Universal Health Care Reduces Abortions

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Universal Health Care Reduces Abortions
76
Tue, 03-16-2010 - 2:08pm

"Countless arguments have been advanced for and against the pending bills to increase health-care coverage. Both sides have valid concerns, which makes the battle tight. But one prominent argument is illogical. The contention that opponents of abortion should oppose the current proposals to expand coverage simply doesn't make sense.

How health care discourages abortion
Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2005
Fri, 03-26-2010 - 11:55am

Was your breakfast snark boiled or fried? Sheesh.



The problem with winter sports is that – follow me closely here – they generally take place in winter.
- Dave Barry


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 12:42am
You know, all she did was chime in about the fact that cost is a contributing factor in many people's decision to abort. Not sure why you're arguing with her about that.














iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 7:17pm

Well I assumed that since she did chime in on a debate board that anything she may post wold be up for debate. Im sorry that you dont agree and by the way, I'm sure that she is a big girl and does not need you to come in and rescue her.

I also understand that you may not argue with her on that point but that does not mean that no one will. Argument is the nature of a debate board.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 7:18pm
Im sorry Im not familiar with the taste but tell me what is it like?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 7:52pm

<You are welcome to think that when I say "on top of that" I mean "instead of what you're arguing," that does not make it so. And I cannot control how you interpret what I've written if you overlook parts of my text.>>

YOu certainly cannot control how one interprets your text but you can control whether or not you make complete points. I didn't over look parts of your text I took issue with only a certain part of your text there is a difference.

<>

Alright let us assume for a moment that you are right, but the reason one may not go through with an abortion may not be because getting medical care would be easier IE prenatal /birth but rather that congress and Obama have signed a bill barring federal funding for an abortion which defeats the core cause of choice. SO, you may be a bit correct on that point but not because of the exact reasons you cite.

<>>

I am certainly not saying you shouldn't speak you have the perfect right to that but you do lack evidentiary support for your claim.

<< I have a speculation, yes, based on evidence.>>>

You threw out a single statistic with ABSOLUTELY no support, links, information as to where you get this number.

<>>

It is part of every debate that I can say that without evidence your claims which have been anecdotal up to this point have no basis in reality,i seem to recall a few past debates where you have driven this point home.

<>

I agree but only because half the time they are not smart about it.

<< $36K is more than I paid for my car, and more than my household income this year.>>>

OK.

<>

As stated, I agree with you.

<>>

Anecdotal,and still does not tell us that the decisions are made solely or even majorly upon cost.

<>

Where exactly? I didn't catch just where you got this single number.

<>.

Oh I didn't say that there was no chance that it was not a factor,Just because you over look parts of my text does not mean that I argued that point. I did not say you were absolutely incorrect I said that your statement seemed far reaching and indeed oversimplified as stated.

<>

I have

<>

I never said it was not a viable reason I suggested that it was not a major or sole reason.

<>

I never argued the validity of someone's choice to have an abortion I argued that money is not solely or even a major reason why.

<>

NO Im not, Im simply suggesting that there is more to the story.

<< And I actually believe that many women are financially pressed that they must abort for monetary reasons.>>

And I grant you that there may well be women out there who abort strictly for monetary reason but I suspect the number is far lower than the number you quoted.

<>

I don't think you have the right idea, I never suggested that money was crass as it is or that it does nnot play a role in people's lives but I happen to know that money is neither the root nor the cause of a lot of other problems in people's lives merely a trivial headache that people make bigger than it is.I am aware that money plays a huge role in some people's lives, my opinion on how and why it needn't be is different from yours.

<< Obviously it is, if that's the reason 1 out of 5 who have abortions say they did it. And it would be folly, again, to argue that no major personal decisions in this society are driven at least in part by money.>>

oh I never argued that again, I was the one suggesting that it was only part and no I don't buy that it is even a major part of why at 21 %.

<>

Absolutely nothing.

<<>>

I never suggested that it had to.

<<< There is a huge difference, after all, between less significant and having no bearing whatsoever. >>

I never dismissed your statement out of hand and said it had no significance whatsoever.

<>

I would agree with you but you didn't even attempt to provide links you threw out numbers and statistics with no info on where you got these numbers you have not once in one post cited your sources at all. Im not asking for specifics Im asking the courtesy of sources not guesstimations. Without links or sources that is exactly what you have.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 8:19pm
So you disagree that cost is a factor in some people's decisions to become parents?













Edited 3/27/2010 8:21 pm ET by finally.me




iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Sat, 03-27-2010 - 8:36pm
No. i disagree that it is a sole decision or even a major reason as per the statistic she cited without sources.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Sun, 03-28-2010 - 7:15am

>I also understand that you may not argue with her on that point but that does not mean that no one will<

sure you are free to disagree with her just as the rest of us are free to scratch our heads and wonder why. Even in Canada cost is a contributing factor to abortion as some women have no idea how they will support a child. I can't see how you would think that would not apply to the US where the cost is even higher.

I have talked to many women over the years for whom cost was a contributing (and often major) reason for considering abortion.

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket

Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Sun, 03-28-2010 - 9:27am
She never said that it was the sole reason. She said "on top of that". And for some people, financial issues ARE the major reason for choosing to abort.













Edited 3/28/2010 9:30 am ET by finally.me




iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Sun, 03-28-2010 - 3:19pm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


Here you go. This was a study done in 2004. Feel free to look for a more recent study if you'd like. But this study shows that 74% of the women interviewed had an abortion because of financial reasons. 74% is pretty significant, don't you think?

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding TickerPhotobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker

Pages