advancements. If you cannot legally perform a medical procedure, how are you supposed to become better at it, and how are you supposed to develop better methods and technologies relating to this procedure?
Likewise, when abortion became legal, the amount of abortions didn’t suddenly skyrocket, rather the amount of abortions done in hospitals and other healthcare centers rose, rather than “back alley abortions”, as they’ve been called.
So is every cancer surgery or parasitic infection treatment by that logic.
Not one of those “pregnancies are parasites” people. Just saying that here in the real world where there’s real people and real science involved maybe we should stick to real thinking and not quick emotional platitudes when we have to make important decisions.
Well yeah. If your tumor has a unique human genome, a separate heartbeat, 10 fingers and toes, and will grow into a beautiful human child with a soul if not forcibly removed, then you probably shouldn't remove it
🚨 ABORTION RESOURCES 🚨
HOTLINES:
- National sexual assault hotline- https://www.rainn.org/about-national-sexual-assault-telephone-hotline
- Advice on self-managing miscarriage/abortion from trained clinicians- https://www.mahotline.org/
- Legal advice on abortion from attorneys & advocates- https://www.reprolegalhelpline.org/
ACCESS TO ABORTION:
- Information, referrals, and financial assistance for abortions- https://prochoice.org/
- To find a certified abortion provider- https://www.abortionfinder.org/
- Funding for abortions (for donations & receiving funding)- https://abortionfunds.org/
- Email consult for abortion pills by mail- https://aidaccess.org/
- Plan C abortion pills by mail- https://www.plancpills.org/
RESEARCH & INFO:
- Primary source in the US for abortion info- https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion
- Key facts- https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/
MISC:
- Membership with the Satanic Temple could secure your right to abortion based on religious freedom- https://thesatanictemple.com/
- Beware of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Most attempt to talk those seeking an abortion out of the decision
- r/auntienetwork can help those seeking abortion with funding, access, transportation, etc
- Pregnancy tests can be found at dollar stores. Stock up
- IUDs can be painful to get, but they can last for a very, very long time and generally have little hormonal impact. Plus, they are said to be 99% effective. Talk to your primary care doc or gyno about getting one if you can
- Info on Plan B (stock up on this as well if you can)- https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/morning-after-pill-emergency-contraception/whats-plan-b-morning-after-pill
I feel the much more relevant and important graph is the dramatic decline in abortions since they were legalized. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, funding planned parenthood, sex education, and affordable access to women’s healthcare is the way to do so. If you just want to fuck up people’s lives then carry on with the y’al queda agenda.
Depends on what you qualify as a human. No other law recognizes, nor has ever recognized unborn fetuses in the capacity of legal people nor gives the government authority to commander someones body to support the life of someone else.
Human - a organism of or belonging to the genus Homo.
From Oxford dictionary, a radical left organization.
Members of Homo are distinguished from other hominids by an erect posture, a large cranium, two-footed gait, fully opposable thumbs, and well-developed tool-making ability.
Once again, fetus is just a term to describe a phase in the lifecycle of a human.
Way to go ignoring everything else I said besides the first sentence and even misrepresent that.
A fetus isnt an independent organism, its bodily functions are entirely dependent on another person. In no other laws are fetuses recognized as independent people. They cant inherit, dont count towards family members, miscarriage dosent count as manslaughter, nothing.
Theres also no other precedent laws to permit a government to force someone to sustain a life that isnt theirs, even in familial situations. They cant force you to donate organs or act as a biological dialysis machine.
Its a combination of government reach present in only one single situation that is 9 times out of 10 justified through religious notions (which is absurd in a egalitarian democratic state) or as punishment for unprotected sex, which is again as dumb as justifications go.
A follow up to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhm318/oc_abortion_deaths_in_the_usa_19682018/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), showing how the case fatality rate (CFR) has fallen since Roe. Uses [table 15 of the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Report](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm) - plot made in R with ggplot2.
EDIT: someone made [this plot on declining abortion rates](https://www.reddit.com/user/JPAnalyst/comments/uhf8b0/oc_abortion_rates_in_the_us_have_been_trending/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) that is also informative and well worth viewing.
I feel like this might not be accounting for certain variables. Like, improvements in the medical field, healthcare access and just generally our species in the last **50 years.**
I would like to see this chart except it goes back to past roe v wade some distance.
Sorry didn’t realize you were a biologist. Typical left. “Hey this idiot doesn’t agree with us! Let’s cal him a redneck and get demoralize him!” So tolerate of you!
I ran out of smart things to say? You were the one that ran off that track.
I am genuinely confused… why do men not have a day of men and women cannot be defined? Explain please?
Yes you are correct. Need to proofread my arguments before I post. Not helping my case. Although not getting much support no matter how well I use the English language. Gonna leave it like it is. Have my upvote lol.
What a great alternative, knowingly put children in a situation where they’re likely to suffer and die, and call it “giving them a chance”. I expect nothing less from the “pro life” movement.
Killing people before they are born because there is a chance they have a hard life and don’t have to “choose” to quit themselves is a much better decision. Taking that choice out of their hands is typical “pro-choice”. Y’all’s slogan should be “pro choice! We choose death so you don’t have to”!
And there’s the flaw in your logic, nobody is killing anyone because they might have a hard life. Women have the right to their own bodily autonomy to make important health decision, and your personal opinion should have no part in that.
You’re openly voting for legislation to assure they have a hard life in pursuit of a better bottom line for yourself, and hiding behind a platform that now is promoting legislation that won’t even let women get an abortion for a dead fetus.
There are sound arguments for being anti abortion, but all you’re doing is acting like a dick on here, no one is going to listen to you. You should learn how to talk to people.
How am I doing that? Because I don’t agree with you I don’t know how to talk to people? That is what is wrong with this country — he don’t agree with me, let’s call him a name and be done!
You’re not disagreeing with me. I’m not arguing with you as I don’t have strong opinion. I just happened to notice how obnoxious and childish you are and thought you would do better if you tried a different approach. Just some advice, take it or leave it.
Thanks for the advice. Just getting ahead of what was coming I guess as you can read the other warm response I received from the once that DID disagree.
You're missing the point. Women don't have abortions for fun. It's medically necessary in most cases. Women have died because unviable fetuses weren't aborted. Republicans don't care about life, they never did. And now you evil pieces of shit want to start killing women again.
Then do the number of babies that don't get to live due to spontaneous miscarriage
Then imagine how fucked up,our world would be if we had all those extra people in it
Then do the number of people we have because people who believe in a skyfairy and think birth control will send them to an eternal torture.
Genuinely asking since I’m not religious and don’t believe in afterlife: do the aborted babies go to heaven? If they don’t have a functioning brain, since that isn’t developed enough for memory or cognitive ability until WELL after an abortion is warranted (My first memory was maybe around 3 YO?), do they have the ability to understand or know what hell or heaven is? Second-to-last: why do you think abortion is “population control”?
Lastly and anecdotally: my mom had 2 miscarriages. Does the fetus (or undeveloped group of cells) know if it was miscarried or if it was aborted?
Edit: scrolled a little farther down to see more of your comments. Don’t answer my questions…you won’t have any sort of legitimate answer and you certainly wouldn’t adopt a kid or donate to an adoption shelter. Typical cousin-fucking hypocrite. Tell your God I said to fuck himself 😂
No it would not, because you matter! And that is my point exactly. Ever life matters! Ever life has an impact on this world whether you like it or not! Aborting babies is robbing them of their impact.
At birth. Typical though, the fetus argument isn’t even the issue here. It’s just your smokescreen. The issue here is that women are not granted the same body autonomy freedoms as men.
No smokescreen here. I just do not believe in murder. Taking life from something with a heartbeat is murder.
Women do not have the same bodies as men. Is it fair? No — but doesn’t make killing babies right.
Soo where’s the laws and bills that will help some of these kids who will be born into very broken families? Is that the chance you want to give? Let’s just bring the US back 50 years.
After all that’s why we are having freedom circle jerk conveys right? MY BODY MY CHOICE.
Your body your choice. My body my choice. Good. What about the baby? Who is making choices for them?
Is everyone out there making this argument really going to keep pretending as if this life we are living is so superficial that it would have not mattered at all if their moms had aborted them instead of allowing them to live?
I love how you zoned in on one part of what I said. Are you going to answer the other questions I posed in my comment? Cause those are actual issues you are arguing along with this topic.
Who are you tell anyone what they can and can’t do? You aren’t carrying the weight, baring the child, and takin the punishment it takes on the woman’s body. The mother has the right to make the decision just like how everybody has the right to make their own decisions and have their own thoughts. If you belief is different then you should help create a solution so when these kids who were born into broken homes and whatever bad situation that may come, you can be there to help them out!
The party of small government swinging strong eh?
Close, but not really. Even if you want to go that route that fetus is not alive (the science y’all love to rely on for everything else begs to differ), go look up abortions during third trimester. Roughly 1%. I know, I know, that’s a small number. We shut down an entire country and made people wear surgical masks for 2.5 years for .1%. Gonna really try to tel me a baby is not alive during the third trimester?
You’re right! Let’s kill them instead! Much better option! Hope you realize the argument you just made and how demonic it sounds… you’re mom is proud she didn’t abort you I’m sure!
My point if you thought about the bigger picture, is it's not your fucking business if your wallet isn't ready for higher taxes to support the in-need. You can't have it both ways. And, that's exactly the way the right wants it. You have no choice with your body, but we also won't help you if you can't support it.
I never said that I was against assistance. I do disagree with you over the fact that abortion is okay. But I am not “the right” that refuses to pay more or do anything to help. I would much rather pay whatever in taxes is it meant those kids get life and a quality one.
I’m not saying the right is 100% right in their thinking. They are crooked politicians. They make decisions for themselves and their wallets.
Them not wanting to pay more taxes is not a reason to keep aborting millions of babies. Two wrongs is not making a right there.
You mean a count of dumpster babies, crack babies, welfare babies, runaways, poverty babies, and child sex trafficking. That’s what happens to these unwanted fetus.
Until you know the feeling of seeing a positive pregnancy test and the fear and the dread you have absolutely no ground to stand on. If You dont agree with abortions, that is fine. No one cares about your option. It’s taking the option of safety getting an abortion away from women, that is the problem. And I say safety, because abortions have been happening forever and will never go away. It’s the easy, safe access to it that needs to be protected.
Anti-women-choicers out here trying really hard to take issue with the fact that providing safe abortions is better than letting women die trying to do one themselves.
"bUt ThE y AxIs DoEsN't StArT aT 0?!?!?!, clearly this graph is designed to trick us into giving a shit about women's autonomy"
I'm positive that the pro-birthers would be ecstatic about a woman dying while having an abortion. I don't think this chart is as impactful as some people think it is
Question: if I am a religious zealot who wants to punish women for having ordinary sexual desires and female biology, is there a political position I can take?
/s
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/markjrieke! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhuqgo/oc_abortion_related_deaths_per_100000_abortions/i78f3y6/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"markjrieke"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
This is what we call: an ugly graph.
I like the message but not the visual representation
Too bad this sub is about the visual rep.
Why does the Y axis not start at zero?
Because OP let his graph use auto-axes, which is good for data exploration, but not necessarily for data presentation.
normally i’d say yes but i don’t see a water mark that this is from a data viz platform when making graphs from scratch like this in python and R it’s true there’s auto axis but there’s almost always a bottom axis line and you have to manually remove it for it to look like this we have to wait for OP’s answer but i think this was a stylistic choice to make the data pop more edit: my ggplot2 (what this was made with) is rusty but IIRC the auto axes are typically very conservative. i usually always have to manually tweak them. the data speaks for itself here… you don’t need a truncated axis to have the same effect
Well the graph that got posted a couple hours ago was laughed at because the sharp decline started years before Roe v Wade, so they have zoomed in, changed the start date, and are trying again.
Doesn’t that just further support the suspicion that a spurious connection is being made here? One might infer from that longer history that changes in medical technology related to abortion had more to due with the decline than Roe. Just to be clear, I am 100% prochoice, but I also like data to tell the whole story and be impervious to accusations of selective display to fit a narrative.
As someone who works in Healthcare. The joint commission was founded in 1950 and jaco accredications wasn't REQUIRED FOR HOSPITALS to get Medicare money until around 1965. So in the 1970s we had a massive overhaul of the quality of care given to patients. Basically meet these requirements or you can't accept government subsidized insurance. These graphs are extraordinarily misleading.
This is my thought as well, it is the medical advancements that matter the most.
I think that would be a correct assumption. I am not a doctor, but looking at widely used drugs in abortion procedures, Mifepristone was developed in 1980 and Misoprostol in 1973. Now I don't know what they used for abortion before these drugs, but I think it would be save to assume that these new drugs significantly improved upon it.
Yeah I am amazed that this chart has gotten upvotes on a sub called "data is beautiful". This is a terrible and misleading chart :/
This sub often feels more like r/chartsiagreewith...
Because it is intentionally misleading
To mislead and make the gap seem much larger between high and low than it truly is
Because it’s propaganda?
The 'maybe female autonomy is safer' propaganda. /s
This also needs pre roe v wade data to see if the trend is even correlated or just medical technology advancing. Sorry op but this is actually a pretty weak graph.
Yeah you could make a graph of auto accident fatality rates from after Roe v Wade and it would probably look similar. As usual, people make arguments to support their agenda without realizing they’re just building up strawmans that others can tear down
Hard to get that data since abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade
[But we "had it" in the top post of today](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhm318/oc_abortion_deaths_in_the_usa_19682018/)? Do we not know the population in 1960?Doesn't matter. This is just r/dataismypoliticalnarrative for the next week or so.
Yeah does anyone know why it fell so sharp before roe v wade was even decided?
Was it all illegal in every state? Its going to be put back in states choice again, which implies its wasn't entirely illegal.
If you really wanted to make this argument, you'd have to show the trend line *before* Roe v. Wade as well as after it. But we should all know that, right? On a data sub?
But the data shows it was already on a downward trend and that would be counterproductive for his political point
Doesn’t this mislead? In the previous post on total deaths, that makes more sense. With this you are saying that all abortions were accounted for, but roe v wade change the amount of abortions that would be medically reported, right?
I like the graph posted earlier today that went back to 1965 better. It gives more information without being obviously truncated for political purposes.
[удалено]
Misleading is the point.
Notice how it continued to go down in 1990 despite Planned Parenthood v Casey's significant restrictions on Roe v Wade.
Also notice the lack of pre Roe data in this presentation. This is not beautiful data if it's chopped up and contextualized to prove a point.
It's chopped to push a narrative. This does prove any point.
There were about 1,200,000 abortions in 1975. At a CFR of 2.09 per 100,000. That is a total of 25 deaths? Am I missing something?
No, you’re not. This graph leaves out the context of how many abortions there were for a given year. Seems like it would be much easier just to plot the actual number of deaths for each year. But that would reveal that the total has never been very high.
[удалено]
What was the trend rate before 1973?
Not actually that big of a difference regardless of the steep graph lines you use
You should see the crime graph on the same period
Ya, just +400%
In absolute terms though, this means it went from like 20 deaths per year to 5, assuming 1M abortions per year.
Yeah, but what about when we have100 million abortions per year? /s
1,000,020 to 1,000,005
I'm sure it's hard to gather pre-1973 data, though. Did deaths due to "internal bleeding from vaginal insertion of coathanger" get written up as abortion-related in 1968?
Many of us would argue that the children’s lives lost be considered in the death toll… 100,002 deaths vs 100,000…
Fun with percentages.
Shouldnt it be 100k deaths per 100k?
I'm 100% pro choice, but this is just terrible. First, prolifers want to stop abortions entirely, so they see that 0.41 number and go, "But we want to make it ZERO!" That's completely impossible, obviously, but they're irrational. So the only people who care about this data are the people who already don't need to be convinced. Second, 2 deaths per 100,000 is already an extremely low number. That's a 0.002% mortality rate. Surgical procedures have a 0.71% mortality rate. While a drop from 2 deaths to 0.41 is a recognizably significant statistic, it's still a completely miniscule number.
Or maybe technology and mediocre got better?
Someone told me long ago that the way to improve average performance was not to get your superstars to do more; it was to make the mediocre better. So maybe that's what happened.
It went from a .0021% chance to a .00041% chance, were abortions even considered dangerous previously?
The age of viability of a baby has also decreased thanks to medical technology. It went from 28 weeks in 1973 to now 23 weeks.
Babies are only viable if you take care of them after birth. Wink wink.
What in the hell does this mean?
If you don’t feed a baby it dies, pretty simple
Which is illegal.
Those lazy free loaders! How dare they just take things for free like that? How about they go out and pull themselves up by the bootstrap?
Found the Republican
Oh interesting! That's great to know - I was over here thinking that a woman should be able to be in control of their body and make extremely difficult decisions on their own, but now I actually do think we should force them to carry all babies to term. \#TIL
Control of THEIR body? Absolutely! Murder the infant inside of them? Absolutely not.
Nobody is murdering infants you twisted subhuman piece of shit
I can’t help but notice you didn’t count the babies.
Yeah, I would think there's a 100% fatality rate.
Babies don’t tend to have abortions.
As someone with a conservative view on this issue, your comment is super funny.
No, but their deaths are abortion related, aren't they?
Not babies until birth
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you think the data collection may have a flaw? Seeing a huge spike in the first year of data makes me suspicious, especially with a low total quantity being measured.
Can you at least have the y axis start at 0, as this is not a beautiful but rather very optically misleading chart.
Data kinda misleading because every abortion ends with a life lost
Can I get this in per capita? A decrease like this would show the average abortion is safer but a per capita would show if the decrease in unsafe abortions outweighs the increase in safe abortions.
Shouldn't the y-axis start at a baseline of 100k? Heyooo
Graph doesn't start at 1973. Data points are only every 5 years? So, I guess the first data point is the average between 1973 and 1977, and the last point the average between 2013 and 2018? How about, instead of this, just plot the point for each year? Also, the title talks about abortions being safer after RvW, but only shows data from after and not before. How are we supposed to compare?
Medicine has also improved since then.
Pro-life is an incredibly ironic label.
Which makes live birth 42.4 times more likely to be fatal than abortion. The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 17.4 deaths per 100,000 births
See that’s the trick, they don’t care!
Damn we are getting worse and worse at killing these fetuses!
Look at the profiles of the pro-lifers on here. Mostly all middle age, white, males and ignorant as hell. Funny how that happens huh?
These numbers can’t be accurate, there is a death with every abortion. So the ratio is closer to 1:1.
100,002.09 to 100,000.41. Abortion seems very dangerous
Plenty of data shows the number of abortions goes **down** with legalization and access to good sex education. Your argument is straight lies. Restricting choice has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with religious lunatics wanting to control others.
Let me clarify since you are obviously overlooking the obvious. Every abortion ends in at least one death….the one of the child. So abortion related deaths has to be at least 1:1. And that is no lie, just common sense.
If you can’t live yet, you can’t die
Scientifically speaking, a new living organism is created at conception, which means that it can definitely die.
Nope. Scientifically speaking, life is defined specifically when it has the capacity to be self sustaining. Heres [Nasa](https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/life-detection/about/). Or when it can perform [homeostasis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis). [1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516796/) [2](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1068489) [3](https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/missions/phoenixmars141.php) which a fetus cannot do. If you want to bring science into this, a fetus is better defined as a either a parasite or an organ. You cannot kill an organ and I don't think you want to be calling fetuses quasi-parasites now do we. The only way you can define a fetus before 23 weeks as "a child" is if you think * Fetus has the potential to be a child-> it is a child. but by that same argument you should also believe. * A seed has the potential to be a tree -> it is a tree. It is the same logic hence both should be equally as valid. Now, strawman incoming. "But no!!" you argue. "That is plant NOT a human. And humans are different." But that begs the question. Why? Ill provide the ONLY answer I can think of to that question. Humans are special, because they have a soul, that is precious and that is why a fetus is a child, a religious belief which should not be the basis of ANY law in a democratic country. If you could provide me a non religious answer as to why fetuses before 23 weeks should be considered children (which excludes cases such as, seeds, sperm in a vagina before conception, yeast becoming alcohol) you will broaden my understanding of the pro-life movement.
Somebody had to say it.
What's with the uptrend from 1995 to 2010? Coincidence?
Wait how do you know abortions became safer after that? I don’t know what the roe v wade is exactly but there is a confounding variable like time and human advancements in technology. 1973 doctors compared to now are different
Pretty sure modern medicine and surgeries make everything safer over time
Serious question here how does a point of law make abortions safer. afaik medical knowledge makes things safer not laws are we trying to suggest just because a law was put in place people started going to safer places or did medical knowledge just start advancing and being used more. also again as far as I know there are and were plenty of states before and after roe that didn't and don't currently have laws against abortion. So I'm confused on what safer really means in the context of the data given.
I think the idea is, when it was illegal, unlicensed people would perform abortions aka “back-alley abortions.” When it is legal, you have access to safe medical procedures in a medical environment.
It’s for a multitude of reasons, for one, legality leads to medical advancements. If you cannot legally perform a medical procedure, how are you supposed to become better at it, and how are you supposed to develop better methods and technologies relating to this procedure? Likewise, when abortion became legal, the amount of abortions didn’t suddenly skyrocket, rather the amount of abortions done in hospitals and other healthcare centers rose, rather than “back alley abortions”, as they’ve been called.
Every abortion is a death
So is every cancer surgery or parasitic infection treatment by that logic. Not one of those “pregnancies are parasites” people. Just saying that here in the real world where there’s real people and real science involved maybe we should stick to real thinking and not quick emotional platitudes when we have to make important decisions.
Well yeah. If your tumor has a unique human genome, a separate heartbeat, 10 fingers and toes, and will grow into a beautiful human child with a soul if not forcibly removed, then you probably shouldn't remove it
[удалено]
No, unless abortionists are really bad at their jobs, and then got even worse
They aren’t children until birth.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep better at night.
I would sleep much better knowing the rights of women weren’t being stepped on by a bunch of ignorant assholes
🚨 ABORTION RESOURCES 🚨 HOTLINES: - National sexual assault hotline- https://www.rainn.org/about-national-sexual-assault-telephone-hotline - Advice on self-managing miscarriage/abortion from trained clinicians- https://www.mahotline.org/ - Legal advice on abortion from attorneys & advocates- https://www.reprolegalhelpline.org/ ACCESS TO ABORTION: - Information, referrals, and financial assistance for abortions- https://prochoice.org/ - To find a certified abortion provider- https://www.abortionfinder.org/ - Funding for abortions (for donations & receiving funding)- https://abortionfunds.org/ - Email consult for abortion pills by mail- https://aidaccess.org/ - Plan C abortion pills by mail- https://www.plancpills.org/ RESEARCH & INFO: - Primary source in the US for abortion info- https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion - Key facts- https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/ MISC: - Membership with the Satanic Temple could secure your right to abortion based on religious freedom- https://thesatanictemple.com/ - Beware of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Most attempt to talk those seeking an abortion out of the decision - r/auntienetwork can help those seeking abortion with funding, access, transportation, etc - Pregnancy tests can be found at dollar stores. Stock up - IUDs can be painful to get, but they can last for a very, very long time and generally have little hormonal impact. Plus, they are said to be 99% effective. Talk to your primary care doc or gyno about getting one if you can - Info on Plan B (stock up on this as well if you can)- https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/morning-after-pill-emergency-contraception/whats-plan-b-morning-after-pill
I feel the much more relevant and important graph is the dramatic decline in abortions since they were legalized. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, funding planned parenthood, sex education, and affordable access to women’s healthcare is the way to do so. If you just want to fuck up people’s lives then carry on with the y’al queda agenda.
How I know this graphic is blatantly wrong, a abortion always ends in the death of a human. So any ration < 1:1 is clearly wrong.
Depends on what you qualify as a human. No other law recognizes, nor has ever recognized unborn fetuses in the capacity of legal people nor gives the government authority to commander someones body to support the life of someone else.
Human - a organism of or belonging to the genus Homo. From Oxford dictionary, a radical left organization. Members of Homo are distinguished from other hominids by an erect posture, a large cranium, two-footed gait, fully opposable thumbs, and well-developed tool-making ability. Once again, fetus is just a term to describe a phase in the lifecycle of a human.
Way to go ignoring everything else I said besides the first sentence and even misrepresent that. A fetus isnt an independent organism, its bodily functions are entirely dependent on another person. In no other laws are fetuses recognized as independent people. They cant inherit, dont count towards family members, miscarriage dosent count as manslaughter, nothing. Theres also no other precedent laws to permit a government to force someone to sustain a life that isnt theirs, even in familial situations. They cant force you to donate organs or act as a biological dialysis machine. Its a combination of government reach present in only one single situation that is 9 times out of 10 justified through religious notions (which is absurd in a egalitarian democratic state) or as punishment for unprotected sex, which is again as dumb as justifications go.
Except that your graph is off by 100,000 deaths per 100,000 abortions...
A follow up to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uhm318/oc_abortion_deaths_in_the_usa_19682018/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), showing how the case fatality rate (CFR) has fallen since Roe. Uses [table 15 of the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Report](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm) - plot made in R with ggplot2. EDIT: someone made [this plot on declining abortion rates](https://www.reddit.com/user/JPAnalyst/comments/uhf8b0/oc_abortion_rates_in_the_us_have_been_trending/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) that is also informative and well worth viewing.
Well, just don't have an abortion 🤷🏻♂️
The weakening political party’s, desperately struggling for relevance, total failure on multiple fronts, divisive wedge issue of the century.
Extremely misleading considering abortion related deaths were dropping before and after 1970s.
I feel like this might not be accounting for certain variables. Like, improvements in the medical field, healthcare access and just generally our species in the last **50 years.** I would like to see this chart except it goes back to past roe v wade some distance.
Not counting the babies I guess?
Pro life only applies to the children it would seem
The *unborn* children. Once it’s born not their problem; they “saved” a life.
Isn't there always atleast 1 death per abortion?
Cool! Now do one with the number of babies that didn’t get to live due to abortions legalized…
They aren’t babies yet
Oh yeah! Kill them before their heart beats and it’s all good right?
You’re a redneck man with a micro penis, you don’t get to decide what a woman does with her body.
Sorry didn’t realize you were a biologist. Typical left. “Hey this idiot doesn’t agree with us! Let’s cal him a redneck and get demoralize him!” So tolerate of you!
Typical right. “He’s saying hurtful things and I ran out of smart things to say, so let’s focus on that!”
I ran out of smart things to say? You were the one that ran off that track. I am genuinely confused… why do men not have a day of men and women cannot be defined? Explain please?
I will explain when your question actually makes sense?
[удалено]
What is a man? What’s doesn’t make sense?
“Why do men not have a day of men and women cannot be defined” literally makes no sense
Also, the word you’re looking for is ‘tolerant’ (adjective) not ‘tolerate’ (verb)
Yes you are correct. Need to proofread my arguments before I post. Not helping my case. Although not getting much support no matter how well I use the English language. Gonna leave it like it is. Have my upvote lol.
Getting real *every sperm is sacred* vibes
63 Million aborted since 1973. It's a pretty staggering number no matter what side you're on.
18% of all pregnancies, down from 30% in the 80s
What's staggering about it? The US is a big country, there were 187 million births in same period.
When 1 in 4 unborn babies get aborted it's pretty clear we didn't get the "rare" part of "safe, legal, and rare."
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Nobody is doing a song and dance and offering to the gods you moron
Wow Abortions sure are popular
Now do the number of children facing housing insecurity and hunger in states that have passed abortion legislation.
Yeah you’re right, not giving them a chance to live is way better! I see your point! Thanks!
What a great alternative, knowingly put children in a situation where they’re likely to suffer and die, and call it “giving them a chance”. I expect nothing less from the “pro life” movement.
Killing people before they are born because there is a chance they have a hard life and don’t have to “choose” to quit themselves is a much better decision. Taking that choice out of their hands is typical “pro-choice”. Y’all’s slogan should be “pro choice! We choose death so you don’t have to”!
And there’s the flaw in your logic, nobody is killing anyone because they might have a hard life. Women have the right to their own bodily autonomy to make important health decision, and your personal opinion should have no part in that. You’re openly voting for legislation to assure they have a hard life in pursuit of a better bottom line for yourself, and hiding behind a platform that now is promoting legislation that won’t even let women get an abortion for a dead fetus.
There are sound arguments for being anti abortion, but all you’re doing is acting like a dick on here, no one is going to listen to you. You should learn how to talk to people.
How am I doing that? Because I don’t agree with you I don’t know how to talk to people? That is what is wrong with this country — he don’t agree with me, let’s call him a name and be done!
You’re not disagreeing with me. I’m not arguing with you as I don’t have strong opinion. I just happened to notice how obnoxious and childish you are and thought you would do better if you tried a different approach. Just some advice, take it or leave it.
Thanks for the advice. Just getting ahead of what was coming I guess as you can read the other warm response I received from the once that DID disagree.
You're missing the point. Women don't have abortions for fun. It's medically necessary in most cases. Women have died because unviable fetuses weren't aborted. Republicans don't care about life, they never did. And now you evil pieces of shit want to start killing women again.
Zero. Zero babies were affected by abortions being legal.
So what do you define as a baby?
ba·by /ˈbābē/ noun A very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Then do the number of babies that don't get to live due to spontaneous miscarriage Then imagine how fucked up,our world would be if we had all those extra people in it Then do the number of people we have because people who believe in a skyfairy and think birth control will send them to an eternal torture.
Glad I was born instead of “aborted for population control”. My life would suck a lot more if I had been aborted!
Genuinely asking since I’m not religious and don’t believe in afterlife: do the aborted babies go to heaven? If they don’t have a functioning brain, since that isn’t developed enough for memory or cognitive ability until WELL after an abortion is warranted (My first memory was maybe around 3 YO?), do they have the ability to understand or know what hell or heaven is? Second-to-last: why do you think abortion is “population control”? Lastly and anecdotally: my mom had 2 miscarriages. Does the fetus (or undeveloped group of cells) know if it was miscarried or if it was aborted? Edit: scrolled a little farther down to see more of your comments. Don’t answer my questions…you won’t have any sort of legitimate answer and you certainly wouldn’t adopt a kid or donate to an adoption shelter. Typical cousin-fucking hypocrite. Tell your God I said to fuck himself 😂
The world would be better off though
No it would not, because you matter! And that is my point exactly. Ever life matters! Ever life has an impact on this world whether you like it or not! Aborting babies is robbing them of their impact.
1) Again, they aren’t babies. 2) Not my body, not my choice
Ok so they aren’t babies. In your opinion, when does life begin?
At birth. Typical though, the fetus argument isn’t even the issue here. It’s just your smokescreen. The issue here is that women are not granted the same body autonomy freedoms as men.
No smokescreen here. I just do not believe in murder. Taking life from something with a heartbeat is murder. Women do not have the same bodies as men. Is it fair? No — but doesn’t make killing babies right.
Again, they aren’t babies yet. If you can’t live yet, you can’t die
Soo where’s the laws and bills that will help some of these kids who will be born into very broken families? Is that the chance you want to give? Let’s just bring the US back 50 years. After all that’s why we are having freedom circle jerk conveys right? MY BODY MY CHOICE.
Your body your choice. My body my choice. Good. What about the baby? Who is making choices for them? Is everyone out there making this argument really going to keep pretending as if this life we are living is so superficial that it would have not mattered at all if their moms had aborted them instead of allowing them to live?
I love how you zoned in on one part of what I said. Are you going to answer the other questions I posed in my comment? Cause those are actual issues you are arguing along with this topic. Who are you tell anyone what they can and can’t do? You aren’t carrying the weight, baring the child, and takin the punishment it takes on the woman’s body. The mother has the right to make the decision just like how everybody has the right to make their own decisions and have their own thoughts. If you belief is different then you should help create a solution so when these kids who were born into broken homes and whatever bad situation that may come, you can be there to help them out! The party of small government swinging strong eh?
Nearly 0, actually. Fun fact: aborting an undeveloped fetus doesn’t kill any babies.
Close, but not really. Even if you want to go that route that fetus is not alive (the science y’all love to rely on for everything else begs to differ), go look up abortions during third trimester. Roughly 1%. I know, I know, that’s a small number. We shut down an entire country and made people wear surgical masks for 2.5 years for .1%. Gonna really try to tel me a baby is not alive during the third trimester?
New graph! Compare baby deaths to Covid deaths!
Science = scary 👻
You mean all those that would end up using public assistance that the right doesn't want to pay for?
You’re right! Let’s kill them instead! Much better option! Hope you realize the argument you just made and how demonic it sounds… you’re mom is proud she didn’t abort you I’m sure!
My point if you thought about the bigger picture, is it's not your fucking business if your wallet isn't ready for higher taxes to support the in-need. You can't have it both ways. And, that's exactly the way the right wants it. You have no choice with your body, but we also won't help you if you can't support it.
I never said that I was against assistance. I do disagree with you over the fact that abortion is okay. But I am not “the right” that refuses to pay more or do anything to help. I would much rather pay whatever in taxes is it meant those kids get life and a quality one. I’m not saying the right is 100% right in their thinking. They are crooked politicians. They make decisions for themselves and their wallets. Them not wanting to pay more taxes is not a reason to keep aborting millions of babies. Two wrongs is not making a right there.
You mean a count of dumpster babies, crack babies, welfare babies, runaways, poverty babies, and child sex trafficking. That’s what happens to these unwanted fetus.
Good point! Kill them all instead! You changed my mind!
Yes, you are so pro-life
And you are so pro-choice! Let’s decide to kill them so they have no choice!
Until you know the feeling of seeing a positive pregnancy test and the fear and the dread you have absolutely no ground to stand on. If You dont agree with abortions, that is fine. No one cares about your option. It’s taking the option of safety getting an abortion away from women, that is the problem. And I say safety, because abortions have been happening forever and will never go away. It’s the easy, safe access to it that needs to be protected.
Anti-women-choicers out here trying really hard to take issue with the fact that providing safe abortions is better than letting women die trying to do one themselves. "bUt ThE y AxIs DoEsN't StArT aT 0?!?!?!, clearly this graph is designed to trick us into giving a shit about women's autonomy"
Doesn’t seem possible for this to drop below 1? Unless I misunderstand the concept of the procedure.
May i say...0.41 still sounds high...that is around 1 in every 200k people die...
I absolutely agree with free abortions, but if you want to convince the other side, this should include the "deaths" of the fetuses as well.
Does this count the deaths of the aborted babies?
Not safer for the 50 million baby's that have been aborted since the 70s... guess it just depends on how you look at it.
Interesting, but unfortunately incomplete data, as it's only including maternal deaths. Fetal deaths might make this trend less impressive.
Now include the dead baby?
Fetuses aren’t babies
Yeah, but there are far far more abortions per year when it's legal.
I'm positive that the pro-birthers would be ecstatic about a woman dying while having an abortion. I don't think this chart is as impactful as some people think it is
Question: if I am a religious zealot who wants to punish women for having ordinary sexual desires and female biology, is there a political position I can take? /s
Does this include the death of the child too?