Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
'roll with it'....can certainly include abortion. too often it is said that those who choose abortion are behaving irresponsibly. choosing abortion, or choosing to have the child and keep it or give it up for adoption....ALL are responsible choices.
i mean, realistically speaking...unwanted children have always existed, abortions have been performed forever as well, etc, etc.....so to simply say 'roll with it' or just 'deal with it'......hasn't worked out too well yet has it? it'll never be a 'perfect' scenario, it never is...unintended/undesired consequences. however, abortion certainly is a viable, responsible choice.
I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.
perhaps it's another debate to YOU...but it is not to me. it's all related. what's the point if it's not possible? and somewhat of a strain on the legal system? i think that vastly underestimates the situation. beyond that....i think it will vastly strain, the mother, the father....and the unintended but forced into the world child as well. i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.
I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.
I don't think that's another debate.
however, to say that maybe the "mothers wants to take responsibility for the child and abort" suggests that the mother is the responsible parent in a family and a father is a mother's helper. does that view begin at conception and end around the third trimester - or extend through college?
No, I'm not suggesting that the mother is the only responsible parent.
You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that being born is necessarily in the best interest of the child (and the family unit/other children), so therefore it is obviously the right choice as long as there's a parent willing to take responsibility and raise the child. I think this is a faulty premise. So it's possible for the parents to disagree and both have valid positions... rather than just the one who choses life having a valid position.
The part that's impossible is giving equal weight to both parents' "rights" in this case. Only ONE decision can be executed (no pun intended). You suggest we give MORE weight to the parent who chooses childbirth. I say to give more weight to the parent on whose body the potential child is (at the time the decision is made) dependent, whose health will be put at risk, whose body will change forever, and on whom, realistically, the caregiving responsibility will likely fall. Neither you nor I are actually giving equal weight to both parents "rights" though.
Regardless, it isn't going anywhere. What irks me is that our bodies haved been designed to have kids at an incredibly young age-- What, 12, 13?
To live in this world (or at least here in America), you have to be borderline crazy to want to have a kid until you're on your feet financially. What's that, 30+ for some people? Never for others?
Instead of argue about this, I'd rather work towards a world where no one wants to make that 'choice.' Isn't that what everybody wants? No abortions, by choice?
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
I was discussing what I believe to be right over wrong. Once that is established, an attempt to bring our laws in line is next. I am not unreasonable. Comprimise is important. However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.
If it happens that our legal system is short of ideas to enforce justice in any situation, then it should continue to work to develop one.
'roll with it'....can certainly include abortion. too often it is said that those who choose abortion are behaving irresponsibly. choosing abortion, or choosing to have the child and keep it or give it up for adoption....ALL are responsible choices.
i mean, realistically speaking...unwanted children have always existed, abortions have been performed forever as well, etc, etc.....so to simply say 'roll with it' or just 'deal with it'......hasn't worked out too well yet has it? it'll never be a 'perfect' scenario, it never is...unintended/undesired consequences. however, abortion certainly is a viable, responsible choice.
I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.
perhaps it's another debate to YOU...but it is not to me. it's all related. what's the point if it's not possible? and somewhat of a strain on the legal system? i think that vastly underestimates the situation. beyond that....i think it will vastly strain, the mother, the father....and the unintended but forced into the world child as well. i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
I agree that people need to be responsible when having sex and not gloss over the fact that it might result in pregnancy.
But your comment doesn't take into account the myriad circumstances under which pregnancy decisions are made. (I think this is probably the biggest problem with the abortion debate - that people don't know what it's like to walk in another's shoes - even their future selves - and yet still pass judgement. But that's another story.) Some people actually do make the decision together to have a child and then things don't turn out as they plan and suddenly they change their minds. People get married and want to have sex even though they're in no position to have a child, which I think most people would agree is reasonable. Et cetera. The "she should've kept her legs closed" and "he should've kept it in his pants" arguments just don't adequately address the issue.
Regardless, it isn't going anywhere. What irks me is that our bodies haved been designed to have kids at an incredibly young age-- What, 12, 13?
To live in this world (or at least here in America), you have to be borderline crazy to want to have a kid until you're on your feet financially. What's that, 30+ for some people? Never for others?
Instead of argue about this, I'd rather work towards a world where no one wants to make that 'choice.' Isn't that what everybody wants? No abortions, by choice?
absolutely.
i'd also love it if no one HAD to make that choice....b/c birth control was THAT reliable, and all were THAT reponsible, 100% of the time. however, we are human and we are flawed creatures...so don't know of that possibility.
funny too, on a related topic....i've read a few times now that many of the infertility issues that couples face today, almost 80% of em, or some equally outrageous # of these issues...could be resolved by parents choosing to have children YOUNGER. the younger you are, more than likely...the more fertile you are, and increases your chances for getting pregnant, staying pregnant, having a healthy pregnancy and birth. obviously, many other factors are involved...but and sure, even at a young age, many do still have fertility issues.....but i found it interesting the causal link between age and infertility. not surprised, but interesting. so it most definitely is a catch-22.
With regards to my last post, I don't necessarily think it might have ever been a good idea for teenagers to have kids, it's probably a good idea to have maturity under your belt-- but it makes me think that society is really operating backwards. The fact that it IS a reality that people have always been able to bear children at such an early age, makes you wish that society would accomodate that-- Less people working, more focus on loving and raising a family.
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
The part that's impossible is giving equal weight to both parents' "rights" in this case. Only ONE decision can be executed (no pun intended). You suggest we give MORE weight to the parent who chooses childbirth. I say to give more weight to the parent on whose body the potential child is (at the time the decision is made) dependent, whose health will be put at risk, whose body will change forever, and on whom, realistically, the caregiving responsibility will likely fall. Neither you nor I are actually giving equal weight to both parents "rights" though.
really well stated.
i see mentioned the idea of 'family'...since when is two unrelated people, who perhaps spent one night together....a 'healthy family'.......? b/c really, i would HOPE that a couple that is somewhat committed to each other, dating, etc....would've at least discussed the possibility of unwanted pregnancy beforehand. i mean sure, errors are made, by all involved....no one particular person's 'fault'...but at least if a couple chooses irresponsibility one time and has an unintended pregnancy....hopefully they already discussed to some extent what they both would want. not saying it can't change when faced with the 'reality' of it....but at the very least, i would hope a staunchly pro-life person would not sleep with a staunchly pro-choice person...b/c that would be a recipe for disaster. so really, to me.....this whole bit aout being in agreement, i should think at least 90% of the time (just throwing a # out there) most 'couples' would be in agreement.....it's the random sexual hook-ups, that perhaps would not.
i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.
It's not only that the LAW has agreed that the decision needs to lie with one person, but even that it's simply not possible for the decision to lie with more than one person.
With regards to my last post, I don't necessarily think it might have ever been a good idea for teenagers to have kids, it's probably a good idea to have maturity under your belt-- but it makes me think that society is really operating backwards. The fact that it IS a reality that people have always been able to bear children at such an early age, makes you wish that society would accomodate that-- Less people working, more focus on loving and raising a family.
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
i realize you're not suggesting that. :P nor am i!
just agreeing with the overall biology of it all...and even doctors are simply saying, for fertility viability, early 20s is best.....but most especilly, ideally, under 30 is all. and i don't make these comments to upset anyone who became a parent over 30, or is planning on becoming one, etc, etc....just sharing information. what we want, and how are bodies are designed, not always the same.
as to the 'facts' of it being $$$...i honestly don't know. however, imo, i would think more than ANYthing, it would be age and/or simply not being ready to be a parent. i mean, most of the single moms i know...or any of the women i know who have had abortions, most were in high school at the time....a few in college. but really, most were quite young.
also why access, education and removal of social/religious stigmas for BC...would work wonders. altho some impulse control would help too.
However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.
As you said, let's take a step back. You're assuming that having an abortion would destroy a healthy family. That's not a given. Many choose abortion because they believe that having another baby would destroy their already-existing healthy family. I believe this position should be acknowleged as valid and given equal weight.
Or, in other words, I guess I agree with your statement that one parent should not (in an ideal world) have authority to destroy a healthy family - and that includes the father destroying the family by bringing another child into it.
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:
In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]
Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]
However, if someone suggests one parent has authority to destroy what is a healthy family without the equal input of the other - I will disagree.
As you said, let's take a step back. You're assuming that having an abortion would destroy a healthy family. That's not a given. Many choose abortion because they believe that having another baby would destroy their already-existing healthy family. I believe this position should be acknowleged as valid and given equal weight.
Or, in other words, I guess I agree with your statement that one parent should not (in an ideal world) have authority to destroy a healthy family - and that includes the father destroying the family by bringing another child into it.
ooooooooooo...very true. reminds me of the excellent film the hours.
once upon a time when women in this country didn't have much say or access to their own choices and decisions....and sure, for many, religion holding sway over their lives, and/or their husbands....than reality of circumstance, or desire of the mother.
and again......not all situations are a 'family' in any sense in any case. 2, 15-16 year olds and an unintended pregnancy do not a healthy family make. just one of numerous examples....
perhaps if a contract regarding any potential spawn were to be drawn up and signed before any couple ever has sex... I'm guessing there'd be much less sex in this world :shock:
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:
In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]
Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]
Even higher than expected. Thank you. This is the main fact that needs to be addressed by both sides of this incredibly tired argument.
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:
In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]
Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]
Even higher than expected. Thank you. This is the main fact that needs to be addressed by both sides of this incredibly tired argument.
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
Does it really matter why....first its not a child/person...just some cells and second the world is overpopulated by the human animal so a few less is a good thing. We need to get past the guilt of having abortions and need to realize we aren't special....simply "a virus with shoes".
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
I hear you lound and clear. The "WHYs" are the key, every one of them. But one strikes a chord with me:
Affordability... I look at my own paycheck, the taxes taken out, and then how many umpteen times after that I get slammed by the government with taxes (sales, gas, communications, property, etc...) and what am I left with? 50% before I have to provide myself with all of my basic needs? Maybe? I didn't even count insurance, which isn't a tax per say, but is mandated by the law...
How is anyone in this country supposed to provide for their family with this going on? How many people even contemplate this 'choice,' (that maybe would have never entertained it), or go through with it, because it costs so much to live? If this is the case, you've got people on one side of this discussion afraid to love, and another side looking for options that no one wants to look for.
To me, this issue is doing nothing but dividing the people, while raping all of them and leaving them with all NO CHOICE: Big government. If there was anything that ever needed to be aborted, this is it...
I'm serious. I know there's always going to be women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term for reasons other than "I / We can't afford a child." I know there are several sub-reasons for each. I'm sure health reasons comes in once in a blue moon, fractions of a percent scb? To me, there is a very approachable middle ground here where the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal, or became illegal-- and no, the number is unfortunately not zero. That would be great, but I think with technology, and improvements in contraception, and a general 'awakening' of the people with regards to sexual health and behavior, it would move towards zero.
So, my answer is FREEDOM. Stop fighting wars which destroy life everywhere on earth, and cost us way too much. Stop handing things out to people who don't deserve it. (this, by the way includes handing out contraception. If you want to have sex, go get a job, and buy some trojans ) Stop spending our money in general, and let's work towards shrinking government on all levels, and once again become self-determining. Taxes, tyranny, and big goverment really do destroy society on all levels, namely families. Put money back in our pockets, let us feed ourselves and each other. I think the issue of 'affordability' will cease to exist less and less, and the number of abortions could truly start to dwindle to around the same number of "back alley" abortions that people would have if it were made illegal again-- and I don't think anyone wants to see those making a comeback.
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?
The 2005 study broke it down like this:
74% - concern for and/or responsibility to other individuals
73% - cannot afford a baby now
69% - a baby would interfere with school/employment/ability to care for dependents
48% - would be a single parent/having relationship problems
38% - has completed childbearing
The 1988 study broke it down into more narrow categories:
21% - inadequate finances
21% - not ready for the responsibility
16% - woman's life would be changed too much
12% - problems with relationship/unmarried
11% - too young/not mature enough
8% - children are grown; woman has all she wants
3% - fetus has possible health problem
3% - woman has health problem
1% - pregnancy caused by rape, incest
4% - other
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
I think we can make children/life more affordable in many ways:
universal healthcare
better public transportation
affordable housing
afffordable daycare
no taxes for food and other necessities
et cetera
But, as you said, it's more important to prevent pregnancy to begin with (for those who know they aren't ready for children). I think it's very important to note that unintended pregnancy and abortion are becoming INCREASINGLY concentrated among poor and low-income women.
Between 1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy fell by 20% among women with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level, but increased by 29% among women living below the poverty level. (http://www.guttmacher.org)
Poor women make up 16% of the population at risk for unintended pregnancy, yet they account for 30% of unintended pregnancies. (Boonstra, et al. 2006)
The abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is more than 4 times higher than that of women living at more than 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10). (Jones, et al. 2002)
Stop handing things out to people who don't deserve it. (this, by the way includes handing out contraception. If you want to have sex, go get a job, and buy some trojans )
I'm gonna have to respectfully completely disagree. I'd say better access to contraception for poor women, coupled with the education to know how to use it, is the #1 thing we could do to decrease abortion in the U.S.... especially given the stats I posted above which show that unintended pregnancy (and therefore abortion as well) is increasingly concentrated among poor women.
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
I think we can make children/life more affordable in many ways:
universal healthcare
better public transportation
affordable housing
afffordable daycare
no taxes for food and other necessities
et cetera
And I think to myself what a wondeful world :roll: Who is going to pay for all of that. Maybe Barry can have treasury print more money.
But, as you said, it's more important to prevent pregnancy to begin with (for those who know they aren't ready for children). I think it's very important to note that unintended pregnancy and abortion are becoming INCREASINGLY concentrated among poor and low-income women.
Between 1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy fell by 20% among women with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level, but increased by 29% among women living below the poverty level. (http://www.guttmacher.org)
Poor women make up 16% of the population at risk for unintended pregnancy, yet they account for 30% of unintended pregnancies. (Boonstra, et al. 2006)
The abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is more than 4 times higher than that of women living at more than 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10). (Jones, et al. 2002)
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
I think we can make children/life more affordable in many ways:
universal healthcare
better public transportation
affordable housing
afffordable daycare
no taxes for food and other necessities
et cetera
But, as you said, it's more important to prevent pregnancy to begin with (for those who know they aren't ready for children). I think it's very important to note that unintended pregnancy and abortion are becoming INCREASINGLY concentrated among poor and low-income women.
Between 1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy fell by 20% among women with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level, but increased by 29% among women living below the poverty level. (http://www.guttmacher.org)
Poor women make up 16% of the population at risk for unintended pregnancy, yet they account for 30% of unintended pregnancies. (Boonstra, et al. 2006)
The abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is more than 4 times higher than that of women living at more than 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10). (Jones, et al. 2002)
oh i know we can make life more 'affordable' overall...but i just think, no matter what...as a single parent it will always be tough. thus why i think not many 'want' that. not saying many wouldn't choose it, b/c of course they do! but i don't think anyone truly goes on planning on being a single parent. that's all.
I think we can make children/life more affordable in many ways:
universal healthcare
better public transportation
affordable housing
afffordable daycare
no taxes for food and other necessities
et cetera
And I think to myself what a wondeful world :roll: Who is going to pay for all of that. Maybe Barry can have treasury print more money.
Eh, you can roll your eyes at me all you want but I have no doubt we could do it if we really wanted to. Many places already do... but that's a different subject. Oh, and I forgot to add adequate maternity/paternity leave to the list.
Ok, so you think it is ok that the woman can decide to abort a pregnancy when the fahter wants the child because of the hardship of a 9 month pregnancy the woman would endure for a child she does not want.
what about the other way around
surely if a unwanted pregnancy results in a child - it will cause a lifetime of financial and emotional problems for the man. What say give him the same rights. He can order an abortion.
that's rough call, abu, but i support your thoughts as well....these are people we are talking about....and it takes more than a village to raise a life to be healthy wealthy and balanced...
peace and joyous love.
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Ok, so you think it is ok that the woman can decide to abort a pregnancy when the fahter wants the child because of the hardship of a 9 month pregnancy the woman would endure for a child she does not want.
what about the other way around
surely if a unwanted pregnancy results in a child - it will cause a lifetime of financial and emotional problems for the man. What say give him the same rights. He can order an abortion.
it's not just that - it's not just a 'hardship'....tho it IS a biggie, it's also a health risk...it's also how difficult would it actually be to make 100% certain the father does not renege on the agreement, change his mind, throw away the responsibility...once it beomes the point of no return in the pregnancy, or at the birth, right after the birth, etc. to me, that's THE point. it's a hard enough time right now to get a lot of father's to keep up with their responsbilities - again, not saying ALL....not be a longshot.
and i asked that of you earlier......if 'father's will' gets to be the determining factor, should he also be allowed to force a woman to have an abortion she does not want? for me, again...it's all about....HER body, her risks, her health....either way...HER CHOICE. while it's nice to imagine that a couple will always agree, if they don't...there is NO way i think the father's choice - no matter which he would choose - should trump the mother's. it all happens within her body.
i wonder if scb has any stats on how many father's were in agreement with the mother's choices? and/or, how many women had abortions, or babies.....without the father's knowledge at all. be interesting. personally, and no stats to back it up, i would think most men and women would be in agreement when a woman chooses abortion. i honestly have never met a man who had any kind of partner have an abortion and he didn't support her decision to do so. most expressed relief to 'dodge the bullet'....not have the child to be responsible for at that time, and most...just like the women i know who've had abortions...have gone on to have families of their own, just further down the road, when they WANTed it to happen.
honestly....how difficult is it to hook up with someone who at the very least, shares the same values as you? and if you are having unprotected casual sex, a one-night stand....and are not using BC....or using it poorly.....i don't imagine one being so pro-life, b/c that would be a pretty irresponsible way to be if you are truly pro-life. most of the other unintended pregnancy scenarios usally involve dating couples...and i'd think similar values would come into play in dating. just sayin'.
i understand people being anti-abortion for their own personal, moral reasons....and i agree...it's their choice to make, and sure...even while i vehemently disagree, i do realize, it's their right to try and fight against abortion, even for others. but we're not talking about that really...we're talking about putting father's rights above mother's rights....and i just cannot support that, due to simple biology.
I guess I am not as pro-choice as you. the only reason I think abortion should be legal is that in this society, it is not fair to a child to bring them into the world with parents that don't want them. for me it is not about the woman at all.. I think it is her responsibility not to get pregnant. Once pregnancy occurs, the child becomes the number one priority. if there is a parent that wants the child, there should not be an abortion. The dangers to the woman are natures doing, not the fault of the father or the child.
as for the dad changing his mind... that is no different than wondering if the woman will change hers. the law requires you to care for your children. If you don't, you may wind up in prison and the child may wind up in the care of the state. With respect for the responsibility of caring for your children, the law does not discriminate between the man and the women. that is joint and absolute - when they fight over custody - it favors the woman to establish the home address.. but still holds both equally responsible for the safety and care of the child.
Comments
'roll with it'....can certainly include abortion. too often it is said that those who choose abortion are behaving irresponsibly. choosing abortion, or choosing to have the child and keep it or give it up for adoption....ALL are responsible choices.
i mean, realistically speaking...unwanted children have always existed, abortions have been performed forever as well, etc, etc.....so to simply say 'roll with it' or just 'deal with it'......hasn't worked out too well yet has it? it'll never be a 'perfect' scenario, it never is...unintended/undesired consequences. however, abortion certainly is a viable, responsible choice.
btw
perhaps it's another debate to YOU...but it is not to me. it's all related. what's the point if it's not possible? and somewhat of a strain on the legal system? i think that vastly underestimates the situation. beyond that....i think it will vastly strain, the mother, the father....and the unintended but forced into the world child as well. i am VERY thankful that as of right now, the law does see the decision does need to lie with ONE person.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't think that's another debate.
No, I'm not suggesting that the mother is the only responsible parent.
You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that being born is necessarily in the best interest of the child (and the family unit/other children), so therefore it is obviously the right choice as long as there's a parent willing to take responsibility and raise the child. I think this is a faulty premise. So it's possible for the parents to disagree and both have valid positions... rather than just the one who choses life having a valid position.
The part that's impossible is giving equal weight to both parents' "rights" in this case. Only ONE decision can be executed (no pun intended). You suggest we give MORE weight to the parent who chooses childbirth. I say to give more weight to the parent on whose body the potential child is (at the time the decision is made) dependent, whose health will be put at risk, whose body will change forever, and on whom, realistically, the caregiving responsibility will likely fall. Neither you nor I are actually giving equal weight to both parents "rights" though.
To live in this world (or at least here in America), you have to be borderline crazy to want to have a kid until you're on your feet financially. What's that, 30+ for some people? Never for others?
Instead of argue about this, I'd rather work towards a world where no one wants to make that 'choice.' Isn't that what everybody wants? No abortions, by choice?
I agree that people need to be responsible when having sex and not gloss over the fact that it might result in pregnancy.
But your comment doesn't take into account the myriad circumstances under which pregnancy decisions are made. (I think this is probably the biggest problem with the abortion debate - that people don't know what it's like to walk in another's shoes - even their future selves - and yet still pass judgement. But that's another story.) Some people actually do make the decision together to have a child and then things don't turn out as they plan and suddenly they change their minds. People get married and want to have sex even though they're in no position to have a child, which I think most people would agree is reasonable. Et cetera. The "she should've kept her legs closed" and "he should've kept it in his pants" arguments just don't adequately address the issue.
absolutely.
i'd also love it if no one HAD to make that choice....b/c birth control was THAT reliable, and all were THAT reponsible, 100% of the time. however, we are human and we are flawed creatures...so don't know of that possibility.
funny too, on a related topic....i've read a few times now that many of the infertility issues that couples face today, almost 80% of em, or some equally outrageous # of these issues...could be resolved by parents choosing to have children YOUNGER. the younger you are, more than likely...the more fertile you are, and increases your chances for getting pregnant, staying pregnant, having a healthy pregnancy and birth. obviously, many other factors are involved...but and sure, even at a young age, many do still have fertility issues.....but i found it interesting the causal link between age and infertility. not surprised, but interesting. so it most definitely is a catch-22.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
How off am I if I say that half of all abortions come down to not having the $ to raise a child? I know there are some stat-hounds around here. Give me the facts, I would appreciate them.
really well stated.
i see mentioned the idea of 'family'...since when is two unrelated people, who perhaps spent one night together....a 'healthy family'.......? b/c really, i would HOPE that a couple that is somewhat committed to each other, dating, etc....would've at least discussed the possibility of unwanted pregnancy beforehand. i mean sure, errors are made, by all involved....no one particular person's 'fault'...but at least if a couple chooses irresponsibility one time and has an unintended pregnancy....hopefully they already discussed to some extent what they both would want. not saying it can't change when faced with the 'reality' of it....but at the very least, i would hope a staunchly pro-life person would not sleep with a staunchly pro-choice person...b/c that would be a recipe for disaster. so really, to me.....this whole bit aout being in agreement, i should think at least 90% of the time (just throwing a # out there) most 'couples' would be in agreement.....it's the random sexual hook-ups, that perhaps would not.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It's not only that the LAW has agreed that the decision needs to lie with one person, but even that it's simply not possible for the decision to lie with more than one person.
i realize you're not suggesting that. :P nor am i!
just agreeing with the overall biology of it all...and even doctors are simply saying, for fertility viability, early 20s is best.....but most especilly, ideally, under 30 is all. and i don't make these comments to upset anyone who became a parent over 30, or is planning on becoming one, etc, etc....just sharing information. what we want, and how are bodies are designed, not always the same.
as to the 'facts' of it being $$$...i honestly don't know. however, imo, i would think more than ANYthing, it would be age and/or simply not being ready to be a parent. i mean, most of the single moms i know...or any of the women i know who have had abortions, most were in high school at the time....a few in college. but really, most were quite young.
also why access, education and removal of social/religious stigmas for BC...would work wonders. altho some impulse control would help too.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
As you said, let's take a step back. You're assuming that having an abortion would destroy a healthy family. That's not a given. Many choose abortion because they believe that having another baby would destroy their already-existing healthy family. I believe this position should be acknowleged as valid and given equal weight.
Or, in other words, I guess I agree with your statement that one parent should not (in an ideal world) have authority to destroy a healthy family - and that includes the father destroying the family by bringing another child into it.
Stat Hound here, at your service. :ugeek:
In the United States, based on data from 2004, 73% of women having abortions cited inability to afford a baby right now as one of the reasons given for choosing abortion. [Finer, et al. 2005]
Each woman gave an average of 3.7 different reasons for chosing abortion (in a similar study done in 1987). [Torres & Forrest. 1988]
ooooooooooo...very true. reminds me of the excellent film the hours.
once upon a time when women in this country didn't have much say or access to their own choices and decisions....and sure, for many, religion holding sway over their lives, and/or their husbands....than reality of circumstance, or desire of the mother.
and again......not all situations are a 'family' in any sense in any case. 2, 15-16 year olds and an unintended pregnancy do not a healthy family make. just one of numerous examples....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Even higher than expected. Thank you. This is the main fact that needs to be addressed by both sides of this incredibly tired argument.
she said ONE reason, and then added most women have about 3.7 on average. so sure, can/should be addressed.......but i think finding out what the other 2 are would be prudent as well. also, to find out which was the MOST deciding factor amongst those reasons. personally, and i don't have stats...but i would imagine more than anything, simply not wanting a pregnancy or a child at that point in life to be the biggest...amongst my own personal, unscientific research.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Good point. What does the survey say is the number one reason, SCB?
question for you:
even if affordability were the number 1 reason, what can we do about that?
can we make having children more affordable? i mean, there are many programs in place to help single mothers. not saying they are enough, but also.....how much can we expect to do for that? idk...i'm only asking......
i think in all instances, i think truly targeting the WHYs of seeking abortion in the first place......WHY did the unintended pregnancy take place.....would do best for helping to iradicate, or at least greatly reduce, the need. i don't think any thing will 100% do away with unwanted pregnancy......but hopefully we could get close. better access to BC, more affordable, remove social/religious stigmas...develop better/easier BC...access to the morning-after pill. i mean quite honestly, i know many are against that as well...but hell, personally, i am ALL for single women having say quick and easy access to such, and then after a night of unprotected sex, or a scare with faulty BC.....easy, cheap or free access. a possible end to the possibility of a pregnancy..i mean, the day after!...seems far more preferable than abortions later on. just my own thought on it of course.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I hear you lound and clear. The "WHYs" are the key, every one of them. But one strikes a chord with me:
Affordability... I look at my own paycheck, the taxes taken out, and then how many umpteen times after that I get slammed by the government with taxes (sales, gas, communications, property, etc...) and what am I left with? 50% before I have to provide myself with all of my basic needs? Maybe? I didn't even count insurance, which isn't a tax per say, but is mandated by the law...
How is anyone in this country supposed to provide for their family with this going on? How many people even contemplate this 'choice,' (that maybe would have never entertained it), or go through with it, because it costs so much to live? If this is the case, you've got people on one side of this discussion afraid to love, and another side looking for options that no one wants to look for.
To me, this issue is doing nothing but dividing the people, while raping all of them and leaving them with all NO CHOICE: Big government. If there was anything that ever needed to be aborted, this is it...
I'm serious. I know there's always going to be women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term for reasons other than "I / We can't afford a child." I know there are several sub-reasons for each. I'm sure health reasons comes in once in a blue moon, fractions of a percent scb? To me, there is a very approachable middle ground here where the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal, or became illegal-- and no, the number is unfortunately not zero. That would be great, but I think with technology, and improvements in contraception, and a general 'awakening' of the people with regards to sexual health and behavior, it would move towards zero.
So, my answer is FREEDOM. Stop fighting wars which destroy life everywhere on earth, and cost us way too much. Stop handing things out to people who don't deserve it. (this, by the way includes handing out contraception. If you want to have sex, go get a job, and buy some trojans
The 2005 study broke it down like this:
74% - concern for and/or responsibility to other individuals
73% - cannot afford a baby now
69% - a baby would interfere with school/employment/ability to care for dependents
48% - would be a single parent/having relationship problems
38% - has completed childbearing
The 1988 study broke it down into more narrow categories:
21% - inadequate finances
21% - not ready for the responsibility
16% - woman's life would be changed too much
12% - problems with relationship/unmarried
11% - too young/not mature enough
8% - children are grown; woman has all she wants
3% - fetus has possible health problem
3% - woman has health problem
1% - pregnancy caused by rape, incest
4% - other
I think we can make children/life more affordable in many ways:
universal healthcare better public transportation affordable housing afffordable daycare no taxes for food and other necessities et cetera
But, as you said, it's more important to prevent pregnancy to begin with (for those who know they aren't ready for children). I think it's very important to note that unintended pregnancy and abortion are becoming INCREASINGLY concentrated among poor and low-income women.
Between 1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy fell by 20% among women with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level, but increased by 29% among women living below the poverty level. (http://www.guttmacher.org)
Poor women make up 16% of the population at risk for unintended pregnancy, yet they account for 30% of unintended pregnancies. (Boonstra, et al. 2006)
The abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is more than 4 times higher than that of women living at more than 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10). (Jones, et al. 2002)
I'm gonna have to respectfully completely disagree. I'd say better access to contraception for poor women, coupled with the education to know how to use it, is the #1 thing we could do to decrease abortion in the U.S.... especially given the stats I posted above which show that unintended pregnancy (and therefore abortion as well) is increasingly concentrated among poor women.
oh i know we can make life more 'affordable' overall...but i just think, no matter what...as a single parent it will always be tough. thus why i think not many 'want' that. not saying many wouldn't choose it, b/c of course they do! but i don't think anyone truly goes on planning on being a single parent. that's all.
and this:
well vinny, looks like we're both right! and not surprising either.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Eh, you can roll your eyes at me all you want but I have no doubt we could do it if we really wanted to. Many places already do... but that's a different subject. Oh, and I forgot to add adequate maternity/paternity leave to the list.
what about the other way around
surely if a unwanted pregnancy results in a child - it will cause a lifetime of financial and emotional problems for the man. What say give him the same rights. He can order an abortion.
peace and joyous love.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
it's not just that - it's not just a 'hardship'....tho it IS a biggie, it's also a health risk...it's also how difficult would it actually be to make 100% certain the father does not renege on the agreement, change his mind, throw away the responsibility...once it beomes the point of no return in the pregnancy, or at the birth, right after the birth, etc. to me, that's THE point. it's a hard enough time right now to get a lot of father's to keep up with their responsbilities - again, not saying ALL....not be a longshot.
and i asked that of you earlier......if 'father's will' gets to be the determining factor, should he also be allowed to force a woman to have an abortion she does not want? for me, again...it's all about....HER body, her risks, her health....either way...HER CHOICE. while it's nice to imagine that a couple will always agree, if they don't...there is NO way i think the father's choice - no matter which he would choose - should trump the mother's. it all happens within her body.
i wonder if scb has any stats on how many father's were in agreement with the mother's choices? and/or, how many women had abortions, or babies.....without the father's knowledge at all. be interesting. personally, and no stats to back it up, i would think most men and women would be in agreement when a woman chooses abortion. i honestly have never met a man who had any kind of partner have an abortion and he didn't support her decision to do so. most expressed relief to 'dodge the bullet'....not have the child to be responsible for at that time, and most...just like the women i know who've had abortions...have gone on to have families of their own, just further down the road, when they WANTed it to happen.
honestly....how difficult is it to hook up with someone who at the very least, shares the same values as you? and if you are having unprotected casual sex, a one-night stand....and are not using BC....or using it poorly.....i don't imagine one being so pro-life, b/c that would be a pretty irresponsible way to be if you are truly pro-life. most of the other unintended pregnancy scenarios usally involve dating couples...and i'd think similar values would come into play in dating. just sayin'.
i understand people being anti-abortion for their own personal, moral reasons....and i agree...it's their choice to make, and sure...even while i vehemently disagree, i do realize, it's their right to try and fight against abortion, even for others. but we're not talking about that really...we're talking about putting father's rights above mother's rights....and i just cannot support that, due to simple biology.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
as for the dad changing his mind... that is no different than wondering if the woman will change hers. the law requires you to care for your children. If you don't, you may wind up in prison and the child may wind up in the care of the state. With respect for the responsibility of caring for your children, the law does not discriminate between the man and the women. that is joint and absolute - when they fight over custody - it favors the woman to establish the home address.. but still holds both equally responsible for the safety and care of the child.