Africa’s deadly backroom abortions

[St_Francis]

Reviewing Poland: After reviewing the statistics johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html I’m not sure Poland is a success candidate for banning of abortions significantly decreases the rate. The strictest regulation was in 1932, an outright ban. After that, abortion was legal for medical reasons. Then in 1956 abortion became legal for women in difficult living conditions. Then in 1993, strict regulation cropped up again making abortions only legal if the health of the mother was at risk. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland) ( pewforum.org/Abortion/Abortion-Laws-Around-the-World.aspx) Looking at the first link, the rate of abortions significantly decreased between 1985 and 1993, before the stronger regulations. I suspected that economic wealth might be a factor, but the results were not what I expected google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=countryOL&dl=en&hl=en&q=poland+gdp

The only one of your links which really addressed the issue is the first, where historical numbers are given year by year since 1946. No abortions reported until 1955, when 1,400 were reported. In 1956, the year the laws were liberalized to include “difficult living situations,” the rate increased more than ten-fold to 18,900. The following year, the rate increased seven-fold to 122,000 followed by a gradual rise to 1960, when the numbers were generally in the 200,000’s until the early 1980’s, when they began a gradual decline.

That decrease was indeed significant, dropping from ratios (abortions to births) in the mid-twenties to rates in the mid-teens; *however, *the year that the law restricting abortion was enacted, the rate dropped by almost *90%, *from 11,640 in 1992 (which was significantly lower than the 30,878 reported in 1991) to just 1,240 in 1993.

Those numbers continued to decline until a low of 124 in 1992, and since then have gone up to 340 in '06, 328 in '07, the last year for which there are records.

The point is that looking at the historical record for Poland, we do not find at all what abortion supporters are guessing will happen upon criminalization, that the rates will remain the same but just move into back alleys. The only nation I know of where the abortion laws have been severely tightened, and the effect is the *exact opposite *of what abortion supporters postulate.

Not to mention the fact that the other statement, the one we have lots of information about, is also *dead wrong, *that “[m]aking abortion legal, safe and accessible does not appreciably increase demand,” the Lancet study concluded. “Instead, the principal effect is shifting previously clandestine, unsafe procedures to legal and safe ones.” If they had actually looked at what has in reality occurred, they would have found that this was completely the opposite of what has happened.

So I am not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from.

 

[lynx]

The only one of your links which really addressed the issue is the first,

Some links address the numbers, others play to the robustness of the issue. But, my first link is about as good as it gets so what’s the complaint?

where historical numbers are given year by year since 1946. No abortions reported until 1955, when 1,400 were reported.

Is the reason that absolutely no abortions occurred? I find that suspect, especially since nothing else is filled out in those columns either. More than likely, there were insufficient records. For the sake of integrity, one should not be able to draw a conclusion of abortion rates pre 1955 as per my links.

In 1956, the year the laws were liberalized to include “difficult living situations,” the rate increased more than ten-fold to 18,900. The following year, the rate increased seven-fold to 122,000 followed by a gradual rise to 1960, when the numbers were generally in the 200,000’s until the early 1980’s, when they began a gradual decline.

That decrease was indeed significant, dropping from ratios (abortions to births) in the mid-twenties to rates in the mid-teens; *however, *the year that the law restricting abortion was enacted, the rate dropped by almost *90%, *from 11,640 in 1992 (which was significantly lower than the 30,878 reported in 1991) to just 1,240 in 1993.

This seems very misleading. The average % change from 1960-1990 is right around 10000 abortions above or below. The truly interesting stats here is when it dropped by 20000, then 30000, then 20000 from 1988 to 1992. That’s a difference of 70000 abortions in those years alone without the law. So seeing as how the average shift, when it did shift, was about 10000 why do you feel this decline between 1992 and 1993 was special? The law wasn’t even enacted until 1993 which means between 1992 and 1993 that law didn’t even matter.

Those numbers continued to decline until a low of 124 in 1992, and since then have gone up to 340 in '06, 328 in '07, the last year for which there are records.

That’s a low of 124 in 2001, and a high of 3176 in 1997. Which link are you referring to? I’m reading johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html

The point is that looking at the historical record for Poland, we do not find at all what abortion supporters are guessing will happen upon criminalization, that the rates will remain the same but just move into back alleys.

My goal in these past posts have been to demonstrate that abortion was on the decline before the law, and it was pure and simple. As such, it falls outside of the criminalization theory, since there was little to no demand for an abortion. Refer to my posts for abortion reasons. So, now we need to find out why this decline happened outside of the law.

Not to mention the fact that the other statement, the one we have lots of information about, is also *dead wrong, *that “[m]aking abortion legal, safe and accessible does not appreciably increase demand,” the Lancet study concluded. “Instead, the principal effect is shifting previously clandestine, unsafe procedures to legal and safe ones.” If they had actually looked at what has in reality occurred, they would have found that this was completely the opposite of what has happened.

So I am not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from.

How can you claim this? As per their own records on safe and unsafe abortions, just about the same number occurred. My information doesn’t demonstrate safe/unsafe abortions in Poland at all, just total in numbers

 

[St_Francis]

Some links address the numbers, others play to the robustness of the issue. But, my first link is about as good as it gets so what’s the complaint?

I couldn’t find anything in the other links that would mitigate the information in the first link to justify your conclusions.

Is the reason that absolutely no abortions occurred? I find that suspect, especially since nothing else is filled out in those columns either. More than likely, there were insufficient records. For the sake of integrity, one should not be able to draw a conclusion of abortion rates pre 1955 as per my links.

Ahh, I was describing what was in the link. That’s why I said no abortions were reported rather than no abortions occurred, but I can see that what I said might not have been clear.

This seems very misleading. The average % change from 1960-1990 is right around 10000 abortions above or below.

That would not be a percentage change but a numerical change.

The truly interesting stats here is when it dropped by 20,000, then 30,000, then 20,000 from 1988 to 1992. That’s a difference of 70,000 abortions in those years alone without the law. So seeing as how the average shift, when it did shift, was about 10,000 why do you feel this decline between 1992 and 1993 was special? The law wasn’t even enacted until 1993 which means between 1992 and 1993 that law didn’t even matter.

From the Poles themselves: It is worth to underline that the decrease in the number of reported abortions started at the beginning of the 80s, when the activity of the pro-life movements began to develop and the activity of the Catholic Church, including the teaching of Pope John Paul II, started to intensify. (page 2)

Also, the percentage change from even the largest declines, in 91 and 92, were about 50% and 66% respectively. The percentage change with the law was almost 90%, which is quite an increase in decline.

That’s a low of 124 in 2001, and a high of 3176 in 1997. Which link are you referring to? I’m reading johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html

I misread that one. However, this was the year that the law was modified to allow more abortions (modification occurred in Nov. 96, and was deemed unconstitutional in Dec. 97) (see link above)

My goal in these past posts have been to demonstrate that abortion was on the decline before the law, and it was pure and simple. As such, it falls outside of the criminalization theory, since there was little to no demand for an abortion.

While it is true that the number of abortions was already in decline, there was a very clear relation to what was happening legally as well, esp considering the rise when the law was temporarily modified.

It is not true that there was “little to no” demand for abortion before the law was passed: over 11,000 abortions were performed the year before the passage of the law.

Refer to my posts for abortion reasons.

I am not sure what you mean here.

So, now we need to find out why this decline happened outside of the law.

I hope that the link I posted here helps with that.

How can you claim this? As per their own records on safe and unsafe abortions, just about the same number occurred. My information doesn’t demonstrate safe/unsafe abortions in Poland at all, just total in numbers

The fact that a high number of abortions occurs in a place where abortion is outlawed in no way shows that outlawing abortion somewhere else will have no effect on the number of abortions, as we can see in Poland, which is about the only place where this has happened. Perhaps what we can learn from Poland is how best to provide the education which would be needed rather than simply assuming it is an anomaly.

Moreover, what I quoted from the article did not pertain to criminalizing legal abortion but decriminalizing illegal abortion, which has been done in many parts of the world, and which has resulted in a huge increase in every case I have run across. Since they get that part so very wrong, I have to wonder about the validity of the rest of their conclusions.

 

[Petergee]

Apparently I’m seeing a distinction between rape and abortion that you do not. First of all rape is not a medical procedure.

Neither is abortion.

Oh yes it’s often done by people who call themselves doctors and who might even have medical qualifications, but it is no more a medical procedure than the rapes of so many political prisoners by the “doctors” who were supposedly looking after their welfare.

Just as the big fall in maternal mortality from abortion in western countries occurred in the 1930s to 1950s due to antibiotics and better sanitation, long before abortion was legalised; so the high maternal mortality in Africa is due to lack of antibiotics etc. Not because they don’t go to a legal doctor - medicines can be bought without prescription. The problem is that the abortion and contraception industry promoting companies like the ones who sponsored this so-called study which just pulled figures out of their armpits, have ensured that medical clinics in most of Africa don’t have the medicines they urgently need, instead they have a mountain of unwanted contraceptives.

 

[puzzleannie]

Based upon the assumption that abortion is murder, based upon the assumption that a fetus is a person. That being said, about 1/3 of people (in the US) completely support abortion, 1/3 (in the US) support it but feel it needs stricter regulations and provisions, and 1/3 (in the US) do not support it at all. What does this say about the prevailing ideas of abortion (in the US)?

It says at least 1/3 and probably more people would not know a case of murder if it smacked them in the face

absolutely right, except for the word “needing” which should read “seeking” and “necessary” which should have an additional phrase added “necessary for the health of themselves and of their baby which is now a human person with rights”. Nobody “needs” to kill a baby. The answer to why is, the same reason why your first set of statistics. Mal-education and perverted use of the language so people don’t use the proper words to describe what is going in. Submitting to sex to any man who takes you out on a date is now called “women’s liberation”. Infanticide and feticide is now called abortion, pregnancy is now called a product of conception (note the consumeristic connotation) and abortion is now called a choice.

 

[lynx]

I couldn’t find anything in the other links that would mitigate the information in the first link to justify your conclusions.

My only worthwhile conclusion was that the law didn’t do anything to dramatically decrease abortions. The reasons for why they dropped is still unknown.

That would not be a percentage change but a numerical change.

Fair enough. The actual % change would have been more misleading then the actual rate of decrease.

It is worth to underline that the decrease in the number of reported abortions started at the beginning of the 80s, when the activity of the pro-life movements began to develop and the activity of the Catholic Church, including the teaching of Pope John Paul II, started to intensify. (page 2)

This is an interesting excerpt from this pro-life document. Lets analyze From their own document,

1. Moreover, the women’s reproductive health has improved: the number of women’s deaths connected with pregnancy, delivery and postpartum is decreasing (only one death resulting from illegal abortion has been reported in this period of time);
2. the awareness about reproduction matters has been raised (the number of juvenile mothers is decreasing)

Maybe my old idea of economic wealth still might bear some fruit. While the law doesn’t hinder in decreasing the numbers it never significantly dropped the rates of abortion. What does appear to have dropped the rate of abortion significantly was the influence of the Church, increase in health care, and sex education. The last two are signs of economic growth, maybe with the GDP as a lagging indicator

Also, the percentage change from even the largest declines, in 91 and 92, were about 50% and 66% respectively. The percentage change with the law was almost 90%, which is quite an increase in decline.

This look like big percentages but the actual rate of abortions increasing or decreasing was about 100 per year. Small potatoes compared to 1988-1992 which dropped by 70000.

I misread that one. However, this was the year that the law was modified to allow more abortions (modification occurred in Nov. 96, and was deemed unconstitutional in Dec. 97) (see link above)

Fair enough.

While it is true that the number of abortions was already in decline, there was a very clear relation to what was happening legally as well, esp considering the rise when the law was temporarily modified.

I certainly can’t see any other reason for the jump in '97.

It is not true that there was “little to no” demand for abortion before the law was passed: over 11,000 abortions were performed the year before the passage of the law.

True, but at that time abortion rate swung by 10000 easily from 1960-1990. I suspect that due to prosperity the reasons for abortion were declining.

I am not sure what you mean here.

In my previous posts, I have links which detail the reasons for the abortions as does your link.

I hope that the link I posted here helps with that.

Indeed it does

The fact that a high number of abortions occurs in a place where abortion is outlawed in no way shows that outlawing abortion somewhere else will have no effect on the number of abortions, as we can see in Poland, which is about the only place where this has happened.

This seems to make Poland an outlier in the statistical plot.

Perhaps what we can learn from Poland is how best to provide the education which would be needed rather than simply assuming it is an anomaly.

Agreed. Giving children and teens proper sex education and access to health care seems to have had a profound effect on lowering abortion. But then again, the rise of Christianity probably had a hand in it as well.

Moreover, what I quoted from the article did not pertain to criminalizing legal abortion but decriminalizing illegal abortion, which has been done in many parts of the world, and which has resulted in a huge increase in every case I have run across. Since they get that part so very wrong, I have to wonder about the validity of the rest of their conclusions.

Well, you can always just use their data and draw your own conclusion

 

[Habesha]

Legalizing abortion is not the answer. Another ploy from the West to check the African population. There is a simple solution, educate African people on Natural Family Planning, to space out children in a moral way.

Churches, Church groups should be doing this. There is great organization called Human Life International which go around the Africa, and around the world educating people about abortion, teaching people on the value of marriage and family.

Fr Thomas J. Euteneuer did a great interview on this:

When a culture accepts the legalization of abortion; abortion is just about everywhere in the world; illegal or legally. If it is illegally the law still supports the truth of the matter, an act of killing, an innocent of human being, the law teaches the people between right and wrong in that case. The biggest threat to cultures like that would be the changing of the laws, the breaking down of their cultures and the installing of the pro-abortion mentality.

There is no culture in the world that is naturally pro-abortion, there is no society whose people stand up and say we want abortion, give us abortion; because abortion is imposed on people by an elite few in their country. The perfect example is the United States OF America, you have a complete abortion culture because of the vote of 7 men. The supreme justice who impose this on all of you, without your consent, without consulting you, overnight, so you have an overnight abortion culture that is fairly extreme; this type of thing happens everywhere, sometimes it’s through a legislative process, sometimes it’s through a judicial activism, it’s always moticated by international organizations that are financed by the 1st world countries, trying to work with activists in those countries to try and impose it on the people. There is no body in Africa, Latin America or Asia that wants abortion.

Nobody wants abortion people everybody because everyone basically affirms the values of human life, we have to be cultured into accepting the ide of abortion, this is what happens when you have decades of Propaganda, which change the values of society, Any natural values values of society have the right to life, the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage family, all traditional society such as all societies in Africa, if you go anywhere in Africa your gonna find strong families of family and marriage, very traditional concepts of marriage, they deplore the idea of abortion, but Westerners come into Africa, just as a case in point and they said that you know you people are poor in this Continent or in this country because you have too many kids, so they infiltrate them to believe that kids are bad, large families are irresponsible, you have to change something to keep up this, this type of keep of the Jones’ mentality. But they don’t think they’re poor, even though they might suffer a lot and if they had the change, if they had the economic chance, if they had the economic resources, the important thing is developing their country, they wouldn’t be asking for abortion at all.

The overpopulation myth is one of the most heinous myths ever put on the human race, right now not only is the world not overpopulated it has the opposite problem, because all the fertility rates are falling dramatically, precisely cause of abortion and contraception which enters these cultures which changes their mentalities towards marriage and family, we don’t have any country in the world that is overpopulated, poor, yes, but poverty is not the cause of overpopulation, a lot of people blame overpopulation as the cause of poverty but in reality poverty is caused by corrupt governments, lack of correct distribution.

Please watch: youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7CZEHQZEs

Too see their work! THIS IS THE SOLUTION! NOT LEGALIZING ABORTION! EDUCATION IS THE SOLUTION!

Some of the aims of Human Life International:

* Found crisis pregnancy centers
* Teach young couples Natural Family Planning 
* Inform parents about the dangers of secular sex education
* Train seminarians to be pro-life priests
* Equip counselors to advise families in crisis
* Educate civic leaders on pro-life issues
* Host pro-life and pro-family radio and television programs
* And much more!

hli.org/