J C wrote: » ... since when is somebody too poor to kill theie unborn child? ... if they really are on the breadline ... they can avail of a wide range of financial supports ranging from lone parent allowance to assistance for social services for everything from a pram to anything else their child may need. Equally, where is the father, in all of this ... shouldn't he also make a personal and financisl contribution to rearing his child? ... and in any event, if a woman cannot countenance rearing her child, for whatever reason ... she can always put it up for adoption/fosterage. Killing it for financial reasons would be an outrage IMO ... as it is totally unnecessary ... but then necessity isn't required for abortion on demand ... which is waht people are being asked to vote on. Abortion rates are inversely correlated with poverty ... and the general fertility rate is inversely correlated with income. Quote :- abortion rates are directly correlated with income. Quote:- "One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies." ... so it is 'well heeled' women who have the highest abortion rates ... rates that are 4 times higher than for impoverished women. ... with one third of the pregnancies of wealthy women ending in abortion it is no exaggeration to say that they are literally 'too posh to be pregnant'.
poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women. A huge chunk of the reason, they conclude, is because of the gap in abortion and contraception access
That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.
Middle-class women may abort more of their pregnancies, but since they get pregnant way less often, they still have fewer abortions overall.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Many would actually be too poor to stay pregnant but there you go again trying to make it out that women make these decisions on a whim without any thought:rolleyes:
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
pilly wrote: » Grand so, I'm off to post in every other forum that the Christians are banning the pro-choice people. Since its acceptable now to tell blatant lies about moderators.
Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum.
J C wrote: » Neither can I. Like I have already said, responsible sex can also involve contraceptive use ... and the willingness (and the personal circumstances) to accept an unwanted pregnancy if the contraceptive use fails.
J C wrote: » ... fair enough ... but its not advisable ... and if it goes wrong, you will be the author of your own misfortune.
Delirium wrote: » You do realize you're jumping straight to extremes. I still can't believe that abstinence or sex solely for baby-making are the only categories of 'responsible sex'.
Delirium wrote: » Also..... Have a word with the pope :P
J C wrote: » Where did I say that? Irresponsible sex is dangerous as well as being immoral ... sometimes a healthy pregnancy would be the least bad thing that could happen ... an incurable or life altering STD would be significantly worse IMO.
Delirium wrote: » So irresponsible sex is okay once choices are made you approve of?
J C wrote: » ... or willingness to accept an unwanted pregnancy if contraceptive use fails .
Delirium wrote: » It would seem abstinence or sex solely to impregnate are the only options left.
J C wrote: » True ... all the more reason to behave responsibly, when it comes to sex, in the first place ... starting with the messages that the contraceptive industry promotes ... such as 'safe sex' ... when all it is is Safer Sex ... and in many cases obviously not even that.
Delirium wrote: » Contraceptives can and do fail for a number of reasons even when used properly.
J C wrote: » ... Used properly they are.
J C wrote: » ... Used properly they are. However, no contraceptive will work, if somebody doesn't use it properly ... or doesn't use it at all. ... and abortion shouldn't be some kind of back-up contraceptive ... because somebody couldn't be bothered to use contraception properly.
Delirium wrote: » No contraceptive is 100% effective.
J C wrote: » Why should they damn themselves to facilitate some woman who is 'too posh to push' and stay pregnant ... and will kill her unborn child, just because she wants to?
WhiteRoses wrote: » This isn’t the first time you’ve made such a statement.Your attitude is absolutely disgusting and you are the type of person I’d hope to never meet in real life. Absolutely horrible post.
Delirium wrote: » I still don't know what you mean by 'too posh to push'. Do you mean that wealthy view having kids as something poor people only do?
J C wrote: » I would assume that somebody in a monogamous relationship would behave responsibly when it comes to sex ... and would ensure that there would be no unwanted pregnancy. Modern contraception, used correctly, doesn't provide much of an excuse for having an unwanted pregnancy.
J C wrote: » Its the next step from going through with the pregnancy ... but being 'too posh to push' ... to not going through with the pregnancy at all.
Delirium wrote: » Studies should a substantial proportion of abortions are had by women who don't want any more kids. It's also funny that you suggest that monogamy reduces the fertility of women.
Delirium wrote: » Which is why i asked you to elaborate because the meaning isn't clear to me. Care to elucidate?
J C wrote: » ... and this scenario won't generally result in pregnancy ... and if it does, abortion won't/shouldn't be the result.
J C wrote: » They are 'too posh to stay pregnant'.
J C wrote: » ... what it says.
Delirium wrote: » As a general statement, no it's not. I wouldn't consider a long-term monogamous couple to be irresponsible for having unprotected sex, regardless if they had a drink before.
