Home
   Weather
   Sports
   Opinion
   Obituaries
   Special Sections
   Forums
   Archive
   Search
   Front Page
   Subscription
     Services
   @ugusta Help

   City Guide
   Classifieds
   Employment
   Coupons
   Autos
   Real Estate
   Yellow Pages
   Maps
   Directions

   Applause
   Dining
   Movies
   Travel
   Television
   Lottery
   Horoscopes

   Net Music
   Quick Cooking
   Remote
   Your Health
   Fitness Files
   JobSmart
   Food & Recipes
   Newspapers
    in Education

   Xtreme
   Citizen Activist
   Augusta Golf
   Augusta
     Magazine
   Business
     Chronicle

   F.A.Q.
   Advertise
   Chronicle Staff
   Chronicle Jobs
   Internet Service

 The Chronicle welcomes you online! Please feel free to respond to these editorials or letters to the editor by sending your letters to the editor.

We condense letters; most, as published, won't exceed 300 words. A letter must include the writer's name and city, which will be published, and an address and telephone number for verification, which will not be published. Writers may be limited to one letter every 30 days. Open letters, letters to third parties and poetry are not considered. Letters from people living outside the Chronicle's circulation area usually are not considered.

Doubts reasons cited for abortion rate

Web posted January 15, 2000

 Have a thought? Go to the @ugusta Forums.

Editor, The Chronicle

I found the Jan. 7 front page article entitled ``Abortions continue to decline'' rather interesting and it normally would have been pleasing to many of us who believe that even one abortion is too many. Unfortunately, I am less excited about these statistics as I have significant problems with the assumptions upon which the conclusions are based.

It is conservatively estimated that there have been at least 38 million abortions since 1973 and many believe that the numbers could be as high as 50 million or 60 million due to incomplete reporting. For our purpose, let's say there have been 38 million since 1973 of which one half would have been females and a third could now be in or entering the reproductive age. This leaves our nation with a minimum of 6 million fewer females in the childbearing age.

With at least 1.2 million abortions a year throughout most of this period this number will continue to grow by at least 200,000 a year until those at the upper level begin to exceed the reproductive age. Thus, one can expect a continued ``apparent'' decline in the abortion rate.

Another interesting point. If these 6 million females who were aborted had lived and gone on to child- bearing age it would be reasonable to conclude that they would also be more prone to having the abortion mentality than those who survived and are now becoming mothers.

It must also be recognized that abortionists have been looked upon with increased disdain. Consequently, many physicians have distanced themselves from any identity with this industry. The article points out that since the mid-1990s drug-induced abortions have become more prevalent because the procedure is private and convenient. This would suggest that if it is private, it also might frequently go unreported.

I believe these facts have much more to do with the changing statistics then the activities cited or any efforts that those who misidentify themselves as ``family planners'' would like to claim.

Vern Simon, Evans