Abortion rates are up in Vietnam and fertility rates are down, yet some medical professionals claim there is no link between the two.
The Vietnam News Agency reports medical professionals recently met at the National Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology conference in Hanoi to discuss the country’s growing infertility crisis.
The infertility rate is at 8 percent in Vietnam, one of lowest rates in the Asian Pacific, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). That equates to 1 million couples struggling to conceive a child, and the crisis is expected to grow worse in the next few years.
WHO lists infertility as the third most dangerous health problem in the world, due to the effects of childlessness on relationships, society and the economy, according to the report.
Here’s more from the report:
At the conference, participants heard that the age of people suffering from infertility is gradually getting younger. The causes and solutions are complicated, putting a great deal of pressure on sufferers and their doctors.
Among the one million infertile Vietnamese couples, 50 percent are under the age of 30.
The National Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s Infertility Department reported that 10 years ago, the department only received two to three couples per day with problems related to infertility. In 2015, the number had increased 20 times.
A health expert on infertility said the problem could stem from a variety of stressors, depression and individuals’ anxiety.
Though the report points out that the rate of abortions among teenagers in Vietnam also is very high, it dismissed any possible link between infertility and so-called “safe” abortions.
Young adults who want to hide a pregnancy often “will turn to unsafe or unlicenced [abortion] practitioners, where one of the complications they may face is infertility. Studies show that abortions performed by doctors in safe, regulated facilities are not linked to infertility,” the report states.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
However, several studies have found a link between abortions and increased infertility risks.
A 1986 study “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” published in the medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology found that not only is it possible to contract endometriosis from an abortion, but also that the risk is higher for teenagers. According to the study, teenagers are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometriosis following an abortion.
In a factsheet “Abortion: Questions and Answers” prepared by the Planned Parenthood of Edmonton, Canada for prospective patients, the abortion business also acknowledged the endometriosis risk.
“Infections can occur from an abortion,” the factsheet states. “At worst the infection can become a case of endometriosis (the pelvic area becomes inflamed) and the uterus has to be removed surgically.”
A number of studies also have linked abortions to increased risks of future preterm births and miscarriages. One 2006 British study found that women who have an abortion run at a 60-percent higher risk of having a miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy, LifeNews previously reported.
In 2014, Life Issues Institute shared the heartbreaking stories of several post-abortive women who were unable to have more children after their abortions. They deserved to know about potential abortion risks; instead, they experienced double the heartbreak knowing that the only children who they ever conceived were aborted.
Source: Life News
8 billion people, hundreds of millions of orphans, overpopulated planet; infertility is not a crisis, it isn’t even a negative thing.
If you can afford to raise a child, you can afford to adopt one, period.
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world’s population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft). So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66′ x 66′ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard — and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas.… Read more »
Are you seriously suggesting that most people with children can afford that much land? That’s a pathetic ignorant attempt at combatting the fact that overpopulation is most certainly not a myth in the slightest; According to population studies professor Paul Ehrlich, “The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – is 1.5 to 2 billion people.” We currently have nearly eight times that amount and steadily adding to it every day. You think that land mass equals land to live on ? Even if most people with children could… Read more »
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He (Paul Ehrlich) later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.” Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.” As you may have noticed, England… Read more »
So what is your justification for promoting breeding instead of adoption for people who can afford to raise children?
I think it is quite offensive to refer to childbirth as “breeding”. This only speaks to your apparent belief that humans are no better than animals on the planet. I am not surprised, but still it speaks to your world-view. I have never stated an objection to adoption. In fact, I promote adoption instead of abortion for those who don’t want their children when they discover they are pregnant. There are plenty of people who have difficulty getting pregnant who are vitally interested in adoption. As my world-view includes the Creator of the universe who looks upon children as a… Read more »
So promoting legal forced birth on girls and women against their will and forcing more children into the foster system, instead of promoting safe sex and early term abortion; And the justification is because you personally believe in creationism? So medical scienctists have to show up to your door and explain to you in depth why consciousness and pain receptors take at least twenty four weeks to begin to develop? Is that really so complex to understand ? Of course forced adoption or forced sterilization are not ethical, which is why I would never promote them; what I DO promote… Read more »
The fact that a child cannot feel the pain of having its arms ripped off, does not make it morally right to do so. Period. The fact that a quadriplegic cannot feel any pain below the neck, does not give one the moral right to end their life. Every human has a God given right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whether you agree with the Founders or not.
Child? I wasn’t talking about children I was talking about early term fetuses; these are two very different things with very different definitions. Preventing life is not “ending life”. If the fertilized egg has not begun to develop a consciousness or pain receptors, which they don’t whatsoever before twenty weeks at the very very earliest, then it is not unethical to abort it. Forcing by law or otherwise a girl or woman who is a few weeks pregnant to be stuck with the pregnancy for eight more months and give birth against her will or else face jail time or… Read more »
Yes, I agree there is a very different definition at play here. Preventing life is achieved by application of a contraceptive. Once the egg is fertilized you are not “preventing life” you are ending it. If you leave it alone it will grow to term and be delivered. If you prevent life with a contraceptive, the egg is never fertilized and if left alone no life comes to fruition. You are apparently confused.
So you don’t understand that contraceptives often fail ? You seem to be the confused one, about basic anatomy, sexual health and practices, ramifications of reckless reproduction, and definitions of kindergarten level english words.
And regardless of that, how is promoting more unwanted, uncared for children into the foster system by forcing girls and women to give birth in ANY way justified, especially when you’re promoting reproduction instead of adoption ?
There you go again saying I am promoting reproduction instead of adoption. At 9:03A M I replied: “I have never stated an objection to adoption. In fact, I promote adoption instead of abortion for those who don’t want their children when they discover they are pregnant. There are plenty of people who have difficulty getting pregnant who are vitally interested in adoption.” Unwanted children should be given up for adoption not sent into the abusive foster care system.
I didn’t say you objected adoption; What I said is that you promote reproduction instead of adoption, which is correct. Your blog revolves around promoting more births and vilifying all abortion, while it says nothing about orphans or foster system improvement or adoption. The foster system is INCREDIBLY broken and children who are stuck in it are the ones who suffer, not the three week old fetuses who are no more conscious or able to experience pain than a ficus. People who are financially able to raise children who can’t impregnate or get pregnant and who feel sorry for themselves… Read more »
I agree with you 100% that the foster care system is incredibly broken in virtually every state in the union. I also agree that if one is able to afford to get pregnant and have a child then you are well enough off to adopt. I know people who have 2 natural children and 3 adopted children. Another couple I know have 2 adopted and one child they gave birth to. In actuality adoption, is quite common in the pro-life camp despite accusations of the opposite. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t just counsel against abortion. They routinely help these women find… Read more »
It’s utterly hypocritical to encourage more births while claiming to be for foster children, not to mention forcing birth without consent for the sake of sparing suffering of beings who can’t even suffer.
Did you even read my last reply? If you read the entire thread, you don’t respond to anything I say, you just change your attack to some other subject. I won’t be engaging in anymore meaningless rhetoric if all you are doing is spouting talking points instead of trying to have a conversation. Don’t expect any future comments to be automatically approved. You obviously have no interest in dialogue, only accusations and calling me a hypocrite.
Well I said “it’s hypocritical”, not you’re a hypocrite; nonetheless, my original question was asking what is the justification for promoting forced birth and more children up for adoption when so many currently need parents? The original reason I commented here was because I find it utterly distasteful and unaware for people to paint themselves as the victims for not being able to have biologically related children when SO many children need parents. I think it may have gotten lost in translation but this is the reason I felt the need to say something. Fertilized eggs are getting more attention… Read more »
I have no quibble with anything you stated in this comment, with the possible exception of calling it forced childbirth. Until the advent of abortion techniques were perfected there was never any question. When you got pregnant, a baby will follow some nine months later barring spontaneous miscarriage. It has been so since the dawn of history. Only in the last 50 years has the means and will to interrupt this process without killing the mother in the process become viable. How quickly we assume that just because we CAN do something we SHOULD do something. Though all things may… Read more »