Abortion may drag us to history's grave [infanticide = sign of doomed culture]

MichNews.com ^ | May 15, 2004 | Connie Lynne Carrillo

[Ciexyz]

A thoughtful and provocative read.

[dsc]

"For every abortion performed in our nation, over 1,000 births are prevented by the birth control pill."

How could you possibly calculate that?

(BTW, at least some "birth control" pills are actually abortifacents.)

[backtothestreets]

Interesting question! I got that figure off the Internet many months ago. I couldn't locate the site, so I decided to dig further and visited the Census Bureau and Center for Disease Control for available data.

The most the numbers suggest is something closer to seven births prevented by use of the birth control pill for every abortion performed. And that is with the 1960, pre-birth control pill rate of births maintained throughout the years. I rechecked the Census and CDC numbers and my calculations and cannot support the 1,000 to one ratio I posted earlier. The numbers do present some very interesting data nonetheless.

My numbers were calculated using Census Department figures prior the legalization of the birth control pill. The last census prior to the legalization of the birth control pill was 1960. The population of the United States in 1960 was 180,000,000. The sustained rate of population growth prior to the pill was 1.5% (the current rate of population growth is .05%).

The birth rate in 1960 was 2.5 births per 1,000 population. The birth rate is currently at 1.4 births per 1,000.

Without the introduction of the pill into American society, the current population of 275 million would have been achieved by mid 1989 with no immigration. The current population without all post 1960 medical birth control methods (birth control pills, abortion and other medical methods) would be 346.5 million. During the 40 year period from 1960 to 2000, 40 million immigrants entered the country (32 million legally; 8 million illegally). With post 1960 birth control methds in place, less the immigrantion during that same period, current population would be 235 million. The effect of the post 1960 birth control methods has prevented over 110 million births in the United States since the pill was introduced.

The number of births in 2004 would have been 5,120,000 without all forms of birth control introduced during the last four decades (this includes birth control pills, abortions, and other medical devices).

The number of abortions performed in the United States last year was 857,000 (CDC). Overall, the ratio of births prevented by the birth control pill (and other medical devices) compared to abortion is approximately 7 to 1.

[dsc]

Lot of assumptions and "what ifs" there. Still, it's clear that a lot of babies aren't being born, one way or another.

One could ask what the birthrate would have looked like if contraceptives had not been available during the "sexual revolution." And one can speculate that the "sexual revolution" would not have occurred without contraceptives--or would it?

It could also be wondered whether the increasing incidence of--and failure to disapprove of--same-sex attraction disorder is having any significant effect on the birthrate. At least some of the people so afflicted used to get married and have some kids for "cover."

Neither am I in a position to know whether single yuppy women are as slutty as they are portrayed in the media, or whether some of their barrenness might not be the result of non-participation in the required activities.

[smcmike]

While I agree with the author's purpose, I have to dispute her method: the practice of infanticide was actually quite common amoung all classical civilizations, and they were relatively successful for far longer than we have been so far. Doesn't make it right, but it does make her argument flawed.

[backtothestreets]

Yep, a lot of assumptions, but the 1960 birthrate data is significant, and a reliable base.

The question of the "sexual revolution" is one I've pondered many times. I think the birth control pill did move sexual activity into the realm of a recreational activity. Had the "sexual revolution" occurred without contraceptives, it might have led to birth rates well beyond the 1960 level.

Looking back, I think the rise in homosexuality was, like group sex, piggy-backed the "sexual revolution". It might also be argued drug usage increased as the pill offered a sense of immunity for ones actions.

One thing the census numbers do show absolutely. We are supplementing low birth rates with immigration. I've long suspected the government (both political parties) are lenient with immigration because they know workers will be needed to support the baby boom generation retirees. Unfortunately, many of those immigrants entered the country as adults, and will be retiring at or near the same time as the baby boomers.

BTW, thanks for taking me to task on the numbers I first posted. It made me look further. I appreciate that. I was astounded how many abortions the CDC reported. At 857,000 abortions last year, it was nearly equal to the population of the State of Montana (909,000). If all the children aborted last year ALONE were assembled in a single city by themselves, that city would rank number 11 in population among all US cities (CDC).

[dsc]

"If all the children aborted last year ALONE were assembled in a single city by themselves, that city would rank number 11 in population among all US cities (CDC)."

Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.