Doctor: Detroit abortion stats 'like some Third World country'


#1

Nearly one-third of all pregnancies in the city of Detroit end in abortion, a statistic public health officials blame on rising poverty and dwindling access to affordable contraception.

Of an estimated 18,360 pregnancies among Detroit residents in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, 5,693 ended in abortion, or 31 percent.

During that same year, an estimated 160,219 pregnancies were reported in Michigan, with 22,699 abortions.

detroitnews.com/article/20140522/LIFESTYLE03/305220030


#2

Regarding contraception, here are some general statistics

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.8]

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

All contraception has failiure rates.

An honest look at the data shows that in virtually every country that increased the use of contraception, there was a simultaneous increase in that country’s abortion rate. In England (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), France (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), Australia, (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), Portugal (Whose abortion rate only began to rise after 1999, after oral contraceptive methods were made widely available), Canada (Whose abortion rate only began to rise after the legalization of oral contraceptives in 1969), and, as the Guttmacher Institute shows, Singapore, Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, and South Korea, to name a few.

And of course, we saw this rise in the land of the free and home of the brave. Contraceptive devices gained popularity throughout the 1900′s, and were “legalized” in 1965. The widespread proliferation of contraceptive devices followed. The abortion rate began to creep up at this same time, after 1965, from 0.02 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 in 1965 to 16.33 in 1973, when abortion was legalized.

Now before the inevitable screams of “correlation does not equal causation!” commence, let’s dive a little deeper. It is true that correlation is not causation, but what many of the Internet-trained forget — myself included — is the obvious truth that correlation does not rule out causation. In fact, if there is strong correlation and a logical reason for causation, correlation does imply some degree of causation, though there may be many other factors involved. So is there a logical reason for the increased use of contraceptives to be correlated with the increased abortion rate between 1965 and 1973?

Yes. As Guttmacher researcher Stanley Henshaw noted in his review “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States“, “contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers”. The CDC has consistently reported that the majority of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception at the time of their last menstrual cycle, that is, at the time they conceived. If contraceptive users are more motivated to have abortions than non-contraceptive users, then it is not ridiculous to posit that the increased use of contraception in the USA was a major factor in the simultaneous increase in abortions.

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html


#3

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.8]

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

All contraception has failiure rates.

An honest look at the data shows that in virtually every country that increased the use of contraception, there was a simultaneous increase in that country’s abortion rate. In England (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), France (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), Australia, (Rise in contraceptive use: simultaneous rise in abortions), Portugal (Whose abortion rate only began to rise after 1999, after oral contraceptive methods were made widely available), Canada (Whose abortion rate only began to rise after the legalization of oral contraceptives in 1969), and, as the Guttmacher Institute shows, Singapore, Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, and South Korea, to name a few.

And of course, we saw this rise in the land of the free and home of the brave. Contraceptive devices gained popularity throughout the 1900′s, and were “legalized” in 1965. The widespread proliferation of contraceptive devices followed. The abortion rate began to creep up at this same time, after 1965, from 0.02 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 in 1965 to 16.33 in 1973, when abortion was legalized.

Now before the inevitable screams of “correlation does not equal causation!” commence, let’s dive a little deeper. It is true that correlation is not causation, but what many of the Internet-trained forget — myself included — is the obvious truth that correlation does not rule out causation. In fact, if there is strong correlation and a logical reason for causation, correlation does imply some degree of causation, though there may be many other factors involved. So is there a logical reason for the increased use of contraceptives to be correlated with the increased abortion rate between 1965 and 1973?

Yes. As Guttmacher researcher Stanley Henshaw noted in his review “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States“, “contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers”. The CDC has consistently reported that the majority of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception at the time of their last menstrual cycle, that is, at the time they conceived. If contraceptive users are more motivated to have abortions than non-contraceptive users, then it is not ridiculous to posit that the increased use of contraception in the USA was a major factor in the simultaneous increase in abortions.

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html


#4

"The widespread proliferation of contraceptive devices followed. The abortion rate began to creep up at this same time, after 1965, from 0.02 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44 in 1965 to 16.33 in 1973, when abortion was legalized. "

That figure for 1965 is, of course, unrealistically low. Most abortions in the 1960s were illegal and thus not reported, but estimates for that decade range well into the six figures per annum.


#5

You’ll need to provide a reliable source for that.

There weren’t many doctors performing abortions in those days and abortion was a social taboo as well. So-called “coat-hanger” abortions are still being performed today.

I was in high school when the Supreme Court ruled on RvW. It was shocking and devastating to most Americans that people would kill their babies in the womb. And that it was now perfectly legal.

Legalized abortion has erased the repugnance of what abortion really is.


#6

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

Illegal Abortions Were Common

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

And that was out of a total US population of less than 200 million.


#7

This is really sad. I hope and pray that legislators can pass laws so that more abortion clinics will close down. I would love to live to see the day when abortion is completely illegal in our society. In my opinion, not only should abortion be completely illegal but it should be punishable with prison time just the same as any other murderer is punished.


#8

Gutmacher is an arm of PP.

The article is full of “estimates” and “extrapolation.”

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women

How many women die of abortions today from LEGAL clinics? There is an ambulance almost weekly at the local PP facility. Never in the news. NEVER.

Regardless, the commonness of murder does not determine the morality of it.


#9

This is true. Legalized abortion is very dangerous too. There are often medical emergencies because of abortion. This is one more reason why abortion needs to be made illegal. Not only is it dangerous for the women who get an abortion but it is gravely immoral and results in the murder of an unborn child.

That said, it doesn’t surprise me that it is never in the news. I may be wrong but it has always seemed to me that the mainstream media is slanted towards the left and therefore avoids shedding light on issues like abortion which conservatives are generally against.

I wish that the mainstream media would shed more light on things like this. I believe that if they did, the pro-life cause would do much better because there would be greater awareness of things like this.


#10

The Patheos commentary you posted is laughable. Correlation does not imply any degree of causation-ever. (Higher ice cream sales correlate with higher murder rates everywhere. Does this imply some degree of causation? No-They’re both a result of hotter weather.) To say that discounts spuriousness, which I would be willing to bet far more at play here.

Both contraception and abortion are the result of liberalizing attitudes towards sexuality and the desire to put off having children. Also, our society is much less connected than it once was. The poor and pregnant can’t rely on their communities for help anymore.


#11

The only problem with playing the “abortion is dangerous to women” card is that it is actually safer than childbirth. Even proportionally, more women die from child birth than abortion.


#12

HA!! NPR always quotes Guttmacher when they report on abortion bla, bla, bla. According to Guttmacher, women don’t suffer PTSD from abortions. I have yet to see them use a source that sheds a negative light on abortion. It’s like they are on the PP payroll.


#13

I am only commenting on your last sentence just so you know.

That said, I think you are right that the poor and pregnant can’t rely on their communities for help as much anymore and that is very sad. It definitely needs to be changed. However, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not but many crisis pregnancy clinics do offer help for pregnant women who are poor to be able to carry their child to term and either raise the child on their own or give the child up for adoption.

Regardless, poverty is not an excuse to get an abortion. Abortion is intrinsically evil and nothing can justify murdering your child.


#14

From the Guttmacher website:

GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE
‘Choose Life’ License Plates
BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of states have established specialty “Choose Life” license plates. The plates cost anywhere between $25 and $70 on top of standard fees. In some cases, money generated from their sale directly supports the activities of antichoice organizations or crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which often provide **biased and medically inaccurate counseling **to women seeking a pregnancy test or counseling with regard to an unintended pregnancy. In other cases, the funding goes to organizations that provide services related to adoption. Many of the states with “Choose Life” license plates explicitly prohibit organizations that offer a full range of services, including abortion counseling or referral, from receiving the funds. Reproductive health activists have challenged some of these policies, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state to endorse one political viewpoint over another, and that the funding of agencies affiliated with churches or religious organizations amounts to establishment of religion.
HIGHLIGHTS:

guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

Bolding mine. Really unbiased, aren’t they? Places like Birthright give innaccurate information to those seeking abortions??? What, like abortion results in a dead baby?

I have a “choose life” license plate. They’d better not use the proceeds to fund abortion referral.

These people are evil.


#15

And female babies die at an even higher rate from abortion.

What is your point?


#16

‘any other murder’ well the problem is there’s actually many different types of murder, each with different sentencing considerations. Manslaughter, crimes of passion, cold-blooded killing, mass shootings, infanticide, etc.

I think if abortion were to become punishable as murder like you say, there would be the question of whether to convict the mother, the doctor, or both. In the case of the mother, I imagine it would be treated much the same as infanticide currently is. In very general terms, infanticide is defined as when a mother kills her child that is less than a year old, due to mental instability/stress caused by the pregnancy and birth. Sounds like that would fit the description for a lot of abortion cases too (minus the birth).

I think what needs to be done first and foremost is to try and change this culture of rampant sex and a disregard for life. People need to see why it is that abortion is tragic. If they don’t, making it illegal won’t stop it. It never has in the past.


#17

She wasn’t talking about the children, she was talking about the women. And yes, abortion is statistically much safer than childbirth. Not that that makes it right, but those are still the facts.


#18

That’s the problem with people who talk about making abortion “safe.” They leave out half of the equation. It isn’t safe for the child being killed.


#19

We need to do that, yes. The Catholic Church and others are doing that.

Nevertheless, just because laws against murder don’t stop all murders, it doesn’t follow that murder should be legal.


#20

True. Problem is that some pro-life activists don’t give the ‘culture change’ side of things any consideration. They just say “make it illegal, then our work is done. Problem solved. La la la.” Not that simple, unfortunately.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.