Latin American women’s experiences with medical abortion in settings where abortion is legally restricted

[fnr]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557184/

An interesting read. A greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion in Latin America than in the U.S. and Canada, according to a 2012 study. The current article describes how women in Latin America are getting abortifacient drugs and how they use them, which may explain how abortion can be more frequent in places where it’s illegal.

I believe that overturning Roe v. Wade and further regulating abortion clinics (as in the case of the recent Texas law) will only push abortion into the black market, and do little to nothing to reduce the current rates. In the U.S., there is already a black market on Cytotec (misoprostol) for inducing medical abortions.

 

[SamH]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557184/

An interesting read. A greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion in Latin America than in the U.S. and Canada, according to a 2012 study. The current article describes how women in Latin America are getting abortifacient drugs and how they use them, which may explain how abortion can be more frequent in places where it’s illegal.

I believe that overturning Roe v. Wade and further regulating abortion clinics (as in the case of the recent Texas law) will only push abortion into the black market, and do little to nothing to reduce the current rates. In the U.S., there is already a black market on Cytotec (misoprostol) for inducing medical abortions.

Why were abortions so rare in the US when they were regulated by the states?

 

[ncashion]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557184/

An interesting read. A greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion in Latin America than in the U.S. and Canada, according to a 2012 study. The current article describes how women in Latin America are getting abortifacient drugs and how they use them, which may explain how abortion can be more frequent in places where it’s illegal.

I believe that overturning Roe v. Wade and further regulating abortion clinics (as in the case of the recent Texas law) will only push abortion into the black market, and do little to nothing to reduce the current rates. In the U.S., there is already a black market on Cytotec (misoprostol) for inducing medical abortions.

It is interesting that you use a study from the Guttmacher institute, which correct me if I am wrong, is a known pro-abortion institution…Thus I question the valididty of this study. Furthermore, I would like to point to the methods section, in which they claim to be using the WHO (another questionable source) “definition” of “unsafe abortions”. What is an unsafe abortion? I assert that all abortions are unsafe, especially for unborn human beings. Furthermore, I would like to point out a recent argument that I heard and agree with on Catholic Answers Live, in which we need to ask the question: What are civil laws made for? I agree and second the idea that laws such as spousal abuse laws, speed limits, and lets say child abuse laws should exist even though crimes under these statutes continue to happen. Should we just counsel the men who beat their wives or people that recklessly drive, or those that molest children? Should we provide a safe environment for all the perpetrators of these laws to commit these acts so that they don’t go out on their own and do it anyways? Or another relevant example is drug addiction. Should we provide government funded institutes that allow drug addicts to come and get doped up so they aren’t doing it on the streets? I think if your answer to this is yes…then you may have some soul searching and prayer to God to do. How can we think that the Divine Author of life would support any of this? God bless.

 

[fnr]

Why were abortions so rare in the US when they were regulated by the states?

Actually, according to the estimates I’ve seen in peer-reviewed literature, the estimates in the mid-1960s ranged from ~200,000 to higher than a million (there’s a claim by an “Ex-Abortionist” that there were “approaching 100,000” per year and that the higher numbers were PR by the abortion industry, but this is not a peer-reviewed estimate and seems like confirmation bias). I’ve been told on CAF that the CDC’s estimate was 400,000. The range of estimates was so broad because it was hard to get women to admit to having an abortion when it was both illegal and shameful. If you’re interested, I can provide you with my sources. Still, if we take the rate then to calculate an “abortion per capita” range, we can look at how rare it was relative to today.

Range in 1965: ~ 200,000 to over 1,000,000
Population on July 1, 1965: 194,302,963 (census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt)
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 1 to 5

Range in 1973 (Cited on NRLC): 615,831 (CDC) to 744,600 (Guttmacher)
[THIS IS THE YEAR OF ROE V. WADE]
Population on July 1, 1973: 211,908,788
Range of abortion per 1000 population: 3 to 4

Here’s the Census Bureau’s estimate of annual abortions in 2007: 1.210 million
Here’s the population from July 1 2007: 301,621,157
Estimate of abortion per 1000 population in 2007: 4

Here’s the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate from 2012 (referenced on lifeissues.org): 1,212,400
Here’s the population from September 17, 2012: 314,395,013
Estimate of abortions per 1000 population in 2012: 4

Now, “confirmation bias” is an inherent part of human consciousness. We tend to be more likely to believe the numbers that confirm our prior beliefs. That’s why I use the range of data available from before Roe v. Wade. In any case, the estimates for per 1000 capita abortion in 1965, before abortion was illegal in any state and, 2007-2012, suggest that the rate before it was legal was between 25% and 125% of current rates. Taking the abortions per year provided in 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided (in January of that year), the rate was 3-4 per 1000 capita. While the rate rose after 1973, it came down in the subsequent years.

Overall, even if we assume that the per-capita rate was only 25% of the current rate, we can’t say that abortion was “rare” before Roe v. Wade. It was an illegal, underground phenomenon.

Since then, medical abortifacients have been developed and are widely available. In the U.S., mifepristone followed by misoprostol is the common combination for medical (meaning drug-induced) abortions. However, mifestiprone is illegal in Latin America. So, misoprostol is used in a black market. You can get instructions for how to obtain it online.

 

[Orogeny]

The current article describes how women in Latin America are getting abortifacient drugs and how they use them, which may explain how abortion can be more frequent in places where it’s illegal.

Will you then advocate for making abortion legal in Latin America so that abortion rates will go down?

Peace

Tim

 

[fnr]

It is interesting that you use a study from the Guttmacher institute, which correct me if I am wrong, is a known pro-abortion institution…Thus I question the valididty of this study.

In order to avoid confirmation bias influencing my results, I try to cite and treat as equally valid any study published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Guttmacher Institute was originally founded as Planned Parenthood’s research arm, but they publish their work in scholarly journals that are subject to peer review. As such, I’m willing to cite them. And not only me. National Right to Life also cites their statistics and seems to treat them as credible.

Furthermore, I would like to point to the methods section, in which they claim to be using the WHO (another questionable source) “definition” of “unsafe abortions”. What is an unsafe abortion?

In this reference, the following definition is provided:
“Unsafe abortion is defined as an abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person.”
The following reference is provided as the basis for that definition:
World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a Technical Working Group, Geneva, April 1992, (WHO/MSM/92.5). Geneva, WHO, 1992.

I assert that all abortions are unsafe, especially for unborn human beings.

And that’s true. But it’s also semantic. If you substitute “abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person” every time you read “unsafe abortion” in the cited papers, you can get around the semantic issue.

Furthermore, I would like to point out a recent argument that I heard and agree with on Catholic Answers Live, in which we need to ask the question: What are civil laws made for? I agree and second the idea that laws such as spousal abuse laws, speed limits, and lets say child abuse laws should exist even though crimes under these statutes continue to happen. Should we just counsel the men who beat their wives or people that recklessly drive, or those that molest children? Should we provide a safe environment for all the perpetrators of these laws to commit these acts so that they don’t go out on their own and do it anyways? Or another relevant example is drug addiction. Should we provide government funded institutes that allow drug addicts to come and get doped up so they aren’t doing it on the streets? I think if your answer to this is yes…then you may have some soul searching and prayer to God to do. How can we think that the Divine Author of life would support any of this? God bless.

I’m not arguing against making laws against evil things. I’m arguing that the laws won’t really do much to reduce abortion.

First, I’m making a strictly factual argument that abortion prior to Roe v. Wade took place a rates that our best evidence tells us is not that different from today’s rates, that abortion still takes place at high rates in countries where it’s illegal today, and that there is evidence of a thriving black market in misoprostol (Cytotec) globally and that women are using it to get around the laws.

Secondly, I’m making a strategic argument that the pro-life movement has better ways to spend its time than in making abortion illegal again, or in regulating it more tightly. The time and resources devoted to electoral politics have a questionable return on investment (ROI). I see very little evidence that legal and regulatory strategies will further reduce abortions. I argue that there are better ways to reduce abortion, such as teaching natural family planning (NFP) in women’s prisons and in locations where abortion rates are high (e.g., Detroit, New York City), mentoring 7th graders to read and do math at grade level, and providing fellowship and educational support to single mothers and needy families. While I don’t have hard data to say that they’ll reduce the abortion rate, these strategies provide ancillary benefits that build the Church, help strengthen communities and families, and bring Christ into the lives of people who need him.

The article in the OP is a good read, because it talks about how women get abortions in countries where abortion is illegal.

 

[fnr]

Will you then advocate for making abortion legal in Latin America so that abortion rates will go down?

No, I don’t think the abortion rate depends on its legal status very much. The demand for abortion (and black market supply of abortifacients and medical facilities) seems not to depend on whether it’s legal or not.

The laws on the books that reduce abortions really do it on the margin.

There is evidence that STD infection rates increased after Roe v. Wade, suggesting people were having more sex with the option of an abortion available to them. Based on gonorrhea infection rates, there’s good evidence that parental notification laws made teenagers have less “risky sex” (defined by the authors as sex without a condom, I believe). Whether that means they’re having the same amount of sex and just using condoms is unclear.

However, most people continue to have sex using contraceptives. According to the Guttmacher Institute, only 7% of U.S. women who are sexually active and want to avoid pregnancy are not using contraceptives.

So abortion is for most women a form of “secondary insurance” that reduces the “opportunity cost” of abstinence. Contraception is the “primary insurance” that most women use, but also according to Guttmacher (same cite), most common forms of contraception have high rates of failure during “typical use” (i.e. forgotten pills, broken/slipped condoms).

Overall, the image is that sexually active women do not want to be pregnant unless they want to have a child. They use contraception most of the time, and abortion as a secondary backup (in most cases). Women I have known who have received abortions have done it when they don’t feel ready to become a mother (e.g., in college) or when they feel like they lack the support they feel they need to raise a child. The desire to have or not to have a child is extremely strong, and abortion laws barely make a dent there.

To me, focusing on preventing pregnancies through the strategies I’ve already discussed in this thread is much more likely to actually reduce the number of abortions that take place.

 

[Lancer]

It is interesting that you use a study from the Guttmacher institute, which correct me if I am wrong, is a known pro-abortion institution…Thus I question the valididty of this study. Furthermore, I would like to point to the methods section, in which they claim to be using the WHO (another questionable source) “definition” of “unsafe abortions”. What is an unsafe abortion? I assert that all abortions are unsafe, especially for unborn human beings. Furthermore, I would like to point out a recent argument that I heard and agree with on Catholic Answers Live, in which we need to ask the question: What are civil laws made for? I agree and second the idea that laws such as spousal abuse laws, speed limits, and lets say child abuse laws should exist even though crimes under these statutes continue to happen. Should we just counsel the men who beat their wives or people that recklessly drive, or those that molest children? Should we provide a safe environment for all the perpetrators of these laws to commit these acts so that they don’t go out on their own and do it anyways? Or another relevant example is drug addiction. Should we provide government funded institutes that allow drug addicts to come and get doped up so they aren’t doing it on the streets? I think if your answer to this is yes…then you may have some soul searching and prayer to God to do. How can we think that the Divine Author of life would support any of this? God bless.

Excellent response. Bingo: Civil Laws are for the Common Good…and next to Government’s number one task…that is…to protect the nation and its people from foreign invasion/being conquered by another hostile nation…Government’s number two task is to protect the Family…marriage between a Man and a Woman who commit to stay together in a life long commitment and bear children and raise them to be good and contributing members of/for Society’s Common Good. This is an absolute imperative for a healthy prosperous culture…nation. So, healthy well adjusted babies raised in in-tact families is a monumental Common Good. Abortion is a disaster…on all counts…especially for the defenseless and innocent child in the womb…and the women who have them.

Lets say…just because banks get robbed (say quite often) by violent criminals…we should not have laws that protect their “personal” best interest…lets say…no armed guards in banks and designated parking to enhance their efforts to get in and get away safely and easily.

Women who want or get abortions are most likely not doing it with a cavalier attitude…but whatever the circumstance, they need to be supported by the Truth…and whatever medical, financial and psychological means are necessary to prevent an abortion.

Luke 6:31
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV-CE)

27 “But I say to you that hear…
31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.

Lastly, the old Natural Law axiom…and Judeo-Christian moral law:…“you can’t commit an evil/immoral/unlawful act(s)…even if good will come from it”…“the ends can never be used to justify the means”…is a paramount fixture of any society/culture that wants to prosper and not become a dinosaur…extinct at some point in time.

As noted…Guttmacher Institute and WHO are part of the problem…not even close to being part of the solution…as well as supreme courts and judges like our Supreme Court judges. Harsh comment…but I believe it is factual and true…about their decisions, not the persons themselves.

Psalm 94
Revised Grail Psalms
20
Can judges who do evil be your friends?
They do injustice under cover of law;
21
they attack the life of the just,
and condemn the innocent to death.

giamusic.com/sacred_music/RGP/psalmDisplay.cfm?psalm_id=306

Pax Christi

 

[MJJean]

In order to avoid confirmation bias influencing my results, I try to cite and treat as equally valid any study published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Guttmacher Institute was originally founded as Planned Parenthood’s research arm, but they publish their work in scholarly journals that are subject to peer review. As such, I’m willing to cite them. And not only me. National Right to Life also cites their statistics and seems to treat them as credible.

In this reference, the following definition is provided:
“Unsafe abortion is defined as an abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person.”
The following reference is provided as the basis for that definition:
World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a Technical Working Group, Geneva, April 1992, (WHO/MSM/92.5). Geneva, WHO, 1992.

And that’s true. But it’s also semantic. If you substitute “abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person” every time you read “unsafe abortion” in the cited papers, you can get around the semantic issue.

I’m not arguing against making laws against evil things. I’m arguing that the laws won’t really do much to reduce abortion.

First, I’m making a strictly factual argument that abortion prior to Roe v. Wade took place a rates that our best evidence tells us is not that different from today’s rates, that abortion still takes place at high rates in countries where it’s illegal today, and that there is evidence of a thriving black market in misoprostol (Cytotec) globally and that women are using it to get around the laws.

Secondly, I’m making a strategic argument that the pro-life movement has better ways to spend its time than in making abortion illegal again, or in regulating it more tightly. The time and resources devoted to electoral politics have a questionable return on investment (ROI). I see very little evidence that legal and regulatory strategies will further reduce abortions. I argue that there are better ways to reduce abortion, such as teaching natural family planning (NFP) in women’s prisons and in locations where abortion rates are high (e.g., Detroit, New York City), mentoring 7th graders to read and do math at grade level, and providing fellowship and educational support to single mothers and needy families. While I don’t have hard data to say that they’ll reduce the abortion rate, these strategies provide ancillary benefits that build the Church, help strengthen communities and families, and bring Christ into the lives of people who need him.

The article in the OP is a good read, because it talks about how women get abortions in countries where abortion is illegal.

I agree with you. There are better ways to reduce abortion than making it illegal or difficult to legally obtain. Fact is, women have been using herbs, teas, vitamin and mineral overdoses and pills intended for other uses to abort unwanted pregnancies for centuries. It’s nothing new.

As seen in Texas, most recently, women who cannot afford a legal abortion or who do not have a clinic within a reasonable driving distance or who simply are too ashamed/embarrassed to go to a clinic will order Cytotec online, make a trip into Mexico, or buy it at flea markets and abort themselves at home. Which has been known to cause severe bleeding and the possibility of uterine infection due to part of the fetus remaining behind. Women who can afford it will just cross state lines or even national lines to get an abortion.

Desperate women are so convinced that they cannot have their babies they are literally risking their lives. These women need help. They don’t need more restrictive laws that they’ll just get around anyways.

 

[Lancer]

Just for the record…

1. Legal abortion rates increased significantly following the Roe decision but have declined for the past three decades. In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized first-trimester, elective abortion and also gave some protections to terminations later in the pregnancy. Abortion rates climbed after the decision, a trend that had started in the late 1960s, as states began liberalizing their abortion laws.-- (declined from highs @ 1.6 million to 1.0 million…the good news and the bad news)–]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/abortion2a.png

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/

 

[ncashion]

Just for the record…

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/

Though that is interesting and a good chart to share…I contend that until we are back to the 1969 number…we are not complete with our work. If there is so much as one child being aborted, then that is too much. I agree with those of you that have the opinion that legislation alone will not work. This is shown by the fact that we used to not have laws specifically banning aboriton, but it was a moral truth that was taught in our society starting within the family, or the domestic church. However, with that said, I do not think we should abandon legislation as I do not believe simply counseling women will work either. Though we may counsel them, they may be counseled otherwise and choose an abortion because they are readily available and they are further told that it is “safe” and done by “medical professionals”. Now if we as Christians use every weapon in the arsenal that God has provided (legislation, counseling, NFP, prayer, love, compassion, harsh truth, and peace for examples) then they are more effective used together. If we just pass arbitrary laws without moral grounding then yes, they will noo be effective, but if we use the laws in cooperation with the other tools in use by the pro-life community then we will doubtless see greater grace and healing flow forth.

 

[ncashion]

In order to avoid confirmation bias influencing my results, I try to cite and treat as equally valid any study published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Guttmacher Institute was originally founded as Planned Parenthood’s research arm, but they publish their work in scholarly journals that are subject to peer review. As such, I’m willing to cite them. And not only me. National Right to Life also cites their statistics and seems to treat them as credible.

In this reference, the following definition is provided:
“Unsafe abortion is defined as an abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person.”
The following reference is provided as the basis for that definition:
World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a Technical Working Group, Geneva, April 1992, (WHO/MSM/92.5). Geneva, WHO, 1992.

And that’s true. But it’s also semantic. If you substitute “abortion taking place outside of health facilities (or any other place recognized by law) and/or provided by an unskilled person” every time you read “unsafe abortion” in the cited papers, you can get around the semantic issue.

I’m not arguing against making laws against evil things. I’m arguing that the laws won’t really do much to reduce abortion.

Though I commend you for using different sources and it is a good sign of research, the one point I would like to make is on how we use these sources. To use a source that readily is known for a bias such as the pro abortion agenda of this institute and the WHO does not lend credibility to an argument that is claiming to be unbiased. I also am in the camp that nothing is truly unbiased, but we use research to find truth. In this case, the truth is that abortion is evil and needs to be fought with everything that is available to us that does not go against God’s law or in other words Natural Law. Furthermore, even if something is under peer review, that does not necessarily help depending on each situation and which peers review it. I would be curious to look into exactly what people reviewed this and what their beliefs and research are like, but that is a whole different story.

In regard to the definition of “unsafe abortion” I do not really adhere to the WHO’s definition. Again, the truth is that all abortions are unsafe, so I put forth for the love of truth and even for semantic reasons I believe we should stop using the words “unsafe abortions” because it is, with lack of better word, a lie. We don’t go around saying “unsafe murder” or “unsafe drug use”, therefore we should stop saying “unsafe abortions”.

Also if laws will not decrease abortion, then logically we would need to follow that laws don’t reduce anything…so we should not have laws. However based on my previous post above and according to the data chart shared by Lancer if we have seen a peaking of abortion rates while it is legal; due to the continued efforts of pro-lifers and if we made it illegal, we would see a drastic drop. God bless!

 

[fnr]

Just for the record…

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/

I’m sorry, but this graph includes no reference to any data, and it’s absurd to state that there were zero abortions in 1969. This is an extrapolation, to say the least, and not by anyone with data analysis background. I’m sorry, but a graph is not “data” unless it has cited sources (I followed the links and couldn’t find them).

Here’s a sample of studies from pre-1967, when Colorado first partially legalized abortion for rape, incest, and to save a woman from disability.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373382/pdf/amjphnation00308-0022.pdf
Published in 1960
Estimate: 200,000 to 1,200,000 per year

heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv17&div=28&g_sent=1&collection=journals
Published in 1965
Estimate: 300,000 to 1,000,000 per year

womenshealthinwomenshands.org/PDFs/abortionlawsandtheirvictims.pdf
Published in 1966
Estimate: 250,000 to over 1,000,000

heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duqu5&div=19&g_sent=1&collection=journals
Published in 1966
Estimate: “Whether the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States approaches the frequently quoted figure of 1,200,000 is to be doubted… Nevertheless, the incidence is high and the problem must be regarded as serious, especially when one considers that the criminal abortionist, in many cases, is not a skilled medical practitioner.”
NOTE: I found that the 1,200,000 reference is originally from "a committee appointed by the Conference on Abortion at Arden House, New York, in April 1955"

scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3901&context=jclc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3Dillegal%2Babortion%2BUnited%2BStates%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C23%26as_yhi%3D1966#search=%22illegal%20abortion%20United%20States%22
Published in 1950
Estimates: 1,300,000
Cites estimate by “Tausig,” at time of publication: 682,000 in a population of 120,000,000 (5.7 per thousand capita)

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2844&context=lcp&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dillegal%2Babortion%2BUnited%2BStates%2Bincidence%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C23%26as_yhi%3D1966#search=%22illegal%20abortion%20United%20States%20incidence%22
Estimate: 1 to 7 per 1,000 population

 

[fnr]

So that I’m objective and even-handed, I’ll point out that there are some critiques of the Arden House 1955 conference, from which the estimated range of 200,000 to 1,200,000 seems to have originated.

 

[fnr]

Here’s a paper with statistics on the incidence of abortion, published in 1938:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1529173/pdf/amjphnation01007-0071.pdf

 

[MJJean]

In regard to the definition of “unsafe abortion” I do not really adhere to the WHO’s definition. Again, the truth is that all abortions are unsafe, so I put forth for the love of truth and even for semantic reasons I believe we should stop using the words “unsafe abortions” because it is, with lack of better word, a lie. We don’t go around saying “unsafe murder” or “unsafe drug use”, therefore we should stop saying “unsafe abortions”.

Also if laws will not decrease abortion, then logically we would need to follow that laws don’t reduce anything…so we should not have laws. However based on my previous post above and according to the data chart shared by Lancer if we have seen a peaking of abortion rates while it is legal; due to the continued efforts of pro-lifers and if we made it illegal, we would see a drastic drop. God bless!

What you have seen is a peak in the number of reported abortions. Remember, abortions that are done at home are largely not reported. If abortion was illegal, of course you’d see a drop in numbers! Women would still be having abortions, they’d just not be reporting it.

Remember, you’re dealing with desperation. Abortion is a very painful and invasive procedure. Women who choose to undergo that procedure are so desperate to end an unwanted pregnancy that they are willing to undergo a medically unnecessary, painful, invasive, embarrassing and shaming procedure. That kind of desperation does’t change just because a law does.

Not to mention that making abortion illegal would lead to the deaths of women who tried to abort at home using various drugs and concoctions. Women that may have gone on to become mothers and who may have had a change of heart in the future and repented their grave sin.

And, yes, I do agree that abortion is not safe. Just like any other medical procedure there is a chance of complications. Obviously, medically supervised abortions are safer. So, maybe we should just call medical abortion “safer” and home/back alley abortion “unsafe”.

Either way, no matter what we call it, we’re still failing to stop it. And we’re failing because we aren’t truly addressing the reason why these women are choosing to have an abortion rather than to have their babies.

 

[ncashion]

What you have seen is a peak in the number of reported abortions. Remember, abortions that are done at home are largely not reported. If abortion was illegal, of course you’d see a drop in numbers! Women would still be having abortions, they’d just not be reporting it.

Remember, you’re dealing with desperation. Abortion is a very painful and invasive procedure. Women who choose to undergo that procedure are so desperate to end an unwanted pregnancy that they are willing to undergo a medically unnecessary, painful, invasive, embarrassing and shaming procedure. That kind of desperation does’t change just because a law does.

Not to mention that making abortion illegal would lead to the deaths of women who tried to abort at home using various drugs and concoctions. Women that may have gone on to become mothers and who may have had a change of heart in the future and repented their grave sin.

And, yes, I do agree that abortion is not safe. Just like any other medical procedure there is a chance of complications. Obviously, medically supervised abortions are safer. So, maybe we should just call medical abortion “safer” and home/back alley abortion “unsafe”.

Either way, no matter what we call it, we’re still failing to stop it. And we’re failing because we aren’t truly addressing the reason why these women are choosing to have an abortion rather than to have their babies.

I agree, but look at what you said. Those are reported abortions, so on top of those not reported we can infer from the data that the ones that were reported were that much more that have occured. Therefore if we still get back to the 1969 numbers that is eradicating all of the reported abortions, then that is lessening the evil. Just as I cannot assume that all the non reported ones will not decrease from that chart alone, you cannot prove that non-reported abortions will stay the same decrease or increase. If it was illegal then just off the reported abortions alone we can have a safe bet that abortion would decrease if we also factor in other methods used by the pro-life movement that are already implemented and will be implemented. Furthermore, we will not have to be accountable to God why we legally killed unborn children of His.

In regard to desperation all sin comes from desperation. Name a sin and it is a distortion of truth. When human beings sin they are in reality trying to seek what is good, but as Christ mentioned of Satan, he is a liar! Therefore, just because something is desperate, does not mean we should condone it. The Catechism will also state that the ends do not justify the means. Therefore we cannot commit evil for a certain good.

Also as I have stated we cannot use words like “safer murder”, “safer drug use”, or “safer road rage”. The fact that medical abortions may be considered “safer” is completely false because a human being is lost no matter what, in fact it is an innocent human being.

Yes we will probably fail to stop it completely because sin is a consequence of Original Sin, but when we stand before God and he asks us what we did to try and eliminate it, I will not be one that says…oh I helped make it legal…

God bless you.

 

[MJJean]

I agree, but look at what you said. Those are reported abortions, so on top of those not reported we can infer from the data that the ones that were reported were that much more that have occured. Therefore if we still get back to the 1969 numbers that is eradicating all of the reported abortions, then that is lessening the evil. Just as I cannot assume that all the non reported ones will not decrease from that chart alone, you cannot prove that non-reported abortions will stay the same decrease or increase.

What we can infer is that the number isn’t changing much, the method is. We went from non-reported illegal abortion to legal abortion that we can keep better track of. That’s all.

Abortion isn’t going anywhere. Humans have been ending unwanted pregnancies for literally thousands of years.There have been reliable abortion herbs and procedures since ancient times. Anyone who thinks making it illegal will help is fooling themselves. Women don’t abort or not based on law. They abort based on desperation. The only thing making abortion illegal will do is cause an absolutely unsafe black market to flourish and endanger womens lives needlessly. Sure, the reported numbers will go down, but the numbers in reality will not. All making abortion illegal does is make whoever is reading the numbers feel better.

Take Ireland. Abortion is illegal in Ireland, so what do women do? They leave the country, order other drugs online that happen to cause abortion or use crackpot home methods.

There is a difference between condoning something and making it illegal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557184/

An interesting read. A greater percentage of pregnancies end in abortion in Latin America than in the U.S. and Canada, according to a 2012 study. The current article describes how women in Latin America are getting abortifacient drugs and how they use them, which may explain how abortion can be more frequent in places where it’s illegal.

I believe that overturning Roe v. Wade and further regulating abortion clinics (as in the case of the recent Texas law) will only push abortion into the black market, and do little to nothing to reduce the current rates. In the U.S., there is already a black market on Cytotec (misoprostol) for inducing medical abortions.

The fact that some people may turn to the black market for an abortion is Roe v Wade is overturned, is not a good reason to not overturn Roe v Wade. What will be important if Roe v Wade is overturned as it is important now, are crisis pregnancy centers doing their part to reach out to women.

Guttmacher Institute says if Roe v Wade is overturned

…

20 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
4 states have laws that automatically ban abortion if Roe were to be overturned.
12 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
8 states have laws that express the irintent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.
7 states have laws that protect the right to choose abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

…

guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf

How could that have a little effect on abortion rate?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just for the record…

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/22/charts-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/

Dr Michael J New looked at abortion laws and it was published in peer reviewed State Politics and Policy Quarterly. He reviewed from 1985 - 2005 and found the 3 approaches to abortion restriction laws reduced the abortion rate and he said the laws

have an impact on the childbearing decisions of women

spa.sagepub.com/content/11/1/28.abstract

It is likely that the approaches discussed in the article above have contributed to reducing the abortion rate, and if that is so, it shows that seeking to change laws regarding to abortion is very important.