>>There is nothing to stop our society from acting now to foster a new understanding and approach to relationships, responsibility<<

A bit rich coming from the leader of a church that still considers use of condoms a sin and that for so long tried to keep people totally in the dark regarding sexual matters.

At the weekend it was reported that thousands of abortions carried out each year are for the benefit of repeat customers. It would be interesting to know exactly how many women who have abortions each year are having their second, third or fourth abortion.

I'm pro-choice but I find this deeply disturbing.

Noel

So we're in the light now are we? Despite all the bloody slaughter we think we are at the apex of civilisation. Read Humanae Vitae and you will see that what is a surprise to Lord Steel now was predicted by Pope Paul VI 40 years ago.

The Bishops are right to say that changing hearts is the only way forward because the majority of people do support abortion.

That will change and in generations to come we will be seen as barbarians.

"That will change and in generations to come we will be seen as barbarians."

Isn't that the truth! As with yesterday's thread on child abuse, this is another example that, while we as a species, have progressed technologically, and enjoy, and live, longer lives, we have made little progress in the development of the more - and for want of a better word - 'spiritual' aspects of being human.

I do not mean that in any particularly religious sense, but more in the sense that we are the most developed 'thinking' species on the planet and have a duty to ourselves to progress on that front as well.

It would seem that little progress has been made for several centuries on progressing humanity to a higher level, and that in comparison to our technological accomplishments, we really are barbarians.

Peter

"it was reported that thousands of abortions carried out each year are for the benefit of repeat customers"

Asian families. This has been reported. They also take themselves abroad to India and Pakistan when the doctors refuse repeats.

Id be interested to know the impact of abortion tourism on our figures plus EU immigration from countries like Poland where it is illegal these last few years.

I commend Mr Steel on his decision at the time. However the facts and figures are not being properly researched at present.

There has been a marked decline in the use of the Pill this last decade. This fits with increased cancer scare stories a decade ago and the arrival of HIV and steering towards use of condoms (which are less reliable).

I agree with Noel Cunningham.

A church which preaches against contraception, sex education when society is full of sex everywhere - and has a decidely appauling track record on the value and care of children where priests are concerned, lecturing here? Does their exploration include adoption now that they have decided to close the agencies on prinicple and the 0.00000001% chance a gay couple would choose them over all other agencies?

Steve

When you say "Asian families", I take it you mean that female foetuses are being aborted because they are not male foetuses?

Correct.

So what do we make of the statistics:- Of the 193,000 figure given for abortions, based on ethnicity 111,000 were stated as white British and 82,000 were white european, black, chinese and asian.

111,000 compares with the resident British abortion rate for 1978. (In that time the non British resident status for abortions carried out rose significantly).

Peter,

"It would be interesting to know exactly how many women who have abortions each year are having their second, third or fourth abortion"

No more so than it would be to see how many women who give birth each year are having their second, third or fourth unplanned child.

Contraceptives fail and the stats for abortion in the UK are completely consistent with contraceptive failure. In fact contraceptive failure would be sufficient to account for all abortions and a similar number of live births, meaning that when contraceptives fail many women go ahead and carry to term anyway.

I wonder if Henry or Ernest consider that irresponsible and I also wonder if they make any comparable sacrifices.

If people were better educated at school about contraception then maybe there wouldnt be this amount of abortions. But as long as people try to shelter their kids from the evil of sex education.

Lets face it the kids are going to have sex whether you approve or not so its better to teach them about it then have this shit going on

"......meaning that when contraceptives fail many women go ahead and carry to term anyway."

Frank, are you saying that without the intervention of an abortionist, confirmed pregnancies would (almost certainly) result in live births?

Once you respond, I'll show you why I put this question directly to you.

Allan,

This is what I am saying:

Contraceptives fail and the stats for abortion in the UK are completely consistent with contraceptive failure. In fact contraceptive failure would be sufficient to account for all abortions and a similar number of live births, meaning that when contraceptives fail many women go ahead and carry to term anyway.

Frank

There sure seem to be a lot of contraceptive failures. This is strange, given that the pill is 99.99% reliable and has been around for over 40 years. Also, the morning-after pill should be reducing the statistics, but they are continuing to rise. So either it is having no discernabe impact, or something else is happening.

The Asian practice of aborting female foettuses on the grounds of sex-selection is morally indefensible, except to moral relativists.

Frank is completely right. Contraception and abortion are not alternatives. One leads to the other because of the failure rate, forgetfulness, and general human error.

That is why it is a lie that contraception can protect a society from unplanned pregnancy or AIDS.

Only the old fashioned virtues of abstinence, fidelity and chastity can really do that.

I wonder if Henry or Ernest consider that irresponsible and I also wonder if they make any comparable sacrifices.

In fairness you are well able to argue the case on its merits without asking anybody to account for their own lives. That is not your business and anything said in response is unverifiable anyway.

Peter

Pill use is in decline, please previous comment

Re your the morning after pill

In 2005/06, the greatest % of women who had some educational qualifications (of any level) knew about the ‘morning after pill’ (94%) versus women with no qualifications where it fell to 82%. Thats a significant number in this debate.

In 2005/06 only 47% of women were correctly aware that the ‘morning after pill’ remains effective up to 72 hours after intercourse. 44% per cent of women
underestimated the effective time period for the emergency pill.

In 2005/06, the youngest women were the least likely to be using any contraception; just a half (51%) of women aged 16–17 were using at least one method of contraception.

Use of condoms in the past year was also related to
educational qualifications. Men who had a degree were more likely to have used a condom (48 %) than men whose highest qualification was the equivalent of a GCSE grade D–G (34%) or men who had no qualifications (26%).

'Only the old fashioned virtues of abstinence, fidelity and chastity can really do that'.

If that is the case Henry please explain the discrepancies between a country like the US where abstinence is practised. The States that advocate it fully have high failure rates. Compared with the Netherlands a country with the lowest overall teen pregnacies and abortion rates alongside liberal and critically viewed sex education and fully available contraception.

Frank,

Are you intimating that overall the use of abortion, for whatever reason, is totally acceptable, even it's use or abuse as an alternative form of contraception. Or, as in many Asian cases, it is used as a tool to prevent female births.

I don't disagree with the idea of access to termination, and can see where it is the only valid option.

However, I do disagree with the increasingly casual use of the procedure in what seems to be an alternative to contraception. Especially now when there are several viable alternatives.

My original post was condemning the train of thought, or state of mind, that sees abortion as something acceptable - as a matter of course, and in fact no better than the acceptance in the past, of the 'Lady with the coat-hanger, and a bottle of gin', maybe more hygienic, but no more civilised. It was considerd barbaric then, and it still is now.

I was pondering the fact that as a supposedly civilised species, we have made little progress in the last five hundred years, or so, and in comparison to our technological progress, we are still barbarians.

Of course this will offend the 'freedom of choice' folk, but in a truly civilised world the matter 'of choice after conception', just would not arise.

I hear you say, 'maybe in an ideal world', - of course you are correct, but isn't that just what we are aiming for? it just seems that we have not made any progress on that front since the middle ages...

Don't you think it time we had some original thought on the matter, rather than all this cat-fighting that goes on whenever the subject is mentioned?

Reading Steve's two previous posts, it seem that education may the answer - but then that is another area of failure for our so-called 'civilised' society..

Peter,

"There sure seem to be a lot of contraceptive failures. "

Indeed there are.

"This is strange, given that the pill is 99.99% reliable and has been around for over 40 years."

I don't think that is correct. I think the pill has about 1-2% failure rate with perfect use and more with typical use. And of course, not everyone is using the pill as contraception.

The idea that huge numbers of women are using abortion as primary means of birth control isn't supported by the abortion rates (indeed unless the vast majority of such women elect to carry unplanned pregnancies to term it is contradicted by them). It also has no bearing at all on the question of whether abortion should be legal or not.

"The Asian practice of aborting female foettuses on the grounds of sex-selection is morally indefensible, except to moral relativists."

What has moral relativism got to do with it?

As for sex selection, that is most likely a response to overpopulation. Controlling the number of females is a way to control fertility.

Not that the reasons for a woman's abortion are relevant. I doubt you or anyone else posting have better grounds for the deaths (of people) you allow to happen.

Ernest,

"Are you intimating that overall the use of abortion, for whatever reason, is totally acceptable, even it's use or abuse as an alternative form of contraception. Or, as in many Asian cases, it is used as a tool to prevent female births."

What do you mean by acceptable? I am only concerned with the legality of abortion.

Of course ideally there would be less unwanted pregnancies but forcing women carry to term won't help with that. I believe that studies show that illegality of abortion has no real impact on abortion rates.

Frank

No-one is talking about making abortion illegal.

Your point about aborting female foetuses as a population control measure is nonsense. In India, it is a cultural issue tied up with dowries, and in China there are similar cultural pressures at work. Both governments are totally opposed to this, not least because it is leading to population imbalance and millions of young men with no prospects of securing partners, a potentially explosive social problem.

Peter,

"No-one is talking about making abortion illegal."

LOL! Explain that to the cardinals.

"Your point about aborting female foetuses as a population control measure is nonsense. In India, it is a cultural issue tied up with dowries, and in China there are similar cultural pressures at work."

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that both of those countries have enormous populations.

"it is leading to population imbalance and millions of young men with no prospects of securing partners, a potentially explosive social problem."

Of course. I didn't say it was a good thing, I just provided an explanation. But the Cardinals will be happy that not too many condoms are being used anyway.

Have you noticed all the comments posted are from men. Let's congratulate the scientists for the invention of viagara was that really necessary? Maybe now they could turn their attention to foolproof contraception. Not that that would solve the problem you have to get the girls (or men) to take responsibility for themselves. Maybe the NHS charging a lot of money for the termination of a second or third pregnancy would deter some women.

Maggie

I'd say the vast majority of comments on almost any talkboard on almost any subject are from men.

Theyre not all like Henry though Maggie so dont worry. The debate is often patronising and based on hearsay rather than solid fact. Does it matter the gender of the patronisers and hearsayers?

Im still curious about people reeling at 'abortion is being used as a form of contraception' myself. Of bloody course its contraception. And when Steel states 'women feel they can turn to abortion "if things go wrong". What did he think they were doing prior to the enactment of the law. Turning to it for fun?

Yes you are quite right Henry94 it is mostly men posting maybe the women are at work or looking after kids. Who knows.

All this talk from the prolifers may get them what they want a ban on abortion but it won't go away it will merely get driven to back street abortionists and all the trauma that entails.

Choose another subject guys, lets talk about the enslavement of women by men in Saudia Arabia, lets talk about that a lot and maybe get it banned. This will mean an improvement for both men and especially women in the Middle East.

The term 'back-street abortion' actually means entering the abortionist's surgery by the back entrance rather than the front door but the pro-abortionists use the imagery of a poor girl lying down in the middle of a back alley with some old crone shoving some knitting needles up her. What was the death rate from abortion prior to legalisation and how did it compare with the death-rate from childbirth?

My mothers best friend had a back street abortion Allan and nearly didnt make it. She got saeptacemia. You dont know what you are talking about.

Frank

For the record:

1. I'm pro-choice. That doesn't mean I can't have concerns about the present numbers of abortions.

2. If China and India are aborting females to control the population as you claim, why is it that such a disproportionate number of females are being aborted? Why not abort an equal number of males and females? Or are they practicing an advance form of population control to prevent births 20 years from now by aborting females?

3. I couldn't give a **** about what the cardinals or any other sky-god promoters think.

Peter,

"1. I'm pro-choice. That doesn't mean I can't have concerns about the present numbers of abortions."

Of course not. However the present numbers are still far less than you'd expect from overwhelming use of abortion as sole means of contraception. The pro-life use that notion to project their image of all women who abort as being either hypnotised by those who run the clinics, or irresponsible selfish whores, when neither is the usual case. Similarly for 'repeat customers' - so what? Some women are going to have contraception fail more than once. If the first abortion is OK then so is the second.

"2. If China and India are aborting females to control the population as you claim, why is it that such a disproportionate number of females are being aborted?"

The most direct way to control fertility across a population is to limit the number of females in it. Infanticide of females is also very common in overpopulated regions. If sex-selective abortion were prevented, then female infanticide would be even more common. I'm not saying this is desirable or moral or a justification or anything else, it is just a statement about how populations respond to overpopulation. I'm saying that the root cause of these practices is overpopulation and focusing on reducing abortion is not going to fix that.

My mothers best friend had a back street abortion Allan and nearly didnt make it. She got saeptacemia. You dont know what you are talking about.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 06:25PM | alison

Then why not enlighten me, Alison? That's why I asked the question about the respective mortality rates of so-called back-street abortion and normal childbirth prior to legalisation. I take it that the abortionist was medically qualified?

Whats not enlightening about saeptacemia and what do you mean 'you'll take it'? Are you saying back street abortions were made up you tosser? I really cannot stand you Allan so if you are going to be casually dismissive then ill be fucking rude back and we squabble over this on that level.

From your comment, your quote which you seemed to think was impressive

"I slammed doors in the faces of deliverymen; cursed at Egyptian soldiers in a language they didn't speak; kept a resentful mental tally of the Western men, especially fellow reporters, who seemed to condone, even relish, the relegation of women in the Arab world."

If you think you can get away with being a contemptuous tosser about one case of saeptacaemia then ill treat you the way she treated islamic mysoginists who were contemptuous of her.

Alison, I know of 90 people who died from C-difficile in an NHS hospital this year. What point are you trying to make?

Alan - Thats an odd parallel. I'll be posting on this issue next week, fully loaded, with some nice stories for you to relish and some facts for you and anyone else who needs to, to get their minds around. Ive just finished sending it to my pro choice (thankfully) MP which was my first concern. Since David posted this today ill wait a bit. His Lordship Steel has nothing to regret.

The reason why I related the lack of hygiene in NHS hospitals of today is that you cited a case of septicaemia from what must have been pre-1967 from a so-called back-street abortion. The mortality rate of childbirth then should have been higher (NHS permitting) than now and so would the risks from abortion - legal or otherwise. The back street: was it the back street to a surgery that you are citing or was it just a back street? Did the case which you describe happen in a doctor's surgery?

In today's conflict about abortion, can I ask the pro-abortionists whether alternatives to abortion should be put to the bearer of the foetus/baby (strike out as your opinion dictates)? I'm of the opinion that alternatives should be put with all reasonable means of persuasion not to abort. There's adoption, for example, and that seemed to work rather well pre-1967.
If the bearer cannot be persuaded, then abortion it is - but the numbers are appalling.

I'm against abortion "in the abstract", and (I was about to say "but" instead of "and", until I realised that the two points of view do not necessarily exclude each other) I try my best to be pro-people in reality. Women have abortions because they feel desperate and afraid of losing their security and incomes. I think that we should try and give women better options, provide new solutions, so that abortion is not the best or only solution to their problems any more.
I don't look down on, or condemn, any woman who has been forced into making this humiliating, undignified choice, in their lives. Women are the victims of abortion, just as much as their unborn babies. It's a terrible tragedy for all concerned. And often, unthinking, unscrupulous men are responsible for the unwanted pregnancies, which some women feel they have no other choice but to terminate. It's a sad, sorry state of affairs all round.

Frank posted

If sex-selective abortion were prevented, then female infanticide would be even more common.

How do you know? Intanticide is a difficult crime to hide, for obvious reasons.

All the evidence from India is that the dowry tradition and the low position of women in society are the main drivers of female foetus abortion. In China it's also a culturally driven practice, no doubt made worse by the "one child policy".

Allan,

"In today's conflict about abortion, can I ask the pro-abortionists whether alternatives to abortion should be put to the bearer of the foetus/baby (strike out as your opinion dictates)?"

Of course you can, if you can find some 'pro-abortionists'.

"I'm of the opinion that alternatives should be put with all reasonable means of persuasion not to abort. There's adoption, for example, and that seemed to work rather well pre-1967."

Adoption is not a solution for a woman who cannot handle the pregnancy, or who believes that abortion is not a moral issue but adoption is (and the latter is a far more reasonable position than the former).

Of course you could try paying women not to abort, but that would probably be too inconveeeeeeeeeeenient for you.

Henry
Only the old fashioned virtues of abstinence, fidelity and chastity can really do that

I remember in my callow youth seeing a survey done through church records that showed the rates for unwed mothers and shotgun marriages were the same in 1880 as they were in 1980 except of course the actual ratios of one to the other

Peter,

I wrote:
If sex-selective abortion were prevented, then female infanticide would be even more common.

Peter wrote:

How do you know? Intanticide is a difficult crime to hide, for obvious reasons.

Because when the technology was available to perform sex selective abortions, those displaced previous practices of infanticide of girls soon after birth (plus of course neglect and abandonment resulting in higher mortality for young girls).

All the evidence from India is that the dowry tradition and the low position of women in society are the main drivers of female foetus abortion. In China it's also a culturally driven practice, no doubt made worse by the "one child policy".

Yes all of these are factors but not the only or the main drivers. Fertility is also a driver for example . When fertility is high you don't find these issues (because there is less pressure for each birth to 'count'). And when you get overpopulation, the population acts to reduce fertility which sets up a feedback that drives the whole problem.

It is a difficult subject at the best of times, and you are right to say that the conveyer-belt attitude towards it is not acceptable and has to be changed.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/at-last-some-sense-on-abortion/

the conveyer-belt attitude towards it is not acceptable and has to be changed

There isnt a conveyor belt. Thats a LIE

I don't understand the position that abortion is acceptable but too much of it is not. The basis of abortion is the denial of the humanity of the child in the womb. Once you accept that what is there to be squimish about?

And if you don't accept it then how can abortion be right at all?

I dont understand how there can be an appraisal of what constitutes 'too much abortion' unless it is to give the forced pregnancy advocates something to paw over for the sake of it? We should deal in the real statistics on this issue including the complexities rather than half truths and militant 'pro life' propaganda. At the start of this year we saw here a piece decrying women who had had abortions in January as Christmas party 'drunks and whores'. Working back from the basics of the timing on said pregnancies and how ong it takes to get an abortion disproves that as total lies and nonsense. Is that how we decide on this debate? Majority 'Conveyor belts', majority 'drunks and whores' that dont exist?

Its the way we treat and patronise women in these situations as one homogenous group with no humanity at all - all of whom have landed in the same situation for the same reasons that worries me. In the UK, unlike the US, abortion laws were not enacted because of any feminist 'agenda' either - but theyre an easy group to blame for everything.

Once we accept that much we can have a proper debate - one which includes how we prevent unplanned pregancies given the frightening lack of sex education from the stats above, or provide for better adoption facilities, or sheltered homes for those for whom a pregnancy is a total disaster and stigma. Steves comments above show that immigration has had an impact. It surprises me that the right who like any opportunity to beat on about that cannot see how different cultural attitudes have had an impact since this law was enacted. I looked up the stats myself last night and the highest nos of abortions are indeed carried out in the areas with highest immigration levels and pockets of different cultures and most vulnerable women. Maybe its easier for Lord Steel and the Guardian to blame in more general terms because that potential issue leaves a sour taste in his mouth.

Frank posted:

And when you get overpopulation, the population acts to reduce fertility which sets up a feedback that drives the whole problem.

I'm not sure how you apply this to India and China. Absolute population numbers are meaningless unless related to the territory they occupy.

India ranks 24th in the world in terms of population density, while China is 54th. The Netherlands is 16th and the UK is 35th.

See HERE for the full table.

"forced pregnancy". Were these women raped? Alison's terminology is way off base here.

>>India ranks 24th in the world in terms of population density, while China is 54th.<<

Peter, does this include the vast uninhabitable mountain ranges and deserts in those countries?

Hardly comparable with Holland.

Allan - so is 'pro life'

Noel

Yes, and it also includes the vast plains and coastal areas. So what measurement would you use to assess population density? It may have problems but it tells you much more than the population total.

It's a bit like reporters who say (for example) that the government over-spent on something by £50 million, without relating that to the original budget. If the budget was £100 million the overspend was 50%, but if the budget was £1 billion the overspend was only 5%. Either way, the figure of £50 million on its own is pretty useless.