|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: Unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year |
 |
|
Unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year
| Quote: |
About 70,000 women die every year and many more suffer harm as a result of unsafe abortions in countries with restrictive laws on ending a pregnancy, according to a report.
The total number of abortions across the globe has fallen, the influential Guttmacher Institute says, but that drop relates only to legal abortions and is mostly the result of changes in eastern Europe.
There were 41.6m terminations worldwide in 2003, compared with 45.5m in 1995. But in 2003, says the report, 19.7m of these were unsafe, clandestine abortions. The numbers of those have hardly changed from 1995, when there were 19.9m.
Almost all the unsafe abortions were in less developed countries with restrictive abortion laws.
"Virtually all abortions in Africa and in Latin America and the Caribbean were unsafe," says the report. In Asia, safe procedures outnumbered unsafe because of the large number of legal abortions in China. Most of those in Europe and almost all in North America were safe.
The figures are hard to obtain in countries with restrictive laws from hospitals dealing with women damaged by backstreet or self-induced abortion. But the institute, which has been monitoring the numbers for many years, is confident of the picture it paints and hopes it will influence policy makers.
"Our hope is that the new report will help inform a public debate in which all too often emotion trumps science," said the institute president, Dr Sharon Camp.
Fundamental to turning the tide is preventing unwanted pregnancy, but in many countries there is little advice on family planning and contraceptive products are in short supply. "Women will continue to seek abortion whether it is legal or not as long as the unmet need for contraception remains high," Camp said. "With sufficient political will we can ensure that no woman has to die in order to end a pregnancy she neither wanted nor planned for."
The US has always been the biggest funder of family planning in developing countries, but a significant amount of it stopped under the presidency of George Bush, who reinstated a policy known as the "global gag rule" on arrival in office in January 2001.
It removed funding from any family planning organisation overseas that had anything to do with abortion, including counselling. Although European governments, including the UK, stepped up contributions, funds were short at a time when more couples were becoming interested in smaller families. "It really was a lost decade," said Camp.
President Barack Obama has rescinded the policy and more US funds are expected, but the process of ordering increased contraceptive supplies from manufacturers and getting them to where they are needed will take time.
Where contraceptive use has risen, such as in the former Soviet bloc countries, abortion rates have invariably fallen. Worldwide, the unintended pregnancy rate has dropped from 69 for every 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1995 to 55 for every 1,000 in 2008. The proportion of married women using contraception increased from 54% in 1990 to 63% in 2003.
However, only 28% of married African women use contraceptives. Lack of availability is the biggest issue.
|
This was one of the things that disgusted me with regards to the Bush Administration. They also pressured other countries to follow suit. I know that the Australian government and organisations caved into their pressure to stop assisting women overseas with family planning (both abortion and contraception, I think). Thank Thor the Bushies have gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There were 41.6m terminations worldwide in 2003, compared with 45.5m in 1995. But in 2003, says the report, 19.7m of these were unsafe, clandestine abortions. The numbers of those have hardly changed from 1995, when there were 19.9m. |
The numbers improved by a statistically insignificant amount despite the fact that there is a larger population in the world. Same unsafe abortions, more people, thus less unsafe abortions per capita. Isn't that a good thing?
Also, what bothers you about Bush? That he's pro life, that he's a religious zealot, or that he didn't spend my tax dollars on abortions in foreign countries? Pro-life/choice aside, why should my tax dollars be used for abortions in foreign countries when we have problems with unwanted pregnancies in our own country that need addressing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 70.000 women? and how many babies?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| why should my tax dollars be used for abortions in foreign countries when we have problems with unwanted pregnancies in our own country that need addressing? |
Keep down immigration! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
| why should my tax dollars be used for abortions in foreign countries when we have problems with unwanted pregnancies in our own country that need addressing? |
Keep down immigration! |
I'm on board! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
Also, what bothers you about Bush? That he's pro life, that he's a religious zealot, or that he didn't spend my tax dollars on abortions in foreign countries? Pro-life/choice aside, why should my tax dollars be used for abortions in foreign countries when we have problems with unwanted pregnancies in our own country that need addressing? |
Did you actually read what I wrote? He didn't just not spend US taxpayer money, he actively lobbied other countries not to do so.
And pro-life people do not start dubious wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm unmoved by the number of women who die due to abortions. Like the poster above, I don't want my tax money bailing out stupid couples or individuals, or condoning irresponsibility. Ideally the government would stay out of it, neither providing money nor laws against it, pregnancy by rape being an exception.
Abortion is the first entry in Robert Nisbet's 'Prejudices: a philosophical dictionary.' Most of it is available on google books, here's a link. Most interesting is the argument that outlawing abortion via the state actually damages family values.
http://tinyurl.com/ykvapa7
About the middle ages, it's true that civil authorities tolerated it, and probably true that church authorities did too. However he makes two errors regarding first the biblical stance and second the Scholastic tradition viz. abortion. 1) The OT does mention abortion. Exodus 21 says, "If anyone should strike a pregnant woman and produce an abortion, if death follows, let a life be taken for a life." This is complicated by the obvious evil intention. 2) The Scholastics did not believe that 'ensoulment' happened until 40 days, in boys, and 80 days, in girls, after conception; only following 'ensoulment' would an abortion have been considered homicide, and even then the mother's health would have been weighed in the balance, in the name of self-defence. Before that it would be a sin but not a particularly bad one.
Of course this all has its proper place in a context foreign to the atomistic and sexually 'liberated' lifestyles of the developed world.
Nisbet's references to Plato and other classical thinkers might be misleading for want of references. Plato does not actually discuss abortion, he only mentions in passing that midwives perform it.
edit: fixed the url, thank you.
Last edited by Koveras on Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Koveras:
Your link is interesting, but is creating major sidescroll. Maybe give some thought to shortening it? If, like me, you're a bit of a slow learner when it comes to message board gizmos, you can always try tinyurl.
http://tinyurl.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
I'm unmoved by the number of women who die due to abortions. Like the poster above, I don't want my tax money bailing out stupid couples or individuals, or condoning irresponsibility. Ideally the government would stay out of it, neither providing money nor laws against it, pregnancy by rape being an exception.
Abortion is the first entry in Robert Nisbet's 'Prejudices: a philosophical dictionary.' Most of it is available on google books, here's a link. Most interesting is the argument that outlawing abortion via the state actually damages family values.
http://tinyurl.com/ykvapa7
About the middle ages, it's true that civil authorities tolerated it, and probably true that church authorities did too. However he makes two errors regarding first the biblical stance and second the Scholastic tradition viz. abortion. 1) The OT does mention abortion. Exodus 21 says, "If anyone should strike a pregnant woman and produce an abortion, if death follows, let a life be taken for a life." This is complicated by the obvious evil intention. 2) The Scholastics did not believe that 'ensoulment' happened until 40 days, in boys, and 80 days, in girls, after conception; only following 'ensoulment' would an abortion have been considered homicide, and even then the mother's health would have been weighed in the balance, in the name of self-defence. Before that it would be a sin but not a particularly bad one.
Of course this all has its proper place in a context foreign to the atomistic and sexually 'liberated' lifestyles of the developed world.
Nisbet's references to Plato and other classical thinkers might be misleading for want of references. Plato does not actually discuss abortion, he only mentions in passing that midwives perform it.
edit: fixed the url, thank you. |
Then you might care about what his policies did for your own country:
Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm perfectly willing to blame Bush for advocating and backing abstinence programs in the US.
But I'm not willing to blame him for back-alley abortions in other countries. There's really enough to condemn the man for without reaching that far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
I'm unmoved by the number of women who die due to abortions. Like the poster above, I don't want my tax money bailing out stupid couples or individuals, or condoning irresponsibility. Ideally the government would stay out of it, neither providing money nor laws against it, pregnancy by rape being an exception.
Abortion is the first entry in Robert Nisbet's 'Prejudices: a philosophical dictionary.' Most of it is available on google books, here's a link. Most interesting is the argument that outlawing abortion via the state actually damages family values.
http://tinyurl.com/ykvapa7
About the middle ages, it's true that civil authorities tolerated it, and probably true that church authorities did too. However he makes two errors regarding first the biblical stance and second the Scholastic tradition viz. abortion. 1) The OT does mention abortion. Exodus 21 says, "If anyone should strike a pregnant woman and produce an abortion, if death follows, let a life be taken for a life." This is complicated by the obvious evil intention. 2) The Scholastics did not believe that 'ensoulment' happened until 40 days, in boys, and 80 days, in girls, after conception; only following 'ensoulment' would an abortion have been considered homicide, and even then the mother's health would have been weighed in the balance, in the name of self-defence. Before that it would be a sin but not a particularly bad one.
Of course this all has its proper place in a context foreign to the atomistic and sexually 'liberated' lifestyles of the developed world.
Nisbet's references to Plato and other classical thinkers might be misleading for want of references. Plato does not actually discuss abortion, he only mentions in passing that midwives perform it.
edit: fixed the url, thank you. |
Then you might care about what his policies did for your own country:
Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benji
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George Bush must have been one busy and horny guy to impregnate that many teenage girls.
Telling young kids to abstain from sex is the right message. If they are too stupid to listen or their parents have no interest in teaching their kids about sex, then its not George W's fault. And I hate anti abortion Christian wackos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benji wrote: |
| Telling young kids to abstain from sex is the right message |
Teenagers should be encouraged to indulge their urges (urges being the crucial word) and use contraception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benji
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| benji wrote: |
| Telling young kids to abstain from sex is the right message |
Teenagers should be encouraged to indulge their urges (urges being the crucial word) and use contraception. |
The article states that 16,000 girls between 10-14 years old got pregnant. Call me old fashioned, but kids that age have no business having sex, with or withour protection. Its up to their parents to monitor the situation, not the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. As my religious family point out, it's 100% effective. As I point out, if you include user error it's not that effective. But it's free.
The problem of course is that people want to use it to displace other methods which allow you to eat your cake and have it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
