Scucca

Benagiano and Pera (2000, Decreasing the need for abortion: challenges and constraints, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol 70, pp 35-48) offer an interesting perspective on this issue:

Voluntary abortion is the most controversial act in the entire field of medical practice, although today, it is a practice that, under different conditions, has been legalized in more than 100 countries, mostly in the developed world. The United Nations has agreed that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning and, therefore, it should be utilized only when contraception has failed. Overall, 61% of humanity lives in countries where abortion is legal and widely available; 14% in countries where termination is allowed to protect a woman’s health; physical, mental, or both; 21% in countries where it can be performed only to save the mother’s life and 4% in countries where abortion is not permitted at all. Restrictive legislation, per se, does not represent a valid deterrent to prevent abortion, while it may contribute to an increase in morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy. In addition, because abortion is outlawed, nothing is done to actively reduce the reasons leading to it. Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread.

In summary, if abortion reduction is really your concern, pro-choice is ironically the way forward!

__________________

DarkWizard12

Hmm, I don't see Iran using contraception.

It because where abortion is outlawed, knowledge and contraception aren't widespread. Surely both can be done. A government can always just outlaw abortion, and promote safe sex at the same time.

DarkWizard12

Oh and, just a thought...how much enforcement of this restricitve legislation is there?

Scucca

That government would have to an outlier as the authors show that typically does not occur. Consider the following comment in the paper:

These facts underline an important concept: in most countries a law that forbids abortion does not, per se, decrease the number of women who resort to the procedure to stop an unwanted pregnancy. Such laws, however, have two important negative consequences. The first is an adverse effect on the reproductive health of women: illegal abortions are often unsafe and the consequences can be seen in increased rates of morbidity related to pregnancy, in higher secondary infertility and mortality among pregnant women . The second negative consequence is the very clear tendency, evident everywhere, that, because abortion is illegal, nothing is done to actively reduce its incidence, or, rather, to reduce the reasons leading to the need for terminating a pregnancy

We do not have evidence that restrictive laws actually reduce abortion. Your reference to enforcement is of course important. Simply put, the illegal abortion market will always flourish. We do have evidence, however, that restrictive laws do lead to increased problems with mortality and morbidity. If reducing abortion is the aim, it is therefore rather difficult to support the restrictive regime

Felicity

#1 False dichotomy.

#2 Yeah--statistics really bear that out historically... NOT.

#3 (referring to #1) You quote from the paper why "pro-choice" is not the answer, but rather a feeble "bandaid" for a mortal self-inflicted wound: "nothing is done to actively reduce its incidence, or, rather, to reduce the reasons leading to the need for terminating a pregnancy."

__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die. ~*Leonardo Da Vinci*~

Scucca

It would have been useful if you presented some statistics that disagreed with the cross-country analysis offered by the authors (particularly with the availability of data such as the fall in Italian abortions from approximately 235,000 in 1984 to 150,000 in 1993).

This does not make sense. Could you have another go?

The paper suggests that decriminalisation is important as "it makes it possible to evaluate the true dimension of the problem and set in motion the process to reduce it". The data supports that premise. You're going to have to try a tad harder to offer a worthwhile critique

Felicity

Ahhh...naw...your reputation precedes you and I'm aware it's not really worth the effort.

DeeJayH

abortions that are needed, are an incredibly small amount of all the actual abortions performed

the abomination is Abortion on Demand

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

Scucca

Don't be worrying. Your failure to offer any relevant reply was most revealing. Bit of a shame though. I was looking forward to your comments on the Romanian abortion ban and how it led to the highest maternal mortality rates in Europe. Here's another startling quote from the paper referenced:

In 1989 there were 159 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births; the next year, after abortion was legalized again and the procedure
started becoming available in hospitals and being safer, mortality during pregnancy or delivery immediately fell to 83 per 100 000 live births

DeeJayH

how many abortions per 100,000 births?