agi-usa.org
Abortion mortality is low in developed countries, where the procedure is usually legal (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions). But in developing regions (excluding China), where abortion is often illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher than in developed countries (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions
applesforhealth.com
Abortion Rates Similar Around The World
The number of women having abortions varies little between developed countries and Third World nations and is not affected by the legality of the procedure or access to it, according to a new study on unplanned pregnancies. Each year, there are an average 39 abortions per 100,000 women of reproductive age in developed countries, compared to 34 per 100,000 in less developed regions, according to an Alan Guttmacher Institute report released today. AGI, based in New York, is a non-profit think tank for health care policies and reproductive issues. "It is surprising that even when abortion is not legal and not safe, women are almost as likely to seek and obtain it," said Dr. Susheela Singh, AGI's director of research and lead study author. "That tells you how strong the motivation is here." The AGI report, "Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide," said of 210 million pregnancies worldwide each year, 38 percent are unplanned and 22 percent end in abortion. Deaths related to complications from unsafe abortions in developing countries run as high as 680 per l00,000 procedures - the rate in Africa - compared to 1.2 per 100,000 procedures in developed nations. "In the poorest countries, women are exposed to the highest risks of death and disability from unsafe, usually illegal, abortion," said Jeannie Rosoff, AGI president. In 86 percent of developed countries, abortion laws are very liberal. However, 25 percent of women worldwide live in developing countries where abortion is either outlawed or permitted only to save the life of the woman. Worldwide, 26 million women have legal abortions each year, and 20 million have the procedure in countries that outlaw it. Singh said the main factors leading to abortions around the world include marital status, access to and ability to use contraceptives, and poor communication between sexual partners. That holds true for the United States, where, despite the availability of contraceptives at relatively low cost, the proportion of unplanned pregnancies is still high at 30 percent. The report is being issued on the eve of the 26th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood Federation President Gloria Feldt said the report provides a "powerful reminder" that the social and medical conditions that existed in this country before legalized abortion are still a reality in many developing nations. "The report provides persuasive evidence that banning abortion and blocking access to safe procedures does not stop women from trying to terminate pregnancies," Feldt said. Singh said, however, the United States is unique in that abortion is so politically and socially controversial, leading to terrorist attacks at abortion clinics and intense lobbying to legally restrict it. "The U.S. anti-abortion fight is stronger. There are a few Latin American countries, such as Colombia and Peru, where imports of (anti- abortion) groups from this country are starting up, but there really is no parallel in strength," Singh said.
-- Copyright 1999 by United Press International All rights reserved. --
Time and again I have stated that illegal abortions are less safe than legal abortions, and that they thus jeopardize the life and health of the mother to a greater degree than legal abortions do. I believe this on the basis of three points:
1). It is very nearly self evident that people doing abortions on their own, or with the underground, do not have legal safety standards to meet, nor would they be expected to have the same competent resources to assist the procedure as are enjoyed by woman in abortion-legal countries with their legal and trained practitioners in health care,
2). As would be expected, reliable statistical research institutes have stated (in interpretation of their data) that illegal abortions are not as safe as legal abortions,
3). The particular data in countries where abortions are illegal, show outrageously high levels of deaths, as compared to those countries where the practice is legal.
In support of (1) I have common-sense combined with a complete absence of contradictory evidence.
In support of (2)-- no-one has provided any data from a reliable statistical research institute (or from any other reliable source) which offers an interpretation of data which is in any way inconsistent with the factual conclusion of point #2.
In support of (3)--no-one has provided a specific instance of country statistics showing that forcing abortions underground is a health benefit to women.
On the above points I have two comments:
1). I have invited you over the course of several posts to provide evidence that would challenge any of my three points, and,
2). You have provided no such evidence.
Given the bizarre nature of your claim and given the fact that you made no attempt to prove it--it is difficult for me to take you seriously; and I have no choice but to question your motivation and to wonder what is keeping you from getting to understand this conspicuous point--to wit, that legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions. You are the only person on this planet whom I have ever heard insisting against this point. It strikes me as equivalent in sense to an argument, say, that water is not wet. To be very honest with you--I have had a difficult time with this.
You also seem to be hung up on my quotes that, "Although women in developing countries are much more likely than women in developed countries to live under restrictive abortion laws, levels of abortion are about the same for both groups", or
"Yet, while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. (In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. Also, Eastern and Western Europe have the world's highest and lowest abortion rates, respectively, yet abortion is generally legal throughout the Continent.", or
"The death rate associated with abortion is hundreds of times higher in developing regions, where the procedure is often illegal, than in developed countries (Table 1). The rate is highest--almost 700 deaths per 100,000 procedures--in Africa."
In response to this you continue to talk about proxies--for example:
"I accepting that abortion is more likely to be illegal in developing countries then developed countries. But that is not enough to make "developing" countries" a good proxy for "countries where abortion is illegal". For it to be a good proxy you would at least have to have a situation where the vast majority of both women and abortions in the developing world where in countries that outlawed abortion. Considering the fact that when China is excluded, India, a country with legal abortion is legal, by itself has atleast 30% of the population of the developing world this seems unlikely. The fact that the highest abortion rates in the world are in developing countries with legal abortion it seems even less likely. Considering all of this it seems likely that at most half of the people in the developing world live in countries where abortion is illegal."
Note two things. Your denial does not comport with the facts. And the statements I am quoting (from reliable statistical research institutions) are not claiming to be "proxies" for anything. They are statements of FACT. It is YOU who are avoiding the facts by using the misdirection of "proxies." It is only you who introduced and repeatedly used this word (for reasons which I am far too dull to follow). The facts, however, remain as they are quoted above. I an mot claiming any proxies you may wish to invent. I am claiming the quotes from the research institute as FACTS--until evidence suggests otherwise. PERIOD!!
____________________________________________________________
Moving on to the next issue.
"Only if the mother is the only person to be considered. I know you consider this to be true but I do not."
Sorry, if you think I have the time and inclination to discuss social policy with someone who has served notice that he considers fancy rather than fact to be appropriate as an argumentative device, then you are mistaken. By inventing the language anew, and by changing the definitions and meanings that are used (by supposedly rational institutions responsible for creating legal guidelines, such as the Supreme Court), you are not only begging the question, but you are begging as many questions as are required in order for you to compel an intended conclusion. I am not going to play a game where I am limited to the terms and rules of reality, and where you may muddy the issue with fanciful statements.
The fact is that I do have encyclopedias, dictionaries, and so forth. And I have read a sufficient number of court rulings to understand the meaning of the terms, definitions, etc. Unborn human growths, regardless of size, are not children, persons, kids, daughters, philosophers, or police officers. They are not hobos; they are not authors. They are none of these things. So I am not going to pretend that social policy should take YOUR definitions, YOUR new language, and YOUR fancies into account. I understand that you believe all human cellular growths are kids (or at least I have heard you call them children), but I hope you can appreciate that I cannot conduct an argument with you in consideration of social policy without a common language and defining of terms. The rights of embryos are not a consideration of the social policy re: abortions. Embryos are not persons and have no rights. However the State has arrogated to itself--certain rights as regards the interest of the State in foetal life.
Moving along:..
_________________________________________________
I honestly don't think sandbagging is an appropriate use of your obviously fine intellect. Therefore, I am happy to see you put forth a conjectual belief about the rights of the unborn based on this statement:
"I didn't specifically said I don't believe in ensoulment, but for purposes of this argument what I said was not different enough to be all that important. I said my faith was weak and uncertain and I don't base my opposition to abortion on it. What I do base it on is my opinion that the basic rights of all members of the human species should be protected and that fetuses are members of the human species. I would further add that when rights and interests conflict the right to live is more important then the right to control every circumstance of your life. I don't believe that fetuses have a greater level of rights then pregnant women but I think their lives are in far more risk in an abortion then the lives of most pregnant women are from either having an abortion or not having one. Another point is when you are talking about abortions you are not talking about an "unwanted smudge of sperm" it is not sperm at all. It is a fetus. Is there any point of a woman's pregnancy where you would not allow legal abortion? If not then this talk of "smudges of cells" or "smudges of sperm" does not reflect your whole position."
This fragment of your post (the basic rights of all members of the human species should be protected and that foetuses are members of the human species) declares a philosophical position which you apparently have an argument to support. It is not the same as begging the question, as it is the direct and immediate thing which is to be proved, and you are not using the assumption to prove itself. I would like to ask you some questions about this as I have never heard such a belief expressed before--and your justification of it must indeed lead to an entirely new field of philosophy.
Before I do so, however--a brief comment on your question about the smudge of sperm. I use such terms in order to prevent the argument from picking up sentimental and illogical hitchhikers along the way, such as the shape of the embryo, fetus, etc. The world is full of natural and man made objects that look like persons but they are not. An argument for the RIGHTS of human growth should not rely on attributes such as the number of cells, the size of the human growth, and so forth. Just as society does not parcel out RIGHTS in accordance with how big, small, perfect, or imperfect its citizens are--if one is to make a case that cellular human growth within the female body are CITIZENS, i.e. Have "person" rights--then attributes of size, shape, etc. should either have nothing to do with it, OR, the significance of these attributes to the argument ought to be stated up front, so as to form and constitute a necessary part of the argument.
I think you know that I consider such ideas as "points in the pregnancy where you would not allow legal abortion" to be about as meaningful as trying to guess which of the thousands of charlatans and madmen in history were really writing with God's finger. Foolishness. A parasite living solely by the grace, acquiescence, and purposeful activity of the host, either has full rights, or it has none--in which case it exists at the behest of the host (The State has tried to circumvent this by claiming that IT has a right to the wmanan's body under certain conditions of late pregnancy, but this "argument" is strictly one of MIGHT not of rights).
You already know that I consider RIGHTS to be either/or, and not "maybe, maybe, maybe"--depending on circumstances (i.e. who is looking, and who has the gun--you know--like Moses when he murdered the Egyptian). Two entities can vie for the same body, but they cannot BOTH have a RIGHT to the same body. If they BOTH have a right to the same body, then the body BELONGS to both of them, and they are thus NOT separate entities. When that entity thus speaks its will regarding ITSELF, no other mouthpiece in society has any business in challenging it. The concept is contradictory and IGNORANT.
I can respect, however, your attempt to develop a unique philosophy. There is no religious basis for embryonic or foetal rights--at least not in Old or New Testaments. So your position is a refreshing one, although I see hills ahead of you which appear to be unclimable: but that is your task, not mine.
My curiosity follows these lines:
1). What ARE the basic rights of members of the human species? WHY? And who says so?
2). WHO are the members of the human species. What defines a member of the human species?
3). Is losing "basic rights" synonymous with losing membership in the human species?
4). When does something cease to be a member of the human species? When does something begin to be a member of the human species?
5). On what basis do you limit these rights to "human species", or do you?? How about other mammals? How about hominids? What (in the human species), entitles members of the same to basic rights?
6). What authority can you cite as support for such a method of defining membership??
7). Do embryos of any other species have basic rights of any kind?
8). Does potentiality have ANYTHING to do with the basic right of all members of the human species???
BTW, as regards "Yes, just get your cheap shot in, and then we can move on"--I hardly consider expressing how I feel about having my words distorted and sullied, as being a "cheap shot". I am sorry you see it that way.
Some of the charts I previously referred you to were here:
agi-usa.org
These facts are supported here and in other afrticles I linked you to. They are quoted from the interpretation of a reliable statistics research institute as applied to world-wide data which they had gathered. Some of the data is given in the article (and also in many other articles I referred you to).
If you would like to have a more comprehensive look at the actual data, however, you may begin to purchase the source data from here:
alanguttmacher.org |
