I'm pro-life: change my mind

SkepticalOne

@ambee

You've not addressed my objections nor answered my question.

1. It is absurd to grant rights to something inside, and part of, someone's body. Your belief on when life begins doesn't change this.

2. Is your position really "save the baby at all costs -  even if the mother has to die"? The statement that "almost all women can be brought through pregnancy alive" admits not all women can survive pregnancy.  Basically, disallowing abortion in all cases is not "pro-life" - its pro-birth. This view reduces the woman to a mere reproductive mechanism and places more value on the fertilized egg than her (and her life).

I believe life started billions of years ago and has continued in succession.  Life brought all life today into being. That being said, I see no life at conception that wasn't already there - gametes are "life". Your terminology is too vague.

Conception is the *potential* start of a developmental stage. If that development is allowed to continue, a new individual (in mind and body) will come to be (around 6 months of pregnancy). 

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@John_C_87

If they add another amendment, it'll be the 28th... Amendments are added, not moved... *sigh*....................

It could be the 28th Amendment.  America holds a united State constitution and a state of the union created might simply make the 27th Amendment the 28th . The new amendment is numerically placed to the state of the union it makes within amendments and united State constitution.

When making changes on a Constitution a person would need to ignore legal precedent to hold a simple numerical placement of new amendments as the only option. Are you saying some topics never take legal precedent of others in law? If that is the case as a constant state, then yeah a new unconstitutional or a lesser legal precedent constitutional change would need to be added at the end. The 28th. Sure, that makes sense.

Plaffelvohfen

@John_C_87

I thought it was a waste of time to address you... Thanks for the confirmation...

John_C_87

You are welcome....

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

I believe that when lazy males, and females, neglect to use contraceptives, that they are failing themselves, and the humanity around them.

By correcting their laziness of creating a baby, and then relying on Abortion to fix their laziness?
(Utilized Female and male, self manufactured, and attitudinal defectiveness.)

"Are you saying you actually believe that every contraceptive method are 100% impervious to malfunctions or manufacturing defects??"

It's amazing the amounts of stores that sell birth control to the Public.

Walmart, CVS Pharmacy, Walgreen, Rite-aid and the other various drug stores across the country.

They even sell birth control at airports, and at gas stations?

Look at all of that opportunity, to obtain birth control, before creating a baby out of laziness? 

 

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

It stands to reason that contraceptives are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy when the manufacturers state an effective rate less than 100%...

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

As usual you did not answer a very simple and short question... Now I'm wondering, if you are actually capable of cognitive function, I'll take a chance and offer you this...

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/PDF/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

But I think you'll demonstrate, again, that it was futile to to even try...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen ; You talk a lot. Read below. 

@SkepticalOne


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638209/

Abstract

This review provides an update of previous estimates of first-year probabilities of contraceptive failure for all methods of contraception available in the United States. Estimates are provided of probabilities of failure during typical use (which includes both incorrect and inconsistent use) and during perfect use (correct and consistent use). The difference between these two probabilities reveals the consequences of imperfect use; it depends both on how unforgiving of imperfect use a method is and on how hard it is to use that method perfectly. These revisions reflect new research on contraceptive failure both during perfect use and during typical use.

Keywords: Contraceptive failure, Contraceptive efficacy

Go to:

1. Introduction

Four pieces of information about contraceptive efficacy would help couples to make an informed decision when choosing a contraceptive method:

• Pregnancy rates during typical use show how effective the different methods are during actual use (including inconsistent or incorrect use).

• Pregnancy rates during perfect use show how effective methods can be, where perfect use is defined as following the directions for use.

• Pregnancy rates during imperfect use show how ineffective methods will be if they are used incorrectly or inconsistently. Pregnancy rates can be computed separately for different categories of imperfect use to reveal which types of imperfect use are most risky [1].

• The percentage of perfect users or percentage of months during which a method is used perfectly reveals how hard it is to use a method correctly and consistently.

The difference between pregnancy rates during imperfect use and pregnancy rates during perfect use reveals how forgiving of imperfect use a method is. The difference between pregnancy rates during typical use and pregnancy rates during perfect use reveals the consequences of imperfect use; this difference depends both on how unforgiving of imperfect use a method is and on how hard it is to use that method perfectly. Only the first two pieces of information are currently available. Our current understanding of the literature on contraceptive efficacy is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception and the percentage continuing use at the end of the first year. United States.

Method	% of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy within the first year of use		% of women continuing use at one year3
	Typical use1	Perfect use2
Column (1)	Column (2)	Column (3)	Column (4)
No method4	85	85
Spermicides5	28	18	42
Fertility awareness-based methods	24		47
Standard Days method6		5
TwoDay method6		4
Ovulation method6		3
Symptothermal method6		0.4
Withdrawal	22	4	46
Sponge			36
Parous women	24	20
Nulliparous women	12	9
Condom7
Female (fc)	21	5	41
Male	18	2	43
Diaphragm8	12	6	57
Combined pill and progestin-only pill	9	0.3	67
Evra patch	9	0.3	67
NuvaRing	9	0.3	67
Depo-Provera	6	0.2	56
Intrauterine contraceptives
ParaGard (copper T)	0.8	0.6	78
Mirena (LNG)	0.2	0.2	80
Implanon	0.05	0.05	84
Female sterilization	0.5	0.5	100
Male sterilization	0.15	0.10	100
Lactational Amenorrhea Method: LAM is a highly effective, temporary method of contraception.9

Open in a separate window

1Among typical couples who initiate use of a method (not necessarily for the first time), the percentage who experience an accidental pregnancy during the first year if they do not stop use for any other reason. Estimates of the probability of pregnancy during the first year of typical use for spermicides and the diaphragm are taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth corrected for underreporting of abortion; estimates for fertility awareness-based methods, withdrawal, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera are taken from the 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth corrected for underreporting of abortion. See the text for the derivation of estimates for the other methods.

2Among couples who initiate use of a method (not necessarily for the first time) and who use it perfectly (both consistently and correctly), the percentage who experience an accidental pregnancy during the first year if they do not stop use for any other reason. See the text for the derivation of the estimate for each method.

3Among couples attempting to avoid pregnancy, the percentage who continue to use a method for 1 year.

4The percentages becoming pregnant in columns (2) and (3) are based on data from populations where contraception is not used and from women who cease using contraception in order to become pregnant. Among such populations, about 89% become pregnant within 1 year. This estimate was lowered slightly (to 85%) to represent the percentage who would become pregnant within 1 year among women now relying on reversible methods of contraception if they abandoned contraception altogether.

5Foams, creams, gels, vaginal suppositories, and vaginal film.

6The Ovulation and TwoDay methods are based on evaluation of cervical mucus. The Standard Days method avoids intercourse on cycle days 8 through 19. The Symptothermal method is a double-check method based on evaluation of cervical mucus to determine the first fertile day and evaluation of cervical mucus and temperature to determine the last fertile day.

7Without spermicides.

8With spermicidal cream or jelly.

9However, to maintain effective protection against pregnancy, another method of contraception must be used as soon as menstruation resumes, the frequency or duration of breastfeeds is reduced, bottle feeds are introduced, or the baby reaches 6 months of age.

In the column 2 of Table 1, we provide estimates of the probabilities of pregnancy during the first year of typical use of each method in the United States. This information is shown graphically in Fig. 1 in a way that clients may find more useful [2]. For most methods, these estimates were derived from the experience of women in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) [3] or the 1995 and 2002 NSFGs [3,4], so that the information pertains to nationally representative samples of users. For the other methods, we based the estimates on evidence from surveys and clinical investigations. Pregnancy rates during typical use reflect how effective methods are for the average person who does not always use methods correctly or consistently. Typical use does not imply that a contraceptive method was always used. In the NSFG and in most clinical trials, a woman is ‘using’ a contraceptive method if she considers herself to be using that method. So, typical use of the condom could include actually using a condom only occasionally, and a woman could report that she is ‘using’ the pill even though her supplies ran out several months ago. In short, ‘use’—which is identical to ‘typical use’—is a very elastic concept that depends entirely on an individual woman’s perception.

Fig. 1

Comparing typical effectiveness of contraceptive methods

In column 3 of Table 1, we provide our best guess of the probabilities of method failure (pregnancy) during the first year of perfect use. A method is used perfectly when it is used consistently according to a specified set of rules. For many methods, perfect use requires use at every act of intercourse. Virtually all method failure rates reported in the literature have been calculated incorrectly and are too low (see the discussion of methodological pitfalls below). Hence, we cannot empirically justify our estimates except those for four fertility awareness-based methods [1,5–7], the diaphragm [8], the sponge, [8] the male condom [9–11], the female condom [12], spermicides [13], and methods for which there are extensive clinical trials with very low pregnancy rates. Even the estimates for the fertility awareness-based methods, female condom, diaphragm, spermicides, and sponge are based on only one or two studies. Our hope is that our understanding of efficacy during perfect use for these and other methods will be enhanced by additional studies.

Column 4 of Table 1 displays the first-year probabilities of continuing use. They are based on the same sources used to derive the estimates in the second column (typical use).

Go to:

2. No method

Our estimate of the percentage of women becoming pregnant among those not using contraception is based on populations in which the use of contraception is rare, and on couples who report that they stopped using contraceptives because they want to conceive [14]. Based on this evidence, we conclude that 85 of 100 sexually active couples would experience a pregnancy in the first year if they used no contraception. Available evidence in the United States suggests that only about 40% of married couples who do not use contraception (but who still wish to avoid pregnancy) become pregnant within 1 year [15,16]. However, such couples are almost certainly selected for low fecundity or low frequency of intercourse. They do not use contraception because, in part, they are aware that they are unlikely to conceive. The probability of pregnancy of 85%, therefore, is our best guess of the fraction of women now using reversible methods of contraception who would become pregnant within 1 year if they were to abandon their current method but not otherwise change their behavior.

Go to:

3. Typical use of spermicides, withdrawal, fertility awareness-based methods, diaphragm, male condom, oral contraceptive pills, and Depo-Provera

Our estimates of the probability of pregnancy during the first year of typical use for withdrawal, fertility awareness-based methods, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera are taken from the 1995 and 2002 NSFG (the weighted average of the two estimates) and for spermicides and the diaphragm from the 1995 NSFG, all corrected for underreporting of abortion [3,4].

The correction for underreporting of abortion may produce estimates that are too high because women in abortion clinics (surveys of whom provided the information for the correction) tend to overreport use of a contraceptive method at the time they became pregnant. Moreover, women in personal interviews for the NSFG also might overreport use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth. Evidence for this suspicion is provided by uncorrected first-year probabilities of pregnancy of 3.7% for intrauterine contraceptives and 2.3% for Norplant (methods with little or no scope for user error) in the 1995 NSFG; these probabilities are much higher than rates observed in clinical trials of these methods [17]. We would naturally expect overreporting of contraceptive use in both the NSFG and surveys conducted in abortion clinics, because the woman (couple) can then blame the pregnancy on contraceptive “failure.”

Thus, biases in opposite directions affect these estimates. Pregnancy rates based on the NSFG alone would tend to be too low because induced abortions (and contraceptive failures leading to induced abortions) are underreported but would tend to be too high because contraceptive failures leading to live births are overreported. We reason that the former bias is the more important one.

The NSFG does not ask for brand of pill; thus combined and progestin-only pills cannot be distinguished. However, since use of the combined pill is far more common than use of the progestin-only pill, the results from the NSFG overwhelmingly reflect typical use of combined pills. The efficacy of progestin-only pills may be lower than that for combined pills since progestin-only pills are probably less forgiving of nonadherence to the dosing schedule.

Go to:

4. Perfect use of the sponge and diaphragm

Our estimates of the probabilities of pregnancy during the first year of perfect use of the sponge and diaphragm correspond with results of a reanalysis of data from two clinical trials in which women were randomly assigned to use the diaphragm or sponge or to use the diaphragm or cervical cap [8]. The results indicate that among parous women who use the sponge perfectly, 19.4% to 20.5% will experience a pregnancy within the first year. The corresponding range for nulliparous women is 9.0% to 9.5%. In contrast, parous users of the diaphragm do not appear to have higher pregnancy rates during perfect use than do nulliparous users; 4.3% to 8.4% of all women experience an accidental pregnancy during the first year of perfect use of the diaphragm. Our estimates are obtained from the midpoints of these ranges.

Go to:

5. Typical use of the sponge

Here we also draw on results of the same clinical trial in which women were randomly assigned to the sponge or diaphragm [18]. The proportion becoming pregnant during the first year of typical use for parous users of the sponge (27.4%) was about twice as high as for nulliparous users of that method (14.0%). There was no such differential for the diaphragm, where the proportion becoming pregnant in the first year of typical use for parous users (12.4%) was marginally lower than that for nulliparous users (12.8%) [18]. Therefore, we set the estimates for nulliparous users of the sponge equal to the estimate for all users of the diaphragm based on the 1995 NSFG (12%) [3]. We doubled the estimates for nulliparous users of the sponge to obtain the estimate for parous users.

Go to:

6. Female condom

The typical-use estimate for the female condom is based on the results of a 6-month clinical trial of the Reality female condom (now called the fc female condom); 12.4% of women in the United States experienced a pregnancy during the first 6 months of use [18]. The 12-month probability of pregnancy for users of Reality in the United States was projected from the relation between the pregnancy rates in the first 6 months and the pregnancy rates in the second 6 months for users of the diaphragm, sponge and cervical cap [18]. The probability of pregnancy during 6 months of perfect use of Reality by U.S. women who met the adherence criteria stipulated in the study protocol was 2.6%. Those who reported fewer than 4 acts of intercourse during the month prior to any follow-up visit, who did not use Reality at every act of intercourse, who ever reported not following the Reality instructions, or who used another method of contraception were censored at the beginning of the first interval where nonadherence was noted [19]. Under the assumption that the probability of pregnancy in the second 6 months of perfect use would be the same, the probability of pregnancy during a year of perfect use would be 5.1%. There have been no efficacy trials of the second version of the female condom, the fc2 female condom.

Go to:

7. Perfect use of withdrawal and spermicides

Our estimate of the proportion of women becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of withdrawal is a guess based on the reasoning that the risk of pregnancy resulting from pre-ejaculatory fluid is modest. Although three studies found no motile sperm in the pre-ejaculate [20–22], the most recent study did not replicate this result, perhaps because the samples were examined within 2 min of production [23]. In that study, 37% of subjects produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained motile sperm, and the sperm concentration and the percentage of motile sperm were similar in an individual’s pre-ejaculatory and ejaculatory specimens. However, the actual number of sperm in the pre-ejaculate was low.

Our estimate of the proportion of women becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of spermicides is based on a recent NIH trial of 5 spermicides [13]. We assumed that the pregnancy rate per cycle during perfect use would be constant, extrapolated a one-year probability from the 6-cycle probability reported for each method, and took as our estimate the median (18%) of those 5 estimates.

Go to:

8. Perfect use of fertility awareness-based methods

The perfect-use estimates for fertility awareness-based methods are based on empirical estimates of 4.8% for the Standard Days method [5], 3.5% for the TwoDay method [6], 3.2% for the ovulation method [1], and 0.4 per 100 women-years for the symptothermal method [7]. Published “method failure” rates for other variants of natural family planning are incorrect, because exposure includes all use, not just perfect use [1].

Go to:

9. Perfect use of the male condom

Our estimate of the proportion of women becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of the male condom is based on results from the only three studies of the male condom meeting modern standards of design, execution, and analysis [9–11]. In each study, couples were randomly assigned to use either a latex condom or a polyurethane condom. All three studies reported efficacy during consistent use but only one reported efficacy during perfect use [10]; in that study the 6-cycle probability of pregnancy during perfect use (0.7%) was 70% of that (1%) during typical use. We assumed that in the other two studies the 6-cycle probability of pregnancy during perfect use would also be 70% of the 6-cycle probability during typical use, assumed that the pregnancy rate per cycle during perfect use would be constant, extrapolated a one-year probability from the 6-cycle probability reported for the latex condom in each trial, and took as our estimate the median (2%, also the mean) of those 3 estimates.

Go to:

10. Perfect use of oral contraceptive pills, Depo-Provera, and Implanon, and typical use of Implanon

Although the lowest reported pregnancy rate for the combined pill during typical use is 0% [24–25], recent studies indicate that pregnancies do occur, albeit rarely, during perfect use [26,27]. Hence, we set the perfect-use estimate for the pill at the very low level of 0.3%. The lowest reported pregnancy rate for the progestin-only pill exceeds 1% [28,29]. It is likely that the progestin-only pill is less effective than the combined pill during typical use, since the progestin-only pill is probably less forgiving of nonadherence to the dosing schedule. Whether the progestin-only pill is also less effective during perfect use is unknown.

The perfect-use estimate for Depo-Provera is the weighted average of the results from seven trials of the 150 mg IM dose (90-day or 3-month) and two trials of the 104 mg SC dose [30–37]. These trials yield an estimate of efficacy during perfect rather than typical use because either women late for an injection were discontinued or all pregnancies reported occurred during actual use (after one injection but before the next was scheduled). In the two trials of DMPA-SC, there were no reported pregnancies during perfect use. It is possible that DMPA-SC has higher efficacy than DMPA-IM during prefect use, but the company that markets both products has made no such claim.

Not one of 15 clinical studies has reported an Implanon failure [38–52]. However, pregnancies during use of Implanon have been reported [38]. We arbitrarily set the perfect-use and typical-use failure rates for Implanon at 0.05%.

Go to:

11. Evra and NuvaRing

The typical- and perfect-use estimates for the Evra patch and NuvaRing were set equal to those for the pill. It is possible that the patch and ring will prove to have better efficacy than the pill during typical use, because of better adherence with the dosing schedule. However, such superior efficacy has not been demonstrated in randomized trials. While in one trial the failure rate was lower among women randomly assigned to use the Evra patch (1.2%) than among those assigned to use the pill (2.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.6) [53]. In a subsequent paper that argues that better adherence to the dosing schedule leads to better contraceptive efficacy of the patch than the pill during typical use, the authors acknowledge that it would require a trial with 24,143 subjects to demonstrate such superiority and conclude that “studies of this size to compare effectiveness may not be practical” [54]. Women were randomly assigned to the NuvaRing or the pill in two studies. In one, the pregnancy rates were identical (1.2 per 100 women-years of exposure) [55]. In the second, the pregnancy rates did not differ significantly (0.25 versus 0.99 per 100 women-years of exposure) [56].

Go to:

12. Intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs)

The estimate for typical use of the ParaGard (Copper T 380A) IUC, 0.8%, is taken directly from the largest study for that method [57]. The estimate for Mirena (LNG-IUC), 0.2%, is the weighted average of the results from three studies [58–60]. The estimate for perfect use of the Copper T 380A, 0.6%, was obtained by removing the pregnancies that resulted when the device was not known to be in situ [61], on the perhaps-questionable assumption that these pregnancies should be classified as user failures and the empirically-based assumption that expulsions are so uncommon that the denominator of the perfect-use pregnancy rate is virtually the same as the denominator for the typical-use rate. The perfect-use estimate for the LNG-IUC, 0.2%, was derived analogously. No differences in the typical-use and perfect-use estimates for LNG-IUC are apparent due to the fact that only one significant digit is shown.

Go to:

13. Sterilization

The weighted average of the results from nine vasectomy studies analyzed with life-table procedures is 0.02% of women becoming pregnant in the year following the procedure [62–70]. In eight of these studies, pregnancies occurred after the ejaculate had been declared to be sperm-free. This perfect-use estimate of 0.02% is undoubtedly too low, because clinicians are understandably loath to publish articles describing their surgical failures and journals would be reluctant to publish an article documenting poor surgical technique. The difference between typical-use and perfect-use pregnancy rates for vasectomy would depend on the frequency of unprotected intercourse after the procedure had been performed but before the ejaculate had been certified to be sperm-free. We arbitrarily set the typical- and perfect-use estimates to 0.15% and 0.10%, respectively. For female sterilization (except for Essure or Adiana), there is no scope for user error. The typical- and perfect-use estimates are the pooled results from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization, a prospective study of 10,685 women undergoing tubal sterilization [71]. We are less concerned about publication bias with female than with male sterilization because the largest studies of female sterilization are based on prospective, multicenter clinical trials, not retrospective reports from one investigator.

Go to:

14. Contraceptive continuation

Contraceptives will be effective at preventing unintended pregnancy only if women or couples continue to use. The proportions of women continuing use at the end of the first year for withdrawal, fertility awareness-based methods, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera were obtained from the 2002 NSFG and those for spermicides, the sponge, and the diaphragm were obtained from the 1995 NSFG [16,17]. Only method-related reasons for discontinuation (changing methods or termination of contraceptive use while still at risk for unintended pregnancy) were counted. Other reasons for discontinuing use of a method (such as attempting to get pregnant or not having intercourse) are not counted in the discontinuation rate because these reasons are unrelated to the method and do not apply to women seeking to avoid pregnancy and at risk of becoming pregnant. For the female condom, we adjusted the continuation rate for the male condom to reflect a higher pregnancy rate.

We set the continuation rates for the Evra patch and NuvaRing equal to that for the pill. We set the continuation rate for Implanon equal to that for Norplant, which was derived from the 1995 NSFG [17].

Discontinuation rates of the two IUCs (for reasons related to the contraceptive) are based on the same clinical trials that were used for the typical-use failure rates.

Go to:

15. The Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM)

LAM is a highly effective, temporary method of contraception. If the infant is being exclusively breastfed (or is given supplemental non-breastmilk or pumped breastmilk feeds only to a minor extent) and if the woman has not experienced her first postpartum menses, then breastfeeding provides more than 98% protection from pregnancy in the first 6 months following a birth [72,73]. Four prospective clinical studies of the contraceptive effect of LAM demonstrated cumulative 6-month life-table perfect-use pregnancy rates of 0.5%, 0.6%, 1.0%, and 1.5% among women who relied solely on LAM [74–77].

Go to:

16. Conclusion

• Pregnancy rates during perfect use reflect how effective methods can be in preventing pregnancy when used consistently and correctly according to instructions.

• Pregnancy rates during typical use reflect how effective methods are for the average person who does not always use methods correctly or consistently.

• Pregnancy rates during typical use of adherence-dependent methods generally vary widely for different groups using the same method, primarily due to differences in the propensity to use the method perfectly.

• Additional empirically-based estimates of pregnancy rates during perfect use are needed.

Go to:

Acknowledgments

This article is adapted from Trussell J and Guthrie K, Choosing a Contraceptive: Safety, Efficacy, and Personal Considerations; and Trussell J, Contraceptive Efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trus-sell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, and Kowal D, editors. Contraceptive Technology: Twentieth Revised Edition. New York: Ardent Media, 2011, with the permission of Contraceptive Technology Communications, Inc.

Notice how the terms, "Correct use, and Incorrect use," are mentioned time, and again in this VERY Educational article. 

Abortion is an easy and lazy way to deal with being RESPONSIBLE adults who properly use contraceptive, in a thoughtful, and self respecting way.

I'm pro unborn baby, and pro child, and pro family, while Abortion is used to derail all of that humanity. 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Contraceptives aren't lazy, while there are millions of females, and males globally who apparently are, and that's the sad truth. 

Being that the U.S. conducts the fewest Abortions Globally. 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne


https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/worldwide_abortion_statistics/

Worldwide Abortion Statistics

Facts and figures relating to the incidence of abortion worldwide.

"Accurate worldwide abortion statistics are difficult to come by since large portions of the globe do not record or report annual abortion totals. The global abortion estimates on this page come from a variety of sources, including the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Guttmacher Institute (AGI), and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Keep in mind that all of these organizations ideologically support abortion and are working towards its normalization.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ABORTION, VISIT: Prenatal Development, Abortion Procedures or Abortion Pictures

IF YOU ARE PREGNANT AND NEED HELP, VISIT: OptionLine.org

ANNUAL WORLDWIDE ABORTION STATISTICS

Guttmacher's global abortion numbers are speculative and unverifiable. No more than 10% of their global abortion total can be officially accounted for, and only 23% has any basis in empirical evidence.1 The other 77% are assumed based upon a complex statistical model that estimates regional abortion totals based on the number of women of reproductive age, the assumed distribution of those women across five reproductive categories, and the assumed frequency of abortion for each of these categories.

• Between 2010-2014, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 56 million abortions occurred each year around the globe. This is up from an estimated 50 million abortions per year between 1990-1994.
• An estimated 64% of all global abortions (35.8 million) occur in Asia.
• Estimated abortions per year by region (millions):

  Region	1990-94	1995-99	2000-04	2005-09	2010-14
  Africa	4.6	5.4	6.2	7.0	8.3
  Asia	31.5	30.7	30.8	32.7	35.8
  Latin America	4.4	4.9	5.4	6.1	6.5
  Northern America	1.6	1.5	1.4	1.3	1.2
  Europe	8.2	7.1	6.0	5.2	4.4

• From 2010-2014, an estimated 25% of global pregnancies (including spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.
• The estimated global abortion rate in 2014 was 35, down from 40 in 1994. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

WHERE IS ABORTION LEGAL?

• Every few years, the United Nations (UN) publishes a worldwide abortion report. In 2013, the UN reported that abortion is legal upon request in 58 of its 193 Member States. Abortion is legal to save the life of the mother in all but seven of its member states—the exceptions being South Sudan, Malta, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile.
• The Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization dedicated to promoting abortion around the world, estimates that 60% of the global population lives in countries where abortion is broadly legal. Approximately 25% live in countries where it is broadly restricted. Generally speaking, abortion is legal in most of North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It is illegal in most of Africa and South America.

ABORTION RATES BY COUNTRY

• The abortion rates in the following table come from the UN's World Abortion Policies reports from 2013 and 2007. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Additional abortion statistics are available for the countries that are hyperlinked below. 15.2 / 14.3 (2005) 10.0

  Country	2010 Abortion Rate	2004 Abortion Rate
  Australia	14.2	19.7 (2003)
  Austria	1.4 (2000)	1.3 (2001)
  Belgium	9.2 (2009)	7.5 (2003)
  Brazil	NR	0.0 (2003)
  Canada	13.7 (2009)	15.2 (2003)
  Chile	0.5 (2005)	NR
  China*	19.2 (2009)	24.2 (1998)
  Costa Rica	6.9	NR
  Cuba	28.9	24.8
  Denmark	15.2	14.3
  France	17.4 (2009)	16.9 (2002)
  Georgia	26.5	19.1 (2005)
  Germany	6.1	10.4
  Greece	7.2 (2007)	5.0 (1999)
  Hungary	19.4	23.4 (2005)
  India	2.2	3.1 (2001)
  Israel	12.5	13.9
  Italy	10.0	10.6
  Japan	9.2 (2009)	12.3
  Kazakhstan	27.4	35
  Netherlands	9.7	10.4
  New Zealand	18.2	19.7 (2005)
  Norway	16.2	15.2 (2005)
  Poland	0.1	0.0
  Portugal	9.0	0.2 (2002)
  Romania	21.3	27.8
  Russia	37.4	53.7 (1996)
  Spain	11.7	8.3 (2003)
  Sweden	20.8	20.2 (2005)
  Switzerland	7.1	7.3
  United Kingdom	14.2	17.0 (2005)
  United States	19.6 (2008)	20.8 (2003)

  *Though the UN lists China's oficial abortion rate at 19.2, China's actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China's 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2.

WORLDWIDE ABORTION FATALITY

• A 2014 study by the World Health Organization estimates that between 2003-2009, approximately 7.9% of all maternal deaths were caused by abortion, at an average of 27,571 maternal deaths per year. Another 2014 study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation estimates that 14.9% of all 2013 maternal deaths were caused by abortion, totaling somewhere between 38,336-49,843 maternal deaths. More than half of these deaths are believed to have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa."

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

That's a whole lot of words to not answer a question. For the record, the question asked if abortion was acceptable when two consenting adults used contraception and still became pregnant? 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest, regardless of your contraceptive question, as long as consenting adults across the United States, are willing to adopt those newly born babies.

And I find it bizarre that a building called a Family Planning Center, conducts abortions?

How is Abortion, a part of Family Planning? 

And aren't contraceptives available at those same centers? 

"for the record, the question asked if abortion was acceptable when two consenting adults used contraception and still became pregnant?"

Those consenting sdults are still responsible whether they use contraceptives or not. 

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

"Those consenting sdults are still responsible whether they use contraceptives or not."

In that case, I don't know why you would even mention contraceptives. It is irrelevant to your view.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Ok, so outside of rape and incest, abortion is actually murder... Is the procedure different in cases of incest or rape? Is the fetus different when conceived by rape or incest?

I mean, what actually makes it "not murder" in those instances? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen You gave  @SkepticalOne a Fist Bump?

@Plaffelvohfen , Why did you do that? 

"That's a whole lot of words to not answer a question." 
"For the record, the question asked if abortion was acceptable when two consenting adults used contraception and still became pregnant?"



@Plaffelvohfen , Why is this comment  from @SkepticalOne a great argument? 

Those consenting adults are still responsible whether they use contraceptives or not.

"In that case, I don't know why you would even mention contraceptives. It is irrelevant to your view."


My point of view is Pro Unborn baby, because the availability of consenting adults wanting to be parents, makes Abortion irrelevant. 

There are foster parents across the country giving new born babies and kids under the age of 18, a Quality of Life, that their previous parents couldn't apparently provide for them?

Two examples of Responsible adults, those Foster parents, and the Adoptive Parents making Abortion irrelevant. 

Apparently you view the Quality of Life, for an unborn baby, much differently than I do? 




@SkepticalOne ; You giving the below response from @Plaffelvohfen , a Thumbs up is bizarre.

"Ok, so outside of rape and incest, abortion is actually murder."

"Is the procedure different in cases of incest or rape?
  
Is the fetus different when conceived by rape or incest?"

"I mean, what actually makes it "not murder" in those instances?"



@SkepticalOne

@Plaffelvohfen

Why not contact the Planned Parenthood centers in your respective Cities, and talk to their nursing staff. or Public Relations people, and see what your sought after responses are?

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ 

Oh look, there's a website available to help with your Abortion related questions? 

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

Adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion for multiple reasons. The most practical one being: adoption agencies are not capable of handling roughly a million more children per year. 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

You wrote "Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest" and I don't understand... Is this true or not? 

You are confusing me... Since you are the cause of my current confusion, it makes sense to think you would be the best source of information about it, no?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Yet, a million and a half consenting males, and females, seek an abortion as an answer to their lazy none utilization of a condom, or prescription birth control, to clean up their mistake, by aborting an unborn baby?

That's my answer to your pro Abortion answer. 

"Adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion for multiple reasons."

"The most practical one being: adoption agencies are not capable of handling roughly a million more children per year."

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@TKDB

You wrote "Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest" and I don't understand... Is this true or not? 

You are confusing me... Since you are the cause of my current confusion, it makes sense to think you would be the best source of information about it, no?

Yes, but more important Plaffelvofen is abortion that is placed with a woman who is pregnant describing the end of the pregnancy is a self-incrimination. Mean it may not really be a murder but it has been described as one by the claim of who makes the call on an official stop to something that has been documented as started. 

In a simple list of reasons that do not require the sacrifice of principle by accusation of crime a woman is told she must bring a person across an international border, at risk to her life. I am going to stop at this point as the goal is to create all woman as equal as all men would be created equal.

ambee

@Dee
lol i thought you actually read my post where i clearly said that if you really wanted me to counter everything i disagreed with i would, if you take a breath and actually read what i write you would know that.
"(if you want me to i can go to your last message and pick out everything that i disagree with and say my opinion on it but i think this is a more productive way of going about the argument, one step at a time. i saw the conversation was becoming a bit aggressive so i just want to keep it civil.:) we may disagree but i will keep my responses nice and civil)"
give me a minute, im busy, but as i said before i will respond. if you cant give me the courtesy of being respectful at least read my damn post

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

Yet, a million and a half consenting males, and females, seek an abortion as an answer to their lazy none utilization of a condom, or prescription birth control, to clean up their mistake, by aborting an unborn baby?

That's my answer to your pro Abortion answer. 

"Adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion for multiple reasons."

"The most practical one being: adoption agencies are not capable of handling roughly a million more children per year."

Your answer does not address the objection. "Adoption instead of abortion" is nothing but empty words as it is simply not logistically feasible and no steps are being taken to beef-up our capabilities. This isn't a "pro-abortion" position, but a real obstacle to a proposed anti-abortion  'solution'.

And we've already established the use of condoms doesn't clear people of your judgment, so stop attempting to sanitize your position with this crutch of "irresponsibility". 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Why the discrimination against only people, men and woman alike who seek companionship through private intimacy. In order to create all woman as equal registered woman such as those in Marriage or MulierFemina should be included by a basic principle that sets the union clearly to all. This is done with pregnancy abortion by exposing the self-incrimination, those who must make the self-incrimination and those who must have it proven from a state of denial, a pregnancy abortion that technically still kill life, from a public claim to protect life by forcing a dangerous immigration across a border they have no legislative control over. In the most Basic explanation. 

Dee

@ambee

****lol i thought you actually read my post where i clearly said that if you really wanted me to counter everything i disagreed with i would, if you take a breath and actually read what i write you would know that.

Yes I read that and I’m still waiting , why you ask me to take a breath is beyond me 


****"(if you want me to i can go to your last message and pick out everything that i disagree with and say my opinion on it

Yes that’s what I want as you totally ignored all my counters 

***but i think this is a more productive way of going about the argument, one step at a time

But you haven’t gone over all my points one step at a time 

****. i saw the conversation was becoming a bit aggressive so i just want to keep it civil.:) we may disagree but i will keep my responses nice and civil)"

Show me where I was aggressive?

****give me a minute, im busy, but as i said before i will respond. if you cant give me the courtesy of being respectful at least read my damn post

How am I being disrespectful? You’re the only one firing off insults , try and calm down and address my points if you’re able if not that’s fine also 

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Do you have a beef with adoption over abortion?

You sound like a defense attorney who's verbally trying to pin, Adoption to the floor of an abortion clinic, and making excuses for abortions taking place on a table, when an unborn baby deserves the same Quality of Life that you were given after being born, right?

The same Quality of Life that I was given, or that @Dee was given, or what @Plaffelvohfen was given, or what @John_C_879 was given, or that @ambee was given, right?

Some reference material for the viewing Public:

"Whats better surgical or medical abortions?

Surgical abortion is slightly more effective at 99%. If the medication abortion fails, you will likely need a surgical abortion. The most common complication (occurring in about 1% of medication abortions) is an incomplete abortion, which requires more medication or a vacuum aspiration procedure.Feb 13, 2018

https://janesdueprocess.org › blog

Medication vs. Surgical Abortion: Understanding the Options ... "

"Your answer does not address the objection. "Adoption instead of abortion" is nothing but empty words as it is simply not logistically feasible and no steps are being taken to beef-up our capabilities. This isn't a "pro-abortion" position, but a real obstacle to a proposed anti-abortion  'solution'.

And we've already established the use of condoms doesn't clear people of your judgment, so stop attempting to sanitize your position with this crutch of "irresponsibility". 

@SkepticalOne
A baby getting the same Quality of Life that you were given at birth, is justified and fair and equal to the Public.

I'm not judging anyone, when a male or female, balk at using a condom, or prescription birth control, while being consenting adults with each other, their laziness is on their shoulders, and not on my shoulders, or your shoulders, they are the individuals who are placing their Quality of Life, over the life of an unborn baby's deserved Quality of Life, regardless of how some of the pro Abortion supporters feel about abortion over Life.

An unborn babies Quality of Life, should be fair and equal to your Quality if Life, shouldn't it?

I view every unborn baby's Quality of Life as equal and fair to my own.

Because I'm pro unborn baby, pro toddler, pro children, pro family, and pro Public.

I believe that everyone should treat each other in a fair and equal manner, and that includes the unborn babies.


From Planned Parenthood:

"You Can Come to Us, No Matter What

Pregnant and not sure what to do? That can be scary, but you’re not alone. The professional, caring staff at your nearest Planned Parenthood health center will give you all the straight-up information you need to help you make the right decision for you. No pressure, no judgment. Just support."

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

You're such a ...

I'm not judging anyone, when a lazy male or female.........

That's judging, right there...

Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest...

That's another lie.

You are pro-lie it seems...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

An unborn baby, doesn't deserve the same Quality of Life, that you were born with? 

An unborn babies Quality of Life, should be fair and equal to your Quality if Life, shouldn't it?

I view every unborn baby's Quality of Life as equal and fair to my own.

Because I'm pro unborn baby, pro toddler, pro children, pro family, and pro Public.

I believe that everyone should treat each other in a fair and equal manner, and that includes the unborn babies. 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

I'm not judging anyone, when a lazy male or female.........

You are lying as that's judging...

Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest...

That's another lie. So you are pro-lie...

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

And again, an unborn baby, doesn't deserve the same Quality of Life, that you were born with @Plaffelvohfen, right?

An unborn babies Quality of Life, should be fair and equal to your Quality if Life, shouldn't it @Plaffelvohfen?

I view every unborn baby's Quality of Life as equal and fair to my own.

Because I'm pro unborn baby, pro toddler, pro children, pro family, and pro Public.

I believe that everyone should treat each other in a fair and equal manner, and that includes the unborn babies.

@Plaffelvohfen, is your Quality of Life, more valuable than an unborn babies Quality of Life?

Is that what you're not willing to maybe admit?

@SkepticalOne is your Quality of Life, more valuable than an unborn babies Quality of Life? 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne

Do the two of you support this messaging from Planned Parenthood?


From Planned Parenthood:

"You Can Come to Us, No Matter What

Pregnant and not sure what to do? That can be scary, but you’re not alone. The professional, caring staff at your nearest Planned Parenthood health center will give you all the straight-up information you need to help you make the right decision for you. No pressure, no judgment. Just support." 

Plaffelvohfen

@Plaffelvohfen

I don't know if I should be talking to liars... I mean what's the point, right?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

"I don't know if I should be talking to liars... I mean what's the point, right?"

I guess it depends on what you say to yourself, @Plaffelvohfen?

Why do you have a problem with answering a question about your individual Quality of Life, in the same light of the deserved Quality of Life for an unborn baby?

This is what I say to your name @Plaffelvohfen, I view every unborn baby's Quality of Life as equal and fair to my own.

Because I'm pro unborn baby, pro toddler, pro children, pro family, and pro Public.

I believe that everyone should treat each other in a fair and equal manner, and that includes the unborn babies.

@Plaffelvohfen, is your Quality of Life, more valuable than an unborn babies Quality of Life?

What am I lying about?

I've spelled out my Pro Unborn Baby position, my Pro Children position, my Pro Family position, and my Pro Public position, more than enough times to you @Plaffelvohfen, and @SkepticalOne already.

Dee

@TKDB

is your Quality of Life, more valuable than an unborn babies Quality of Life? 

What about the woman who wishes to terminate , what about her quality of life? Her quality of life is ruined all because people like you wish to force a woman to give birth against her consent .How is granting a fetus a “right” by denying a woman her rights fair? 

You’re in favour of forcing women to give birth against their  wishes yet you bleat on about fairness and equality you’re a hypocrite of the highest order.

Dee

@TKDB

The same Quality of Life that I was given, or that @Dee was given, or what @Plaffelvohfen ;was given, or what @John_C_879 ;was given, or that @ambee ;was given, right?

What about granting the same quality of life to the woman who wishes to terminate? But no that’s the exception she is denied a quality of life by being forced to give birth by finger wagging Victorian moralists like you  

SkepticalOne

@TKDB

"is your Quality of Life, more valuable than an unborn babies Quality of Life?"

This is not quality of life question. Most abortions occurs before any reasonable definition of "person" could be applicable. Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy (when personhood *might* be applicable) only occur when a woman's life is endangered. 

Basically, there can be no quality of life for non-agents and self-defense cancels out any "quality of life" considerations for *potential* agents.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

What am I lying about?

For starter when you say that you're not judging then right after a comma, go judging people... You did that in a single sentence.

And when you say "Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest"... That is a lie too...

As for your question, as I'm not a like you, I will answer yes of course, my quality of life is more valuable than any unborn baby...

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@Plaffelvohfen

@SkepticalOne

Do the two of you support this messaging from Planned Parenthood?


From Planned Parenthood:

"You Can Come to Us, No Matter What

Pregnant and not sure what to do? That can be scary, but you’re not alone. The professional, caring staff at your nearest Planned Parenthood health center will give you all the straight-up information you need to help you make the right decision for you. No pressure, no judgment. Just support." 

Absolutely. What issue could anyone possibly have to straight facts on decisions regarding their body?  You know Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions, right?

TKDB

@Dee

Why terminate an unborn baby, if there are thousands of consenting adults, or parents, who are willing to adopt an unwanted baby, and give that same unborn baby, the Quality of life, that an unwilling pregnant lady isn't willing to give?

"What about granting the same quality of life to the woman who wishes to terminate?"

I'm a moralist for wanting an unborn baby, to receive the same Quality of Life, that you and I both received when we were both born?

"But no that’s the exception she is denied a quality of life by being forced to give birth by finger wagging Victorian moralists like you."

It's amazing how the voices of the millions of the unborn, and aborted babies, globally do not get to have a voice, when it comes to their unborn lives, involuntarily being taken from them, via an abortion? 

I wonder, if the Quality of Life question, in regards to an unborn baby, wasn't maybe a part of the Roe V Wade conversation?

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

I see that @Plaffelvohfen gave you a Fist Bump for your pro Abortion efforts.

@SkepticalOne

Please keep educating the Public, with your pro Abortion stance. 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

And I've noticed you don't have one viable Quality of Life, counter argument, to argue with, other than to attack me, old sport. 

Keep preaching:

"For starter, (I think you forgot the "s") when you say that you're not judging then right after a comma, go judging people... You did that in a single sentence.

And when you say "Abortion is murder, outside of rape or incest"... That is a lie too...

As for your question, as I'm not a like you, I will answer yes of course, my quality of life is more valuable than any unborn baby."

Good for you @Plaffelvohfen ; you've just spelled out your individual mindset for the entire internet Public to read with your pro Abortion attitude:

"As for your question, as I'm not a like you, I will answer yes of course, my quality of life is more valuable than any unborn baby."

An unborn babies Quality of Life, is less valuable to your Quality of Life.

Wow, that was a manly answer.
Are you going to head out to the city hall of your town, and preach your pro Abortion rhetoric to the Public, of the town, in which you live?

Or just keep it to the internet, and act all manly and happy like, from behind the anonymity of your @Plaffelvohfen name? 

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

And I've notice you lie a lot... I may be selfish but I'm not a like you...

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

What about the unborn baby's body? 

"Absolutely. What issue could anyone possibly have to straight facts on decisions regarding their body?  You know Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions, right?"

John_C_87

Pregnancy abortion is murder under all conditions by basic principle the weight of proof is on the side of self-incrimination meaning woman lose the presumption of innocence. Rape and incest effect only the number of people who are responsible and the existent of guilt created form the admission as self-incrimination. In basic the admission of crime is only forgiven by law, not made legal.

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Keep preaching to the Public, with your manly pro Abortion word's. 

Because the Quality of Life, that you were born with, are more important than an unborn babies, Quality of Life is. 

Why don't you invite Planned Parenthood, to do your viable Quality of Life arguing for you? 

John_C_87

Because I'm pro unborn baby, pro toddler, pro children, pro family, and pro Public.
A statement like this does not provide a common defense to the woman it placed together in a united state of self-incrimination. Abortion becomes the admission of a described crime.

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

At least you had the decency of not denying you're a , that is something...

John_C_87

I believe that everyone should treat each other in a fair and equal manner, and that includes the unborn babies. And again, unborn baby, doesn't deserve the same Quality of Life, that you were born with.

In all condition of unborn child the egg and fertilized egg are denied immigration both privately and in medical research people. All unborn children those created and held by creator, those created then united by the recipients of donation. "All unborn children are created equal." The unborn baby, deserves a quality of death, that it egg was created with which has a limit to any argument in its detainment and denial of the United State Constitutional right. "All unborn are created equal." This is our new constitutionally argument added to the burden of woman setting equality with woman in levels of United States for law. Supporting that only woman who have no sex are to knowingly terminate babies is not equality. In basic a principle explaining the grievance  all woman having to be create equal as a basic united state for constitution, as creating all unborn babies equal for a basic united state for constitution.

Basically we are to say passion is to be a gamble for all woman in the matters of reproduction. They, woman are not to evaluate any pregancy on the condition of Immigration into a Nation form across what is to be considered a international border, by its own independent united state. The grievance with Plaffelvofen is the basic prinicple of a unregulated athoritarian objective of abslolute power by decrea of immunity as a united state made on a pulbic self-incrimiantion.

SkepticalOne

TKDB said:

@SkepticalOne

What about the unborn baby's body? 

"Absolutely. What issue could anyone possibly have to straight facts on decisions regarding their body?  You know Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions, right?"

Humanity (and "babies") is defined by more than having human cells...

TKDB

@SkepticalOne

Keep educating, and the Public, through the lens of your pro Abortion mindset, because the science of your thinking is just as enlightening as the thinking behind Planned Parenthood is. 

Humanity (and "babies") is defined by more than having human cells...

All humans start out as babies, don't they?

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Please remove your anti abortion rhetoric from my mouth, I didn't consent to your actions did I?

"As for your question, as I'm not a like you, I will answer yes of course, my quality of life is more valuable than any unborn baby."

"And I've notice you lie a lot... I may be selfish but I'm not a like you."

"At least you had the decency of not denying you're a , that is something."

Plaffelvohfen

@TKDB

Not as long as you'll keep lying...