Pro-life vid of the day: New Zealand abortions drop 20% in 5 years
by Hans Johnson
As reported in stuff.co.nz:
The number of women having abortions in New Zealand has dropped to its lowest rate in almost 20 years and significantly fewer teenagers are having the procedure.
Wider use of contraception, better school-based education and even reality television are all thought to be behind the drop.
In 2012, 14,745 women had abortions in NZ, down from 18,382 five years earlier.
The number of abortions is at the lowest level since 1995, according to a report from the Abortion Supervisory Committee, which works to improve the quality of abortion services in New Zealand.
…The number of girls under 14 having abortions more than halved – from 104 in 2007 to 51 in 2012. The number of girls in the 15- to 19-year-old group also dropped substantially – from 4173 to 2489.
But pro-lifers see other reasons for the dramatic drop. LifeNews interviewed Ken Orr, spokesman for Right to Life New Zealand, who cites the dwindling number of physicians willing to get involved in abortion. And this video from LifeTV is skeptical of claims that contraceptives such as the Jadelle implant are responsible for the precipitous decline in abortions:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWwR2cmIG_g[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: The Washington Free Beacon]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Wider use of contraception,…. are all thought to be behind the drop.”
I am so glad that the video questions this claim. We know that increased use of contraception leads to increased numbers of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and thus more abortions.
There is a reason why Planned Parenthood pushes contraception so hard in this country. It increases their abortion business.
The clear message here is that not only do anti-choicers wish to see a drop in abortion numbers, many only want it to happen in the ways and by the means that they approve of. Which demonstrates that for some it is indeed all about trying to dictate what people can and cannot do and how they should live their lives.
Reality that is a very weird statement indeed. Choosing an abortion ends another human life, NOT her’s (unless you believe she can be both male and female, at the same time.[must-be Reality’s new-science.] Then all she was doing is excising her male cells, rather than killing her son). Any pregnant woman by electing for abortion is saying that killing-her-baby is preferable to the inconvenience of birthing, or that the baby chooses death (and she is fulfilling that heart-wrenching request).
What are you on about John???
I am ‘on’ about you making idiotic statements. [Sorry to idiots …. even you would not entertain such blatant foolishness!]
Your 6:53pm comment bears no relationship whatsoever to what my comment consisted of John. I did not speak of the rights or wrongs of abortion itself. I spoke of no ‘her’ or ‘she’.
If anything was a weird statement is was your totally unrelated response.
… .Which indeed it demonstrates … ‘
Hey Reality,
I want you to look around. Do you BELONG .. HERE, ANYWHERE? Do you call yourself an American, a neighbor, a-part-of anything? [I am human (like you).] Any choosing you-do affects me/my-very-being … so I have an investment in what-you-choose!
Pretending-to-speak-for-others (and declaring that unborn children are not-worthy-of being-kept-alive-to-be-classified-as -…,) does not make you more-wise, just-more-isolated.
Is the first line in your comment meant to be a quote? If so, where from?
I’m here, where are you?
Any choosing you-do affects me/my-very-being – like what I have on my toast? Do explain.
Pretending-to-speak-for-others – ahem.
I might leave the word ‘about’ out of my question this time :-)
Damn it, Reality, this is NOT some kind of debate, where you get to ‘win’ by arguing over strict debating points. Humans are dying and it is because of the support given killers by PC like you. {I can just see you taking-a-bow, now!}
Do me a favor, please? On more than one occasion you acknowledge the humanity of the unborn. Then my conclusion is that it is NOT the main factor in the decision to abort, NOR SHOULD IT BE THEIR DEFENSE. So, any words quoting a right-to-life merely because these are humans offers no protection. The remaining criterion-seeking-protection is then ‘vulnerability’. What in particular is it about weakness/vulnerability that makes humans kill-able?
Perhaps to a macho-male, it is evident, but I am personally intimate with vulnerability, and the aggressiveness-aimed-against-us is still a mystery. I do know that if one is weak it usually involves another. So pregnancy can be seen as a weak/vulnerable babe also means that his/her mother is vulnerable … NOT GOOD! [Could it be women enter pregnancy specifically to identify with her offspring’s major trait – vulnerability, to elicit her protection capacity?]
The rear seat on your tandem is vacant John.
You have taken a different path of discussion to the one I am on.
My comment was directly related to the topic of this thread, that abortion numbers have fallen in NZ and reasons have been postulated for this.
So why you addressed the comments you made to me is far from evident. You are free to make your statements but they are irrelevant to the comment that I made.
I have regularly and consistently stated that a gestating fetus is of the human species, you need to pay attention.
“I have regularly and consistently stated that a gestating fetus is of the human species.’ What you fail-to-do is post about this ‘human’ as a LIVING being that self moves and grows … traits of a living being … the ‘human’ says that living-human-species beings have RIGHTS, that are not dependent on sentience, nor on ‘wanted-ness’.
Agreed. Now then why are these members ‘of the human species’ kill-able (via elective abortion)? Since the fact that they are ‘human’, affords them little protection even in law (-whether it is NZ- law or, the US constitution)? Why then is there a ‘need’ to end human life? The question remains because the killing/terminating -of-humans remains.
I suspect (I could be wrong and that is why I am asking.) that the ‘offense’ committed is one of VULNERABILITY. does being ‘human’ protect – obviously not. If NOT, then what-does? [What trait(s) do these ‘human’s’ have that makes them kill-able? Do they share this one trait? Many have proposed that it is ‘innocence’ that should offer protection.]
Why I proposed VULNERABILITY instead of ‘innocence’ is that such is perceived (by some) as truly abhorrent. A pregnant woman BECOMES VULNERABLE too (both emotionally and physically) and dependent on others to-just-survive. Counseling ‘to abort’ is not talking to just-anyone-in-a-normal-state but to someone who is VULNERABLE to ‘other’ ideas-wishes.
I’ll ask again – IS there something about VULNERABILITY that a vulnerable-person feels like their decisions are … ? Are humans killed because their mother’s wish to feel empowered/not-pregnant?
As I said earlier John, your comments bear no relationship whatsoever to the comment I posted. So why you have addressed them to me is a mystery.
Questions about being vulnerable BECAUSE OF pregnancy need be addressed, IMO. And so, please give me a list (even seemingly foolish objections) to being pregnant. I as a male can’t imagine the frightening nightmares involved in knowing in-advance that your precious expected bundle-of-joy is DS-positive on tests. Ideas/daydeams about being ‘overly-burdened/traumatized’ because I feel-inadeqeate are ‘real’ or an-illusion? Will those folks yelling at me, actually help me (and my baby)?
As I said earlier John, your comments bear no relationship whatsoever to the comment I posted. So why you have addressed them to me is a mystery.
But since I’m such a generous and considerate person –
Are humans killed because their mother’s wish to feel empowered/not-pregnant? – because they don’t want to be pregnant. The only ’empowering’ is in regard to women having reproductive rights and the freedom to choose.
And so, please give me a list (even seemingly foolish objections) to being pregnant. – whatever reason a woman feels justifies her decision. It’s not my choice to make, nor yours.
I as a male can’t imagine the frightening nightmares involved in knowing in-advance that your precious expected bundle-of-joy is DS-positive on tests. – fair enough. Not all women choose to abort because of a diagnosis of DS. And I’ll bet there are a few who ‘express a pro-life position’ who do decide to terminate.
Ideas/daydeams about being ‘overly-burdened/traumatized’ because I feel-inadeqeate are ‘real’ or an-illusion? Will those folks yelling at me, actually help me (and my baby)? – you are verging on incomprehensible John.
Let’s play the Reality geme! The NZ case speaks very little because the-lowering-number-of-abortions is used as proof that PL efforts are working. If the total NZ populace itself declined in-the-same-proportion, then PL-interventions/law-differences had no effect at all. And if NZ is like most Western cultures who have a demographic catastrophe looming, the lower numbers merely reflect a demographic change. A PL-strategy boost is just not in these numbers.
Ah, so now you decide to address what my comment was actually about. At last.
The NZ case speaks very little because the-lowering-number-of-abortions is used as proof that PL efforts are working. – which is it, ‘speaks very little’ or ‘is used as proof’ (which it isn’t anyway)? It can’t be both.
If the total NZ populace itself declined in-the-same-proportion, then PL-interventions/law-differences had no effect at all. – it hasn’t. But they didn’t anyway.
And if NZ is like most Western cultures who have a demographic catastrophe looming, – yet I’ll bet you believe global warming is bunkum.
the lower numbers merely reflect a demographic change. A PL-strategy boost is just not in these numbers. – there isn’t one. A ‘PL-strategy boost’ wouldn’t have or have had any impact anyway.
I’ll go with what the experts in the relevant field say rather than what the activists say thanks – Wider use of contraception, better school-based education, contraceptives such as the Jadelle implant and even reality television are all thought to be behind the drop.
Reality, you nEed to read … a lot and with accuracy! Global warming has many parameters – not one … not even two. What the words meant originally there were two main facets … first, that the earth was heating-up …..>> TRUE; but the 2nd aspect has my head scratching … it is postulated that the villain is man-made (emissions) of CO2 gas Weird because the warming theoretically happens BECAUSE OF THE HOT-HOUSE EFFECT, (WHICH DEPENDS DIRECTLY ON THE AMOUNT OF CLOUD-COVER) STRANGE BECAUSE EACH YEAR THERE IS LESS & LESS CLOUD COVER, which means the extra heat generated escapes into space.
NOW THE TERM DELIVERED SAYS THAT ANYONE WHO KNOWS-ANYTHING-AT-ALL should just give-up because on environmental issues, we obviously don’t care and we ARE THE ONES (IN OUR IGNORANCE) CAUSING-THE-SKY-TO-FALL. don’t you know (Why any lib can tell you)!
Goodness John, no need to shout.
On what do you base the claim that there is less and less cloud cover each year?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r8hhShMyZw
Reality, this may be of interest (much more involved than I thought), especially the Conclusions.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm