The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> second half of response to Paul

second half of response to Paul
Posted by Habibi (Guest) - Sunday, August 29 2004, 8:09:22 (CEST)
from USA Educational - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

xxx The statistics you posted, show that a lot of women are choosing abortions because of economic necessity: Inadequate finances 21%

xxx The rest of those statistics were:
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%
Average number of reasons given 3.7

xxx If 1.3 million abortions take place in this country per year, then 1% in your statistics actually represents 13,000 pregnancies in this country alone (see power point presentation on-line: http://www.csulb.edu/~nmatza/powerpoint/abortion.ppt ).

xxx 8% of the women are “too young; not mature enough.” From the experience I’ve had in that internship I mentioned earlier, I know that we’re talking about teenagers. How can you expect a teenage girl to take care of a baby in this society? “Not ready for responsibility” can mean a lot of things – not able to afford having the child, included.

xxx Interestingly, 3% of women abort primarily because the fetus has health problems. That could be an indication of the mother’s inability to take care of the fetus’ medical problems, as well.

>Whether or not abortion is legal will NOT keep a woman from having an abortion.

It has been historically proven that, contrary to NARAL lies, there were very very few back alley abortions when abortion was illegal.

xxx Please cite the source you are paraphrasing. From the abstract of an article I posted earlier: “History documents that women determined to exercise control over their reproductive choices will do so, even if this means opting for dangerous illegal abortions. Laws cannot suppress abortion practices. All they can do is make abortion more or less safe and costly” ( http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/wwwboard/msgs/Here_s_an_abstract_of_an_article_about_abortion-1AUh.html ).

>Making abortion legal does allow for pregnant women who choose to have it to receive medical care of this nature in a more sanitary environment.

The abortion industry has very successfully fended off all efforts to regulate it, and all too many recipients of this "medical care" are injured and sent home to die, or if they figure out that something is dreadfully wrong, they still end up having to go get patched up at a regular hospital. Such is the lack of follow-up or supervision in the profit centers that are unethical enough to snuff out babies for profit.

xxx The power point presentation refutes your claim. Also, here’s an abstract of a study for you to read:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Contraception. 2004 Sep;70(3):183-90.
Infection after medical abortion: A review of the literature.
Shannon C, Brothers LP, Philip NM, Winikoff B.
Medical abortion regimens have become widely used, but the frequency of infection after medical abortion is not well documented. This systematic review provides data on infectious complications after medical abortion. We searched Medline for articles written before July 2003 to determine the frequency of infection after medical abortion up to 26 weeks of gestation. We reviewed all articles and extracted data on the frequency of infection from 65 studies. The frequency of diagnosed and/or treated infection after medical abortion was very low (0.92%, N = 46,421) and varied among regimens. Results of this review confirm that, with respect to infectious complications, medical abortion is a safe and effective option for first- and second-trimester pregnancy termination. After accounting for regional variations in diagnosis, there is little difference in frequency of infection among the regimens reviewed. Future studies should report clear diagnosis and treatment standards for infection so that more precise information becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>I've said this before, too: if you truly want to reduce the number of abortions in this country or others to a bare minimum, it can ONLY be done through social reforms that ensure women free birth control, education about their bodies,

You can say it till doomsday and it still won't be true. The incidence of abortion INCREASES where birth control and sex-ed are introduced. This is empiracally observed in real and specific places. They all belong to the same mentality. The object of birth control is neither birth nor control. Sex-ed tries to teach promiscuity without consequences, and that doesn't happen in the real world no matter how hard you utopian fools strive to separate action from consequence through "social reforms". Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood push for those things deliberately to drum up business. I've heard that from the first-hand reports of someone who used to do that.

xxx “Unplanned pregnancies are essentially the result of lack of access to and inconsistent use of contraceptives” (http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/wwwboard/msgs/Here_s_an_abstract_of_an_article_about_abortion-1AUh.html )
“At the same time, evidence is replete, worldwide, that greater access to contraceptives reduces reliance on abortion. An analysis of 11 countries[2] shows that increased contraceptive use and effectiveness leads to reduced abortion rates when other factors—such as fertility—are held constant. In an analysis of trends in Kazakhstan, for example, abortion decreased by 50% as contraceptive prevalence increased the same amount during the 1990s. [3] In Turkey, where the abortion rate declined from a peak of 45 abortions per 1000 married women in 1988 to 25 per 1000 in 1998, an increased use of modern methods of contraception accounted for 87% of the decline in abortion. [4] A study in Bangladesh found that lower abortion rates resulted from access to higher-quality family planning services. [5]” (http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/wwwboard/msgs/commentary_on_the_above_article_from_the_same_journal-16MP.html )

>excellent medical care, and child care (for the impoverished)

Crisis pregnancy centers already help out with this, and the baby gets to live, and far better than being killed, might even be put up for adoption by a family that can provide for him or her.

xxx Read about these centers here: http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/fake.htm

Does anyone really believe that the typical woman entering an abortuary is doing it because she fears she can't provide for health insurance?

xxx If you didn’t have health insurance and couldn’t afford a policy on your own and your wife was pregnant, would you want to have the baby right then? I’m not asking you if you want a baby at all, but if you would want to have a baby at that particular moment in your life. Not having health insurance is one part of the hardship a pregnant single woman may have to negotiate. It may not be the primary reason a woman would give for aborting her offspring, but it certainly can make things difficult. According to one of the studies quoted in that presentation, 18% of abortions are done on married women, the rest are single. So, with a majority of single women experiencing unintended pregnancy, one has to think of what factors could be involved in their decision to abort.

Have we asked ourselves how many women seeking an abortion are impoverished?

xxx According to the data you posted, 21% of the women getting abortions in that study were doing so because of “inadequate finances.” That’s 1 out of 5 abortions. According to the online power point presentation, which quotes many studies, 49% of women who choose to have an abortion make less than $30,000/year in income. Imagine trying to raise a child on only $30,000/year – in many parts of this country it’s quite hard to do, esp. in regions with high cost of living. 29% of the women getting abortions make only $15,000/year. Try raising a child on that, by yourself, anywhere in this country.

>as well as giving rape victims more legal clout.

70% of women who get pregnant in a rape do not abort. First, they aren't the murdering kind so they wouldn't kill a baby in any case. Second, it's psychologically traumatic enough being a victim. Imagine adding the burden of knowing that you're also a violent perpetrator (baby killer), and your own instincts will make that abundantly clear to you in ways that drive you insane. The other 30% are lulled into a life of regret by the "pro-choicers" who don't have to answer for the consequences.

xxx Where are you getting this data?

Sure, rape victims should have more legal clout, but does anyone honestly believe that would reduce the incidence of abortion?

xxx It might prevent 13,000 abortions/year in this country.

xxx On another note, it is interesting that, according to one of the studies quoted in that power point presentation, the majority of abortions are carried out during the first trimester of pregnancy (close to 90%). The rest are carried out, for the most part, during the second trimester of pregnancy. Only 1.4% of abortions are carried out after week 21 of gestation, which is still in the second trimester of pregnancy.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 10239
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?first_half_of_response_to_Paul-5MNf.DQcq.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9