A sensitive topic

If you are not from Massachusetts, you may not realize that we are voting for our new Senator to replace Ted Kennedy next Tuesday. The papers have been full of articles for and against each candidate. Today I read something in the Boston Globe where the letter to the editor said "With 25% of pregnancies ending in abortion, I can only support Scott Brown who is against abortion."

Let’s look into these numbers, shall we?

According to the CDC1, in 2005, there were 6,408,000 pregnancies. Of these, there were 4,138,000 live births, 1,206,000 induced abortions and 1,063,000 fetal losses.

The fetal losses refer to spontaneous abortions, often referred to as "miscarriages". So, doing the basic math, there are 64.58% of pregnancies end in a live birth, 18.82% of pregnancies end in an induced abortion and 16.5% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. I had 2 miscarriages. One fell in the "fetal loss" category. The other fell in the "induced abortion" category.

Wait. Did you read that right? Did I have a miscarriage or an abortion? Well, turns out BOTH. I contacted the CDC a while ago and asked, "When you report the induced abortion rates, do these cover abortions with a live embryo/fetus only or also incomplete spontaneous abortions (aka, missed miscarriages)?" The answer bothered me. The answer was "We cannot separate out the differences. The hospitals and clinics report the number of induced abortions that terminate a pregnancy. The state of that pregnancy is not reported".

My first pregnancy was after a long year of trying. We became pregnant. I started spotting. Being paranoid, we went in for an ultrasound. The ultrasound showed a 5w2d baby. The doctor reviewed the results with me. The baby should be 7w by now. And they didn’t see a heartbeat. I remember her drawing a little heart on the piece of paper in front of her. It was the traditional heart shape, not the anatomically correct version. She wanted me to wait a week and come back for a follow up. "it’s too soon to tell" A week later, Jay was in Arizona at a telescope, observing. I went alone. The baby was now 5w2d. It was clear, she had died(no, I don’t know if it was a girl or boy). The next week, it was arranged for me to have a D&E. At the hospital, Jay asked where we had to go. The woman at the front desk was stern and rude. She made me ask where to go because "he might be forcing you to abort this pregnancy". I think I burst into tears. Jay said something to her about this being a miscarriage. I wish I had to balls at that time to tell her to go to hell. I had just lost a child and my body had not noticed. For 3 weeks, it had not noticed.There was a medical emergency that prevented the doctor from coming. When she did arrive, she explained the procedure. I had to sign parental forms for the disposal of my child. Jay was ordered to leave and he was able to return when they brought me awake. It was one of the worst days in my life.

 Was this a miscarriage? Yes, in my mind. Was this an induced abortion? Yes. Medically, there is no difference between this procedure and the procedure if the fetus was still developing. (Yes, I am deliberately not saying "alive" because I know that a 12w fetus can’t live outside of the mother.)

So let’s look at the CDC numbers again.

The accepted rate of miscarriages is 25-30% of all pregnancies.(and it is often thought it is up to 50%, but let’s go with the 25-30%)

So that would be, in 2005: 1,602,000 miscarriages (taking the lower number of 25%). Take away the number of fetal losses, you have 539,000 induced abortions that are probably miscarriages. This lowers the number of induced abortions (with a developing fetus) to 667,000 or 10.4%.

Wow, big difference between 18.82% and 10.4%. (BTW- take the 30% number and you get down to a 5.5% of pregnancies are actually aborted with a developing fetus).

I personally feel that 10.4% is still high. However, there is NO WAY to determine how many of that 10.4% were terminated for medical reasons for the mother or child. I know several people who have done both (some cases, the child was deformed and damaged from a chromosomal defect, others, the mother was dying from preeclampsia). Also, I feel it is a woman’s choice to make and the best thing our society can do is work to lower that number, not criminalize it based on one particular religion.

The thing is, I worry when people use statistics to push their cause without thinking about it. The 25% is an outright lie. 19% I could see being put forward, but once you look into it, 11% is more accurate.  Let’s be rational people here. Numbers are only useful if you understand them. Regurgitating a statistic without looking into what goes in is not rational. Research, learn, be proactive.

I am pro-choice. Again, I state that our society would do better in finding ways to lower the abortion rates instead of punishing doctors and patients. It would do better in accepting that pregnancy complications can actually KILL a mother. It would do better in accepting that depression is a disease and pregnancy and depression can go hand-in-hand and that it can be a medical reason to abort a pregnancy. And for those who feel there is never a real risk to the mother, please read the stats HERE. Again, you should stop, and think about the statistics. What does it mean that 18% of US maternal deaths are caused by this? What are the real numbers? Are we willing to sacrifice women’s lives for a religion? When does the life of the unborn trump the life of the living?

Just some food for thought.

And then the great hand reached out of the sky…

I wanted to share two things today that are sort of related(and a ramble warning. I am not sure where I am going with this…)

The first is a press release from my telescope. This is an AWESOME image in X-rays. 

The second is an opinion piece from Judith Warner, whom I don’t always agree with. 

So..how are these related? I often think about religion and morality. Do they have to be tied together?

Often I see comments on web articles that indicates YES. Atheists have no morals. Atheists reject God, and therefore are among the most evil creatures on the planet. Atheists suck the blood out of small children and want everyone to have abortions (okay, not the first part, but yes, I have seen the abortion accusation). But I disagree.

I believe that people can be good to other people just because it is the right thing to do. I believe that you can have your own sense of morals. I believe that taking a book that was clearly written by other humans to be your moral guide is a little dicey, but as long as you don’t force YOUR morals on ME, to each their own.

It’s that last bit that gets me. Why does my money have to say "In God We Trust"? That is someone else’s morals put on me. And this was added in the last century, which gets me even more upset that it is legislated morals. However, I still use the money. It’s part of our country and I try to deal with it.

What about homosexual marriage? Hey, it doesn’t bother me. But some people’s morals are offended by that. To those people, this violates all of the good things in their marriage (which I don’t understand). Several states have even legislated their morals to prevent people from marrying. Of course, these morals are based on their religion (and one passage in the Bible).

Then again we can’t forget abortion. Many people use this one issue as a black and white litmus test. Either you are with us or against us. On both sides of the debate this happens. It’s not just the people who use religion as their values, its the people who argue that if you are against abortion you are evil and full of hate. This is the grayest of grays in terms of issues. I

We have a lot of strange morals in this country.

Again, many morals are tied to religion. Some are not.

Why does our country have this need to be so black and white? Why do we humans need to see ourselves in everything?

The first link I posted was an image from the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The blue is a pulsar, spinning, excited, the remains of a star. The reddish orange is a cloud that is being energized by the pulsar. Many people see a hand in this image. Why are we automatically seeing ourselves in the heavens? Why do we make God in our image?

The second link is about religious patterns and traditions and if we follow them anymore anyway. Should we? Should we break free from religions?

These are things that make me think. I am pretty close to deciding that I am an atheist. An Atheist with morals. Yes, I am raising my children Jewish. Yes, I see the hypocrisy in that. Yes, I do get a relaxed feeling in either a church or temple or in a park. A spiritual feeling perhaps.

I am pretty sure that we don’t need religion to have morals, but one thing I am sure about…no body is sure about what life means anyway, most of all not me.

A moment on global climate change

May 30, 2007:
On NPR, Michael Griffin, head of NASA had the following to say about global warming.

MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to
assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate,
the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need
to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I
don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the
climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown,
and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings – where and
when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this
particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the
best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather
arrogant position for people to take.

Bastard!
First, it is what many consider “Global climate change”. It’s not just
a warming of the planet, but major climatic changes across the
planet. We are threatening species, both flora and fauna with this
change.

Second, I take offense to the following part of the quote:

“First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to
assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of
history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human
beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding
that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the
best climate for all other human beings.”

Yes, climate changes. We know this. Start with some basics: the
inclination of the earth changes in a cyclic pattern. The eccentricity
of the earth’s orbit changes in a cyclic pattern. The sun has a solar
cycle that changes the amount of energy that is released into space
and hence towards earth. However, let’s look at the TIME SCALES we are
discussing:

Links: Ask a scientist
Axial Tilt of the Earth
The inclination of the Earth: Right now we are at around 23.5 degrees
of inclination to normal. With precession and the tilt changes, we can
actually get the inclination of the earth up to over 24 degrees.
Stop for a minute and think about that. The tropics will
EXPAND and be warmer during those periods. The Earth will warm up. We
are in a low inclination right now. How about the time scale? About
44,000 YEARS.

Link: Orbit of the Earth
The Earth orbits the sun in an ELLIPSE, not a circle. This ellipse
changes in time, about a 21,000 year cycle. The above link describes the
effects on climate much better than I could.

For those who don’t know, the Sun is a star. An active, evolving
star. It doesn’t just sit up in the sky, passive. It is a violent body
and it too undergoes cycles of change. Right now, we are gearing up
for something called “Solar Max”. Every 11 years, (22 if you count the
magnetic orientation of the sunspots), the Sun goes through a cycle of
sunspots. Starting somewhere in the 1200s up to the 1700s, there was a
“Little Ice Age” in the Northern Hemisphere. It
coincides with a period of low solar activity. This is known as the
“Maunder Minimum”. During this time, many people starved due to low
crop production and the economic ruin that followed. See here

Here is of the reconstructed temperatures for the last 1000 years.
Please refer to the wiki page for more details.
You will notice the RAPID increase during the last 70
years. This is the significant issue. We KNOW that greenhouse gases
make a different to our climate. That’s why we call them Greenhouse
gases.

Can you see the start of the run up coincides with the massive
production that the United States started during WWII? Remember that
from history? We got out of the Great Depression from the War. We
started really producing items and then world production took off
after the war.

Take the time to read this article on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.

Climate on Earth can not be stable. It is not that easy. There are
numerous factors changing that. However, Earth is and has always been
in a delicate balance. Too much rain, we can’t grow the food we need
to survive. Too much sun, the same thing can happen. Too cold? We will
need fuel or movement to warmer locales to survive.

It is not that today is the “best climate for all human beings”. It is
that we are seeing a trend of damage to the climate that will take it
out of the safe envelope for humans to survive on Earth. Things are
not as simple as we cut out greenhouse
gas, the climate is stable. However, I find it “arrogant” (to use Mr. Griffin’s
words) to see a trend, see a possible cause, see impending damage
to other species and to do nothing about it.

Yes, there are some scientists who argue that the climate change is
not really caused by human actions. I respectfully disagree with
them. I believe a major contributor the the climate changes we are
experiencing IS human actions. And it is for US, the humans, to
make changes to deal with this.

Ahem, now off my soap box for today….

Tasty, with nutty overtones*

Wow, I am swamped. I thought about taking a break from the blog, but then I figured that I wouldn’t be able to keep quiet. So here I am, posting again.  I have a scientific meeting in 2 weeks. This means I am trying to finish some data reduction and come up with a poster. I think we have run this topic into the ground, so I am planning  to start writing the paper for it soon. That scares the hell out of me.

On Sunday, we planned a nice outing. We went down to the Public Garden in Boston and played with the ducks and geese. It was great fun. A Boston officer came over on his horse and we got to pet the horse. It scared both girls to be that close to such a large animal, but they both touched him.

Luna has discovered squirrels. Yes, squirrels. They are fun to sneak up on and chase.

I’ve know this for years.

Apparently, you can also save a squirrel. Who knew? While Luna was lining up a nice juicy squirrel to chase, so was a hawk. The squirrel must have been going crazy "must stuff acorns in mouth…see predator..see small child…must stuff acorns…shit! that child is still there…ahh! the predator is still there…one more acorn…just one more…"
Then Luna AND the hawk made their move at the same time. While the squirrel ran and defecated at the same time, the hawk had not planned on Luna. The hawk was reaching out with his talons when he suddenly realized that Luna was within arm’s reach and he flew to a nearby tree. Squirrel ran to another tree where he sat on a high branch and panted for several minutes while his tail twitched frantically.

The squirrel was safe, but the hawk was now in danger as Luna turned her attentions on him. "Birdie? Mommy? Is that mail truck birdie?" "no honey, that is a hawk. the mail truck bird is an eagle" "No…that a mail truck birdie…BIRDIE!!! BIRDIE!!!"
The hawk got very nervous and flew off, almost hitting a bicyclist , leaving poor Luna waving saying "Bye Birdie!!!"

At least this is a better squirrel story than when Soleil had a squirrel steal her bagel..in Central Park…


* What I suggested to Jay that the hawk would tell his friends if Luna hadn’t detracted him from his prey**

** I guess I am weird in "Not a good way"