Without some enlightening explination of how they arrived at that number, the figure is just so utterly ridiculous I don't know whether to laugh or be angry. The only explination for them is if they are counting things such as use of the morning after pill.

The study counted only "induced" abortions (I quoted the relevant paragraphs from the findings, the study in its entirety can be found online at www.thelancet.com).

The first problem is not that the study was flawed, its that the person reporting on it for the Guardian or wherever the article was doesn't know how to calculate rates.

The second problem is that Broadsheet "reporters" have an embarrassing tendency to regurgitate numbers without any critical thought -- I mean who in their right mind would report a "9 out of 10" figure like that, and not go hunting for the study to see what the source data said? Jesus, I don't even write for an internationally-read website and it took me all of five minutes to get into the text of the study on the Lancet's site and start looking at the numbers.

The third problem is the failure of readers of *any* study to apply averages with any kind of common sense. If the average number of abortions a woman has in her lifetime is "0.9" then doesn't that make you think that this is purely computational?

Maybe Talking Barbie *was* right -- "Math is hard!"

The study does get granular on a regional level, looking at abortion rates in developing regions versus western, and then also regionally within those areas (i.e. North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, etc.) They also explain how they define "developing" areas, so there is further context for their findings. Not surprisingly, there are pockets of extremely high rates (Eastern Europe has the highest then China, IIRC) and pockets of very low rates (Western Europe and North America).

It's an interesting study. Registration is free on their website (I am not a shill for the Lancet, by the way!) and there are a number of other articles in this current issue discussin maternal-fetal health in addition to that report.

Maybe you should re-read the entire thread. I made plain to the another Anonymous from the beginning that I wanted him to stick to the subject and discuss the Philedephia rape victim.

I have read the entire thread. You took one paragraph totally out of context of the larger point that poster was making, and turned it into its own "argument" -- which argument that poster was not actually making. He (I assume it is a "he", I could be mistaken) was using a literary device known as HYPERBOLE to make a point.

The post I responded to had seven paragraphs. Only one addressed the issue of rape that I could tell. The rest are rants about Broadsheet and blogrolls.

In point of fact, that paragraph didn't actually address the issue of the Philly rape either. It was part of a larger argument against Broadsheet's particular style of "journalism" -- or at least the style espoused by a few Broadsheet bloggers, there are a couple in the mix who are more rational and sensible, and who also cop to their errors when they are pointed out.

So I quoted the one about rape in which he says he doesn't care about the rape victim and that she probably deserved it. He says he doesn't care because she is not his gender.

Again, the poster was using hyperbole to illustrate his opinion on the absurdity of blogs such as Feministing, etc., who also engage in their own brand of hyperbole to make their points, legitimate or not. He wasn't actually talking about the case itself.

Maybe you find that an excusable statement, but I don't find it an excusable statement in ANY context. Unless perhaps you think it is equally okay to say "I don't care about those genocide victims because they are not my race."

In any context? Really?

You must have had a very, very difficult time in your Lit classes in college, given the fine examples of hyperbole, satire, and irony that comprise the canon taught by most colleges (Fielding, Pope, Sterne, Swift, Browning, etc.). That assumes you've already been to college. I think by your lack of ability to read in context, you're not of an age to have been to college yet. Unless you're doing it on purpose, which means you're just kind of a dope.

Since you chimed in here KitchenGirl, tell us how you feel about the Philly prostitute who was raped at gunpoint? Do you think she deserved it?

Nope.