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: 04-20-2009
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 12:41am

It also leads me to believe that you didn't read that study closely it says 73% of respondents cited being a single parent or relationship problems as a reason why they might choose abortion. so you are saying 1% is major?


I don't quite know why you subtracted 73 from 74 to ask me

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 3:08am

<>>

I didn't subtract 73 from 74 it said 74% of respondents said cost was a factor as to why they would choose an abortion but 73% of respondents cited other reasons such as bad relationships and the prospect of being a single parent as the reason they would abort the difference is 1% you said that money was a MAJOR reason and i'm pointing out that by the looks of the study YOU provided it really is NOT as major as you claimed.

<>

Yes i am saying I am a supporter of ALL choice not just the choice to abort.

<>

Oh UHC would cover a birth and the cost of medical bills but I hardly think that people would choose to have a baby just because its "cheaper" it's really not cheaper in the long run kids are way more expensive than any SINGLE hospital bill would ever be. So no I don't believe that UHC would reduce the number of abortions as a whole and I don't believe that if a woman is "sitting on the fence" as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy that cost would be so major a factor as to eclipse all other consideration.

<>

Make it up? hardly. You have suggested that housing and feeding and eventually educating a child for 18 years and beyond is a cheaper venue than actually NOT having a child. No child is cheap in terms of either time or money or energy and to even imply it is indeed ludicrous.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2005
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 7:19am

Sigh.


1)

 


Powered by
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2005
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 2:27pm

Awwww....all that angst just because I pointed out an unattractive tone to a post.



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


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 2:42pm

<<>

Yes I agree.

<<1) You can't look at "74% cite cost as an issue" and "73% cite single parenthood as an issue" and simply decide on your own that the 73% are wholly included in the 74%. There could be as much of an overlap as the entire 73%, or as little overlap as 47%. You don't know unless they give you the Venn diagram.>>

OH! but see that is the beauty part I didn't decide on my own, it was included in data and it said it was included and I wont draw a graph or a pie chart for that.

<<2) Most decisions in life, at least ones more major than "what color socks should I wear today," are multifactorial. Just because there are several considerations going into a decision, however, doesn't mean that any one consideration (of which cost may certainly be one) isn't important.>>>

Ok .Do you people ever read my posts carefully? I never said it was not an important consideration, I never said it would be PART of a decision I argue that it is NOT AS MAJOR given that the BIRTH is not the ONLY consideration in RAISING a child. Also, MEDICAL bills are not the ONLY bills that one has to consider in the rearing of a child. What is so difficult about that? By the way, I also argue that of that 74 % how many actually WOULD continue a pregnancy if their medical bills were actually paid.

<>>

I DIDN'T SAY COST WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION. Im not rude or condescending yet a couple of posters have been to me are you also referring to them? NO? must be just me then.

I would support data that said cost was NOT a consideration at all If indeed that WAS my argument and it's not clearly.I said it was not as MAJOR as it was being made out to be and while 1% more people cited cost as to a reason why,I would argue that that number is hardly significant when compared to the data that says that 73% of women that cited other reasons. that is all.

by the way your wait is over :).

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2005
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 2:59pm

by the way your wait is over :)


I'll take that to be your concession that you don't have any data.

 


Powered by
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 4:49pm
You know what's funny? the cattiness and obvious vitriol that spews forth in your post is wholly unattractive,yet you continue to pursue the point with me in a pathetic attempt at tit for tat. you were saying something about an unattractive tone to a post?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 4:50pm

Yeah you are right i don't have any data for a point i never made.

you are sooo right and yes i concede that.

congrats.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 6:36pm

Please don't accuse other posters of not reading your posts carefully enough when you so clearly don't read my posts clearly enough.


I write this:


<>


And you respond to that exact post with this:


Make it up? hardly. You have suggested that housing and feeding and eventually educating a child for 18 years and beyond is a cheaper venue than actually NOT having a child.


I'll state it again, very plainly. I have never once argued that having a child is cheaper than NOT having a child. Never. Not one time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Tue, 03-30-2010 - 7:11pm

<>

My posts have been continuously and I think intentionally misread and every one has been in defense of a single post. I have read your post clearly.

<>

If you had left it at just that then I would agree that was what you were saying but you didn't.

<>>

See, I never made claims that need support of data. Holly threw out an unsubstantiated 21%, YOU gave me a link to a study that proved a ONE percent difference in my original point to her. I was refuting the MAJORITY difference you both claimed was there in the data YOU presented in HER defense.Im not proving a point Im well supported by the data YOU provided so it is there if YOU look at it.
But again if YOU are going to "misunderstand my statements" then I agree further discussion with you is futile.

<>

That may be your excuse but i have seen some pretty poor structure on your part as well so let's not whip out the red markers on each other k?

<< I ask that you do the same. If, for some reason, you can't understand what I've said, ask me to clarify instead of continuing to attribute false statements to me. Otherwise, what's the point in debating if you're just going to attack supposed arguments that I've never made?>>

I have given you that courtesy but i see you are more interested in attacking me because basically you have no other point. I pointed out that the data you handed out to refute me only went to support me and you know what? I think YOU didn't look at it closely enough,that is not MY fault. I don't think i have misinterpreted a thing you have said. I didn't attribute false statements to you,I called you on hastily made statements YOU put out there and i am truly sorry that you find offense in that but it is a debate board.

Pages