An interesting article re: abortion

anonemouse · October 12, 2007

Abortion rates same whether legal or not - Women's Health - MSNBC.com

Thoughts? Feelings?

gadgetlady · October 12, 2007

The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Follow the money.

anonemouse · October 12, 2007

The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Follow the money.

And your point is? What, is a "Save the Rainforest" organization supposed to do research on abortion? Research is only done by the groups and scientists interested in the results. You can't completely disregard information, just because you don't like the group doing the research. Believe me, there are few scientists out there willing to risk their reputations by doing shoddy research. When you look for jobs in the scientific community, people look at both the reputation of the groups you've worked for in the past and the quality of the work you've done. You don't get much advancement if you've got a crappy reputation when it comes to the quality of your work, even if you graduated from Harvard, Columbia, or Yale.

Marimaru · October 12, 2007

That's actually about what I thought it would be. I've often said that the women who are going to have abortions are going to get them no matter what.

My personal view is that I could never have one, but I would also never presume to tell anyone else what they should do.

WASaBubbleButt · October 13, 2007

My personal view is that I could never have one, but I would also never presume to tell anyone else what they should do.

I agree completely.

anonemouse · October 13, 2007

I agree completely.

Yup. Although, I can't say never. After all, I've never been in a position where I had to make the decision between abortion and birth, so I can't say for certain that I would never decide to have an abortion. I'm not going to tell a woman she can't have an abortion when I don't even know what I would choose, if I were in her position.

green · October 14, 2007

I personally found this article very interesting and it is being covered in the Canadian media. I found the comment that although the overall number of abortions has dipped from approx 46 million in 1995 to under 42 million in 2003 there has been no change in the rate of illegal abortions.

The writers surmise that this is likely because many of the same countries who do not permit legal abortions also provide women with poor or no access to contraception. Indeed, it is noted that nearly 97 percent of all unsafe abortions took place in poor countries. Of course what these stats indicate is that women will choose to have abortions, whether they are legal and safe or not. What these stats also indicate is that women do feel trapped and burdened by their fecundity and they sure do need a way out. Birth control is the best answer. Access to a safe and legal abortion is also important; this is the only fall back or fail safe position for women.

The statistics for Western Europe and North America are interesting. In Western Europe there is about 12 abortions for every 1,000 women whereas on this side of the Atlantic there are about 21 abortions.

It is interesting to me that they make a distinction between Eastern and Western Europe with respect to these statistics. The researchers note that there are 105 abortions for every 100 live births. I had read years ago that the Communist countries had bankrupted themselves by directing their resources towards beefing up the military, investing in space research and star wars technology. This meant that civilian life was very grim and was filled with shortages. One of the things which was specifically mentioned was that contraceptives were almost impossible to obtain. Abortions, however, were easy to obtain, were safe, and were free. This is why women who lived in the Eastern block countries relied on abortion as their method of birth control. Interesting to hear that this is still going on.

gadgetlady · October 15, 2007

There are some very compelling arguments in this article. I've highlighted some pertinent points:

Worldwide Illegal Abortion Study Relies on Bogus and Biased Statistics

by Steven MosherOctober 12, 2007

The abortion fundamentalists at the Alan Guttmacher Institute have an ax to grind. Guttmacher styles itself the "research arm of Planned Parenthood," but it may more properly be called its lobbying arm.

In its new report on abortions worldwide, Guttmacher makes several claims. These fall into two broad, overlapping categories. The first consists of ploys to raise more funds for the population control-abortion crowd. The second, intended to pander to radical feminists, consists of veiled pleas to legalize abortion, couched in the form of arguments.

Guttmacher claims that the number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. "Significantly, the abortion rate for 2003 was roughly equal in developed and developing regions ... despite abortion being largely illegal in developing regions."

In actual fact, neither Guttmacher nor anyone else knows how many abortions have been performed worldwide in this year or any other year. Guttmacher's numbers may be reasonably accurate for countries with socialized medicine, like Great Britain, where accurate records are kept. But for other developed countries, like the United States, they are at best educated guesses. Abortion may be legal, but its proponents have kept it deliberately shrouded in secrecy.

As far as the numbers given for the developing world, they are simply bogus. Take the case of Columbia, for example. In the hysteria surrounding the effort to legalize abortion there, the feminists kept advancing higher and higher numbers. The numbers of illegal [hence "unsafe"] abortions spiraled upward at a dizzying pace--250,000, 300,000, 450,000. All fantasy.

I interviewed the Vice Minister for Health of Columbia on September 28th of this year. She informed me that, since the legalization of abortion in that country on May 10th of last year, the Ministry for Social Protection's health clinics had performed approximately 50 abortions. Not 50,000, or 5,000, or even 500. Fifty. This is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted.

Why, you may ask, does the Guttmacher crowd play fast and loose with zeros? Because they are deliberately exaggerating the magnitude of the problem in order to create a "health crisis." After all, the more women they can claim have "unsafe" abortions, the more women they can claim die as a result. The numbers are merely chips in a high-stakes poker game to legalize abortion-on-demand worldwide.

Another Guttmacher claim is that the number of abortions has "fall[en] most where abortion is broadly legal." "On the whole, the abortion rate decreased more in developed countries, where abortion is generally safe and legal on broad grounds ... than in developing countries, where the procedure is largely illegal and unsafe." This statement is speculative at best, since there are no hard numbers where clandestine abortions are concerned. Again, Guttmacher invents absurdly large numbers of "unsafe abortions," which then enable it to claim that the abortion rate plummets with legalization (and the collection of real statistics).

"We know, and the new evidence confirms yet again, that the best way to make abortion less necessary is to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place." Or so says Guttmacher. Yes, well, in China the number of abortions has declined from 15 million to only 9 million, not because of the wider availability of contraceptives, but because so many women have been sterilized. The same is true in Vietnam and several other countries which have seen government-run sterilization campaigns.

Guttmacher's final claim is that "unsafe abortion remains a major global health challenge." Dr. Sharon Camp, president and CEO of the Institute, maintains that " ... we know that the crucial first step in making abortion safer is to legalize the procedure, ensuring that it is performed by skilled providers under the best possible conditions. It's high time for policymakers worldwide to renew their commitment to women's health by addressing these crucial issues."

Legalized abortion is never "safe" for the baby being aborted, of course. Neither is there any reason to assume that the legalization of abortion will instantly bring medical facilities up-to-date and start money pouring into rural clinics. Abortion, legal or not, is an invasive medical procedure with the potential for many complications and health risks.

This is Guttmacher's first global review of abortion since 1995, perhaps because its numbers the first time around were so risible that they were disinclined to attempt it again. But with pro-aborts in the Congress determined to kill the Mexico City policy, and to give money to International Planned Parenthood Federation and other abortion-performing groups, it probably seemed like an excellent time to trot out the same old tired arguments.

green · October 15, 2007

That's actually about what I thought it would be. I've often said that the women who are going to have abortions are going to get them no matter what.
My personal view is that I could never have one, but I would also never presume to tell anyone else what they should do.

The information contained in the article which Laurend has provided indicates exactly that: that women who are going to have abortions will have them no matter what.

While I am entirely pro-choice I think that it might be useful to examine the situation of those women who live in poor countries and who have no access to legal abortion or contraceptive techniques. We have all seen newscasts shot in these terrible regions of the world, the ones beset by grinding poverty, civil war, ill-health, famine, over-crowded refugee camps, and despair. Moreover, AIDS is endemic in heterosexual Africa.

When a woman who lives under conditions of grinding poverty and gross societal dysfunction finds herself pregnant she finds herself in deep trouble. She likely already has a number of starving children whom she is trying to look after. She herself is likely already badly malnourished at the very least, and she is probably sick. Carrying on with her pregnancy would further disable this woman and might possibly result in the deaths of both her and her new baby. The family which she already has will then be left without their mother, her love, and her protection. This in turn diminishes their chance of survival. It seems logical to me that these women are going to risk abortions if that is what it takes for her to save herself and the kids which she already has.

Now let us speculate about the role of abortions in an area which is a little more arcane. As you know, in many Muslim cultures there is this cult of honour killing. This means that if a female member of the family has been raped - something which obviously not her fault - one of the male members of her family must kill her in order to get the honour of family back. I should tell you that we have had a few of these killings in Canada.

I will also tell you that we had in Toronto a plastic surgeon, now retired, who specialised in rebuilding the hymen. Most of his work came from wealthy girls from the middle and far east. Undoubtedly some of his patients had had abortions.

It is my feeling that you folk who are absolutist in your stand against abortion and who elect to maintain this intransigent stand either through your religious adherence or because of your simple love for kids, are certainly fine people in oh so many ways but you are choosing to avoid the realities of this issue. For these poor women described above the chances of survival are grim. Add in a sudden pregnancy and she and her family are looking at disaster city.

And as for the Toronto plastic surgeon who made a living rebuilding virginity (I met him by the way - he reminded me a lot of House) this dude was saving these kids from honour killings.

You must also remember that for some of you it is the absolute belief in your religion which permits you to access the smug sense of absolute moral superiority. I am inclined to think that this business of making moral or ethical decisions is a lot more blurred and it can at times be quite bloody. It certainly ain't as easy as mathematics.

With respect of this business of abortion statistics in the third world, well, there is a whole wealth of tragedy behind those statistics, is there not? And it is highly unlikely that the pro-life gang is going to swoop on in and make things right.

And if this true, and Green figures that it is, this would indicate that the anti-abortion movement does carry with it a certain stench of eliticism, and racism, nicht war? These third world women are women who are engaged in survival on the most basic level. When asking them to do the moral arithmatic of possibly saving one foetus as balanced against the continued survival of the rest of their badly wounded families this kind of logic isn't going to mean much.

I am aware that you, Gadget, have posted material which challenges the findings of the study posted by Laurend. This is interesting but largely irrelevant to me because yours is a complaint which challenges the validity of the numbers cited in Laurend's material.

Numbers aside, I have already found myself engaged in the question of the problems which unwanted fertility can import to those women who are currently living on the cusp, in that uneasy zone between basic survival and possible oblivion.......

gadgetlady · October 16, 2007

It is my feeling that you folk who are absolutist in your stand against abortion and who elect to maintain this intransigent stand either through your religious adherence or because of your simple love for kids, are certainly fine people in oh so many ways but you are choosing to avoid the realities of this issue.
. . .

the anti-abortion movement does carry with it a certain stench of eliticism, and racism, nicht war?

I have a lot of comments and not a lot of time -- so I will only make one. Pro-lifers do not turn a blind eye to suffering, hardship, and the problems that an unplanned pregnancy can cause; we are well aware of them. Our position is that we do not believe a society should solve social problems by killing people.

TheGh0st · October 16, 2007

I'm with Laurend, Wasa & Marimaru - I would like to think I would not personally choose an abortion, though until I am in that position it would be wrong of me to assume an absolute stance. Either way, I would never presume to force my own opinions onto others through laws.

lisah25 · October 16, 2007

There are some very compelling arguments in this article. I've highlighted some pertinent points:
Worldwide Illegal Abortion Study Relies on Bogus and Biased Statistics

by Steven MosherOctober 12, 2007

The abortion fundamentalists at the Alan Guttmacher Institute have an ax to grind. Guttmacher styles itself the "research arm of Planned Parenthood," but it may more properly be called its lobbying arm.

You talked about the Guttmacher Institute being biased, then you post something that starts with these statements? It's just as biased IMHO.

gadgetlady · October 16, 2007

You talked about the Guttmacher Institute being biased, then you post something that starts with these statements? It's just as biased IMHO.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The difference is, the Guttmacher Institute quoted numbers and statistics that the average Joe had no way to verify. This article demonstrates the fact that the numbers are either unverifiable or flatly made up. I do completely agree, though, that virtually everyone in the abortion debate has a bias and one must choose who one believes. Based on past experience and the political intent of the Guttmacher Institute and the fact that they don't just research, but they are also a strong lobbying force, I rarely believe anything they say.