note.. To keep the length somewhat more reasonable, I am going to divide up my initial,fairly plain response to the chart you posted and a more detailed look at the data and article.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:abortion stuff not backed up by any evidence.
To start, how about quoting me fully instead of paraphrasing:
PLAYER57832 wrote:to sum, A. that report doesn't truly justify your position the way you think it does. You need to do a more careful check of the definitions used and how they got the data, came to the conclusions.
PLAYER57832 wrote: for you to claim that you have the “high ground” and that you keep posting and I just keep ignoring is a flat out lie. In fact, half of the documents you posted did not even lead to anything. I posted that, but one, in particular went to a totally blank page, another showed data that utterly conflicted with other data… and the source wound up being blank. Yet another actually came to a completely different conclusion than you claimed it did. Go back and read the comments and actually read, follow up on the links you post before you start claiming some moral high ground there.
NOTE -- you posted several documents… the one below is the only legitimate one of the bunch… and, ironically enough, I cited it before you did!!!!
thegreekdog wrote: If your argument essentially boils down to this: people who are pro-life in the context of abortions that may save the mother's life are wrong, I agree with that.
If your argument is that most women choose to have abortions to save their own lives and not for any other reason, which seems to be what you've typed numerous times, then you're patently wrong. Not mistaken; not misinterpreted; you are WRONG.
I have NEVER, repeat NEVER claimed that all or most abortions are “to save a mother’s life”. In fact, the largest percentage – anywhere from 30-75%, depending on if you start counting from inception, and so forth – are for fully natural causes, aka miscarriages. Beyond that, I have said that I would not personally have an abortion except to save my life or if I knew that my child were going to die or suffer very serious problems. (note, even in that case I add in much more than just ‘to save the mother’s life). For other people, I draw the line far, far wider. I have detailed that so many times that for you to claim otherwise means you are either intentionally lying, have never bothered to actually read what I wrote, despite your lengthy responses or are simply confusing me with someone else. In either case, stop.
Other than that, I say just claiming that women having abortions are just doing so because they are too lazy or stupid or uncaring to really think out their choices and that they really don’t understand what they are doing, which you and others here are pretty much implying, is plain wrong.
See, you use the word “choice” medically when pulling up stats, but then in discussion go to basically “since its their CHOICE, then they can just CHOOSE not to have one.” I say, and the data below explains that things are very far from that simplistic.
There is a chart in this linke (Table 2) that shows the "Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion." The categories and US statistics are:
Wants to postpone childbearing - 25.5%
Wants no (or no more) children - 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby - 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job - 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy - 14.1%
Too young; parents or others object to pregnancy - 12.2%
Risk to maternal health - 2.8%
Risk to fetal health - 3.3%
Other - 2.1%
Repeat: I have cited this article myself, and I believe before you. I also answered your points the first times you posted it… and the other articles you posted as well.
NOTE.. for anyone else trying to track this down, the above data comes from the last line, under the heading “developed countries” for the US. It is the second chart in the article, roughly halfway through (give or take quite a bit).
Based on the foregoing statistical evidence (of which you have none), the percentage of women in the United States who have abortions to save their own lives is 2.8%, the second lowest of all reasons.
Yeah, well, since I never made that claim, nor would I, you will have to go find the person who actually said that.
So, do you acknowledge the above statistics? If not, why not? Can you provide your own statistics? If you can do any of these things, let's take it to the other thread.
Well, gee, since I actually referenced that article a few times myself, not sure why you are even trying to argue that. That said, you posted several other stats and articles that actually WERE either just lacking citations that misrepresented citations or that referred to citations that did not exist.
To get back to the above article, let’s start with this;
Conclusions: Reasons women give for why they seek abortion are often far more complex than simply not intending to become pregnant; the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor. While improved contraceptive use can help reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, some abortions will remain difficult to prevent, because of limits to women's ability to determine and control all circumstances of their lives.
Beyond that, IMMEDIATELY, you would have to add these 2;
Risk to maternal health - 2.8%
Risk to fetal health - 3.3%
Each of these can be real and true reasons why an abortion might be very much medically warranted. The first would actually often include “threatens the mother’s life” – though that is arguable. I leave that designation to psychologists who are trained in that field, much as I leave the determination of cancer or other illness up to medical professionals. I am not going to debate THEIR definitions at this point, here.
SO, already we have it boosted to over 8%. Maybe you think 3% and 8% are equivalent, but I don’t!
Then we get into the details – “too young” and “partner does not wish” are situations of coercion, not “free choice”. They include abuse, real medical issues (a 12 year old is just not equipped to have a child) and other cases that you have, in previous threads said might be case where legalization is reasonable. It likely includes cases you would not consider reasonable, but we would have to delve further into the data to determine that. At any rate, these are cases that I would not call real and true optional choices, definitely not for mere convenience (as Nightstrike and others like to pretend)
So, now we have almost 40% of cases that are not truly “free choice” abortions.
Then we get to the other 2 big categories -- will disrupt education or jobs and lack money. I would argue there that even in today’s society, women don’t just have a “free choice” about those things. I mean, to argue on the one hand, in the minimum wage thread, etc, that people who don’t go get better education, etc just don’t deserve to make more and then declare that the pressure to do better, to create a decent financial situation for a child before having one means they are just being selfish is hypocritical at best. FURTHER, its not just the woman who is so impacted. The father will be burdened with child support payments at least until the child reaches age 18 (sometimes more, but that doesn’t matter for this debate). Of course, that is his responsibility, but it also means that his income will be reduced for the next 18 years, and not by a set amount. Again, that needs to happen, but to pretend it is not a real and significant impact. It contributes heavily to the “partner does not agree”, but many women will take their partner’s “well being” into account as well as their own. This might mean not wanting to interfere with HIS educational/financial plans or just knowing that their partner is not going to be much help financially.
These are mostly issues that I saw complicate the “its just free choice” argument. I would not, know many women who would not abort for those reasons, but do I have the right to demand a woman bear a child under those circumstances? That is another issue entirely!
AND… if you go back to my original statements regarding this, and the fact that the right likes to charichature it as “just choice” and to claim that people wanting abortion legalized somehow “like” the idea, the REAL answer is to promote education and better access to birth control – and THAT is, again where my assertion that you are hypocritic comes in, because you are out there saying that employers have every right to deny that type of coverage to women.
thegreekdog wrote: If you can't do any of these things, knock it off with the absurd "women have abortions to save their own lives and conservatives who are against abortion want people to die." It's a ludicrous argument.
Well, there you go again, misquoting me. SOME people, and some of the strongest opponents, such as the Dakota governor, very much DO hold that position AND those people are gaining ground, very much harming women in their wake. For you to claim that is wrong is what is ludicrous, as is your attempt to claim that synopsis the “opposition”… of course there is a range of views on anything.
I happen to remember that you have said you do distinguish between legalization of abortion and the discussion over whether abortion is warranted in any particular case. It just so happens we draw the line differently.