Pro-life vid of the day: Fighting to keep Chile pro-life
by Hans Johnson
Chile is one of only six countries with a total ban on abortions. But President Michelle Bachelet has signed a proposition to legalize it up to the age of 12 weeks as a first step, citing concern for the mother’s health. Yet maternal deaths have only continued their precipitous decline since the 1989 ban. Now a pro-life campaign is answering back:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/LnoYYgnzaps[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
Feb.17, 2015 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
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.
How does a falling maternal death rate justify opposing access to abortion? Abortion is still safer.
If that’s the approach you do wish to take, perhaps the fact that Chile’s maternal death rate was back up to around 24 or 25 in 2010 from the claimed 18.7 in 2000 indicates that abortion access is very much required.
Reality Chile’s abortion laws had not changed from 2000 to 2010. They have not gotten more liberal or conservative. Explain how your little theory that unsafe abortion caused this increase in maternal mortalities works with these facts?
I didn’t propose such a theory Rebecca. What caused you to think so?
Well, you seem to think that legalizing abortion will decrease Chile’s maternal mortality despite the fact that after abortion was completely criminalized in 1989, their maternal morality rate continued to fall steadily until about 2008, and their maternal mortality from unsafe abortion (a category which encompasses induced abortion, miscarriage, and ecoptic pregnancy) has steadily decreased since 1989.
Well it would. Since the mortality rate from abortion is lower, logically the overall rate would fall. Where is your data re the ‘unsafe’ abortion rate? Where did this ‘unsafe’ abortion stuff come from anyway?
Rebecca, you are assuming Reality even wants to connect a claim like “abortion is safer” with the reality, which is that maternal mortality is affected by things like sanitary hospitals and well-trained medical staff, not killing babies by the thousands. If Reality were truly concerned, Reality would concede the point that abortion has largely had no effect on the safety of pregnant women in Chile. Reality can never do this though, it would be to question a pillar of abortion, which must never be done.
Chile’s government database of causes of death. Chile has criminalized concealing deaths from unsafe abortions, so medical examiners have an incentive to get their determinations of causes of death right.
Reality would concede the point that abortion has largely had no effect on the safety of pregnant women in Chile. – I’m not going to concede to something which is fundamentally erroneous.
What are these ‘unsafe’ abortions you keep referring to?
So there is no reason how or why a falling maternal death rate justifies opposing access to abortion.
How is the fundamentally erroneous? Multiple peer reviewed studies have concluded this.
http://www.bing.com/cr?h=omWoRL9QWdr1P02RKmd9kDeCj4V34vigyCQcCd1XQkg&v=1&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurekalert.org%2Fpub_releases%2F2014-11%2Fmi-tca110614.php&IG=6a7f8637d252465fb1af859c2a625c2c&CID=37A86372982D6EFA10F4668D993E6E86&p=SERP,5128.1
http://www.melisainstitute.com/uploads/1/2/3/9/12398427/koch_2014_rev_chil_obstet_79_5_351_en2.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613
According to more recent evidence from official data, Chile displays a continuous decreasing trend of hospital discharges due to complications of abortions suspected to be illegally induced –represented by specific codes of the World Health Organisation classification– at a rate of 2% per year since 2001. In contrast, a decreasing trend was not observed in hospital discharges due to other types of abortion, such as spontaneous abortion or ectopic pregnancies, which have remained constant during the same period. The high quality of Chilean vital statistics indicates these findings are unlikely to be the result of an artifact of the registry system. Rather, a decrease in hospital discharges due to complications from illegal abortion appears to explain virtually all the reduction in hospital discharges due to any type of abortion in Chile during the last decade.
In addition to a summary of the previously published research conducted at the MELISA Institute, showing that Chile is a paragon of maternal health in the entire American continent, the editorial article presents previously unpublished data of an ongoing study on the vulnerability profile of 3,134 Chilean women with unplanned pregnancies at risk of induced abortion. This research suggests that women at high risk of induced abortion display a vulnerability profile marked by coercion and fear, which together account for nearly 70% of the reasons for declaring the intention to terminate the pregnancy. Moreover, data suggest that support programs directed to vulnerable women can prevent most induced abortions, with an outcome of live birth (with or without adoption) ranging between 69% and 94% depending on the risk group.
In Chile, it is estimated occur 13,000 to 18,000 illegal abortions each year, representing a death risk of 1 in 4 million women of fertile age and leading to about 16% of hospital discharges due to any type of abortion. It is thought that most illegal abortions are provoked through the self-administration of misoprostol. However, several authors agree that the Chilean progress in this matter is likely to be explained by the success of maternal health policy interventions, the access to modern methods of family planning, the increase in women’s educational level and, more recently, to the emergence of support programs for vulnerable women with unplanned pregnancies at risk of abortion.
Sort of interesting Rebecca but none of it addresses my original question.
So, Reality, since deaths from unsafe abortions are continuously declining and already very low in Chile to begin with, why do we need to legalize abortion for reasons of maternal health?
So you still can’t answer my question?
Abortion has a lower maternal mortality rate than full-term delivery. Ergo, the overall maternal mortality rate would reduce if abortion access is legalized.
Reality,
“Abortion has a lower maternal mortality rate than full term delivery. Ergo, the overall maternal mortality rate would reduce if abortion access is legalized.” Source??
The same ones provided here a gazillion times before Mary. From sources such as CDC, their overseas equivalents, just about any source of such data. The maternal mortality rate from full-term delivery is at least 9 times higher than that for abortion.
Even Guttmacher tell us that “The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 weeks or later” whereas sources such as the CIA and the World Bank inform us that the death rate per 100,000 live births is 21 or so.
Did you wish to dispute the facts?
Explain how Ireland, a country where abortion is completely criminalized, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the entire world. Interesting enough, the same goes for Poland and Malta.
Obviously because they have better maternal health care.
France has the same rate as Malta and Australia is slightly better.
Austria and Sweden do better than Poland.
How do you explain the rates in the Philippines and Afghanistan?
So what. The fundamental fact remains that abortion has a lower death rate for women than live births. Ergo, the overall maternal mortality rate would reduce if abortion access is legalized.
Reality,
“The overall maternal mortality rate would reduce if abortion access is legalized”.
Lots of factors involved in this Reality. Nutritional and health factors, poverty, cultural practices, medical care, too much or too little. Kindly post a source that supports your specific claim.
It’s slightly concerning that you seem to struggle with basic concepts Mary.
Women are far less likely to die from abortion than live birth.
Therefore, women who are prevented from terminating a pregnancy face an increased chance of dying. Particularly those with a high risk pregnancy.
If women facing high risk pregnancies are allowed to terminate they won’t then die through that pregnancy or a live birth.
Ergo, providing access to abortion will lower the overall rate of maternal mortality.
Reality,
A source please.
The sources mentioned previously. The ones which say that the death rate from live births is well above that of abortion.
Do the math. If the rate for live births is 20 (that’d be 200 in every million) compared to 1 in every million for abortion and those at highest risk of dying during pregnancy or delivery are able to access abortion, the overall death rate for live births would be reduced.
It’s not that difficult to follow.
Reality,
If there are sources then you should have no trouble producing one. Kindly do so.
I have. I mentioned CDC and their equivalents in other countries. The CIA and the World Bank also provide data. They have been provided on numerous previous occasions.
Do you wish to dispute that womens risk of death is much lower from an abortion than in a live birth?
If you can’t understand how preventative abortion lowers the maternal mortality rate from live births I’m quite happy for you to keep demonstrating such.
Reality,
If you have a source backing your claim please post it.
Wow, you’re really displaying your acute denialism this time. I’ve named where the data is available from. It’s been seen here on numerous previous occasions.
Do you really wish to claim that abortions aren’t many times safer for women than live births?
Go right ahead.
Reality,
“The overall maternal mortality rate would reduce if abortion access is legalized”.
A source please.
Logic Mary. Common sense. Deduction. Based on the data which clearly shows that abortion has a lower death rate than live births. If high risk pregnancies are permitted to be terminated then that is a high risk live birth avoided hence lowering the maternal mortality rate.
Please feel free to go right ahead and pretend you can’t grasp that concept. Your choice.
Reality,
So you have no source to back up your claim. Thank you.
I love it when you trip over your own wedge. Keep it up.
LOL,
I have to hand it to you Reality, you are a master of evasion.
Tell me again how you can’t grasp the concept that removing high risk pregnancies and live births by allowing abortion doesn’t lower the rate of live birth deaths. Or do you wish to evade that?
Reality,
Fine lot of thanks I get for trying to give you a little credit!!
A back-handed compliment?
You know what the data says.
It’s not a complex concept.
I don’t consider you unintelligent (credit ;-) ).
Like I said Reality, you are second to none when it comes to being a master of evasion.
I’m not evading the fact that the data clearly demonstrates that abortions are far safer for women than live births are.
If you are going to maintain that two plus two does not equal four then so be it. Your choice.
No need for humility.
I’ve noticed :-)