Misplaced Pages

(undent) We need to reflect the best quality literature. If people are serious in improving this page, grab a recent review article ( email me if you need a copy of anything ) and start improving the article. We are not here to direct science but reflect science. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to show how bad an alternate description can be, even with "pro" in it, (rhetorically!) how about we replace "pro-life" with "pro-enslavement-of-women-to-animals"? After all, not even the most late-term human fetus ever born had more mental abilities than any of many ordinary animals, and to force a woman to carry a fetus to term is to enslave her for the benefit of that animal.... V (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, in the United States, at least, per the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery is legal. It merely requires a crime to be committed, followed by "due process of law", first. So the anti-abortion crowd simply needs to criminalize pregnancy, after which every pregnant woman can be sentenced to childbirth! V (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you be called "pro-camel's-nose"? "pro-red-herring"? Will you stick to what we're actually talking about rather than getting on your soap box to lecture about your views on abortion every time you sit at your computer? (Huey45 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

What you were originally talking about in this section was the claim that "pro-choice" was a faulty/inaccurate description, and should therefore be removed. There's no doubt that the description is politically stilted, just as the label "pro-life" is politically stilted, and I might agree that per the WP:NPOV rules, some alternate labels should be chosen. Nobody has seriously suggested any such labels, though, and many have pointed out that despite the stiltedness of the existing labels, they are widely known and used. In the vein of a non-serious alternate label for "pro-choice", how about "pro-freedom-from-control-by-men-who-can't-pass-their-worthless-genes-on-by-any-means-other-than-forcing-women-to-carry-pregnancies-to-term"? :) V (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on that previous sentence. In Nature the female generally decides what male will fertilize her eggs. This is mostly true even for humans (relatively few cultures still routinely arrange marriages) --and even after marriage, a woman can still decide whether or not her husband will fertilize her eggs; I think the Kinsey Report of the 1940s found that, based on family blood typing, something like 10% or more of all babies born could not have had the fathers specified on the birth certificates. Next, I've read (probably not in RS, though) there are a few cases where a pregnant woman has, through sheer will-power, refused to "carry that man's baby", and miscarried as a result. For all I really know about such claims, perhaps the odds of natural miscarriage simply worked out in "favor" of those few women. If it was true, though, then it might be really interesting to see biofeedback being used, instead of surgery or morning after pills, to terminate pregnancies; they would be utterly indistinguishable from natural miscarriages, to any anti-abortionist!!! The net result of all the preceding is, it is stupid for men to try to control women and their pregnancies. V (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the Pro-choice and Pro-life articles both have separate sections specifically for this issue. All we need is a link to one (or both) within the introduction to this article and that should suffice. See Pro-choice#Term_controversy and/or Pro-life#Controversies_over_terminology. (Huey45 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

I note the controversy sections in both those articles mention the Associated Press as indicating "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" as being more neutral descriptions of the two sides of the debate. Perhaps that would work in this article --or, more exactly, "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights"? Much of the controversy can be narrowed down to arguing over whether or not such a right should exist. If it doesn't, then "pro-choice" is not possible --not quite in the sense that since there is no such thing as a right to violate the law of gravity; choosing to violate it is meaningless-- but political Laws are supposed to be that concrete.... But if the right-to-abort exists, then the anti-abortion crowd has to stop trying to take that right away, and focus exclusively on convincing pregnant women to carry-to-term. Now, regarding the question of whether such a right exists, it will immediately be pointed out that "might does not make right", and so the technical ability to do an abortion does not equate with a right to abort. On the other hand, what of Nature? Miscarriages are Natural abortions! If Nature can do it unthinkingly (even to women who want to be pregnant), why can't it be done thinkingly, by women who don't want to be pregnant? More, Nature (many mammals including humans on occasion) can do something called "fetal resorption" --I'm surprised there is no Misplaced Pages article on that topic. When the environment is unfavorable, a pregnant animal can literally suck the life out of the fetuses she is carrying. http://www.vetinfo.com/dfetsorb.html This is controlled by hormones (triggered by the environmental condition), notably a very low level of progesterone. Anyway, it is to be noted that when a pregnant human woman seeks an abortion, often this can be traced to an unfavorable environment.... V (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion is an issue where we have to look beyond the purely legal situation. While figures are obviously hard to collect, in places where abortion is illegal, plenty of it still tends to happen. There have always been what are known in my country as "backyard abortionists". In most communities, a woman knew were to go to get one done. That means that even when abortion is illegal, a choice still exists. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your statements are basically correct, but they also don't really address my previous point about "might making right". The technical ability to abort does not automatically equal a right to get an abortion. It merely allows people to choose abortions regardless of rights --the anti-abortionists will be the first to say getting an abortion is exactly equivalent to choosing to commit murder just because you have access to a gun. But of course the anti-abortionists are making a couple of unproved assumptions in that analogy. First they are assuming that there is no such thing as a right to abort, and second they are assuming that unborn humans are persons, such that killing those persons qualifies as murder --and incidentally being the reason why there would be no such thing as a right to abort. So far as I'm aware, though, neither assumption has any valid supporting evidence for it, mostly because there is no data at all supporting any claim that a human fetus is in any measurable actuality superior to an ordinary animal (if it is equivalent to an animal in every measurable way, how can it be a person?) --and partly because, as implied in my prior post above, to the extent that Human Law should be consistent with Natural Law, and since miscarriage-type abortions are quite Natural and common.... V (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that simplistic labels are just that, simplistic. OK, one could argue that Pro-lifers are the absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, believing that abortion is never, ever justified, no matter what. Many are not Pro-life beyond the abortion debate. There are those who support the death penalty, and those who support "just" wars. (Some possibly support unjust wars.) Those are anti-life activities. Back on the abortion issue, apart from the aforementioned absolute, extremist, anti-abortionists, there is a continuum of opinions, ranging from those who strongly oppose abortion in almost all circumstances but believe it justified in certain rare situations, to those who believe the mother should always have a choice, no matter what. I'm not sure which of those people are covered by the term Pro-choice. There are those who are strongly opposed to abortion but don't believe governments should be telling them, or anyone else, what to do on a moral issue like abortion. Given that spectrum of opinions, and the inaccuracy of the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice, I don't like seeing them used in an article like this, unless we're simply describing specific organisations that use those terms in their names. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Measuring the "abortion rate"

The article says that "abortion rates" are the same in countries where it is legal and illegal. But there are two ways of measuring the abortion rate: the number of women per 1000 per year who have abortions, versus the abortion to live birth ratio. If you're pro-choice, you'd see the "abortion rate" as being the rate at which women are affected by abortion, but if you're pro-life you'd see the abortion rate as the rate at which embryos and fetuses are affected by abortion. Why does this article A) measure the incidence of abortion in pro-choice terms, and B) not even say that this is how the incidence of abortion is being measured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee. you've used a fine tooth comb on the article to identify that difference. I've read it many times, and again just then, to see what you were talking about, and I can't see it. It probably is there, but you will have to point it out for me. One of my concerns about counts is that methods of counting are bound to vary between countries, and this is a global article. In my country, Australia, numbers of elective abortions are not at all clear because they are included in numbers which contain several other medical procedures. That makes it certain that global figures cannot contain Australia's figures, or if they do, they are wrong. Global figures for abortion is a difficult area. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

When I spoke of the "method of measuring the incidence of abortion," I wasn't talking about data collection, I was talking about how that data is presented. What does this article mean by "abortion rate" - "X number of 1,000 women per year" or "abortion to live birth ratio"? The former is how it would be measured by pro-choicers, and the latter is how it would be measured by pro-lifers. Since the article linked to is from a pro-choice organization, I'm betting on the former. But that's how the pro-abortion side would measure the incidence of abortion, so this part of the article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And you would like it biased the other way? Be very careful about that. Neutrality is what we seek. I understand your point. If we can, we simply need to mention exactly what has been counted in the figures presented. Readers can draw their own conclusions. Telling readers what has been counted, and where, would assist in alleviating my concerns too. No point even giving figures if they aren't truly representative. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I want it to include both the number of abortions per 1,000 women per year and the abortion to live birth ratio. I don't want it to say "abortion rates are the same whether legal or not," because this is a leftist trope and it is based off of the "x number of women per 1000 per year" measurement.

-- Austin Nedved (I didn't have time to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.84.79 (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your goal is fine, but may be hard to achieve. See my earlier comment about actually sourcing these figures at a global level. Feel free to go for it though. As for it being leftist, I think your biases are showing. That's a pretty odd adjective to use in this discussion. I've never seen the abortion issue as a left vs right one. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that when someone says "abortion rate", people would tend to think of the number of abortions carried out in a set time period, eg "abortions per year". Regardless of how this "rate" is determined, it should be completely clear in the article. The most useful figure would be the ratio of births:abortions, since it doesn't get complicated by population size.(Huey45 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the most appropriate figures and measures would be those used by reliable secondary sources. Which are those? MastCell  20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should include both the number of abortions per 1,000 per year AND the abortion to birth ratio. If this article is to be neutral, it cannot favor the pro-choice method of measuring the incidence of abortion over the pro-life method, much less treat the former as though it is the one and only "abortion rate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Nedved (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to be clearer in describing what you feel is a problem. The words "abortion rate" appear exactly once in the article in the section By gestational age and method, and that section contains only the percentages of abortions performed by different methods and at different stages. I see nothing there that relates to measuring an "abortion rate" in the way you describe. The only nearby text that might fit your concerns is "The number of abortions performed worldwide has deceased between 1995 and 2003 from 45.6 million to 41.6 million (a decrease from 35 to 29 per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age)" – is that what you mean? If so, it's sourced to a 2009 review from Shah & Ahman of the WHO, published in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, which explicitly states "Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion". If there are any reliable sources of equally good quality that contradict their conclusion, then I would suggest you bring them here, so we can present both sides of the argument. --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my last few edits I went to the best most recent sources I could find, read it, and starting adding content from it. Thus the 2009 review article from one of the best OBGYN journal in the world ( it has to be good cause it is from Canada ) :-) If you can find other comparisons that refer to other data from an equally good source feel free to add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"After 1973, legalization of abortion led to an approximately tenfold increase in the total number of abortions, though there is some dispute over the prelegalization statistics.". from Misplaced Pages article Abortion_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_legalization It is also a fact that the supply of children available for adoption basically disappeared after abortion was legalized, leading to adoption from other countries (sorry no cite but is easy to confirm).

There may be third world countries were corruption is widespread where abortion laws (and many other laws) are ineffective. They should not be confused with countries with effective law enforcement where legalization makes a vast difference in availability and safety. Tomtul2 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. So many issues. How can the abortion rate be effectively measured when it is illegal? Even though, when I was young, abortion was illegal where I lived (not in the USA, but not third world either), "everyone" knew where to get one. But I doubt if those illegal backyard abortionists kept formal records which they submitted to any national survey. So, no meaningful statistics could possibly exist. That the number of children available for adoption shrank at the time you mention would have been due to many factors, among them the pill, and a greater acceptability of single mothers keeping their babies. Again, very difficult to find meaningful statistics. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage.

The sentence "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage" is junk. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) While the risk to subsequent pregnancies is relatively low, abortion decidedly does impair them. - Schrandit (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't know how many will find your comment, hidden as it is.

Then, your sources are convincing:

1. 2003, admits in intro that previous studies have been inconclusive, then reports on study with 600 subjects
2. MayoClinic, rare but serious risk
3. Denmark, 1999, huge study checking only for pre-term, post-term, after abortion(s)
4. 2003, review showing strong and plausible association and a dose-response relationship indicating causality
5. 1980 in JAMA, concludes "that multiple induced abortions do increase the risk of subsequent pregnancy losses"

This should be more than sufficient to warrant your editing the sentence you refer to as junk. Go for it. - Hordaland (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's three primary studies between 1980 and 2003 (Levin, Zhou, Dhaliwal), a 2003 review (Rooney) and a 2009 expert opinion (Harms). The current sentence is hardly junk because that's what the 2004 Grimes overview says. If we went by the strict rules of MEDRS, then the later secondary source (Grimes) is preferred over any of the four primaries and the earlier secondary. However, I'm not prepared to push that argument. It would be worth searching for a more recent secondary to settle the apparent conflict between the two secondaries – Harms is obviously basing his opinion on something. I'd strongly suggest opening a new section (where this would be more visible) and linking back to here in an effort to seek consensus before making an edit which may be challenged on the grounds I outlined above. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) removing support from Rooney, having read the refs in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - doesn't alter my overall opinion. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis from 2009 is PMID 19301572. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LSD, that's a compelling analysis (even though I can only see the abstract). It looks to me like it settles the issue of the effect of abortion on subsequent pre-term birth, although I will take someone with better medical knowledge than I (that's most of you) to write a good summary. Does anyone know of any recent secondaries addressing the issues of other late sequelae? --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong paper, that one speaks to pre-term birth. PMID 20362515 from 2010 makes it clear that present evidence is inconclusive on the association of various outcomes with distinct methods. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (ref. 4) is not a suitable source for any assertion of medical fact. Despite its generic title, it is the publication of a fringe right-wing political group. It has a very poor track record of correctness and zero scientific currency. It certainly fails WP:MEDRS and should not be cited here. The other sources look reasonable, and we should probably discuss how to best summarize all available sources in the article. MastCell  16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure I can find more sources if needed but right off the bat from google the Mayo Clinic, the American Medical Association and the United States government all say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies. Why do we say it can't? - Schrandit (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we be a bit more careful with our assertions? The American Medical Association says no such thing - you're quoting an article published in JAMA 30 years ago. That's not exactly an AMA position statement, any more than the hundreds of other articles published in JAMA in 1980 reflect the current opinion of the AMA. I would appreciate it if you could clarify your claim that the "US government" says that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies, as I don't see it sourced in this section.

The Mayo Clinic reference () does not state that abortion increases the risk of subsequent miscarriage. First, it completely exonerates medical abortion of any such effect (you seem to have skipped that part). Secondly, it states that surgical abortion can rarely result in uterine scarring which can lead to infertility or miscarriage. Of course, carrying a pregnancy to term and having a C-section can also lead to uterine scarring. The Mayo Clinic piece does not suggest that abortion increases this risk over the baseline associated with pregnancy, unless I'm missing something?

It might be most accurate to say that the results are conflicting; in fact, that's exactly what PMID 20362515 says - it points out the methodologic limitations of published studies, including recall bias, poor controlling for confounders, and the problem of choosing an appropriate comparison group. The authors concluded: "In summary, despite two systematic reviews and several primary studies, the evidence supporting the effects of IA on subsequent reproduction is sparse and conflicting." MastCell  21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"The American Medical Association says no such thing" - so what? The American Medical Association isn't the only one that matters. I thought it was common knowledge that abortion affects future pregnancies. After all, there are numerous studies with this conclusion. In fact, I've never heard anything to the contrary in Australia. User:Schrandit is absolutely right. (Huey45 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

I humbly suggest that that particular piece of "common knowledge" would definitely need a decent reference. My understanding is that an abortion may affect future pregnancies, but in many cases has no such impact at all. But I certainly wouldn't put that in the article without a source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But Schrandit is wrong when he claims that "... the American Medical Association ... say that abortion can impair subsequent pregnancies" - which was the point being made. Are you seriously suggesting that we should write "abortion affects future pregnancies" and cite it to 'common knowledge'? --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am I right to discern 3 key points from the most recent secondaries then?

• Induced abortion (IA) and spontaneous abortion both show an increased risk of subsequent pre-term birth of about 25% for one abortion, or about 50% for more than one. Swingle 2009 Swingle 2009
• Medical abortion shows no association with adverse effects on subsequent pregnancies.
• IA (in general) has conflicting evidence concerning any adverse effects on subsequent pregnancies. Lowit 2010 Lowit 2010

If we could agree what the key points are first, then perhaps someone could suggest an improved/expanded version of "Abortion does not impair subsequent pregnancies, nor does it increase the risk of future premature births, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage", using the later reviews to replace Grimes? Is this a way forward? --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If we want to go to actual position statements of major medical organizations, RCOG states: "There are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility. Abortion may be associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent miscarriage or preterm delivery." . (Not to reopen old wounds, but they also state categorically that "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon."

According to ACOG (): "Most doctors agree that one abortion does not affect future pregnancies." (...and, on an earlier topic, "The risk of a woman dying from giving birth is at least 10 times greater than the risk from an early abortion.") MastCell  00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To touch on a point I've just made elsewhere in this article - When and where abortion is made illegal, it still occurs, usually in less desirable form than where it is legal. These are the abortions that deliver the greatest risks of impairment to the woman and to later pregnancies. I would actually like to see a lot more in the article on the reality that making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It leads to less safe abortions. But figures for illegal activities are obviously hard to collect, and thus sources are not easy to find. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, I'd prefer to leave on one side the issue of legality, as it is obviously such an emotive topic in some places - and only has an indirect effect on abortion. I would prefer to concentrate on giving the issues of unsafe abortion equal weight in the article - as the difference between safe and unsafe has the most direct and dramatic consequences. I'd like to think that it would be possible to write a perfectly good article describing all of the medical issues, using high-quality sources.

In the case under discussion (the effect of abortion on subsequent pregnancies), I believe we have at least three secondary sources laying out the facts for safe abortion and I'd like to see us developing the article to reflect those. I would also like to find good quality sources addressing the issue for unsafe abortions, but agree these may be harder to find. I don't think that searching for sources on sequelae of unsafe abortion should stop us working on improving the text concerning safe abortion in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something about miscarriages, which are Natural abortions, might also be appropriate in that discussion. It is my understanding that a fairly high percentage of women who have multiple children experience a miscarriage during those years. And so far as I know, except where the "RH-factor" thing is relevant, those miscarriages do not affect the ability of those women to have other children. Note that from the evolutionary standpoint, it most certainly is beneficial to a species for its female members to be able to experience miscarriage and still have offspring... so mammals have had millions of years to adapt to miscarriages, with humans benefiting thereby, with respect to abortion! V (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Swingle 2009 does consider spontaneous abortions (SA) in the review and gives approximately the same odds-ratios for subsequent preterm birth as exist for induced abortions (IA) - sorry I used acronyms in the key points above (I've expanded them now for clarity). Do you have any reviews in mind that lead you to your views on miscarriage not affecting future pregnancy in general? If so, they would be worth including. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a page that talks about miscarriage statistics: http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/f/miscarriagestat.htm It seems I wasn't mistaken; if a woman has several pregnancies, the chances are fairly high that one will miscarry. That page doesn't say much about pregancies after miscarriage, but taking the statistics at face value, we might say that if a woman has 5 pregnancies, 1 might miscarry; if she has 10 pregnancies, 2 might miscarry, and so on. Meaning that the miscarriages didn't change the rate of non-miscarried pregnancies. This link: http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm has this quotable thing on it: "An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages. The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time."

Next, anyone who knows basic stuff about evolutionary theory knows that any factor that can allow an organism to have more offspring tends to enhance the survival of that organism's species. It very simply and logically follows that if we examine two pregnant females, and one has trouble breeding after a miscarriage, while the second doesn't (or has less trouble), then the second will probably have more offspring and pass on the genes that allowed her to have less trouble breeding, after a miscarriage happens. The logical result, after enough generations, is that the rate-of-trouble, after a miscarriage, would go down all across the species. Here's a page that talks about evolution and mentions miscarriages (though not quite in the same way I just wrote): http://perette.barella.org/Science/evolution.html

A humorous aspect regarding the preceding is an alternate interpretation for biology, involving Creationism. We are told that the human species is at the pinnacle of Creation, and therefore it should logically follow that humans should have various traits that must be at least as good or better than the equivalent traits of other animals. If so, then it also logically follows that human females should generally have an excellent ability to have normal pregnancies after a miscarriage! (Which the data in this case supports, heh!) V (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't see anything in the sources you gave that speaks to the issue of whether having a miscarriage increases the likelihood of a subsequent miscarriage. You're making the assumption that the probability of future miscarriage is unaffected by a previous miscarriage to get the "2 out of 10", and then using that to confirm your assumption. If the overall probability of miscarriage is 0.2 (say), then it would still be true to say "The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time", even if the previous miscarriage increased the probability to 0.3 (say). The source doesn't have the information to allow us to distinguish between no effect and a 50% increase! I also found it troubling that http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm contains the three statements "There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year"; "More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage", "Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage", which I have difficulty reconciling. Additionally, I wish evolution were that simple; if it does such a good job (either from a Darwinian or Creationist point of view), then I'd expect humans to produce their own vitamin C, as almost every other mammal does. As it happens, we don't – and I'd like to know whose bright idea that was.

Anyway, look at Bhattacharya 2009: "A previous miscarriage is known to increase the likelihood of a subsequent pregnancy loss" although that shows the difficulties in quantifying the increased risk. For a fuller review of effects of previous miscarriage, see RGOG's paper: "The key findings were that women who had a miscarriage in their first pregnancy had a higher risk of adverse outcomes in their next pregnancy compared both to women who had a successful first pregnancy and women pregnant for the first time". There's plenty in those two papers alone to fill out a couple of sections, although I'm unsure how much detail belongs here and how much should really go into the article Miscarriage. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You ignored what I said about "at face value", which referred to all pregnant women, instead of the subset that had experienced abortion (not to mention the quote I pulled out of the second link). OF COURSE having a miscarriage automatically puts a woman into the smaller subset, which includes all those women who practically always will have a miscarriage (say, because of the RH-factor thing, among other reasons). Also note that in many countries the total birth rate has dropped in recent decades; that means a lot of women can beat the general statistics simply by not having any pregnancies after the first or second--which again reflects poorly on those who have enough pregnancies that a miscarriage is almost a certain thing. Regarding Vitamin C, this is one of those pieces of evidence that Evolution not Creation is the correct explanation; primates lived in trees for so long, where fruits containing Vitamin C were common, that the genetic machinery (read: "extra baggage") could be dropped without penalty (earlier ancestors did have those genes). Basically, humans penalized themselves by moving awy from those trees --without, of course, knowing the consequences.... I'm all in favor of using Genetic Engineering technology to put those genes back (after which, after World War III, any survivors will forget that WE did it, and when they invent Science all over again, the Creationists of that far future era will gleefully point out the human ability to make Vitamin C, while no other primate has it, as evidence of a Designer, heh!!!) V (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought what you meant by "at face value" was "1 in 5" implied "2 in 10" for the same individual, which of course relies precisely on the independence of a repeated event from its predecessors. About 1% of women have recurrent (>2) miscarriages, so obviously multiple mechanisms are at work, but the bare data doesn't allow us to draw conclusions on what mechanisms are at play. I'd agree with you on the probable mechanism of loss of vitamin C production in primates (since the only other mammal with the same problem is a fruit bat), and I was very amused by the thought of future ID-proponents seizing on human genetic modifications to justify their stance. Thanks for that. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you think about the equally amusing other side of that coin? If centuries after WW3 our civilization becomes as mythical as Atlantis, then what might the Atlanteans have done that today's ID-proponents blame on a Creator? :) V (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)