Abortions in US decline again, likely due to Obamacare contraceptive access

[ThatRobGuy]

We're only milling 800,000 of our own every year instead of 1,000,000. Celebrate!

Seems like you're falling in the trap of making "better" the enemy of "perfect".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Abortion is caused primarily for a hypersexualized cultured which originated with the increased use of contraception.

So thanks for solving a tiny bit part of the problem that was caused for contraception in the first place.

Do you have any sources/citations/data to support that assertion? Or are you simply trying to pin the blame for something you don't like, onto something else you don't like?

While there's no doubt that increased access to safe abortion procedures have likely led to more women seeking that option to address unplanned pregnancy, the root issue (getting pregnant when not planning on it) certainly didn't increase due to hypersexualized culture.

Unplanned pregnancies have always been a reality.

A simple piece of data that highlights that is the fact that during the great depression, the average children per household was way higher than it is now.

...unless someone is honestly suggesting that a poor family, living in the worst economic time in our history said "Gee honey, you know what we really need right now? A 5th kid" Had there been a legal/safe/socially accepted pregnancy termination method available in the 1900-1930 time period, we likely would've seen it used more than it is today.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It still astounds me how many in the pro-life camp still insist on believing in the fantasy that simply expressing the notion "if you don't want a pregnancy, just don't have sex" is somehow a workable public policy for unplanned pregnancy prevention.

Thinking that way is 100% idealism/0% pragmatism. Abstinence-only ideology has never worked as a public policy and has almost always led to increased pregnancy rates (especially among teens).


If we were to make an analogy to apply that same way of thinking to cardiology, it'd be like saying "we don't need to spend money researching cholesterol drugs, and cardiac surgical procedures...if people don't want heart attacks, they should just eat better" and pretending as if that's somehow a valid or effective public health policy for preventing cardiac related mortality.

Part of me feels like that's simply their way of trying to maintain both an anti-abortion position, while simultaneously voting for fiscally/socially conservative economic policies that have been shown to cause an increase in demand for abortion...and as long as they pretend that it's somehow a valid approach, they don't have to acknowledge the fact that they're voting for things that actually increase the demand for the thing they claim to hate the most.


To put it more succinctly...if a person truly did feel like abortion is murder, paying an extra $2/week in taxes in order to fund programs to provide no-cost access for pregnancy prevention measures for people who need it should be considered a mere drop in the bucket. They fact that they fight those measures so staunchly means that they either A) don't really think abortion is murder and that's all just religious rhetoric, or B) they want to have it both ways and be able to claim they're fighting abortion tooth & nail, while simultaneously refusing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make that happen.

 

[Nithavela]

It still astounds me how many in the pro-life camp still insist on believing in the fantasy that simply expressing the notion "if you don't want a pregnancy, just don't have sex" is somehow a workable public policy for unplanned pregnancy prevention.

Thinking that way is 100% idealism/0% pragmatism. Abstinence-only ideology has never worked as a public policy and has almost always led to increased pregnancy rates (especially among teens).


If we were to make an analogy to apply that same way of thinking to cardiology, it'd be like saying "we don't need to spend money researching cholesterol drugs, and cardiac surgical procedures...if people don't want heart attacks, they should just eat better" and pretending as if that's somehow a valid or effective public health policy for preventing cardiac related mortality.

Part of me feels like that's simply their way of trying to maintain both an anti-abortion position, while simultaneously voting for fiscally/socially conservative economic policies that have been shown to cause an increase in demand for abortion...and as long as they pretend that it's somehow a valid approach, they don't have to acknowledge the fact that they're voting for things that actually increase the demand for the thing they claim to hate the most.


To put it more succinctly...if a person truly did feel like abortion is murder, paying an extra $2/week in taxes in order to fund programs to provide no-cost access for pregnancy prevention measures for people who need it should be considered a mere drop in the bucket. They fact that they fight those measures so staunchly means that they either A) don't really think abortion is murder and that's all just religious rhetoric, or B) they want to have it both ways and be able to claim they're fighting abortion tooth & nail, while simultaneously refusing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make that happen.

You guys are still operating on the notion that this is about reducing the number of abortions for the pro life camp?

 

[Not David]

Countries with lower access to contraception have crazy high birth rates.

What kind of countries are you talking about?

 

[Not David]

It still astounds me how many in the pro-life camp still insist on believing in the fantasy that simply expressing the notion "if you don't want a pregnancy, just don't have sex" is somehow a workable public policy for unplanned pregnancy prevention.

Thinking that way is 100% idealism/0% pragmatism. Abstinence-only ideology has never worked as a public policy and has almost always led to increased pregnancy rates (especially among teens).


If we were to make an analogy to apply that same way of thinking to cardiology, it'd be like saying "we don't need to spend money researching cholesterol drugs, and cardiac surgical procedures...if people don't want heart attacks, they should just eat better" and pretending as if that's somehow a valid or effective public health policy for preventing cardiac related mortality.

Part of me feels like that's simply their way of trying to maintain both an anti-abortion position, while simultaneously voting for fiscally/socially conservative economic policies that have been shown to cause an increase in demand for abortion...and as long as they pretend that it's somehow a valid approach, they don't have to acknowledge the fact that they're voting for things that actually increase the demand for the thing they claim to hate the most.


To put it more succinctly...if a person truly did feel like abortion is murder, paying an extra $2/week in taxes in order to fund programs to provide no-cost access for pregnancy prevention measures for people who need it should be considered a mere drop in the bucket. They fact that they fight those measures so staunchly means that they either A) don't really think abortion is murder and that's all just religious rhetoric, or B) they want to have it both ways and be able to claim they're fighting abortion tooth & nail, while simultaneously refusing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make that happen.

It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?

 

[Not David]

Do you have any sources/citations/data to support that assertion? Or are you simply trying to pin the blame for something you don't like, onto something else you don't like?

While there's no doubt that increased access to safe abortion procedures have likely led to more women seeking that option to address unplanned pregnancy, the root issue (getting pregnant when not planning on it) certainly didn't increase due to hypersexualized culture.

Unplanned pregnancies have always been a reality.

A simple piece of data that highlights that is the fact that during the great depression, the average children per household was way higher than it is now.

...unless someone is honestly suggesting that a poor family, living in the worst economic time in our history said "Gee honey, you know what we really need right now? A 5th kid" Had there been a legal/safe/socially accepted pregnancy termination method available in the 1900-1930 time period, we likely would've seen it used more than it is today.

Unplanned pregnancies have always happened but the idea that knowing sex will likely lead to pregnancy is not as abundant since the sexual revolution of the 60 is what made "sex mainly for pleasure" stuff.

 

[Nithavela]

Unplanned pregnancies have always happened but the idea that knowing sex will likely lead to pregnancy is not as abundant since the sexual revolution of the 60 is what made "sex mainly for pleasure" stuff.

There was contraception before the 60s.

 

[Not David]

There was contraception before the 60s.

That's true, even in ancient times we have different forms of contraceptions. Maybe I did not present my whole hypothesis but contraception use started to increase by the '20s, the effect might not have been at an instant but the film media and certain parts of capitalism and individualism might also have an influence plus the sexual revolution too.

However, I will probably not continue here since people would not hear but criticize.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If they want it "safe, legal, and rare" they would not argue that it is a "fundamental right".

Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.

 

[KarateCowboy]

There used to be court decisions allowing slavery and segregation. Were they Constitutional laws?

Also, it is based on a supposedly "Right to Privacy" that if we acknowledge will make other terrible stuff in private legal.

Yah. There's no way to be educated, honest and still call the decision process and reasoning in that ruling sound.

 

[Nithavela]

Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.

Good thing that abortion isn't homicide, then? Otherwise people might start building bombs to attack abortion centers.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?

Believe it or not some people actually enjoy the sex even if they do not need to get a woman pregnant at that particular moment.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.

Safe homicide? Isn't that sorta like self-defense?

 

[KCfromNC]

However, I will probably not continue here since people would not hear but criticize.

Poisoning the well like this is a personal attack. If you can't convince people that's one thing, but blaming them for not being convinced as if it implies some sort of personal issue is another thing entirely.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yah. There's no way to be educated, honest and still call the decision process and reasoning in that ruling sound.

Evidence says otherwise. Good luck with this approach, though.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You guys are still operating on the notion that this is about reducing the number of abortions for the pro life camp?

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...

I do honestly feel like most of them dislike abortion. However, I think their dislike for people engaging in what they feel is "sexual immorality" supersedes that on their priority list.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?

Like I said, it's not a "lack of faith" in other people controlling themselves. It's pragmatism with regards to knowing that no matter what someone says, some people will still make certain choices.

You can say "you shouldn't have sex" until you're blue in the face, it's unrealistic and statistically unfounded to think that's actually going to work on a large scale.

Much like I could tell someone "if you want to be healthier, you need to eat less fast food, less red meat, and exercise more", me saying that wouldn't be a valid replacement for investing in scientific/surgical/medical solutions to address heart disease.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.

The abortion aspect is only half of the conversation... While I consider myself "pro-choice" in terms of policy, if you'll notice, my earlier arguments centered around the ideas of making contraception available to prevent the unplanned pregnancies in the first place. No pregnancy means no need for abortion.

I personally am not a fan of abortion and would like to see it drop to 0 "in a perfect world".

The issue is that the GOP pushes to
-restrict access to sex education
-in some cases pushes for 'abstinence only' education
-gut social safety nets that could help low-income single mothers
-allow insurance companies to deny contraception coverage
-oppose measures that would ensure a living wage

...but then act appalled when some women make the choice to have an abortion.

In a nutshell "we're not going to educate you properly on sex, we're not going to educate you on proper contraception use, we're going to make sure insurance companies and employers don't provide coverage for such items cuz I don't shouldn't have to pay for that, and we're going to eliminate the social safety nets that would help you get by and raise a child if you're financially struggling". Then sit back on their moral high horse and criticize when a young woman making $10/hour doesn't want to try to take on task of raising a child.

 

[trunks2k]

While there's no doubt that increased access to safe abortion procedures have likely led to more women seeking that option to address unplanned pregnancy, the root issue (getting pregnant when not planning on it) certainly didn't increase due to hypersexualized culture.

And let's not forget that the population that has the biggest issue with unplanned pregnancies - teens, have seen a constant drop in pregnancy rates since the 90s. We're at something on par with, IIRC, the late 50s.