25% of Women Who Have Abortions

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

"An academic study published this month reveals that about 25% of women seeking an abortion had been abused by their partners. The meta-analysis researched and analyzed 74 previous studies from across the world to determine whether there was an association between intimate partner violence (IPV) and abortion. The results show a clear connection between the two, which must be addressed in any culture that offers its women abortion as an option. Women must be helped in the process.

Researchers from the Womenâ??s Health Academic Centre, Kingâ??s College London undertook the meta-analysis and focused on what the World Health Organization defines as IPV: â??â??behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursâ?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners.â??

All studies in the meta-analysis were peer reviewed research studies. The findings, from across six continents, showed there were â??high rates of physical, sexual, and emotional IPVâ?? with women seeking abortions. Often the abuse was cited as the reason for seeking an abortion, as well. The study also found:

â??[W]omen in abusive relationships were more likely to report inability to make autonomous contraceptive choices, partner contraceptive sabotage, and sexual violence, and they were less likely to have informed their partner about the pregnancy or involved him in decision-making about it. Not informing the male partner may then be explicable as a reason to avoid partner involvement or further abuse.â??

These results show a disturbing reality that must be addressed by pro-lifers in order to not only prevent abortion but to save the lives of women in crisis. Repeatedly, the abortion industry shows that it is willing to hide abuse and cover up the agony with which woman suffer. Some examples include these reports from Live Action News on abortion clinics being willing to cover up statutory rape. There was this revelation that the DC Abortion Fund was helping cover up the rape of a minor abused by her father. Just last year Operation Rescue reported on Planned Parenthood helping encourage a minor to cover up her boyfriendâ??s sex crime and get an abortion. And it was only a week ago Live Action News reported on the Indiana abortionist who was on â??hiatusâ?? after failing to report child sex abuse.

The abortion industry is laden with such cover ups, and this research shows the implications are deadly, for the baby and potentially the women as well. The study says:
â??Good practice obligates that termination services should have robust policies for ensuring womenâ??s safety and confidentiality, providing information and referral pathways for those who disclose IPV, and exemplar guidance exists.â??

One of the best solutions for women in a crisis pregnancy situation is a life-affirming pregnancy care center. As the name implies, these centers are designed to care for all of the pregnancy, not just to save a baby at the expense of the mother. True pregnancy care centers offer counseling and in many cases provide women with resources or referrals to safe places where they can carry their pregnancy to term without coercion to abortion or fear for their own lives. These same centers exist to help women make the best choices not only for their babies but for their own lives.

In a culture that worldwide shows one in every four women having an abortion has been abused by her partner, regardless of oneâ??s opinion on a right to abortion, it is irresponsible not to provide help to the woman in crisis, not just a suction device into her uterus. That creates more problems than it solves for a woman traumatized by abuse"

http://liveactionnews.org/25-of-women-who-have-abortions-are-also-abused-study-finds/

2

From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as â??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursâ?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd

3

jnd -

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say? My three TBIs throughout life do not help either ; )

4

[quote]jnd wrote:
From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd[/quote]

I agree thoroughly with you, but as much as I find it intensely annoying, it may be instructive to look at the abstract itself. Writers are notorious for not understanding statistics. Some are, indeed, notorious for manipulating them but there is a wide contingent of people who do not understand them at all.

I’m not sure but I’d wager that disconnection of stalking from IPV criteria as measured in the US would drop the US to the UK’s levels +/- in the quote you posted

The statistics discussed in the abstract may prove a bit less convoluted.

[quote]Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.

A systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database’s inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.[/quote]

5

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd[/quote]

I agree thoroughly with you, but as much as I find it intensely annoying, it may be instructive to look at the abstract itself. Writers are notorious for not understanding statistics. Some are, indeed, notorious for manipulating them but there is a wide contingent of people who do not understand them at all.

I’m not sure but I’d wager that disconnection of stalking from IPV criteria as measured in the US would drop the US to the UK’s levels +/- in the quote you posted

The statistics discussed in the abstract may prove a bit less convoluted.

[quote]Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.

A systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database’s inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.[/quote][/quote]

Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

6

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd[/quote]

I agree thoroughly with you, but as much as I find it intensely annoying, it may be instructive to look at the abstract itself. Writers are notorious for not understanding statistics. Some are, indeed, notorious for manipulating them but there is a wide contingent of people who do not understand them at all.

I’m not sure but I’d wager that disconnection of stalking from IPV criteria as measured in the US would drop the US to the UK’s levels +/- in the quote you posted

The statistics discussed in the abstract may prove a bit less convoluted.

[quote]Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.

A systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database’s inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.[/quote][/quote]

I agree that the stalking makes the comparisons difficult, but all of the papers they included in the meta-analysis used different measures of IPV.

My point was that only certain stats were being highlighted- while others were being intentionally ignored… The same story as usual from this particular group of fanatics.

I am sure that you are aware of how they insist that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer based on one methodologically flawed study…

jnd

7

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd[/quote]

I agree thoroughly with you, but as much as I find it intensely annoying, it may be instructive to look at the abstract itself. Writers are notorious for not understanding statistics. Some are, indeed, notorious for manipulating them but there is a wide contingent of people who do not understand them at all.

I’m not sure but I’d wager that disconnection of stalking from IPV criteria as measured in the US would drop the US to the UK’s levels +/- in the quote you posted

The statistics discussed in the abstract may prove a bit less convoluted.

[quote]Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.

A systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database’s inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.[/quote][/quote]

Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]

So are pro planned parenthood sites. The point was to say that there are always two possibilities for causes of statistical screw-ups in science articles, and that a large chunk of writers on ANY subject simply don’t get statistics, not necessarily lying per se. Same with posters who link to stuff.

8

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:
From the same article:

“Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behavioursÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? encompassing both current and past intimate partners [1]. Estimated prevalence varies globally and within countries, and is partly dependent on definition and methodology; lifetime exposure has been found to range from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia (estimated by WHO multi-country studies), has been estimated at 24% in the UK based on UK Home Office crime statistics [2], and has been estimated to be around 35% (inclusive of stalking) in the US [3].”

So the IPV of women who get abortions (24.9%) is identical to the UK rate and 10% lower than women in the US.

I dislike it INTENSELY when people intentionally misuse stats to prop up their own personal views.

jnd[/quote]

I agree thoroughly with you, but as much as I find it intensely annoying, it may be instructive to look at the abstract itself. Writers are notorious for not understanding statistics. Some are, indeed, notorious for manipulating them but there is a wide contingent of people who do not understand them at all.

I’m not sure but I’d wager that disconnection of stalking from IPV criteria as measured in the US would drop the US to the UK’s levels +/- in the quote you posted

The statistics discussed in the abstract may prove a bit less convoluted.

[quote]Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.

A systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database’s inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.[/quote][/quote]

I agree that the stalking makes the comparisons difficult, but all of the papers they included in the meta-analysis used different measures of IPV.

My point was that only certain stats were being highlighted- while others were being intentionally ignored… The same story as usual from this particular group of fanatics.

I am sure that you are aware of how they insist that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer based on one methodologically flawed study…

jnd
[/quote]

I was not aware of that. I don’t pay attention to this stuff until it’s brought to my attention. All writers in any subject highlight certain stats while ignoring others. That’s why they are not scientists (and in point of fact even scientists do this at times).

I am not a fan of meta-analyses (and am a frequent critic), although I do submit that IF you can deconvolute the data it is about the only way to make statistical analysis of disparate experiments or adjacent fields of study feasible without tons of time and money (neither of which will outright guarantee a superior result, only more time taken).

I really despise the fact that I can’t seem to find anything except for the abstract/summary of this thing. The PLoS summary does not indicate search criteria or detailed methods, which makes a critique of the paper impossible.

9

So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]

10

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]

I’m just pointing out you’re a doofus who will automatically believe anything that supports your worldview.

11

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not sure that I understand the choices here. It seems to me that they are not mutually exclusive. Couldn’t you slaughter innocent people by boiling them alive?

In my view, slaughter has to do with the number of victims and the method. Boiling is just one way of having a slaughter.

What are the other options?

jnd

12

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not sure that I understand the choices here. It seems to me that they are not mutually exclusive. Couldn’t you slaughter innocent people by boiling them alive?

In my view, slaughter has to do with the number of victims and the method. Boiling is just one way of having a slaughter.

What are the other options?

jnd[/quote]

What about firing them out of a cannon? Or launching them out of a trebuchet?

Will those work??

13

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not sure that I understand the choices here. It seems to me that they are not mutually exclusive. Couldn’t you slaughter innocent people by boiling them alive?

In my view, slaughter has to do with the number of victims and the method. Boiling is just one way of having a slaughter.

What are the other options?

jnd[/quote]

What about firing them out of a cannon? Or launching them out of a trebuchet?

Will those work??[/quote]

IRON MAIDEN…

jnd

14

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]

This makes no sense at all. Plus once they are removed from the womans body they are unable to sustain life on their own so the boiling or any other action is a bit unnecessary don’t you think?

15

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So please tell me how you can ever justify the slaughter of an innocent person. Or do you believe boiling them alive is a better option?

[quote]therajraj wrote: Anti-abort site articles generally are wrought with misinterprations of data and even outright lies.

I would always be highly skeptical with this stuff.

[/quote]
[/quote]

How can you justify supporting positions (decreasing access to contraceptives) that LEAD to the slaughter of as you say an “innocent person.”

If being pro-choice is wrong then being pro-life and wanting to enact policies that will lead to more abortions is doubly wrong. At leas when I say I’m pro-choice I also say I want to enact policies that make the abortion rate as low as possible and only want abortion to be legal so those who choose it can be safe and we don’t do it in back alleys where the mother may also die.

You actually are for policies that are DEMONSTRABLY destructive to decreasing the abortion rate.

16

[quote]therajraj wrote:

What about firing them out of a cannon? Or launching them out of a trebuchet?

Will those work??[/quote]

Firing them off tied to rockets is almost the same as cannons. Just more metal.

Just sayin’.