First scientific study of women denied abortions

The conclusions expressed in this article must be a dilema for conservatives:

Most of the women who were denied an abortion, 86%, were living with their babies a year later. Only 11% had put them up for adoption. Also a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76% of the turnaways were on the dole, as opposed to 44% of those who got abortions. 67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line (vs. 56% of the women who got abortions), and only 48% had a full time job (vs. 58% of the women who got abortions).

When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers' increased reliance on public assistance programs.

(my underlining)

so which is preferable - abortion, increased state support, or failing either of those an ever growing underclass of poverty stricken americans born into it?


Personal disclaimer:
I call myself a "weak" anti-abortionist - my opposition is philosophical in that IMO a human being is created at conception. However I hold this position weakly in that I recognise a difference between a "human being" and a "person" - clearly a zygote is not a "person" in that it does not have a personality, etc.

My prefered "solution" would be sex education and easy voluntary fertility control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, full state support to carry any that still happened to term, and easy adoption for people who still did not want the children....but that's not going to happen any time soon!

To be blunt, did we really need a study to see this coming? I mean, really. Women don't just willy nilly go and get abortions in the vast majority of cases. They do it because they feel it's best for everybody involved.

It's a big deal to most people...And the ones it's not a big deal to? Better for the child and society as a whole that these folks get one if you ask me.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I find it interesting that they didn't address the fathers. The family is the most important factor in raising children, and a lot of the issues the mothers faced wouldn't be an issue if daddy was bringing home the bacon. Feminists blame men for keeping women down and having a male dominated society for thousands and thousands of years, but the blunt truth is that it is a natural order centered around children and the family. Woman has a child and takes care of it, Man provides for family. The push for single motherhood has been a huge detriment because it's not how it's supposed to be done.

Regardless, still an interesting study.

yay more research from the water is wet dept.

amazing what needs researched to convince stupid people of what is obvious

reply to post by MeesterB


Woman has a child and takes care of it, Man provides for family. The push for single motherhood has been a huge detriment because it's not how it's supposed to be done.





Wow...the thought of you procreating makes me worry.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am always bewildered that the Child is never considered. How might the Child like to enjoy some rights. I was an unwanted orphan and because of the government at the time and the church - who handled my adoption - I still to this day have no medical history, no cultural history and no rights with regard to my identity.

The rights of the Unborn Child need to be front and centre. I have chosen to not bring Children into this world - some would say because of my background and that is most probably a sub conscious rationalisation. At the top of my list is the fact I have no medical history and I do not want to bring a Child into this world if they are going to be disadvantaged medically. I refuse to let ignorance and apathy control my decision making. Any Child by me needs to have the certainty of good health and I cannot guarantee that - end of story. The Unborn Child needs an identity and needs a medical background and needs to feel wanted.

The psychological needs of the Child should come FIRST - not the needs of the bloody do gooders and religious anti abortionists. Life is sacred I agree but how sacred is a Child addicted to drugs and whatever else because they need to block out the pain. Plenty of Children are addicted to drugs and whatever and they have parents. Some parents don't want the Children but they want the government handouts - it's a bl**dy vicious circle and the ultimate victim is the unwanted Child.

If all the anti abortionists want to take an Unwanted Child each (possibly more) and raise them as their own - fine - but when people who shout the loudest don't want to be a part of the solution - mind your own business while the sane and awakened do their best to help the disadvantaged.

Much Peace...to all the Unwanted Children on this planet...

reply to post by facelift


Okay maybe you can reverse the roles now, but women lactate for a reason. Women have been raising children for...ummm... ever. Look at all the unreached tribes in Papua New guinae. Men hunt and build, women tend to children and cook. Start screwing it up and breaking up the family and it's no surprise that single mothers are depressed and on government assistance. Just like it's no surprise that urban areas are filled with violent, directionless youth.

I am going to procreate, and my woman wants to be a mother. She gets it, and we get along fine because we understand our different but equal roles in the partnership that is husband and wife. If she wants to work, fine, but we aren't paying someone to raise our children just because it's "progressive."

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I find it interesting that they didn't address the fathers.

For the most part they are absent - and it is, literally, the mother left holding the baby.

given that he study is about WOMEN who are turned awway from getting an abortion, how would men be addressed? Perhaps in the same way that a study about sub-atomic particles addresses food safety??

the role of men in the lives of women may well be a worthy subject for study - but it was not the subject of this one.

The family is the most important factor in raising children, and a lot of the issues the mothers faced wouldn't be an issue if daddy was bringing home the bacon.

Or you could consider the actual reality that people are facing today??

Feminists blame men for keeping women down and having a male dominated society for thousands and thousands of years, but the blunt truth is that it is a natural order centered around children and the family. Woman has a child and takes care of it, Man provides for family. The push for single motherhood has been a huge detriment because it's not how it's supposed to be done.

I do not believe there is any such thing as a "push for single motherhood" - it sounds like something invented as a convenient excuse not to face reality.

I'm calling myself PRO-LIVING these days. Meaning we need to take care of children already living.

I support Global FREE birth control (including abortion).

These statistics are sad.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well single mothers are more likely to be depressed or get on government assistance. Why? Because it's difficult to care for a child and work. It's a problem for this study because it directly affects the results. It would be like a study coming out saying that 75% of people don't receive proper math education while having a large sample size of mentally handicapped people.

I'm not debating that it's difficult to raise children, because it is. I'm just pointing out that the study is done in a way that favors a particular outcome.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


This is what it will come down to eventually. The only thing that will get past a fundie's need to judge others is his pocketbook.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
To be blunt, did we really need a study to see this coming? I mean, really. Women don't just willy nilly go and get abortions in the vast majority of cases. They do it because they feel it's best for everybody involved.

It's a big deal to most people...And the ones it's not a big deal to? Better for the child and society as a whole that these folks get one if you ask me.

edit on 13-11-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

Better for the child to be dead? Really. Tell me a scenario in which you think it would be better for YOU to be dead? Hypocrit.

Your thinking is a little bit Nazi like to me. You don't see it, do you? I didn't think so.

reply to post by Hillarie


If the mother can willy nilly get an abortion and it not be a difficult decision, then the woman going through with the pregnancy is going to mean that the child is going to be raised by a horrifying person and very, very likely have a life full of abuse, torture, and/or neglect.

Yes, in that case, it is better that the child never have to go through that and that society never has to live with the consequences of such a pitiful creature.

The Nazis wanted to sterilize people and all that crap because they wanted their perfect society and perfect race. I hold this attitude because I believe that it is insanity to euthanize a cat or a dog but also hold that a fellow human being must be forced to live through all kinds of horrible things and endless, unrelenting pain.

In my neighborhood, it doesn't matter if they can or can't get abortions. There's a pregnancy help center and fully functional planned parenthood for them to use. They just don't want to. Having a fatherless child (and all the extra cash incentives from it) is a status symbol in this city. I think it's brave and responsible for the woman to choose to carry the child. On the other hand, once they're pregnant, they know they got 18 years of housing, medical care, SNAP and TANF coming their way. They have no worries.

reply to post by Amanda5


So, are you saying you wish you had been aborted?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I suppose this "study" would have been more conclusive if the percentages of "women who had the babies" and "women who didn't" were a lot different than 20% on/off welfare.

100% women who did have the abortion, not on welfare. 100% women who had babies, on welfare.

What other differences did the non-child bearing women have that had them on welfare?

To me, it seems that "women" have choices and have different expectations of themselves and responsibilities to themselves, their "children", and society in general.

The world is full of responsible people, and not responsible people.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The conclusions expressed in this article must be a dilema for conservatives:

Most of the women who were denied an abortion, 86%, were living with their babies a year later. Only 11% had put them up for adoption. Also a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76% of the turnaways were on the dole, as opposed to 44% of those who got abortions. 67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line (vs. 56% of the women who got abortions), and only 48% had a full time job (vs. 58% of the women who got abortions).

When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers' increased reliance on public assistance programs.

(my underlining)

so which is preferable - abortion, increased state support, or failing either of those an ever growing underclass of poverty stricken americans born into it?


Personal disclaimer:
I call myself a "weak" anti-abortionist - my opposition is philosophical in that IMO a human being is created at conception. However I hold this position weakly in that I recognise a difference between a "human being" and a "person" - clearly a zygote is not a "person" in that it does not have a personality, etc.

My prefered "solution" would be sex education and easy voluntary fertility control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, full state support to carry any that still happened to term, and easy adoption for people who still did not want the children....but that's not going to happen any time soon!

How about none of the above, we make fathers responsible instead. This is a straw man argument. Just because something has to change does not mean abortion is the answer. Clearly there is a problem, abortion does not solve the problem it simply sweeps it under the rug.

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Amanda5

 

So, are you saying you wish you had been aborted?

I too am perplexed by Amanda's post.

reply to post by Happy1


If that is what I meant I would have stated that.

There is a huge gaping wound in my life that will never be rectified - because the people who made the decision to take away all my rights did not stop to think about how that might impact on my life. Unless of course you agree with them - that I don't deserve to have any rights??!!

I refuse to bring a Child into the world without knowing my medical history. I respect the rights of the unborn Child not the rights of interfering people who will never be a part of the welfare or care of a Child they fought to ensure was dragged through a life just because they say so.

I am not a bitter person - I am a realist if I have to be called anything. I look at the facts and the facts are if a woman does not want a Child - she should not have it. Imagine a world where people could look after their own business and let others look after theirs. A world where abortion did not have to be an option but it is there for those who choose that option - without prejudice.

Much Peace...to every Child who has been dragged through life instead of supported and nurtured...they know who they are...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I had an abortion when I was 23 years old, unemployed, dating an alcoholic and had no means of supporting myself, much less a baby. If I would have had the baby, the quality of life I would have offered it would have been poor. I would have been a terrible mother on welfare providing only the basics from a bad neighborhood.

Since the abortion over ten years ago, I have educated myself, started my own successful business, bought a home and car, married, and given myself a great life. I wouldn't have been able to do that as easily with an unwanted kid.

Do I regret not having the baby? Sometimes, especially now that my biological clock is ticking and I have postponed it. If I would have had the baby when I was younger, it would be a teen and that part of my life would be complete. Do I regret having the abortion? NEVER. Making the decision was a personal choice and a conscious decision and based solely on my circumstances at the time and not influenced by religious or political inclinations. It was not a decision we took lightly and I have thought about it often.

I would recommend an abortion (I prefer early term pre-3 month abortions because they are less risky) to any woman that feels that she will not provide the baby with a stable home and that is not able to provide for a child. Society requires inteliigent women making smart choices to survive.