Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abortion Statistics - Demographics
- Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young. 55% are less than 26 years old and 21% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
- Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion.
From the site you cited as well.88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy
Ampmonster said:while these, totaling 91.80% are all matters of CONVIENIENCE ONLY
"
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby<
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
7.9% of women want no (more) children
Ampmonster said:its convience BECAUSE if you couldnt afford or didnt want it in the first place you shouldnt have been doing it in the first place!
again we're dealing with reality here.
Ampmonster said:"Like 1984"
lol Again with the fiction.
...no sex = no abortions.
All of these contradictions astound me. So in other words, it's okay to terminate a pregnancy because the baby, I mean fetus, can't feel pain but if they can feel hunger it's still okay? Are hunger and pain and fear not all extensions of signals triggered by the HUMAN brain?? If so, then what separates a "fetus" who has a few human-like qualities and a newborn baby who cries out in pain when the nurses stick them in the foot to draw blood? There are some people who are born void of nerve endings and are incapable of feeling physical pain. Should we be able to kill them off because they bother us or interfere with our goal to climb the corporate ladder? You may say "well, comparing a fetus to a grown person is ridiculous". Well, now you know how asinine it is to compare a growing, living baby with not having sex.Starving and feeling pain are two different things.
Actually, common sense is not going out and having sex when you know you can't afford a child. Besides, why can't you afford a child? Because you want a better house, a better car? Plus, in order for a woman not to be able to at least be able to afford to carry a pregnancy to full-term and then give the baby up for adoption, she must be in dire financial straits. Medicaid is available to all women who need medical assistance. My co-worker's wife was on Medicaid and they didn't pay one red cent for prenatal care or the delivery. There are alternatives to abortion. Most people are just too lazy to put up with a pregnancy for nine months to consider the alternatives.You must be kidding.
Not being able to afford a baby is a serious issue. That's not mere "convenience", it's common sense.
Here again, wouldn't common sense dictate that before you share the most sacred aspect of your life that you would discuss what you would do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy? See, that's the issue. It's not about relationship conundrums and "oops! I'm pregnant and I don't know what to do". If people would either A) Wait to get married to have sex or B) At least wait to have sex until they have both determined how they would deal with the situation then it wouldn't be an issue.Having a relationship issue and/or having a partner who objects to the child is is ALSO a serious issue. That's not mere "convenience", it's common sense.
It amazes me most of you think it's 100% acceptable for parents to force their teenager to abort and yet if this article were about them forcing her to carry the pregnancy to full-term you'd be raising Cain.Being too young and having your parents object to your having a child is ALSO a serious issue. That's not mere "convenience", it's common sense (and obedience to your parents in some cases.)
They're not constrained by anything. If a woman is single and doesn't want kids or she can't afford to live in a fancy apartment if she were to get pregnant then she shouldn't be going out and having sex and men should be more willing to step up to the plate when the woman they've had sex with becomes pregnant. It's an equal partnership. Bottom line....not everyone can afford to raise a child, but there are programs out there to make provision for pregnant women if they need prenatal care. So, in cases like the 91% listed above, there is always an alternative to killing. If the woman chooses not to utilize those alternatives then it is no longer a circumstantial constraint, it's selfishness that motivates her to have an abortion simply for convenience sake.What the statistics show, in fact, is that many of these women are constrained by circumstances and would probably choose to have a child if their situation was different.
Isn't killing your baby to cover up you "mistake" strictly for convenience sake? If you think it's too "inconvenient" to use protection or it's too "inconvenient" to say "no" to having sex with your new boyfriend then it also must be too "inconvenient" to be pregnant rendering abortion a selfish alternative to owning up to your "mistake".Yep - and the reality is that people make mistakes. Having unprotected sex (for example) doesn't mean you want a kid. Sure, it's stupid, but it doesn't mean that any abortion you have as a result is necessarily performed for the sake of convenience. Duh.
Duh? Are we in third grade here? Come on, let's be mature.Duh.But unfortunately, life's just not that simple.
Isn't killing your baby to cover up you "mistake" strictly for convenience sake?
If you think it's too "inconvenient" to use protection or it's too "inconvenient" to say "no" to having sex with your new boyfriend then it also must be too "inconvenient" to be pregnant rendering abortion a selfish alternative to owning up to your "mistake".
msjones21 said:Duh? Are we in third grade here? Come on, let's be mature.
Anyway, it *is* that simple.
If you can't control your hormones to 100% eliminate any possibility of becoming pregnant that *you* are the one with the problem, not the people who oppose abortion.
You clearly stated that people make mistakes and that, while having unprotected sex is "stupid", having an abortion isn't for convenience sake. Let's think this through now...you *oops* have unprotected sex. That's the mistake. You become pregnant. That's the result of your mistake. At this point there is the easy way (abortion) or facing the world pregnant and all and either giving the child up for adoption or raising the child yourself. Now, common sense should tell you that abortion is a way of covering up the mistake you've made. Maybe the woman is embarassed. Maybe she doesn't want to be "put out". Wouldn't abortion be a way of eliminating those little set-backs? Convenience sake.Excuse me? I didn't see anything in those statistics which said that the motivation was to cover up a mistake.
*coughs* I'm sorry but, was it not you who made the comment that ad hominems and straw men do nothing but discredit someone? I guess if that's the case neither one of us are trying very hard to make a valid point; therefore, I have no choice but to think either my point made far too much sense for you and you have absolutely no way of refuting it, or you really do have it stuck in your head that abortion is 100% acceptable in all cases.Sorry, too many "if" statements to be credible.
Ah...well, had your "duh"s been directed at me initially that statement *may* have hurt my feelings.I was, but you lowered the tone of the debate so quickly that a good oldfashioned "Duh" was the only legitimate response I could offer.
Poverty is really the only potentially good reason to have an abortion. It's just a real shame for the "cause" that there is funding out there for women who live below the poverty line.I agree that the people who can't control their hormones sufficiently well are indeed the problem.
But no, it's still not that simple because you're simply refusing to address the results of that unwanted pregnancy in the context of extenuating circumstances - such as living below the poverty line, for example.
Either you're limited in your scope of what "anti-abortion" truly means or you're having fun playing Devil's advocate.And in case you were wondering, I'm anti-abortion.
msjones21 said:Actually, common sense is not going out and having sex when you know you can't afford a child. Besides, why can't you afford a child? Because you want a better house, a better car? Plus, in order for a woman not to be able to at least be able to afford to carry a pregnancy to full-term and then give the baby up for adoption, she must be in dire financial straits.
It amazes me most of you think it's 100% acceptable for parents to force their teenager to abort and yet if this article were about them forcing her to carry the pregnancy to full-term you'd be raising Cain.
They're not constrained by anything.
If a woman is single and doesn't want kids or she can't afford to live in a fancy apartment if she were to get pregnant then she shouldn't be going out and having sex and men should be more willing to step up to the plate when the woman they've had sex with becomes pregnant. It's an equal partnership.
Bottom line....not everyone can afford to raise a child, but there are programs out there to make provision for pregnant women if they need prenatal care.
So, in cases like the 91% listed above, there is always an alternative to killing.
If the woman chooses not to utilize those alternatives then it is no longer a circumstantial constraint, it's selfishness that motivates her to have an abortion simply for convenience sake.
msjones21 said:You clearly stated that people make mistakes and that, while having unprotected sex is "stupid", having an abortion isn't for convenience sake. Let's think this through now...you *oops* have unprotected sex. That's the mistake. You become pregnant. That's the result of your mistake. At this point there is the easy way (abortion) or facing the world pregnant and all and either giving the child up for adoption or raising the child yourself. Now, common sense should tell you that abortion is a way of covering up the mistake you've made. Maybe the woman is embarassed. Maybe she doesn't want to be "put out". Wouldn't abortion be a way of eliminating those little set-backs? Convenience sake.
*coughs* I'm sorry but, was it not you who made the comment that ad hominems and straw men do nothing but discredit someone? I guess if that's the case neither one of us are trying very hard to make a valid point; therefore, I have no choice but to think either my point made far too much sense for you and you have absolutely no way of refuting it, or you really do have it stuck in your head that abortion is 100% acceptable in all cases.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?