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: 02-28-2008
Wed, 03-31-2010 - 9:10pm

<>

So it is beyond you to think that it is crass and low class to reduce a woman's personal choice to a monetary figure? of course how did i not see that!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Wed, 03-31-2010 - 10:08pm

<>

Ok.

<>

I didn't know at the time as you had not provided any.

<< Of course not.>>

If you say so, at the time you provided nothing.

<< You could have found them easily, as I did.>>>

I have no doubt that everything you cite is from the internet and that they are easily found.

<< If you'd like me to show evidence for my cited stats, I'd be happy to provide them:
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

<>

DId I accuse you of it? I simply pointed out that you NEGLECTED to do so,I never said you refused to provide the info.

<>

Yes your cited study does and it is a trifle late at that. as I have said you say that I have refused to provide data with any claims I allegedly make and i pointed out that you did the same? Does it bug you that i did that?

<>

Again you oversimplified the issue as you stated it and it was indeed your fault you wrote the post.
Unless you would like to contend that someone is posting under YOUR username?

<>
<>

Yes notice that I never said money itself or the concern over the lack of it was crass but that YOU would suggest that decisions that are as private and obviously as emotional and life altering as abortion comes down to simple figures that is what was crass.

<>

I never made the suggestion and I take FULL responsibility for having made the statement yet you continue to misinterpret it,makes me wonder if it is intentional on your part.

<>

<>

Yes well when you wax anecdotal it seems to be fact when i do it it is somehow less significant. Hmmm how interesting.

<>

In fact I do and I am sooo glad you asked. In fact it was right beneath the study jackson in the box provided how easy was that? The difference being that I actually read the WHOLE study. Not just the parts I thought would buttress my claim but only went to support the other view.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

<< You are claiming those reasons are at best oversimplified and at worst inaccurate, and have yet to show evidence (beyond anecdotal, of course, since you won't consider my anecdotes) to prove it. The burden is on you to show how the evidence I have cited is wrong, if you disagree with it.>>>

Fantastic! I thought you would NEVER ask.

Context: The immediate explanation that women often give for seeking induced abortion is that the pregnancy was unplanned or unwanted.

I would say arguably that,that would be a MAJOR reason.

However, the myriad social, economic and health circumstances that underlie such explanations have not yet been fully explored.

But I am willing to recognize that.

Methods: Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion, regional patterns in these reasons and the relationship between such reasons and women's social and demographic characteristics. The data come from a range of sources, including nationally representative surveys, official government statistics, community-based studies and hospital- or clinic-based research.

Notice how they interviewed women all over the world not just women in the US.

but in the results this is my FAVORITE statement.

Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing.

THE MOST COMMON REASON HAD NOTING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MONEY!!!!!!!

The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.

but don't get me wrong, I appreciate that fact that it maybe a major reason for SOME women.

<<>

When did I claim that you had NO evidence or that you refused to show it? I simply said you NEGLECTED to show it so YOU remember that because it was not there and i pointed that out,does not mean I ACCUSED you of anything other than overlooking a link to a study that is all.

<>

As am I.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Wed, 03-31-2010 - 10:11pm
Nwmt. you are so right that was simple!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Wed, 03-31-2010 - 11:42pm

So it is beyond you to think that it is crass and low class to reduce a woman's personal choice to a monetary figure? of course how did i not see that!


No, but that's not what happened. I'll cite your own words.


"I think making a statement like that no matter how marginal the number suggests that women make a life altering and serious choice based on something as crass as money." -goddessofpeace, post 10


And you made a similar comment in a subsequent post, but you used the word "low-class." If you had said something like "Reducing a woman's personal choice to being a money issue is crass/low-class," then I would agree with you. But that's not what you said. You said "women make a...choice based on something as crass as money." YOU said that. Not me, not Holly. You said that making the choice to have an abortion because of money is crass, not that the argument is crass. Did you misspeak then or are you misspeaking now?

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding TickerPhotobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Thu, 04-01-2010 - 12:01am

<>

Umm hello! that is exactly what i have been saying all along YOU misinterpreted it i never misspoke.I am glad we are in agreement FINALLY!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2005
Thu, 04-01-2010 - 11:36am
And yet you took the time. ROFLOL



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


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Thu, 04-01-2010 - 2:37pm

You know what, I typed up an entire response, but it's not worth my time. I have better things to do, like taking my baby shopping for an Easter outfit.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Thu, 04-01-2010 - 4:43pm
You know what? You are absolutely right the best word has been taken anyway. Besides, shopping for an easter outfit for your baby sounds like a delight,happy shopping to you and Happy Easter!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Thu, 04-01-2010 - 10:41pm

<>

But I didn't do the same. I didn't provide data on my first post. That is far different from refusing to provide it after someone has asked me more than once.

<Unless you would like to contend that someone is posting under YOUR username?>>

It is not my fault that you misinterpreted my post. Others have been able to discern my meaning without assistance, and I don't know a one so far who has agreed with you.

<>

Then I must ask you why you think money is "simple" and not "emotional" or "life altering." It is not. I think money is far more important than you do. It's a simple difference of opinion. And as I have said, the weight of evidence is behind me, as you have yet to prove that the women who claimed money was the primary motivator are lying, as you have claimed.

<>

Nope. I gave evidence to provide support for my anecdotes. So far you have none. That's the difference.

Okay, you have to support your claim a study that is 12 years old that shows that the major reason women had an abortion is that they no longer wished to be pregnant. Wow, isn't that circular! And it falls into the same argument you've been making all along, in that it reduces a woman's complicated, "private," "emotional" and "life altering" decision to a simple whim, as if, how did you put it? she was deciding to get her nails done.

And then the second most important reason is money. Remember that I never claimed money was the most important; rather, that it was significant. It was you who said it was not a major reason, but according to the study you cited, in many countries the choice to abort based on money represented upwards of 30%-40% of the respondent pool. In those countries, it is the major reason. But I know you can easily say, as you have said before, that those women are probably lying, so you remain a moving target. Without evidence that they are not being truthful to the researchers, your prior claims do not hold water.

<>

Earlier in this post. Remember this?

<>




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
Photobucket
Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Fri, 04-02-2010 - 12:31am

<>

No you have said i never provided information and on occasion you have accused me of refusal. I pointed out that you never provided any info and you didn't.

<<>

I really don't care that anyone on this board has not agreed with me if that is your goal great, it isn't mine and i didn't misinterpret your post you clearly misstated what you said. the way you posted it was the way anyone not just me could have taken it. the clairiification or lack thereof is on you.

<>>

I'm not saying that money does not make a difference in people's lives but i happen to think that there are things in life more important than money. You obviously do not.

<>

more than obvious.

<>>

I agree

<< And as I have said, the weight of evidence is behind me, as you have yet to prove that the women who claimed money was the primary motivator are lying, as you have claimed.>>

I don't have to prove my opinion and it is my opinion that they may be lying oh and that there are probably more significant reasons as to why they may abort.

<>

Nope you only THINK there is a difference and that does not make it so. Anecdotes are anecdotes.

<>>

I presented my evidence you are free to reject it. by the way, your study and mine are the same age and comes from the same source did you read the URL on both closely?

<< Wow, isn't that circular! And it falls into the same argument you've been making all along, in that it reduces a woman's complicated, "private," "emotional" and "life altering" decision to a simple whim, as if, how did you put it? she was deciding to get her nails done.>>>

In fact it does not it supports my claim that decisions about abortion are not done by monetary figures alone as is your claim.

<>

You claimed that it was so significant that if given the opportunity to save a little of it that the birth rate would rise. You made the claim that the numbers of the population of earth would depend on it.

.<< It was you who said it was not a major reason, but according to the study you cited, in many countries the choice to abort based on money represented upwards of 30%-40% of the respondent pool.>>>

Even if what you say is true it refutes your claim that UHC would reduce abortion because I'm sure at least one or two of those 27 countries have UHC and did 12 years ago as well. so?

<< In those countries, it is the major reason. But I know you can easily say, as you have said before, that those women are probably lying, so you remain a moving target.>>

Yet I don't remain a moving target because it is simply my opinion that people,for whatever reason may be untruthful. I would be interested to know of course of the 74% of women who cited money as a reason to abort that given your version how many would actually continue a pregnancy even with UHC. If the numbers are consistent I would say not many but that is purely speculation and opinion on my part.

<>

I have acknowledged that it was my opinion and never advertised it as anything other than my opinion.

<>
Earlier in this post. Remember this?

No, I said you NEGLECTED to provide me with proof but in the past you have accused me of refusal to provide proof there is the difference so you were saying?

Pages