Where are abortion rates the lowest?

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen, your posts are usually quite reasoned and easy to follow, but you totally lost me this time. Up until now, we’ve been talking about abortion rates and their correlation with legal status. You made a claim that Dutch abortion rates were very low in spite of easy abortion availability.

I’m merely asking if RU-486 (and similar chemical abortions) were considered “abortion” in your statistical source or “contraceptives.” If Dutch women simply abort with a pill instead of a scalpal, I’m not all that impressed. I’m not sure what sex educational philosophy has to do with it at all.

If you look at my post (#5) you’ll see that it was in response to the statement:

Sexual education is no answer as far as lowering abortion rates.

Now, the Netherlands has had considerable success with its approach to sex education which means that it stands out, not only in comparison to the US but to her neighbors and, particularly, to the UK (which has some similarities in certain attitudes to the US and some similar problems with teen pregnancies).

The question of Mifepristone and RU-486 being the ‘reason’ for the difference of abortion rates might be valid if the Netherlands had them but her neighbors didn’t - which is not the case. Not only that but one of the major pro-life arguments I’ve seen used on this board about these chemical interventions is that ‘emergency contraception’ has little effect on abortion rates - it would be rather difficult to maintain this while saying that the low abortion rate in the Netherlands is the result of using them - unless, of course, the argument carried the caveat ‘except in the case of the Netherlands’ whenever it’s used (which might beg the question of whether the Dutch have some important answers).

 

[manualman]

I’ve not seen an argument that RU-486 would have no effect on surgical abortion rates. (And you realize, I hope that this is rather more than just a ‘morning after pill.’) If you give yourself a chemical abortion, you simply don’t need a surgical one.

As to the difference, it should be easy to see. If one country has an eudcational philosophy that tells students about “simple and reliable” chemical abortifacient drugs and another does not highly emphasize that avenue, it would have predictable results on the surgical abortion rate.

But to a pro-lifer, surgical abortion is no different than chemical abortion, so the difference is mere semantics.

I’m guessing you just don’t know the answer to my question (Are chemical abortions such as RU486 included in the statistics?).

 

[rpp]

If you look at my post (#5) you’ll see that it was in response to the statement:
Sexual education is no answer as far as lowering abortion rates.Now, the Netherlands has had considerable success with its approach to sex education which means that it stands out, not only in comparison to the US but to her neighbors and, particularly, to the UK (which has some similarities in certain attitudes to the US and some similar problems with teen pregnancies).

The question of Mifepristone and RU-486 being the ‘reason’ for the difference of abortion rates might be valid if the Netherlands had them but her neighbors didn’t - which is not the case. Not only that but one of the major pro-life arguments I’ve seen used on this board about these chemical interventions is that ‘emergency contraception’ has little effect on abortion rates - it would be rather difficult to maintain this while saying that the low abortion rate in the Netherlands is the result of using them - unless, of course, the argument carried the caveat ‘except in the case of the Netherlands’ whenever it’s used (which might beg the question of whether the Dutch have some important answers).

I am still waiting on the links or citations that back up the assertion that the Netherlands has a significantly lower abortion rate.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve not seen an argument that RU-486 would have no effect on surgical abortion rates. (And you realize, I hope that this is rather more than just a ‘morning after pill.’) If you give yourself a chemical abortion, you simply don’t need a surgical one.

As to the difference, it should be easy to see. If one country has an eudcational philosophy that tells students about “simple and reliable” chemical abortifacient drugs and another does not highly emphasize that avenue, it would have predictable results on the surgical abortion rate.

But to a pro-lifer, surgical abortion is no different than chemical abortion, so the difference is mere semantics.

I’m guessing you just don’t know the answer to my question (Are chemical abortions such as RU486 included in the statistics?).

I am aware of the differences between the methods - you used the term ‘abortion pill’ and ‘similar chemical abortions’ and I was doing my best to bear in mind Catholic understandings.

Meanwhile:

1. The Dutch rate was lower than her neighbors before RU-486.
2. RU-486 is rarely used (in comparison with her neighbors).
3. Being ‘medical abortions’ RU-486 use would be included in the statistics as elsewhere in Western Europe.

I’ve been careful with talking about the Dutch experience - only saying that ‘it works’ - because the approach would be unacceptable to Catholics and I understand that (from conversations elsewhere).

If believing that it’s all about things like Dutch statistics being, in some way, ‘doctored’ helps you, that’s ok by me - after all, I have no real interest in what happens in the US but the real questions, I would suggest, are about the ‘morality’ of the Dutch approach (high on ‘relationships’ low on ‘abstinence’) rather than whether the Dutch are perpetrating a gigantic fraud.

 

[manualman]

I simply asked the question about the source so we could see for ourselves. Sorry if you took that as some sort of accusation of fraud.

DO you have any links to details?

 

[Kaninchen]

There’s an awful lot out there - googling ‘Sex Education’ ‘Netherlands’ ‘Abortion statistics’ will take you on a tour.

(it’s very late where I am and you have Google too)