France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

[stevil]

However, some of the things in there simply aren't feasible if there's a confliction of values, or one's individual interpretation of something is different than that of the culture of the country they're residing in.

I'd say, if your values or culture dictate that you must take away other human's basic rights, then perhaps you ought to do some personal soul searching. There is no excuse for wanting to mind other people's business and to interfere in the rights of others.

It seems like you're trying to push for some sort of document that fits your viewpoint to a T, and creates a bunch of carve outs for the philosophical positions you have, but specifically squashes your opponents' counter-positions.

Not at all.
I'm just defining anti discrimination. You can believe what you want, you can live whatever life you want, but you can't use law to take the rights of others away from them.

Given that you said the US has a nationalism problem, the 150 million progressive people in the US are living in a hostile territory, and need to seek refuge based on their own interpretation of what constitutes political persecution.

References please, or are you just making this up? I certainly haven't seen any reports of 150 million people fleeing for their lives from USA.

As luck would have it, all 150M chose New Zealand as the place where they'd like to seek refuge. What's NZ's plan for being able to bring them in an incorporate them into society?

NZ takes refugees and asylum seekers.

(head's up, there's going to be a lot of arts and music majors, so hopefully your concert halls and art museums have a worker shortage that need 20 million people to fill the roles)

Sounds exciting.

Snark aside, what you're describing as your ideal is nothing new or original, it's the same sort of leftist eutopia idea

I'm not a leftist.

There's a reason why almost every westernized democracy has their core document (like a constitution) be things that are universal, and any specific carve-outs that only apply to a specific subset of people be handled in revised codes or at the administrative district level to accommodate the local culture, it's because that's what works.

Not sure what you are getting at really.
Giving people the right to privacy over their own bodies, the right to decide for themselves if they want medical procedures is universal.

Under your proposed system. I stop working tomorrow. As long as you're going to guarantee me housing, food, healthcare, etc....

I believe that as a country we ought to take reasonable efforts to prevent people from starving, or being exposed to the elements or dying from preventable illnesses.

But there are limits.
I think if a person is unemployed, then the government should help them get food and shelter, but also in return that person should show commitment to getting themselves back into employment. With that comes more support that is required by govt. Services to help people find jobs, to help them develop marketable skills, services to help them out of depression and to prevent life long dependency on social services.
If an able bodied and able minded person refuses despite much effort to help them, then I accept it is reasonable to cut them off.

If we look at the UN declaration of rights you referenced...
View attachment 344116

Don't expect an extra ounce of effort on my part lol.

Ok, you will live in basic accommodation, you won't have money for luxuries, and you will have govt hounding you to get you back into employment. If you can't find a suitable job for yourself then govt will find something for you, if you refuse then you lose your social support.

I'm quite surprised by your attempts to presume to know my position rather than ask me, and your lack of forethought and speed in diving straight into this strange black and white position rather than thinking through the realities of what countries do to help people in need.

And, under that UN document, it means Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson get to have as many anti-vaccine guests as they want and influence as many people as they see fit

Sure, why not.

View attachment 344115
(lemme guess, you'd like to amend that part?)

Did I say that I want that one amended? Please stop doing what you are doing. It is annoying.

 

[Larniavc]

If you have a society that suggests that promiscuity is nothing to worry about, and there should be no stigmas surrounding having an easy-out for the biological consequences of doing "what feels right in the moment", then you'll have more abortions... Plain and simple.

That sounds counter intuitive. Do you have evidence to support that?

 

[BCP1928]

That sounds counter intuitive. Do you have evidence to support that?

It's a primal fear. If women can decide for themselves who to go to bed with and when (this is usually called "promiscuity"} then some men might not ever get any.

 

[Larniavc]

It's a primal fear. If women can decide for themselves who to go to bed with and when (this is usually called "promiscuity"} then some men might not ever get any.

It's not a 'primal fear'. I've never felt it. It's always been 'women choose'. That's why men do a lot of social display. See also other animals with brightly coloured males to attract the eye of the woman. This is why incels and other losers don't get any: their social display of quality is sub par and women don't choose them.

When people lived in the same town or village from cradle to grave a choice was more limited so feckless males who made poor life choices would have a chance simply based on scarcity. In the modern world the pool for choice is greater so the useless, poorly hygienated louts who have failed to learn how to function in society get left behind.

Which is a good thing really. Who wants a bunch of incels hanging round the place?

 

[BCP1928]

It's not a 'primal fear'. I've never felt it. It's always been 'women choose'. That's why men do a lot of social display. See also other animals with brightly coloured males to attract the eye of the woman. This is why incels and other losers don't get any: their social display of quality is sub par and women don't choose them.

Right. They want their "culture" to entitle them. But the culture is changing.

When people lived in the same town or village from cradle to grave a choice was more limited so feckless males who made poor life choices would have a chance simply based on scarcity. In the modern world the pool for choice is greater so the useless, poorly hygienated louts who have failed to learn how to function in society get left behind.

Which is a good thing really. Who wants a bunch of incels hanging round the place?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That sounds counter intuitive. Do you have evidence to support that?

Actually RocksInMyHead (the other poster) and I were discussing it over series of several pages in which I provided lots of facts and figures, as well numbers comparing abortion rates among various countries, and the policy differences they have in place.

I won't post duplicate them all here again, but there's a few worth touching on again (if you don't want to have to scroll back through all of the pages)

In comparing the abortion rates between Scandinavian countries, all of which have similar social safety nets in place with regards to healthcare, childcare benefits, education benefits, free contraception availability, and paid family leave. (meaning it eliminates the lack of benefits/help as a confounding variable, as that's often the first thing people bring up when comparing the US to any of those nations "Well if the US just offered XYZ, more women would be inclined to keep the baby")

List of countries by abortion rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you look at nations like Finland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, they all had abortions rates between 5.1 and 7 in 2020.
Those 3 countries either have (or had up until late 2022) more rigid requirements and procedures surrounding the process (Netherlands had a mandatory 5-day waiting period and counseling requirement, Switzerland had the counseling requirement and a 12-week cut off for elective abortions (and potential fines and jail time if the procedure wasn't followed to a T), Finland had some of the strictest abortion laws in the EU up until late 2022. They had all of the aforementioned requirements, plus a requirement that 2 doctors had to sign off on the process, and approval by a review board.


If you look at nations like Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark (where the requirements and procedures are less rigid), their rates for 2020 ranged between 11.0 and 18.0 (just over double the rate range of the aforementioned 3 nations)

Which makes these results somewhat unsurprising with regards to the unplanned pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women)
The more lax countries
Sweden (36 per 1,000)
Iceland (33 per 1,000)

The more strict countries
Switzerland (20 per 1,000)
Netherlands (18 per 1,000)

(notice the substantial difference in the unintended pregnancy rates between the lax and the strict, which would indicate that the latter are clearly being more cautious and putting more emphasis on pregnancy prevention, thus having to rely less on pregnancy termination)



All of this gels with what we know at a more basic level about human behavior, who's likely to be more cautious, the person who know there will be consequences, or the person who knows they can somewhat easily get out of the consequences?

The reason why the Bill Clinton era stance of "safe, legal, and rare" was accepted by such a large plurality of people was because the "rare" part was still an acknowledgement that abortion is a less than optimal situation and should be avoided as much as possible.

If you remove that, and abortion is viewed as "no big deal", it stands to reason that people aren't going to feel the need to keep their impulses in-check as much, and aren't going to be as careful because they know that there's a readily available destigmatized "backup plan". If that backup plan is made too easy, then a percentage of people will be more inclined to "throw caution to the wind" and rely on the backup.


Analogy. We all know that changing your oil in the car at the recommended intervals is the optimal precaution to make sure you have a reliable vehicle. Having to rebuild/replace the engine should be a last resort back-up plan for extreme circumstances. However, if you put a policy in place that said "if your engine ever fails for any reason (even oversight on your part), we'll replace it for you no questions asked", there are going to be a percentage of people who take a much more lax approach to following the recommended vehicle maintenance.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a primal fear. If women can decide for themselves who to go to bed with and when (this is usually called "promiscuity"} then some men might not ever get any.

No, nobody's redefining promiscuity... This conversation is about the dynamics of sexual activity and emphasis on pregnancy prevention and how it impacts demand for pregnancy termination.

Trying to shift the focus to "incels and patriarchy stuff" is circumnavigating the substance and ignoring certain realities.

If certain behaviors are viewed to be "no big deal", and you remove the potential for certain consequences as a result of those behaviors, fewer people are going to employ caution.


We can look at other topics and behaviors that come with potential risks and apply the same rationales, and the logical conclusion wouldn't be considered controversial at all.

Alcohol...
If we, as a society, fostered a social environment where "drinking 5 beers is no big deal", and simultaneously changed the rules so that instead of a potential license suspension and hefty fines, if you get caught driving, they simply give you a ride home in the police car and only thing you have to pay was the tow bill for them taking your car back home for you.

Do you think, overall, people would more cautious about drinking and driving or less cautious?

 

[BCP1928]

No, nobody's redefining promiscuity... This conversation is about the dynamics of sexual activity and emphasis on pregnancy prevention and how it impacts demand for pregnancy termination.

Trying to shift the focus to "incels and patriarchy stuff" is circumnavigating the substance and ignoring certain realities.

If certain behaviors are viewed to be "no big deal", and you remove the potential for certain consequences as a result of those behaviors, fewer people are going to employ caution.


We can look at other topics and behaviors that come with potential risks and apply the same rationales, and the logical conclusion wouldn't be considered controversial at all.

Alcohol...
If we, as a society, fostered a social environment where "drinking 5 beers is no big deal", and simultaneously changed the rules so that instead of a potential license suspension and hefty fines, if you get caught driving, they simply give you a ride home in the police car and only thing you have to pay was the tow bill for them taking your car back home for you.

Do you think, overall, people would more cautious about drinking and driving or less cautious?

Of course, but the question is, how the behavior is valued.and how the consequences are valued. People like to drink and if drunk driving accidents only ever amounted to minor fender-benders then strict DUI laws would be regarded as an imposition.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'd say, if your values or culture dictate that you must take away other human's basic rights, then perhaps you ought to do some personal soul searching. There is no excuse for wanting to mind other people's business and to interfere in the rights of others.

References please, or are you just making this up? I certainly haven't seen any reports of 150 million people fleeing for their lives from USA.

It was a facetious example to highlight a potential challenge. Obviously there's not half of the country looking to jump ship.

But that challenge I was highlighting is a real one. If people have a right to universal freedom of movement, to any country they wish, how does that target country plan to accommodate a large (relative to their current population) influx of new people. Cultural and language aspects aside (though those are still valid challenges worth considering), I'll use a hypothetical that eliminates the culture/language aspect.

For instance, if even 5 million people from the US decided they wanted to leave the US (they felt discriminated against) and pack up and go to Canada, that would be a huge undertaking for Canada within a framework where housing, food, clothing, and medical care are a guarantee. Even if all 5 million people were 100% willing to be gainfully employed, it's not like they can just create 5 million new jobs out of thin air that are vacant and ready to be occupied by next week. New wings on hospitals and other infrastructure requirements to accommodate their new population size aren't something that can be completed at the wave of a magic wand. That's all stuff that takes time.

That's likely why the countries that have some of the most comprehensive and more generous social welfare benefits have some of the strictest immigration requirements.

I've used the dinner party analogy before, the more extravagant the meal, the more crucial it is that I know that head count ahead of time and can control that head count.

If I was expecting 15 people to show up and I was just having pizza and pepsi, and an extra 6 people show up that I wasn't planning on, it's not a huge deal, just order an one additional large pizza and snag an extra pop from the store.

If I was having filet, lobster, and wine, that unexpected 6 extra guests presents a much bigger (unexpected) imposition.

Not sure what you are getting at really.
Giving people the right to privacy over their own bodies, the right to decide for themselves if they want medical procedures is universal.

So what's the limiting principle that determines whether or not A) a medical procedure is a requirement that should be covered by publicly accrued funds, and B) whether or not more emphasis/onus needs to be placed on more responsible behaviors.

For instance, it's fine to say "if someone has liver issues, we'll make sure they can access the medications and/or surgery they need", but at what point is there more emphasis put on "hey, you shouldn't be drinking 6 glasses of scotch per day"

There has to be some measure of "social responsibility" incorporated into the equation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course, but the question is, how the behavior is valued.and how the consequences are valued. People like to drink and if drunk driving accidents only ever amounted to minor fender-benders then strict DUI laws would be regarded as an imposition.

In that hypothetical sense, yes, DUI laws would be considered an "imposition" by some I suppose.

However, given that fender benders are less ideal than simply calling a cab or arranging a designated driver prior to going out bar hopping, we'd still want to incentivize the better of the two options.

In the case of this topic. Cautious sexual practices (using contraception, and using it correctly, thereby preventing the pregnancy) is better than getting pregnant, and then terminating the pregnancy, so we'd still want to incentivize the better option and disincentivize the less-ideal option.

Even if one doesn't have an ethical qualm with an elective abortion on moral/religious grounds. If living in a societal framework in which all medical procedures are paid for by state funds, the costs and use of medical infrastructure for avoiding parenthood is sub-par compared to condoms, birth control pills, and IUDs.


I would suggest that for someone like myself (that's a moderate on the issue) it's a topic that has some similarities (in that there's a behavior component, a risk/outcome profile, and something that involves a biological impulse/drive/urge component) to eating & obesity.

Obviously we don't want to "shame" overweight people, that's not why it's frowned upon.
Obviously "wanting to eat tasty food" is a biological urge we all share (much like sexual activity, can be prone to impulse)
I don't think that a person is specifically engaging in that behavior because they're saying "I want to get up to 350lbs and get diabetes and knee pain"
Obviously we don't want to "punish them" by denying them medical care or assistance in perhaps undoing the unplanned consequences

But at the same time, we don't want the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction, I don't want to enable or incentivize the risky behavior either. I don't want to make it so easy that a person throws caution to the wind when they order in the restaurant because "I know they'll just send me some ozempic and pay for my lapband surgery if this decision backfires"

I want someone to say "I don't have any condoms right now/I missed a few doses of my birth control ...now's not the right time" much like I'd want a person to say "y'know, the cheesecake looks amazing, but my doctor said my blood sugar's high and I really need to drop 15-20 ...we'll see how things look after my next follow-up visit" Rather than encouraging "I'm just gonna do what feels right in the moment right here an now, there's always a back up if something happens"



So it's one thing to have legal protections written into the revised codes & statutes that offer protections (even for things that are the result of mistakes or poor decision making), putting something in a constitution-style document (as if it's something to be proud of or some emblem of core values...as if it's a good thing) isn't necessarily the approach I would go with.

 

[stevil]

But that challenge I was highlighting is a real one. If people have a right to universal freedom of movement, to any country they wish, how does that target country plan to accommodate a large (relative to their current population) influx of new people.

How do you interpret
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
as
"If people have a right to universal freedom of movement, to any country they wish"

Do you see that these things are very different? Also there is a difference between allowing all refugees in, and having a limit on the number of refugees accepted per day/month/year.

Cultural and language aspects aside (though those are still valid challenges worth considering),

Feels like you've been listening to too much right wing fear mongering.

For instance, if even 5 million people from the US decided they wanted to leave the US (they felt discriminated against) and pack up and go to Canada,

Felt discriminated against? Could they prove that they were in danger in USA, that they would very likely be harmed if they stayed?
There is also the Southern border. Canada doesn't have to accept everyone. And also probably many people crossing the border will use Canada as an exit door but might then move on to other places, e.g. Europe, Australia, NZ, or whereever.

But lets see if what you are doing is engaging in fear filled hyperbole.
What is the current population growth in USA?

U.S. Population Growth Rate 1950-2024

Chart and table of U.S. population from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

• The current population of U.S. in 2024 is 341,814,420, a 0.53% increase from 2023.
• The population of U.S. in 2023 was 339,996,563, a 0.5% increase from 2022.
• The population of U.S. in 2022 was 338,289,857, a 0.38% increase from 2021.
• The population of U.S. in 2021 was 336,997,624, a 0.31% increase from 2020.

What is the net migration levels?

U.S. Net Migration Rate 1950-2024

Chart and table of the U.S. net migration rate from 1950 to 2024. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

• The current net migration rate for U.S. in 2024 is 2.768 per 1000 population, a 0.73% increase from 2023.
• The net migration rate for U.S. in 2023 was 2.748 per 1000 population, a 1.29% decline from 2022.
• The net migration rate for U.S. in 2022 was 2.784 per 1000 population, a 1.28% decline from 2021.
• The net migration rate for U.S. in 2021 was 2.820 per 1000 population, a 1.3% decline from 2020.

Are you sure you want to continue on with your hypothetical of 5 million USA folk fleeing persecution from USA and entering Canada, a country of 39 million = 12.8% population increase?

So what's the limiting principle that determines whether or not A) a medical procedure is a requirement that should be covered by publicly accrued funds, and B) whether or not more emphasis/onus needs to be placed on more responsible behaviors.

Huh? You want me to define for you off the cuff a comprehensive medical procedure funding policy?
I would think that there is a budget, a pool of money.
And that gets allocated based on severity of issue and having the most "bang for the buck", e.g. if $1mill can save 100 lives rather than 10 lives, then you go for the 100 lives. What do you think? Please think pragmatism, not idealism. I'm not an idealist.

For instance, it's fine to say "if someone has liver issues, we'll make sure they can access the medications and/or surgery they need", but at what point is there more emphasis put on "hey, you shouldn't be drinking 6 glasses of scotch per day"

The govt should provide resources to help people out with drinking problems, they should also provide resources towards promotion of responsible drinking habits. Remember alcoholism is a disease, it's not an irresponsible choice.

There has to be some measure of "social responsibility" incorporated into the equation.

Sure. Think pragmatism, not idealism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How do you interpret
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
as
"If people have a right to universal freedom of movement, to any country they wish"

Because when I've tossed out the idea that asylum should be conducted under the pretense of "reaching the first safe nation", that idea has gotten some pushback from folks on the left.

Under the framing in the UN document referenced, I don't see how it could mean anything else.

Article 13 states:

1. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

How does that gel with concept of nations being allowed to set a limit on how many new people can come in?

If every country (combined) has a collective limit that's less than the total population of earth, then "everyone has a right to leave any country" is a mathematical impossibility.

So in order for such a right to exist, there would have to be no limits on migration.

Feels like you've been listening to too much right wing fear mongering.

Acknowledging that cultural and language differences are a challenge?

That's not right wing fear mongering, that's just a simple reality. Even very progressive countries understand that a common language is very important to a functioning society.

For instance:

Official certificate of language proficiency

If you want to apply for Finnish citizenship, you will need an official certificate of your skills in Finnish or Swedish. You can also demonstrate the required language skills in Finnish or Finland-Swedish Sign Language. The certificate is usually beneficial when applying for a job or study place.

www.infofinland.fi

If you want to apply for Finnish citizenship, you will need an official certificate of your skills in Finnish or Swedish. You can also demonstrate the required language skills in Finnish or Finland-Swedish Sign Language. The certificate is usually beneficial when applying for a job or study place.
You can prove your language skills with the following:

• National Certificate of Language Proficiency
• Civil Service Language Proficiency Certificate.

Felt discriminated against? Could they prove that they were in danger in USA, that they would very likely be harmed if they stayed?
There is also the Southern border. Canada doesn't have to accept everyone. And also probably many people crossing the border will use Canada as an exit door but might then move on to other places, e.g. Europe, Australia, NZ, or whereever.

But lets see if what you are doing is engaging in fear filled hyperbole.

Under the framework of the UN Declaration of Rights, is there a burden of proof?

Are you sure you want to continue on with your hypothetical of 5 million USA folk fleeing persecution from USA and entering Canada, a country of 39 million = 12.8% population increase?

Sure, because we've seen other countries have larger percentages of their population fleeing.

5 million people leaving the US (330 million people) is a smaller percentage based on population size than the people who fled Syria.

If what the US progressives claim is true (that gun violence, racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia are ubiquitous in the US), then they'd have a right to flee would they not?

The govt should provide resources to help people out with drinking problems, they should also provide resources towards promotion of responsible drinking habits. Remember alcoholism is a disease, it's not an irresponsible choice.

Mmmm...not so sure about that latter part.

If a person never drinks a drop of alcohol in their life, can they become an alcoholic?

If the answer is "no", then that means there's a choice involved somewhere in the timeline, correct?

Can you name any other disease where you can address it simply by denying the person the thing they want?

 

[stevil]

Because when I've tossed out the idea that asylum should be conducted under the pretense of "reaching the first safe nation", that idea has gotten some pushback from folks on the left.

OK, not sure why you are bringing baggage like that into a conversation with me. I couldn't care less if folk are right or left.
I find it really weird that you say "when I've tossed out the idea that asylum should be conducted under the pretense of"
It immediately shows that you aren't being genuine in your "conversation" but instead are a "bad actor"

No one is suggesting Open Borders, and no one is arguing that the asylum qualification criteria be changed. (well, maybe someone is, but it isn't the BIG issue).

The following
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Does not mean open borders like you strangely tried to make out.

Under the framing in the UN document referenced, I don't see how it could mean anything else.

Very weird that you are saying this. I have no idea how you can come to this very strange conclusion.

Article 13 states:

1. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

How does that gel with concept of nations being allowed to set a limit on how many new people can come in?

Um, what?!

Article 13 is an entirely different topic.
Article 13 is about a country controlling it's own citizens passage across the country's own border.

If you live in a free world country, you will find that you don't need permission, don't need visa in order to leave your own country, and you don't need permission, don't need Visa in order to enter your own country.
I think you are being rather silly here. Please try to engage with best efforts rather than being silly or unnecessarily argumentative or combative.

Article 13 has got nothing to do with accepting of non citizens on grounds of asylum.

If every country (combined) has a collective limit that's less than the total population of earth, then "everyone has a right to leave any country" is a mathematical impossibility.

This is just so weird.
It is the foreign country that decides who they let in. But the host country cannot stop their citizens from leaving.
Two different administrations. Try not to conflate.

So in order for such a right to exist, there would have to be no limits on migration.

LOL, WHAT! very silly logic and very incorrect interpretations of Article 13 and Article 14 which are different topics.

Acknowledging that cultural and language differences are a challenge?

I understand that fans of Tucker, or Ingrahm are worries about the USA culture shifting from white Christian. It might actually happen one day too. But so what?

That's not right wing fear mongering, that's just a simple reality. Even very progressive countries understand that a common language is very important to a functioning society.

It's not language that many on the USA right are afraid of.

Under the framework of the UN Declaration of Rights, is there a burden of proof?

That document is just a framework. It doesn't spell out everything. Your country has a right to vet who comes in. Has a right to ask for proof of persecution and danger.

5 million people leaving the US (330 million people) is a smaller percentage based on population size than the people who fled Syria.

Well, perhaps cross that bridge when you come to it. Right now, USA does not have a problem anything like what you were suggesting.
Net migration has been on the negatives for most recent years and this year is very slightly positive. You don't have a problem with needing to up your infrastructure to cope.

If what the US progressives claim is true (that gun violence, racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia are ubiquitous in the US), then they'd have a right to flee would they not?

US citizens can freely leave USA, refer to article 13 which no doubt is supported by USA law.

Mmmm...not so sure about that latter part.

If a person never drinks a drop of alcohol in their life, can they become an alcoholic?

If the answer is "no", then that means there's a choice involved somewhere in the timeline, correct?

Can you name any other disease where you can address it simply by denying the person the thing they want?

Good luck with this line of thinking. I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Please remember pragmatism, not stoic idealism

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think that's correct...

As noted before, some of the states with highest abortion rates have some of the most comprehensive sex-ed in the country, and some of the best access to contraception.

The "be able to do want you want, and not be saddled down with a kid for 18 years if you make an impulsive" being correlated with some sort of "sexual empowerment" is driving this more than the rare 22 year old who's not aware of IUDs or what kind of lubricants will cause a condom to break.

To reiterate... For the abortions that take place in the US: 49% - not using contraception; 18% using contraception improperly. That means that for every one person who's trying to do the right thing but just wasn't properly informed (possibly, that 18% could include some bad decision making as well...but for the sake of argument, we'll say they were all honest mistakes), there's 2-3 people making an impulsive bone-headed decision to have unprotected sex when they know the potential consequences.

Further evidence that birth control misinformation is on the rise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/21/stopping-birth-control-misinformation