The emprical fact
...известно, что информация у молодежи о контрацептивах сильно снижает количество абортов. Это эмпирический факт. Следовательно, серьёзный противник абортов должен выступать за уроки сексуального просвещения в школе и бесплатную раздачу контрацептивов старшеклассникам. "Но, - скажет он, - это приведет к повышению сексуальной активности школьников!" Во-первых, исследования не находят такой связи. А во-вторых, отвечу я ему - даже если бы она была, то что с того? Мы тут предотвращаем массовое убийство, да? Вы не готовы за это заплатить тем, что какое-то количество парней и девушек лишатся девственности чуть раньше, чем вам хотелось бы? Тогда грош цена вашим проповедям! Значит, вы на самом деле прекрасно знаете, что аборт - никакое не убийство, и просто занимаетесь отвратительной демагогией. http://scholar-vit.livejournal.com/225758.html
The familiar claim, endlessly reproduced: sex education and distribution of contraceptives decrease the abortion rates. It is also claimed that it is well-known empirical fact. Even a cursory look at one's backyard reveals the absurdity of this position. Black ghettos in American cities are the primary abortion grounds. The abortion rate for Blacks (all ages) is 33.9 per 1000 women vs. 10.8 per 1000 women for Whites; the abortion ratios are 459 vs. 162 per 1000 live births (year 2006 data from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5808a1.htm?s_cid=ss5808a1_e#tab10). Black women account for 37% of abortions (vs. 22% Hispanic, 34% white, and 8% non-white - year 2008 data from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html); without abortions the population of American blacks would be 1/3 larger (counting from 1973). For teenagers, the abortion rates are 11 per 1000 women for Whites, 44 for Blacks and 24 for Hispanics (year 2010 data from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf)
To put it in perspective, the global rate is 29 per 1000 women, so young American blacks exhibit the rate that is considerably higher than the global rate. Is that because there was less sex education and contraceptive distribution in the inner cities? These WERE the places where early sex education and contraceptive distribution were at their most dedicated (so is building the abortion clinics).
So, where the "empirical fact" is from? It is British; the claim was persistently made in 2008-2009 when the Labour Government aggressively pursued compulsory sex education in primary schools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/23/sexeducation-primaryschools1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6905543.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4998206.ece
American left got it from the British press. The argument, in its most coherent form goes something like that:
...A study published in the Lancet
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61575-X/abstract
shows that between 1995 and 2003, the global rate of induced abortions fell from 35 per 1,000 women each year to 29. When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies. In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18 per 1000 women. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/26/health.religion
breakups are given here http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
Naturally, among American whites ("conservative and religious society") the abortion rate is about the same as in "secular western Europe". The US rate is higher due to the Hispanic and black minorities targeted by building abortion clinics in the inner cities.
The connection between the claim and the "empirical facts" is tenuous:
...Most studies find that sex education programs have little or no impact on rates of teenage pregnancy or abortion. Sweden's programmes in sex education, and promotion of contraceptives, have been an admired model - yet total abortion rates there are now higher than in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health
Here is a Canadian study abridging 22 reports from North America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe published in British Medical Journal. It concludes:
...The results of our systematic review show that primary prevention strategies do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse or improve use of birth control among young men and women. Meta-analyses showed no reduction in pregnancies among young women, but data from five studies, four of which evaluated abstinence programmes and one of which evaluated a school based sex education programme, show that interventions may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants. Most of the participants in over half of the studies in our systematic review were African-American or Hispanic, thus over-representing lower socioeconomic groups. The interventions may be more successful in other populations. In all but five studies, participants in the control group received a conventional intervention rather than no intervention. It is possible that the control interventions had some effect on the outcomes and the tested interventions were not potent enough to exceed this effect. Finally, only eight of the 22 studies scored over 2 points out of the possible 4 points in the quality assessment. However, as poor methodological quality is more often associated with overestimates than underestimates of treatment effects it is unlikely that methodological weaknesses can explain the failure of the interventions to influence the outcomes measured. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7351/1426
Here is another meta-analysis, of freely distributed morning-after contraceptives:
...a meta-analysis of 23 research articles examining the impact of increased access to emergency birth control on unwanted pregnancy and abortions, concluding: "To date, no study has shown that increased access to this method reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates." {Elizabeth Raymond, et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills: A Systematic Review,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 109 (2007) 181, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197603}.
What about "other countries" argument? The statistics for countries where abortion is illegal are notoriously unreliable, and the extrapolations can go both ways, e.g.
...the abortion rates from more religious countries are generally based on conjectural estimates of illegal abortions, and there is a long history of pro-abortion groups deliberately inflating such estimates. The case of Mexico provides a good example. An estimate of 25 abortions per 1,000 women for Central America is given. Applying this figure to Mexico suggests about three quarters of a million abortions each year. In fact we now have real data for this country - due to the legalisation of abortion in Mexico City last year - which makes it highly unlikely that there were more than 70,000 illegal abortions a year. This equates to 2.1 per 1,000 women - one tenth of that quoted. In Ireland abortion is illegal and contraception has (at least until recently) been much harder to access than in the UK. Based on the numbers of Irish women having abortions in the UK, their abortion rate is about one third that of England, and there is no evidence of significant numbers of illegal abortions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health
see also http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/AWWfullreport.pdf on the same difficulties
Did the improvements in the accessibility of sex education change the abortion rates in Europe?
...The 2003 abortion rates in the Northern European countries of Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden changed little compared with rates in 1996, and ranged from 11 to 20 per 1,000 women. The rates were also low in Western Europe, where they ranged from seven (in Switzerland) to 17 (in France). The abortion rate increased in the Netherlands by 31% over seven years, partly because of a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country. Abortion rates otherwise changed minimally in Western Europe between 1996 and 2003. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3310607.html
Maybe it works only in the US? The paper often cited as ironclad "proof" of the claim does not address the abortion rates at all.
http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf
It claims some effect of "comprehensive sex education" on teen pregnancy rates vs. the control group that does not easily translate into the abortion rates; it also contradicts the previous meta-analyses and studies (see the BMJ review). It has not been replicated.
And so it goes on. The "empirical fact" is nowhere to be found, it is all wishful thinking.
The truth is that the connection between sex education, distribution of contraceptives, and the abortion rates has not been established. It is not substantiated "empirically". What changes the abortion rates remains unknown.
===================================================
SV suddenly decided to prove the "empirical fact" citing
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005215/frame.html
Alas, the abstract of this review tells, verbatim, Evidence on the possible effects of interventions on secondary outcomes (initiation of sexual intercourse, use of birth control methods, abortion, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases) is not conclusive. This is fully consistent with the previous studies, including the BMJ study cited above. The story was immediately changed: Чтобы получить статистически значимый результат по количеству абортов, нужен большой массив данных. Который объективно получить сложно. Я понимаю, почему аккуратные статистики говорят только то, что могут измерить, и не измышляют гипотез. Но делать вывод, что влияния нет, можно только если очень хочется сделать такой вывод. http://scholar-vit.livejournal.com/225758.html?thread=8262622
That's after giving the assurances of the "strong effect" being an "empirical fact"! The strong effect is so great that it is hidden in the statistical noise, being the article of faith. BTW, as 40-60% of unintended pregnancies end up in abortions, there can'be sufficient statistics on unintended pregancies and insufficient statistics on induced abortions. Speak of revolting demagoguery and preaching intellectual honesty as the basis of meaningful discussions...
The familiar claim, endlessly reproduced: sex education and distribution of contraceptives decrease the abortion rates. It is also claimed that it is well-known empirical fact. Even a cursory look at one's backyard reveals the absurdity of this position. Black ghettos in American cities are the primary abortion grounds. The abortion rate for Blacks (all ages) is 33.9 per 1000 women vs. 10.8 per 1000 women for Whites; the abortion ratios are 459 vs. 162 per 1000 live births (year 2006 data from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5808a1.htm?s_cid=ss5808a1_e#tab10). Black women account for 37% of abortions (vs. 22% Hispanic, 34% white, and 8% non-white - year 2008 data from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html); without abortions the population of American blacks would be 1/3 larger (counting from 1973). For teenagers, the abortion rates are 11 per 1000 women for Whites, 44 for Blacks and 24 for Hispanics (year 2010 data from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf)
To put it in perspective, the global rate is 29 per 1000 women, so young American blacks exhibit the rate that is considerably higher than the global rate. Is that because there was less sex education and contraceptive distribution in the inner cities? These WERE the places where early sex education and contraceptive distribution were at their most dedicated (so is building the abortion clinics).
So, where the "empirical fact" is from? It is British; the claim was persistently made in 2008-2009 when the Labour Government aggressively pursued compulsory sex education in primary schools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/23/sexeducation-primaryschools1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6905543.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4998206.ece
American left got it from the British press. The argument, in its most coherent form goes something like that:
...A study published in the Lancet
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61575-X/abstract
shows that between 1995 and 2003, the global rate of induced abortions fell from 35 per 1,000 women each year to 29. When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies. In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18 per 1000 women. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/26/health.religion
breakups are given here http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
Naturally, among American whites ("conservative and religious society") the abortion rate is about the same as in "secular western Europe". The US rate is higher due to the Hispanic and black minorities targeted by building abortion clinics in the inner cities.
The connection between the claim and the "empirical facts" is tenuous:
...Most studies find that sex education programs have little or no impact on rates of teenage pregnancy or abortion. Sweden's programmes in sex education, and promotion of contraceptives, have been an admired model - yet total abortion rates there are now higher than in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health
Here is a Canadian study abridging 22 reports from North America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe published in British Medical Journal. It concludes:
...The results of our systematic review show that primary prevention strategies do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse or improve use of birth control among young men and women. Meta-analyses showed no reduction in pregnancies among young women, but data from five studies, four of which evaluated abstinence programmes and one of which evaluated a school based sex education programme, show that interventions may increase pregnancies in partners of male participants. Most of the participants in over half of the studies in our systematic review were African-American or Hispanic, thus over-representing lower socioeconomic groups. The interventions may be more successful in other populations. In all but five studies, participants in the control group received a conventional intervention rather than no intervention. It is possible that the control interventions had some effect on the outcomes and the tested interventions were not potent enough to exceed this effect. Finally, only eight of the 22 studies scored over 2 points out of the possible 4 points in the quality assessment. However, as poor methodological quality is more often associated with overestimates than underestimates of treatment effects it is unlikely that methodological weaknesses can explain the failure of the interventions to influence the outcomes measured. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7351/1426
Here is another meta-analysis, of freely distributed morning-after contraceptives:
...a meta-analysis of 23 research articles examining the impact of increased access to emergency birth control on unwanted pregnancy and abortions, concluding: "To date, no study has shown that increased access to this method reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates." {Elizabeth Raymond, et al., “Population Effect of Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills: A Systematic Review,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 109 (2007) 181, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197603}.
What about "other countries" argument? The statistics for countries where abortion is illegal are notoriously unreliable, and the extrapolations can go both ways, e.g.
...the abortion rates from more religious countries are generally based on conjectural estimates of illegal abortions, and there is a long history of pro-abortion groups deliberately inflating such estimates. The case of Mexico provides a good example. An estimate of 25 abortions per 1,000 women for Central America is given. Applying this figure to Mexico suggests about three quarters of a million abortions each year. In fact we now have real data for this country - due to the legalisation of abortion in Mexico City last year - which makes it highly unlikely that there were more than 70,000 illegal abortions a year. This equates to 2.1 per 1,000 women - one tenth of that quoted. In Ireland abortion is illegal and contraception has (at least until recently) been much harder to access than in the UK. Based on the numbers of Irish women having abortions in the UK, their abortion rate is about one third that of England, and there is no evidence of significant numbers of illegal abortions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/05/health
see also http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/AWWfullreport.pdf on the same difficulties
Did the improvements in the accessibility of sex education change the abortion rates in Europe?
...The 2003 abortion rates in the Northern European countries of Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden changed little compared with rates in 1996, and ranged from 11 to 20 per 1,000 women. The rates were also low in Western Europe, where they ranged from seven (in Switzerland) to 17 (in France). The abortion rate increased in the Netherlands by 31% over seven years, partly because of a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country. Abortion rates otherwise changed minimally in Western Europe between 1996 and 2003. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3310607.html
Maybe it works only in the US? The paper often cited as ironclad "proof" of the claim does not address the abortion rates at all.
http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf
It claims some effect of "comprehensive sex education" on teen pregnancy rates vs. the control group that does not easily translate into the abortion rates; it also contradicts the previous meta-analyses and studies (see the BMJ review). It has not been replicated.
And so it goes on. The "empirical fact" is nowhere to be found, it is all wishful thinking.
The truth is that the connection between sex education, distribution of contraceptives, and the abortion rates has not been established. It is not substantiated "empirically". What changes the abortion rates remains unknown.
===================================================
SV suddenly decided to prove the "empirical fact" citing
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005215/frame.html
Alas, the abstract of this review tells, verbatim, Evidence on the possible effects of interventions on secondary outcomes (initiation of sexual intercourse, use of birth control methods, abortion, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases) is not conclusive. This is fully consistent with the previous studies, including the BMJ study cited above. The story was immediately changed: Чтобы получить статистически значимый результат по количеству абортов, нужен большой массив данных. Который объективно получить сложно. Я понимаю, почему аккуратные статистики говорят только то, что могут измерить, и не измышляют гипотез. Но делать вывод, что влияния нет, можно только если очень хочется сделать такой вывод. http://scholar-vit.livejournal.com/225758.html?thread=8262622
That's after giving the assurances of the "strong effect" being an "empirical fact"! The strong effect is so great that it is hidden in the statistical noise, being the article of faith. BTW, as 40-60% of unintended pregnancies end up in abortions, there can'be sufficient statistics on unintended pregancies and insufficient statistics on induced abortions. Speak of revolting demagoguery and preaching intellectual honesty as the basis of meaningful discussions...