General information on a planetary crisis

[bytor2112]

The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives.

Click here for the Guttmacher Institute's latest fact sheet on abortion.

WORLDWIDE

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million

Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

Where abortions occur:

83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.

© Copyright 1996-2008, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (Guttmacher Institute: Home Page)

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)

Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who's having abortions (age)?

52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?

While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?

64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Who's having abortions (religion)?

Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Who's having abortions (income)?

Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Likelihood of abortion:

An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

Abortion coverage:

48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women

__________________

[DigitalShadow]

I will try to start this off on the right foot. Let's start with what I agree with from the pro-life camp:

• I agree that partial birth abortions are wrong and should not be performed unless there is serious medical risk to mother and/or child otherwise.
• I agree that abortion should not be used as a common form of birth control for a variety of reasons.
• I agree that abortion happens too often and that the majority of cases are from irresponsible behavior that could have been easily prevented.

In fact, most pro-choice people agree with these statements as well. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding between the two positions. Pro-choice people tend to think that pro-life people want to ban ALL abortion (even in cases where the mother could very well die), and pro-life people tend to think that pro-choice people want to make ALL abortion legal (even right up until birth). In my experience these are both counterproductive misconceptions that lead to a lot of hostility on both sides.

I think the root of the conflict is determining at what point a human life 'begins' and must be legally and morally protected. There is no easy answer we can all agree on and there are no well-defined undisputable absolutes regarding it. The issue becomes very emotionally charged because some believe that people who have abortions are killing an unborn human being wheras others believe they are being unjustly accused of murder when they remove a part of their own body. It is a sticky situation and hard to approach without it quickly turning into accusations being flung around rather than meaningful debate.

This post is meant to inform, not to defend either side or spark some type of contraversy. I don't claim to know the solution to this issue but I do know that if people took some time and gave a little more understanding to the other side, we would all be a lot better off.

[bytor2112]

DS,

I think the problem has gone way beyond any misconceptions. The statistics are staggering...... if the argument is that abortion should be only in rare instances, rape, incest, health of the Mother.....the statistics don't bear that out.

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

It is pretty obvious that abortion is used as a means of birth control. It is a way to rid a "mistake". "I'm not ready to be a mother, yet." If I had a daughter, and I don't, that were to get pregnant at say 15 years old. I would be heartbroken. No way would I want her to be a mother yet.... but I would expect her to accept the consequences of her act. We could then put the child up for adoption. Why not adoption, lot's of people want children who can't have them. If I were a young lady under 25, which is the age group that tends to receive the most abortions, and I became pregnant, even if I used birth control, I would at least have the child and either become a mother or put the child up for adoption. Nine months of inconvenience is a whole lot better than a life time of regret. Another startling statistic is that 47% of women who have abortions have already had at least one. Really, it's not about rape or incest or mother's health...it is about convenience. If it were about rape, incest and mother's health...there would be 93% fewer abortions performed.

[bytor2112]

What is happening with your baby? (American Pregnancy Association)

While your baby is still extremely small, he/she is now ready for rapid weight gain. The baby is beginning to look more like a little person since the embryonic tail is completely gone by week 9. The eyelids are fully formed, have fused shut, and will open again during week 28.

All the baby's joints such as the knees, elbows, shoulders, ankles, and wrists are working and allowing the baby to move about freely within the amniotic sac. Your baby's heart began beating around day 24, but now his/her heart has divided into four chambers, and the valves are beginning to develop. Your baby can also make a fist, and he/she may begin sucking his/her thumb.*

Most abortions occur at 9 weeks or after......

[funkymonkey]

Have any of you seen the Body Worlds exibits? They show the human fetus in every stage of development. It really helped bring a little more reality to the situation for me, to personally see how quickly the fetus looks like a person.

My sister is an OBGYN, and as part of her schooling she was required to watch an abortion. She is all about blood and gore (does 5 hysterectomies a week), but she had to run out of the room to throw up when she watched the abortion. She said it was the most horrible thing she had ever had to witness.

[Vort]

• I agree that partial birth abortions are wrong and should not be performed unless there is serious medical risk to mother and/or child otherwise.
• I agree that abortion should not be used as a common form of birth control for a variety of reasons.
• I agree that abortion happens too often and that the majority of cases are from irresponsible behavior that could have been easily prevented.

In fact, most pro-choice people agree with these statements as well.

And therein lies the problem. Everyone (almost) agrees that these things are awful and ought not to be, yet any attempt to stop them by legislative means is shot down.

Imagine a group that said, "We believe that rape should be safe, legal, and rare! We deplore rape, and we of course would never think of raping anyone, but men must have that CHOICE! WE ARE PRO-CHOICE!" They would be dismissed out-of-hand as lunatics.

No, rape is an evil, everyone (almost) agrees to that. So what do we do? We make laws to forbid and restrict it, and then we enforce the laws. Are there controversial edge cases? Sure there are. What if there is a child involved who is two days below the age of consent? What if a child who looks like an adult lies about his/her age? What if the wife is drunk or comatose? Yet the existence and controversial nature of the edge cases doesn't convince anyone that the laws ought not to exist. That's just plain absurd.

Can you point to "pro-choice" groups who are actively seeking to restrict late-term abortions? If they exist, I would very much like to know about them. I can certainly point you to a great many pro-life people who are seeking to restrict abortion but keep it available as an option in certain cases.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding between the two positions. Pro-choice people tend to think that pro-life people want to ban ALL abortion (even in cases where the mother could very well die),

Such people certainly do exist. They are a small minority of the pro-life position.

and pro-life people tend to think that pro-choice people want to make ALL abortion legal (even right up until birth).

Are there "pro-choice" groups who do not fit this stereotype? If so, please educate me.

In my experience these are both counterproductive misconceptions that lead to a lot of hostility on both sides.

Yet of the stereotypes you provided, the "pro-life" stereotype is demonstrably false, applying only to a minority of pro-life groups, while the "pro-choice" stereotype seems true. Again, if I'm wrong, please educate me.

I think the root of the conflict is determining at what point a human life 'begins' and must be legally and morally protected.

I think this is almost irrelevant. Until there is a bright line we can all agree on, the point will remain under dispute. Rather, I think the issue is, How much do we value innocent life, how willing are we to protect it, and how much to we expect people to take responsibility for their actions?

The issue becomes very emotionally charged because some believe that people who have abortions are killing an unborn human being

This is a matter of definition, and I don't see how it can be disputed. If the fetus is not an unborn human being, what is it? An unborn duck?

wheras others believe they are being unjustly accused of murder when they remove a part of their own body.

Exactly. As I said before, this is the feminist idea that a fetus is the same as a wart.

It is a sticky situation and hard to approach without it quickly turning into accusations being flung around rather than meaningful debate.

Rather than accusations, it would be helpful to establish definitions and then abide by them.

This post is meant to inform, not to defend either side or spark some type of contraversy. I don't claim to know the solution to this issue but I do know that if people took some time and gave a little more understanding to the other side, we would all be a lot better off.

In principle, I agree. In practice, I believe the "pro-life" side does exactly that, for the most part, while the "pro-choice" side steadfastly refuses to concede even the most obvious of the pro-life position's valid points.

[Over43]

The root of the problem lies in the fact that sanctity for human life no longer exists. Humans will boycott companies for using lab rats, go to jail for Redwood trees (something I might do actually), not eat meat because it is not ethical (or murder), but shrug their shoulders at abortion, or insist that it is a "right". Specie-ism is part of the problem, the belief that "all" organisms" are equal in the place on Earth.

Jon

[kona0197]

And what makes you think this thread will not be closed as well?

By the way for those that think under certain circumstances that abotion is OK tell that to the almighty when judgement day comes. I would think he would say it was not OK as God has a plan for every person.

[rastler00]

And what makes you think this thread will not be closed as well?

By the way for those that think under certain circumstances that abotion is OK tell that to the almighty when judgement day comes. I would think he would say it was not OK as God has a plan for every person.

Uh... is this like a threat?

[OtterPop]

If you truly believe that a zygote or embryo is a person in every sense of the word, how can you approve of abortion even if the conception occurred as a result of rape? That's barbaric.

Yet if you accept that abortion can be appropriate in any case other than the mother's life being at risk, you acknowledge that the lives involved are not actually equivalent, which undermines the argument of full personhood at conception.

[kona0197]

If you truly believe that a zygote or embryo is a person in every sense of the word, how can you approve of abortion even if the conception occurred as a result of rape? That's barbaric.

Yet if you accept that abortion can be appropriate in any case other than the mother's life being at risk, you acknowledge that the lives involved are not actually equivalent, which undermines the argument of full personhood at conception.

Well said.

[Nappaljarri]

Staggering figures.... I am astounded, and yet not surprised. I have just never before contemplated the issue that deeply.

[Spacemecha]

I'm curious. Why is this a planetary crisis? I could see how it could be construed as maybe a societal crisis, but abortion (which I believe to be evil) is the result of a choice of at least one individual up to a small group. Eternal Salvation and Sin are only capable by individuals. And we've been told that the earth will be exalted and moved closer to God. Why is this a planetary crisis? This is probably verging on arguing semantics but if it's an individuals choice and not planet earths, then why bother using the planet to hype it. It's an individual's crisis that happens every time an unborn child is aborted.

This just really bugged me when I saw the title. I can't change society, but I can choose my thoughts and actions, no one elses.

[Vort]

If you truly believe that a zygote or embryo is a person in every sense of the word, how can you approve of abortion even if the conception occurred as a result of rape? That's barbaric.

Suppose you discover one day that, through no fault or action of your own, the life of someone in central Asia is tied to yours. If you ever so much as venture outside your house, that person will be executed. Do you have a moral imperative never to leave your house? Perhaps you do. Maybe not. I'm not sure. But I would not necessarily fault you for leaving your house -- after all, it is not your fault that you find yourself in such a predicament, and you have your own life to continue living, your own family to provide for, etc.

Suppose, on the other hand, that this is a situation you agreed to. Now, you absolutely have a moral imperative to stay at home, unless there is a very drastic reason to leave.

Yet if you accept that abortion can be appropriate in any case other than the mother's life being at risk, you acknowledge that the lives involved are not actually equivalent, which undermines the argument of full personhood at conception.

No. Rather, you are acknowledging personal accountability.

[bytor2112]

I'm curious. Why is this a planetary crisis? I could see how it could be construed as maybe a societal crisis, but abortion (which I believe to be evil) is the result of a choice of at least one individual up to a small group. Eternal Salvation and Sin are only capable by individuals. And we've been told that the earth will be exalted and moved closer to God. Why is this a planetary crisis? This is probably verging on arguing semantics but if it's an individuals choice and not planet earths, then why bother using the planet to hype it. It's an individual's crisis that happens every time an unborn child is aborted.

This just really bugged me when I saw the title. I can't change society, but I can choose my thoughts and actions, no one elses.

As for the title.....spur of the moment. I disagree with not being able to change society. The best way to spread the gospel is by example....... examples of character and integrity, whether modeled after church members or others is a great way to change society. Laws do change society....they reinforce certain standards or relax others. The whole issue with abortion and the number of abortions is a direct result of society being changed by a law and a group of people pushing for change.....IMO

[unixknight]

And what makes you think this thread will not be closed as well?

Ill be very disappointed if that happens, because it would effectively make abortion a taboo topic for this board and I have found many of the arguments here to be very useful in an educational sense. I've also been forced to re-evaluate my own position in a positive and constructive way, and if there are individuals who start to get overemotional then I'd ask for mod action to be limited to those causing problems, and not the thread as a whole.

[bytor2112]

Staggering figures.... I am astounded, and yet not surprised. I have just never before contemplated the issue that deeply.

I think the truth would astonish most and I think you nailed it for most.....most have never contemplated the issue very deeply. They tend to have an emotional reaction one way or another. The scary statistics prove that either the women getting abortions are very very selfish or they have been fed information that lead them to believe that this is actually a viable alternative to the inconvenience of being held accountable for there personal choices that led to them getting pregnant. Excluding of course, incest, rape, mothers health.

[unixknight]

The problem is that in a lot of cases if you portray getting an abortion as the easy way out, or a failure to take responsibility for one's actions, the response in a debate will be either:

-A strawman in which you'll be accused of wanting to 'punish' the pregnant person for her 'immorality'

-They will respond that going to get the abortion is difficult emotionally and IS taking responsibility.

Mind you, I am on the pro-life side of this one but I've been through enough of these debates to know there is no such thing as an iron-clad argument.

[bytor2112]

My favorite is......don't deny me my personal health choices. It is simply a fact that people have been taught to believe that it is not a life that they are destroying. Funny, someone is only going to have a baby...when they want it...otherwise it is just an oops. Another one is moral relativism......."there are already enough unwanted kids in the world.."

[OtterPop]

Suppose you discover one day that, through no fault or action of your own, the life of someone in central Asia is tied to yours. If you ever so much as venture outside your house, that person will be executed. Do you have a moral imperative never to leave your house? Perhaps you do. Maybe not. I'm not sure. But I would not necessarily fault you for leaving your house -- after all, it is not your fault that you find yourself in such a predicament, and you have your own life to continue living, your own family to provide for, etc.

Suppose, on the other hand, that this is a situation you agreed to. Now, you absolutely have a moral imperative to stay at home, unless there is a very drastic reason to leave.

I've heard this scenario before in this debate, and I find it very strained. In fact, I have yet to see anyone come up with a parallel situation for the situation of a woman and a zygote/embryo/fetus. There simply is no parallel.

The example implies that a woman who has consensual sex has agreed to give birth to a baby. She hasn't. She has engaged in a normal act which may lead to pregnancy, but this is hardly the same as formally agreeing to a pregnancy.

A much better comparison would be to say that there is a small chance that anytime you leave your house a person you do not know who has no relationships, who cannot see, cannot hear, cannot communicate, has no discernible concept of their own existence or future, and who no one but you knows exists will be killed. This is much closer to what the truth of most abortions is. If you never, ever leave your house, this killing will never happen. But for most people, never leaving their house is not a realistic option.

If you argue that a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) is the absolute equivalent to a person, it is reprehensible to grant a rape exception merely because the woman is not "responsible" for the pregnancy. I am absolutely pro-choice. I don't believe that a ZEF is the same as a person. But if I truly believed that, I would never approve of killing a person for the comfort and convenience of another person. That attitude shows a shocking lack of respect for life.

It's interesting, too, that this argument absolutely sets up the idea that pregnancy is not just a natural consequence of sex, but a potential punishment for women (but notably not men) who choose to have sex.

If you argue that an embryo is fully a person, you cannot reasonably support killing it unless another life is at stake.

Edited September 17, 2008 by OtterPop

[Vort]

In fact, I have yet to see anyone come up with a parallel situation for the situation of a woman and a zygote/embryo/fetus. There simply is no parallel.

Granted that you are correct, that doesn't mean that normal reasoning doesn't apply.

The example implies that a woman who has consensual sex has agreed to give birth to a baby.

Not so. The example acknowledges that a woman (and, for that matter, a man) engaging in consensual sex accepts the consequences of that action.

She has engaged in a normal act which may lead to pregnancy, but this is hardly the same as formally agreeing to a pregnancy.

That's like saying that riding on the Splash Mountain roller coaster isn't the same as formally agreeing to get wet. Technically it's true, but it's also a pathetic excuse for the wet rider to use when complaining.

If you argue that a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) is the absolute equivalent to a person, it is reprehensible to grant a rape exception merely because the woman is not "responsible" for the pregnancy.

Others find it reasonable.

I am absolutely pro-choice. I don't believe that a ZEF is the same as a person.

1. Is the "ZEF" alive?

2. Is the "ZEF" human?

3. Is the "ZEF" an individual?

It's interesting, too, that this argument absolutely sets up the idea that pregnancy is not just a natural consequence of sex, but a potential punishment for women (but notably not men) who choose to have sex.

Sure, if you consider pregnancy a punishment (as, let me note, feminists seem to -- not to say you're necessarily a feminist) you could make that argument. Those who don't see pregnancy as a punishment are likely to disagree with your assertion, however.

If you argue that an embryo is fully a person, you cannot reasonably support killing it unless another life is at stake.

You haven't shown it to be unreasonable. You have merely stated that you disagree. That's not the same thing. Edited September 17, 2008 by Vort
Toning it down a bit...

[OtterPop]

Vort,

I have never been to Splash Mountain without getting wet. I think it is unreasonable to go to Splash Mountain and expect not to get wet. On the other hand, I have had sex hundreds of times and have never, to my knowledge, gotten pregnant. Going to Splash Mountain is not an aspect of being human that all adults must navigate. Nor is it an essential part of a typical adult's most important relationship. This shows how quickly metaphors in this debate break down and become useless.

A ZEF is alive, it is human (adjective, not noun), and in at least one sense it is individual. But that does not make it the same as a person. I agree that I cannot draw a "bright line" as to when a ZEF becomes a person. However, to me it is patently obvious that a zygote is not the moral or practical equivalent of a baby. It is not a person, though it has that potential. I'm not saying that it is just a lump of tissue, either. That is much too simplistic. I would never compare it to a tumor or a parasite, both comparisons that I've heard in the past in this debate. To me, the ZEF is not without significance and it is not ordinary tissue. But neither is it a person.

I know that one of the ways that birth control pills work is to prevent implantation of the egg. I have used birth control pills, as have most of my friends, many of whom are strongly pro-life. I don't personally know anyone who equates using birth control pills with having abortions, though I have encountered that idea in some radical pro-lifers. I would venture a guess that no one on this board equates using birth control pills with having abortions. Why not? If personhood begins at conception, birth control pills are morally wrong, as they result in untold numbers of murders.

I am a feminist, but I do not consider pregnancy to be a punishment. Sometimes it is the literally the greatest thing in the world to the woman. Sometimes it is a devastating nightmare. But to say in the case of an unwanted pregnancy that a woman who chose to have sex must carry the baby, while a woman who was raped may legitimately have an abortion, suggests not just that pregnancy is a consequence of sex (after all, for the rape victim the pregnancy is also a consequence of sex), but that carrying a pregnancy to term is a punishment for her actions.

Lastly, leaving aside the question of wartime combat, I did not think I had to explain why it is not morally acceptable to kill one person for the benefit of another, short of self defense. Do I really need to take up that question?

[rastler00]

Another one is moral relativism......."there are already enough unwanted kids in the world.."

As one of those terrible moral relativists.... there really is a lot of unwanted and abused kids in the world.

But hey, that's just me. I am male so I'm not getting pregnant anytime soon. If I have a kid that does.... it's not my body, and if I have to front the money, than I am dang well getting paid back.

[bytor2112]

Another one is moral relativism......."there are already enough unwanted kids in the world.."

As one of those terrible moral relativists.... there really is a lot of unwanted and abused kids in the world.

But hey, that's just me. I am male so I'm not getting pregnant anytime soon. If I have a kid that does.... it's not my body, and if I have to front the money, than I am dang well getting paid back.

I don't understand your point.......there are lot of unwanted and abused kids in the world...so should we just go ahead and end there misery by ending there life? Because they have bad parents....does that mean that they shouldn't have a shot at life?

Perhaps you would be better served to explain to your children the consequences that often follow sexual intercourse...and what there responsibilities would be if they were to become pregnant. "Sorry for the inconvenience.....in nine months we can put the baby up for adoption..." seems like a reasonable thought. Then you have helped welcome a life into the world and taught the child the consequence of there action.

[kona0197]

Ill be very disappointed if that happens, because it would effectively make abortion a taboo topic for this board and I have found many of the arguments here to be very useful in an educational sense. I've also been forced to re-evaluate my own position in a positive and constructive way, and if there are individuals who start to get overemotional then I'd ask for mod action to be limited to those causing problems, and not the thread as a whole.

What is there to argue about? Abortion is murder. That's the bottom line. No if and or but. Everyone knows what God says about murder. Good luck justifing abortion when you stand before him.