In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.
Source for that statistic ?
Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?
Pregnancies in people can't be done without people so how is your percentage information not about people ?
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2006;38:90–96.
I'm not really sure I'm following your common sense. We (the U.S.) actually have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the "developed" world. I think this has something to do with our access to contraception, which is good enough for our unintended pregnancies to not be higher than intended ones, but bad enough that they're still higher than the rest of the world with decent access to contraception.
My percentage is ABOUT people; I just meant that it's not a percentage OF people. g under p asked what percentage OF PEOPLE plan on & implement trying to have a child. I didn't exactly answer his question because I told him what percentage OF PREGNANCIES were planned vs. unplanned. But since not all people have pregnancies, it's not a percentage of total people. (I'm not sure I explained that well.)
Of course, now that I re-read the article, I see that it actually does have an answer to g under p's question. The rate of intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2001 was 53 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15-44). So 5.3% of reproductive-age women had a planned pregnancy that year. (Of course that still doesn't exactly answer the question because he asked about people, not just reproductive-age women over a one-year period.)
So, percentage of pregnancies that are intended = 51%.
Percentage of women who had intended pregnancies = 5.3%.
In the United States, 51% of pregnancies are intended & 49% of pregnancies are unintended. I know that's a percentage of pregnancies & not of people, but hopefully that kind of answers your first question.
Source for that statistic ?
Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?
Pregnancies in people can't be done without people so how is your percentage information not about people ?
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2006;38:90–96.
I'm not really sure I'm following your common sense. We (the U.S.) actually have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the "developed" world. I think this has something to do with our access to contraception, which is good enough for our unintended pregnancies to not be higher than intended ones, but bad enough that they're still higher than the rest of the world with decent access to contraception.
My percentage is ABOUT people; I just meant that it's not a percentage OF people. g under p asked what percentage OF PEOPLE plan on & implement trying to have a child. I didn't exactly answer his question because I told him what percentage OF PREGNANCIES were planned vs. unplanned. But since not all people have pregnancies, it's not a percentage of total people. (I'm not sure I explained that well.)
Of course, now that I re-read the article, I see that it actually does have an answer to g under p's question. The rate of intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2001 was 53 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15-44). So 5.3% of reproductive-age women had a planned pregnancy that year. (Of course that still doesn't exactly answer the question because he asked about people, not just reproductive-age women over a one-year period.)
So, percentage of pregnancies that are intended = 51%.
Percentage of women who had intended pregnancies = 5.3%.
I gotcha ya
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?
I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?
Well, people are fucking all the time without wanting to get pregnant but they do get pregnant. I wouldn't think the number of people having sexual intercourse to get pregnant would be higher than those fucking and becoming pregnant. Am I making sense because it sure sounds right in my head ?
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?
People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?
You should have atleast a few thousand dollars saved up just for the possibility of a baby, if you live in the midwest. Income? As long as it allows for those extra few thousand just for the baby.
Those numbers don't add up to me. It's common sense to know that unintended pregnancies are higher than planned pregnancies. Don't you agree ?
I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?
Well, people are fucking all the time without wanting to get pregnant but they do get pregnant. I wouldn't think the number of people having sexual intercourse to get pregnant would be higher than those fucking and becoming pregnant. Am I making sense because it sure sounds right in my head ?
Yeah, I see what you're saying & it does make sense. Only, the vast majority (93%, if my memory serves me) of women who are fucking without wanting to get pregnant use contraception.
People around here are always saying that you shouldn't have a kid if you can't afford to pay for him/her. We all know that the ONLY way to certainly avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. So I'm wondering, how much money should a person have - in income AND savings - before he or she gets to have sex? What is this magic number that would pull someone with kids off your list of irresponsible people? How much money should YOU have before you get to have sex (or DID you have when you started)? And if you've ever dropped below this magic number, did you STOP having sex immediately? Would you? How would your spouse/partner feel about this?
You should have atleast a few thousand dollars saved up just for the possibility of a baby, if you live in the midwest. Income? As long as it allows for those extra few thousand just for the baby.
Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.
Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.
wait... I'm confused. You asked "what is the.... REQUIREMENT", which connotates that there is a legal stipulation provided by some sort of government body (state? federal?) that would penalize someone who doesn't abide by the law. If the question was "what is the minimum income/savings people should aim for if they're responsible and thinking about having a baby" then yeah... let's all throw out arbitrary numbers. I assumed the question meant that there should be some 3rd party involved...
you know... like Mike Huckabee if he were president, he'd throw Natalie Portman in jail for having a kid whilst being unmarried. THAT sort of fascism.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.
wait... I'm confused. You asked "what is the.... REQUIREMENT", which connotates that there is a legal stipulation provided by some sort of government body (state? federal?) that would penalize someone who doesn't abide by the law. If the question was "what is the minimum income/savings people should aim for if they're responsible and thinking about having a baby" then yeah... let's all throw out arbitrary numbers. I assumed the question meant that there should be some 3rd party involved...
you know... like Mike Huckabee if he were president, he'd throw Natalie Portman in jail for having a kid whilst being unmarried. THAT sort of fascism.
I didn't mean that there is a legal requirement, but your alternative thread title wouldn't fit. I was just referring to the personal requirements of the third parties in this forum who try to involve themselves in the sex lives of others.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
I don't agree... and I don't really understand why you think that it would be so likely to be that way.... could you please share your thoughts on it?
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2006;38:90–96.
I'm not really sure I'm following your common sense. We (the U.S.) actually have the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the "developed" world. I think this has something to do with our access to contraception, which is good enough for our unintended pregnancies to not be higher than intended ones, but bad enough that they're still higher than the rest of the world with decent access to contraception.
My percentage is ABOUT people; I just meant that it's not a percentage OF people. g under p asked what percentage OF PEOPLE plan on & implement trying to have a child. I didn't exactly answer his question because I told him what percentage OF PREGNANCIES were planned vs. unplanned. But since not all people have pregnancies, it's not a percentage of total people. (I'm not sure I explained that well.)
Of course, now that I re-read the article, I see that it actually does have an answer to g under p's question. The rate of intended pregnancies in the U.S. in 2001 was 53 per 1,000 women of reproductive age (15-44). So 5.3% of reproductive-age women had a planned pregnancy that year. (Of course that still doesn't exactly answer the question because he asked about people, not just reproductive-age women over a one-year period.)
So, percentage of pregnancies that are intended = 51%.
Percentage of women who had intended pregnancies = 5.3%.
I gotcha ya
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
Well, people are fucking all the time without wanting to get pregnant but they do get pregnant. I wouldn't think the number of people having sexual intercourse to get pregnant would be higher than those fucking and becoming pregnant. Am I making sense because it sure sounds right in my head ?
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
see below
Yeah, I see what you're saying & it does make sense. Only, the vast majority (93%, if my memory serves me) of women who are fucking without wanting to get pregnant use contraception.
Thanks. You might be the only person who actually answered.
wait... I'm confused. You asked "what is the.... REQUIREMENT", which connotates that there is a legal stipulation provided by some sort of government body (state? federal?) that would penalize someone who doesn't abide by the law. If the question was "what is the minimum income/savings people should aim for if they're responsible and thinking about having a baby" then yeah... let's all throw out arbitrary numbers. I assumed the question meant that there should be some 3rd party involved...
you know... like Mike Huckabee if he were president, he'd throw Natalie Portman in jail for having a kid whilst being unmarried. THAT sort of fascism.
I didn't mean that there is a legal requirement, but your alternative thread title wouldn't fit. I was just referring to the personal requirements of the third parties in this forum who try to involve themselves in the sex lives of others.