This article talks about an increase in pre-term births in Canada and made me think of other studies I’ve read linking abortion to subsequent pre-term delivery. It’s a link I’m sure you won’t hear about in the mainstream media, so I thought I should mention it on this site. A couple of articles on the link between abortion and pre-term delivery for your reading pleasure, here and here.
___________________________
Patricia adds: This is not directly on the same subject as Andrea’s post, but bear with me.
An Australian hospital’s pregnancy advisory service has released an analysis of reasons why women using its service are considering abortion.
Victoria’s Royal Women’s Hospital’s Pregnancy Advisory Service is the state’s largest public “pregnancy support service”. Women with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy can contact the service about their options, including abortion and continuing the pregnancy. That said, it sounds like the greatest “service” the PAS provides is abortion referral: The Medical Journal of Australia reported recently that of the 5,462 women who contacted the service between October 2006 and October 2007, 90 per cent were seeking an abortion.
Of the 3,018 women surveyed on reasons for seeking abortion, 34 per cent listed their primary reason as “do not want children now” or “not the right time”. Another 547, or 18 per cent, said they already had enough children, 263, or 9 per cent, said they were caring for a young baby, and 339, or 11 per cent, said they were too young.
Financial, relationship or medical reasons together (together! I would have thought these were the major reasons) accounted for 19 per cent of cases. Rape accounted for 1 per cent.
Is it just me or, with the exception of the rape category (just 1 percent), do these reasons seem somewhat underwhelming? I realize that it’s hard to make statistics compelling but the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement always seemed pitched at the level of “women’s lives destroyed” if access to abortion is compromised in the slightest manner. But does it really seem to you that a woman’s life is “destroyed” if she has three children instead of two (as she had planned)? Or if she has a child a few years ahead of schedule?
I know that such an event can cause hardship and even suffering. But I’m just not sure that any of these reasons indicate that “women’s lives are at risk”.
And do any of these reasons seem compelling enough to risk the kind of repercussions associated with abortion – those mentioned in Andrea’s post and others?
by 
Well give them credit, they did say “use of reproductive technologies.”