Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

abortion in Russia

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00

pjt

Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko

I saw about a 6 min. clip of a documentary in Russia, and I was surprised by what was reported. According to the documentary "80% of ALL Russian women have abortions" and the average Russian woman has between 2-10 abortions each. The abortionist doctor said abortion is "legalized murder". She said it is very hard psychologically to perform the abortions (she was doing a lot of late term abortions), but I suppose in order to find peace with it, she looked at the many abandoned babies in hospitals and the bleak future for their lives so she said maybe abortion is a lesser of 2 evils. I was very impressed with how deeply she felt and realized what was going on. She was not justifying abortion as a blob of lifeless cells but life--very much life and she regretted that Russia has so many abortions. I don`t know the legal system of Russia but I am guessing doctors are forced to do abortions. They can`t refuse based on moral grounds which is why she is doing this job. I wonder if doctors are forced to perform abortions in America if this is the direction America will go too. It was really a sad clip to me.
 
if the rate is that high, and russia is paying for women to have kids that makes no sense? also its easier to tie the tubes upon request and minimize the possibility. sheesh.


#1 - JRL 2007-190 - JRL Home
Russia Profile
Russia Profile - Russian politics, Russian business, Russian current affairs and society
September 6, 2007
Where Have All the Children Gone?
Can Russia Reverse its Demographic Crisis?
Comment by Michael Akerib
In 2000, newly elected President Vladimir Putin said that the most important issue facing Russia was its demographic decline, which currently numbers around 750,000 people per year.

Given the present fertility rate, Russia's population will have shrunk by one-third by 2050, bringing it back to the low level of 1950 - 103 million, in a country still reeling from the massive population losses due to the Second World War. There are 1 million fewer children of school age in Russia today than in 1999. In the future, Russia is likely to have a smaller population than many of its neighbors, such as Iran and Turkey. To even maintain current population levels, Russian women should average 2.5 children, as opposed to today's rate of 1.2. This is a most unlikely development.

In 2006, the number of children born in Russia was 1.5 million, while in 1987, the figure was 2.5 million. In light of these figures, the 2005 study by the Levada Center seems surprising. According to the results of its interviews, 50 percent of respondents believed the ideal family has 2 children, while 40 percent stated it had 3 or more. But many people are prevented from achieving this ideal due to factors such as insufficient income, lack of confidence in the future, poor quality housing, lack of state aid, difficulties in holding down regular employment and high prices.

These reasons could lead to the conclusion that birth rates will increase as living conditions improve. There are, however, a number of other reasons for the low birth rate. Many Russian women, like their Western counterparts, have chosen to focus on their careers rather than family. Less than half of all Russian women are married; and while many Russians live with a partner of the opposite sex, these relationships are less likely to lead to the birth of a child. Statistics show that although one-third of all Russian children are born out of wedlock - a figure similar to that of the United States and lower than the 50 percent of children born to unmarried couples in the UK, studies also show that married couples have three times more children than unmarried ones.

Secondly, low levels of health care have resulted in 7 percent of the population - 4 million men and 6 million women - being sterile. This is twice the level of in developed countries. The main reason for this staggering figure is the recourse to abortion as the prevailing method of contraception and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Syphilis, for instance, is believed to be 100 times more prevalent in Russia than in the EU. Additionally, up to 10 percent of pregnant women miscarry, primarily due to malnutrition.

Sterile women could benefit from adequate treatments or assisted reproductive technology, but treatments are too expensive for the average Russian citizen.

State Solutions

Historically, government action to increase birth rates in Russia has been slow, generally lacking coordination and with little or no positive result, and today's efforts are no exception. In 1941, Stalin introduced a childless tax - men and women in certain age brackets had to pay up to 6 percent of their income if they were childless - but the success of this measure was scant and it was also discontinued. In the 1980s, the Soviet government tried again to introduce measures to increase the birth rate, and while they were successful for a few years, they did not have a significant impact on the birth rate and were discontinued.

The long and largely unsuccessful transition from a central economy to a market one created large numbers of working poor, who have refrained from having children. Even those who remain optimistic have postponed having a family, making it more likely that they will have only one child.

The government's most recent initiative has been to throw money at mothers, paying them to have a second or third child. In May 2006, family allowances were doubled for the first child and multiplied by four for the second child. A one-time payment of 250,000 rubles ($9,700) will also be deposited in a special account after a second child is born, but will be released only when the child is three and its use is limited to expenses that will primarily benefit the child, such as tuition or mortgage payments.

Several criticisms of this policy have been made. There is some fear that people would decide to have more children simply for the increased payment, which would, in the long run, increase the number of underfed, ill and undereducated children. Others feared that the new incentives would result in a transfer of funds to Russia's Muslim minority, who already have a higher birth rate than Christian Russians, thereby increasing their power in the country.

The higher birth rate in the Muslim population has already translated into a higher proportion of Muslims in the young population; nearly 13 percent of children aged between 0-4 are Muslim, compared to 10 percent in the population as a whole.

This difference cannot be attributed to economics - on average, Russia's Muslims have lower salaries, higher unemployment rates and generally worse living conditions than non-Muslims, but their conservative social policies mean that Muslim women are less likely to have abortions or use birth control and Muslims are less likely to divorce.

In general, paying women to become mothers is generally not a successful proposition - in order to give women a truly appropriate sum, the funds required would be gigantic and no state could afford such a policy to boost birth rates to the required level.

Countries, such as Estonia, that have seen a sizable increase in birth rates because of income-related financial incentives, have nevertheless been unable to stop the overall population slide: even a 20 percent increase in the birth rate will do little to stop Russia's demographic decline considering the present fertility rate is one of the world's lowest.

France is perhaps the one happy exception and one of the very few EU countries to have avoided a collapse in its birth rate, but this success has come at a cost - 4.5 percent of total GDP. The contribution of France's immigrant Muslim population to the birth rate is difficult to measure, but is believed to be important.

Following the European model?

Generally, with very few exceptions, birth rates are declining worldwide and even in wealthy countries, parents fear the cost of raising children. In most developed countries, however, total population numbers have remained stable due to prolonged life expectancy. Demographers have suggested that we are witnessing a natural correction of the birth rate in the face of a major decrease in mortality over the last century; this mechanism would serve to avoid a population explosion.

The birth rate in nearly all European countries has dropped over the last 50 years, although at different speeds and spread over time. The drop was constant in the Northern countries, while in the Mediterranean it dropped in stages - dropping, stabilizing then dropping again to reach a low of 1.3 children per woman. The fall of Communism and the end of free child care led to the same result in the Central European countries.

Everywhere in Europe, women seem content to have one child, in contrast with 1960, when nearly half of European women had two or more children. That year is notable because it is the beginning of the contraceptive revolution in Northern and Western Europe, which only reached Southern Europe twenty years later.

A reversible trend?

New statistics out Monday show that Russia's birth rate has indeed risen over the past year, with births up 6.5 percent in 2007 compared with the same period last year. But it would be wrong for Russian authorities to rest on their laurels. Investments must be made in preventive health care to ensure a substantially higher level of maternal care, and thus a significantly reduced number of stillbirths or children born with low birth weights and other preventable health problems.

More should also be done to assist infertile women who want children. IVF technology is quite advanced in Russia, though the cost is prohibitive for most Russian families. Further development of these technologies would have the added advantage of developing Russia as a premier center in this medical specialty and drawing patients from other European countries, effectively competing with Spain.

Unless remedies are applied rapidly, Russia risks falling into a fertility trap. A smaller population today means fewer children in the future, even if the birth rate increases. Young people brought up in families with one child see them as the norm, and in turn reproduce this pattern. This is already happening in Germany, for example.

The French demographer, Chaunu, once stated that if a human group sustains a negative growth curve for 10 or 20 years, it totally destroys itself. Will this happen to the Russian Slavs, or even to the entire European population?

Time will tell, but the odds are not very much in favor of a resurgence of the European population. History is replete with civilizations that have disappeared. The tell tale signs are already present, and we should urgently act to avoid a population collapse.



- Back to the Top -
 
That`s an interesting article Jason. Thank you for sharing it. I was surprised to read in it that 50 percent of children born in the UK are to unmarried couples. YIKES! What are the British thinking! I thought America`s rate was high!

In regards to the article saying paying mothers to have babies doesn`t seem like a good solution either, I saw another video where a Russian nurse was trying hard to convince a mom not to have an abortion. The woman was married and living a decent life. The nurse said in Russia the good mothers were aborting and the wrong women were having the children (unwed, alcoholics, poverty, etc). She said to the woman "what will become of Russia if this continues?" She said to the mom she should have the baby but the mom refused because she was living in a communal flat. I suppose that is something left over from the communist days where 1 or more families live together and you can`t move until you get government approval. This woman had been on a waiting list for 7 months and still no signs of getting to move. But because she just had one tiny room in the apartment she said it was not enough room to have a second child. She felt terrible about it but saw no other solution. Anyway paying to have a baby seems to support this nurse`s theory that it only attracks the wrong people who want a quick easy dollar without the responsibility.

I agree that tying tubes sounds better than multiple abortions. On another video I watched it said the average Russian woman has 7 abortions. I suppose this is the result of a society that attempts to remove God. The value and chasity of a woman and life become cheap and disposable.
 
How devastatingly sad.

We resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants us, yet we declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether someone wants him. We resent that as women we have been 'owned' by our husbands, yet insist that the unborn are 'owned' by us. We believe that a man's right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim our similar right means we can kill our unborn child.
 
How devastatingly sad.

I agree. It is "devastatingly sad" and seems so unnecessary. And to make it sadder of the 20% who are not aborting, a certain percent of them are just abandoning their babies at the hospital and another percent are just not cut out or ready for motherhood which leads to abuse or neglect. We`d like to think at least the 20% are creating good stable homes, but apparently that is not the realistic picture.
 
That`s an interesting article Jason. Thank you for sharing it. I was surprised to read in it that 50 percent of children born in the UK are to unmarried couples. YIKES! What are the British thinking! I thought America`s rate was high!

In regards to the article saying paying mothers to have babies doesn`t seem like a good solution either, I saw another video where a Russian nurse was trying hard to convince a mom not to have an abortion. The woman was married and living a decent life. The nurse said in Russia the good mothers were aborting and the wrong women were having the children (unwed, alcoholics, poverty, etc). She said to the woman "what will become of Russia if this continues?" She said to the mom she should have the baby but the mom refused because she was living in a communal flat. I suppose that is something left over from the communist days where 1 or more families live together and you can`t move until you get government approval. This woman had been on a waiting list for 7 months and still no signs of getting to move. But because she just had one tiny room in the apartment she said it was not enough room to have a second child. She felt terrible about it but saw no other solution. Anyway paying to have a baby seems to support this nurse`s theory that it only attracks the wrong people who want a quick easy dollar without the responsibility.

I agree that tying tubes sounds better than multiple abortions. On another video I watched it said the average Russian woman has 7 abortions. I suppose this is the result of a society that attempts to remove God. The value and chasity of a woman and life become cheap and disposable.

the scary thing is that we are headed that way quicker then we think. just look at mtv's show the pregnant teen mom and how society (tv and entertainment) seem to make that look so glamorous.
 
the scary thing is that we are headed that way quicker then we think. just look at mtv's show the pregnant teen mom and how society (tv and entertainment) seem to make that look so glamorous.

I agree if abortions are covered by national insurance and all doctors and nurses are required to give abortions then the abortion rate will probably go up and perhaps the unweb birth rate will go up too.
 
I agree if abortions are covered by national insurance and all doctors and nurses are required to give abortions then the abortion rate will probably go up and perhaps the unweb birth rate will go up too.

theres a big rigaramaroo over ppl not being allowed to have a fundraiser here in my county.the protest of the pro-life group stop that fundraiser and the pro-choicers are coming out of the wood works to call the pro-lifers as in humane. if the paper was into posting the facts on that abortion i would oblidge some pics of the humanity of abortion.

alas i have a rule, i dont write letters to the editor. i like to choose where i debate without being called to my face by some unknown person whom i havent met a bigot etc..

here dont care. in a small town totally different matter.
 
I too, felt sad for Russian women, when I read about all the abortions, I think what goes on in abortion clinics in the US is largely hushed up, the scale of it.
People are addicted to sex, they will have sex, no matter how horrible the consequences. I was looking up how to treat a plantar's wart and some guy was posting about himself having sex with his girlfriend, who had vaginal warts, and he got them on his penis, and he was complaining how the warts on her vagina, scraped his penis, and how the warts on his penis, scraped her vagina, YECK!!! My God, that's disgusting, possible more disgusting than an abortion, but not quite. Just shows that nothing on earth is so disgusting that it will stop people from having sex. Someone was writing about how his brother was addicted to Oxycontin, but really, sex is the ultimate addiction, women have sex, get pregnant and go through 10 abortions, who would do that for oxycontin?

When you do geneology research, everyone finds a few of their ancests that had, 12 kids or some huge number of children, back in the 1800's, because people viewed kids as basically free farm labor, having a child was like getting a free donkey, they made you richer because you could put them to work and stuff, feeding the cows, pigs, doing routine chores.

In the modern world, people lack the imagination of how to use children, they have no big dreams or goals, or land or capital, to employ their children.

Considering China is still very agrarian, it must be very hard for farmers, to have only one child.
 
?

When you do geneology research, everyone finds a few of their ancests that had, 12 kids or some huge number of children, back in the 1800's, because people viewed kids as basically free farm labor, having a child was like getting a free donkey, they made you richer because you could put them to work and stuff, feeding the cows, pigs, doing routine chores.

In the modern world, people lack the imagination of how to use children, they have no big dreams or goals, or land or capital, to employ their children.

Considering China is still very agrarian, it must be very hard for farmers, to have only one child.

I sort of agree and disagree with this. I agree that in the modern world for those who live in urban environments, most parents don`t have much practical use for their children. The children`s jobs are just to go to school and maybe do a few chores around the house and even in rural areas it is becoming like that. I think this is fine if the child is going to grow up and go in the business or academic world. It provides the groundwork they need. But if a girl wants to grow up and be a mom or a child is not academically inclined a more hands on practical upbringing would be better where they learn useful skills that will set them up for life. For those who are not academically inclined it is rather unfair to push academics on them when they can prosper in other areas but only be failures in academics. But I think a little work on the farm is good for all kids whether they are heading for academics or not.

Perhaps what I disagree with you on is in the 1800`s people had big families for free labor. I think it is a little more complicated than that. I think for farm owners having an extra hand was useful but you have to remember not everyone was a land owner much less owning a big farm back in those days so more kids equated to more mouths to feed. But they had them because 1) there wasn`t birth control 2) from a religious standpoint some may have seen being fruitful and multiplying as a Godly ordinance 3) Some just loved children so it wasn`t about having more labor but an act of love. But I would guess the big reason was no birth control.

According to the video, Russian women do have access to birth control but they don`t use it. The question is why? Does the state pay for an abortion? Therefore it is the cheaper and easier form of birth control? Or why are so many young, unmarried girls ruining their lives by getting pregnant time and time again? Why doesn`t society teach valuing girls more? And why doesn`t society teach girls to value themselves more by not giving themselves to men who are just using them for one thing and then are out of their lives? This is where abstinence is very practical because it makes a man value a woman more and a girl value herself more. Her body is not cheap to be handed around to men to do with as they like. Men should exercise restraint when single and so should women. It is a form of respect. Therefore, to me all these abortions equate to women/girls who are not being respected and are not respecting themselves. I mean even in the 1800`s the women who had all these children we usually married. They weren`t having them out of wedlock and with various men as in the case of Russia. So when babies are born in a home with a husband and wife who are not married "as long as their love will last" but "till death do us part", they are more likely to be wanted and loved, not aborted or abandoned in a hospital bin.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top