| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/10/2012 12:55:29 PM · #1301 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My beef with you is the contention that your Moral Error Theory would say that there is no moral dimension to infanticide at all; that saying it is right or wrong is nonsensical. |
"It's hard to argue when you put false words in my mouth." Please quote me specifically claiming to subscribe to Moral Error theory. Of course, there's a moral dimension, but the blanket statement that it's universally right or wrong is demonstrably false as proven by your own statements.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It has no relevance to this country because...it doesn't happen in our country? |
In over 90% of cases, it's not even possible since gender is unknown at the time. If you'd like to use an ethical problem with some fraction of the remainder as grounds for judging the whole morally wrong, then by similar assertion we can declare Catholic priests morally wrong since 4% have been involved with sex abuse. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:00:03 PM · #1302 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'd think, plentiful birth control would lead to fewer abortions and fewer numbers of unwanted babies. It's all connected. |
This seems to make sense, but the statistics in this country do not seem to bear it out. One could argue that the availability and acceptability of birth control has risen since the 1970s (when abortion became legal and we have valid statistics). The abortion rate, however, has remained stable compared to the 70s (athough it has risen and fallen in the interval).
 |
Maybe. But statistics only tell so much. How many of those abortions were strictly for medical reasons? How many were a case of rape, incest? How many were simply because the child was unwanted, unplanned and birth control failed? And how many were because abortion was being used as the primary form of birth control? Those things really do make a difference. As the population trends towards later in life pregnancies, the risks of abnormalities goes up along with a higher chance of abortion. Mind you, this is all off the top of my head (I'm not looking at any statistics, because mainly I think they're meaningless). And finally, how much higher would those numbers be if birth control were not available? Years ago, I knew a couple that got pregnant and aborted at least once a year. He refused to use birth control or allow her to use it due to religious reasons. She would get the abortions behind his back. It was pretty bizarre. They did end up with a total of about 8 kids on top of at least 6 abortions that I know of. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:00:55 PM · #1303 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The interesting question is "what happened in 1995?" I don't think the answer is "better birth control". |
AIDS |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:02:52 PM · #1304 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The interesting question is "what happened in 1995?" I don't think the answer is "better birth control". |
AIDS |
You're off by about 15 years ... :-( |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:03:40 PM · #1305 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The interesting question is "what happened in 1995?" I don't think the answer is "better birth control". |
AIDS |
You're off by about 15 years ... :-( |
Easy E died in 1995, bringing AIDS to the forefront teenage pop culture. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:05:12 PM · #1306 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The interesting question is "what happened in 1995?" I don't think the answer is "better birth control". |
"Much of the drop in the abortion rate probably reflects a decreasing rate of unintended pregnancy, which fell among all age-groups between 1987 and 1994. The fall in the abortion rate was especially great among teenagers, some of whom began using effective, long-acting contraceptive methods that were not available before 1992... [Another] A factor contributing to the decline was the aging of the "baby boomers" into their late 30s and 40s, ages when there are fewer pregnancies and abortions... The reason the abortion rate stopped falling in 1996 is also unclear. One contributing factor may be declining use of the contraceptive implant, a method that received negative publicity about removal problems and product liability lawsuits."
Message edited by author 2012-05-10 13:07:03. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:05:55 PM · #1307 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The interesting question is "what happened in 1995?" I don't think the answer is "better birth control". |
AIDS |
Making Abortion Less Likely
Between 1995 and 2003, the global abortion rate dropped by 17%. Africa and Asia saw a 12% decline during the same period, and Latin America and the Caribbean experienced a drop of 16%. In Eastern Europe, though, the abortion rate plummeted by 51%. Notably, the largest decline occurred in the former Soviet bloc countries, where abortion has been legal the longest and is widely available.
Clearly, it is not the changes in abortion's legal status that can explain the decreased abortion rate worldwide, since many more countries liberalized access to abortion than restricted it. Significantly, though, during this same period, contraceptive use worldwide increased and unintended pregnancy rates fell. Where contraceptive use increased the most, abortion rates dropped the most. Contraceptive use has increased globally and in every region of the world, but it remains extremely low in Africa (see chart). Not surprisingly, therefore, the world's highest levels of unintended pregnancy can be found in Africa—86 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, almost three times the rate in western Europe. Indeed, the 26% of women in developing countries who are at risk of unintended pregnancy but do not practice contraception or use only traditional methods account for 82% of the 75 million unintended pregnancies that occur each year. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:06:26 PM · #1308 |
| according to the footnotes of the table, from 1995 onward, they used 46 reporting areas, implying this data was different than what was being used before. I suspect *that* is what happened in 1995. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:15:04 PM · #1309 |
| to cement my theory I'd like to see if there was a spike in condom sales in 1995. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:17:29 PM · #1310 |
All three of your objections (frisca, Kelli, Shannon) don't seem to bear up.
Frisca, that does need a closer look, but the main drop happened BEFORE the line and we can't really look at 1995 as some magical birth control year (Kelli's hypothesis). What case can be made that 1994-1995 allowed a large increase in the availability of birth control.
Kelli, is your argument really that statistics are meaningless? Yikes. Your questions are valid, but we would then have to show that medical reasons for abortion, or rapes, or other reasons increased to make up for the drop of "birth control" abortions. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems doubtful since we're talking such large numbers.
Shannon, can you elucidate what contraceptive methods "were not available before 1992" for teens? Maybe you are onto something, but we'd need to know some important facts. How many abortions do teens even get? Can it account for a drop of 400,000. The drop because of the "baby boomers" might be valid, but doesn't support Kelli's hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:21:48 PM · #1311 |
BTW, you can find some updated numbers on the CDC for 2008. The numbers have essentially not changed. You can find some other information to questions asked. "Medical abortions" (ie. for medical reasons), for example, accounted for about 14% of all abortions. I'm never afraid to look at good statistics and share them.
Here's your methodology answer frica. It seems they actually feel the number AFTER the line are more reliable due to standardization of methodology.
"Although reporting to CDC is voluntary, most reporting areas do provide aggregate abortion numbers: during 1999--2008, a total of 45 reporting areas provided CDC a continuous annual record of abortion numbers,â€Â and in 2008, CDC obtained aggregate abortion numbers from 49 reporting areas (excludes California, Maryland, and New Hampshire). However, the level of detail that CDC receives on the characteristics of women obtaining abortions varies considerably from year to year and among reporting areas. To encourage more uniform collection of these details, CDC has developed a model reporting form to serve as a technical guide (17). However, because the collection of abortion data is not federally mandated, reporting areas can develop their own forms and do not necessarily collect all the information that CDC compiles."
Message edited by author 2012-05-10 13:23:40. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:22:02 PM · #1312 |
| I only pointed to the information on the table. I have no idea why the dip starting around 1992. I think we'd have to look at the raw data, changes in policy, practice and reporting, as well as more extraneous factors like sex education programs, changes in the availability of condoms/birth control to various groups, etc. And that would just be a starting point to try to figure out the reason for the numbers. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:22:56 PM · #1313 |
| The main cause, without a doubt, was global warming. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:24:22 PM · #1314 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I only pointed to the information on the table. I have no idea why the dip starting around 1992. I think we'd have to look at the raw data, changes in policy, practice and reporting, as well as more extraneous factors like sex education programs, changes in the availability of condoms/birth control to various groups, etc. And that would just be a starting point to try to figure out the reason for the numbers. |
I totally agree with you. But you need to tell that to Kelli who has made an assertion. It's her job to defend it. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:26:52 PM · #1315 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I only pointed to the information on the table. I have no idea why the dip starting around 1992. I think we'd have to look at the raw data, changes in policy, practice and reporting, as well as more extraneous factors like sex education programs, changes in the availability of condoms/birth control to various groups, etc. And that would just be a starting point to try to figure out the reason for the numbers. |
Magic Johnson revealed he was HIV positive in 1992 was it? and when Eazy-E suddenly got hospitalized and died in 1995 the whole MTV generation took notice. i dont think its a coincidence that the two biggest instances of AIDS public awareness corresponds to a decrease in abortions.
People started to be more careful. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:31:44 PM · #1316 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, can you elucidate what contraceptive methods "were not available before 1992" for teens? |
The study is HERE. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 01:39:34 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
I only pointed to the information on the table. I have no idea why the dip starting around 1992. I think we'd have to look at the raw data, changes in policy, practice and reporting, as well as more extraneous factors like sex education programs, changes in the availability of condoms/birth control to various groups, etc. And that would just be a starting point to try to figure out the reason for the numbers. |
I totally agree with you. But you need to tell that to Kelli who has made an assertion. It's her job to defend it. |
//www.fhi360.org/en/rh/pubs/network/v21_4/nwvol21-4abortcontception.htm
I told you I didn't have facts, I was talking off the top of my head reasons that made sense. Maybe this article will help clear up what I've been getting at. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 02:29:04 PM · #1318 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, can you elucidate what contraceptive methods "were not available before 1992" for teens? |
The study is HERE. |
Thanks. They are talking about Depo-Provera and Norplant. The first in injectible, the second is an implant. The second is a non-factor as it was taken off the market in 2002 (and we haven't seen a sudden rise in abortions). In five minutes I can't nail down the proper numbers to evaluate the hypothesis. Of interest would be the number of people who use depo-provera and their demographics and if one could use that to confirm the drop in abortions was due, in large part, to this. Frankly, I'm dubious, but I can't find any use over time statistics.
Message edited by author 2012-05-10 14:29:15. |
|
|
|
05/11/2012 05:35:20 AM · #1319 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by frisca:
I only pointed to the information on the table. I have no idea why the dip starting around 1992. I think we'd have to look at the raw data, changes in policy, practice and reporting, as well as more extraneous factors like sex education programs, changes in the availability of condoms/birth control to various groups, etc. And that would just be a starting point to try to figure out the reason for the numbers. |
Magic Johnson revealed he was HIV positive in 1992 was it? and when Eazy-E suddenly got hospitalized and died in 1995 the whole MTV generation took notice. i dont think its a coincidence that the two biggest instances of AIDS public awareness corresponds to a decrease in abortions.
People started to be more careful. |
...and people were trying to do just that in Africa, but the Catholic church only recently changed its views on the use of prophylactic and only if their use is to prevent aids...slowly we are getting there.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/11/2012 08:51:33 AM · #1320 |
Interesting article/study on "Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1996"
//www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3227200.html
".......much of the pregnancy decline resulted from contraceptive use, rather than delayed sexual activity. The use of new long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods may have played a major role. Among teenage contraceptive users with children, 22% of non-Hispanic whites and a remarkable 53% of blacks were using injectables or implants in 1995."
"The abortion rate has fallen more rapidly than the birthrate and pregnancy rate, indicating that a higher proportion of pregnant teenagers are choosing to give birth and not to have an abortion."................The reasons for the trend among teenagers and the differences between non-Hispanic white and black and Hispanic teenagers merit further investigation. Among the possibilities are that antiabortion sentiment and acceptance of nonmarital childbearing may have increased among teenagers, especially among non-Hispanic white teenagers; that abortion services have become less accessible; that state requirements involving parental involvement and waiting periods may be posing new barriers; and that the teenagers who are most motivated to avoid childbearing are the ones who have adopted long- acting contraceptive methods.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2012 12:09:54 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Interesting article/study on "Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1996"
//www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3227200.html
".......much of the pregnancy decline resulted from contraceptive use, rather than delayed sexual activity. The use of new long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods may have played a major role. Among teenage contraceptive users with children, 22% of non-Hispanic whites and a remarkable 53% of blacks were using injectables or implants in 1995."
"The abortion rate has fallen more rapidly than the birthrate and pregnancy rate, indicating that a higher proportion of pregnant teenagers are choosing to give birth and not to have an abortion."................The reasons for the trend among teenagers and the differences between non-Hispanic white and black and Hispanic teenagers merit further investigation. Among the possibilities are that antiabortion sentiment and acceptance of nonmarital childbearing may have increased among teenagers, especially among non-Hispanic white teenagers; that abortion services have become less accessible; that state requirements involving parental involvement and waiting periods may be posing new barriers; and that the teenagers who are most motivated to avoid childbearing are the ones who have adopted long- acting contraceptive methods. |
I know conservatives that won't even listen to Guttmacher because they consider it a mouthpiece for PP. Take that for what it's worth. The second quote is probably reasonable indicating the reasons for the 90's drop in abortion rates is multifactorial and hard to pin down. One thing to always watch for in the first quote is the selective group of patients. 1) teens 2) have had a child already 3) are using birth control. We've probably narrowed down to a relatively small population. I found a study from 2000 that showed long-acting hormonal contraceptive use was 15% among black women 18-44 and 3% among whites. So either the use dropped substantially (which is possible since this type of birth control has worries about cancer risk (the reason Pfizer took Norplant off the market)), or the original group Guttmacher mentioned is a non-representative group.
Message edited by author 2012-05-11 12:10:46. |
|
|
|
05/11/2012 01:50:52 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Interesting article/study on "Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1996"
//www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3227200.html
".......much of the pregnancy decline resulted from contraceptive use, rather than delayed sexual activity. The use of new long-acting hormonal contraceptive methods may have played a major role. Among teenage contraceptive users with children, 22% of non-Hispanic whites and a remarkable 53% of blacks were using injectables or implants in 1995."
"The abortion rate has fallen more rapidly than the birthrate and pregnancy rate, indicating that a higher proportion of pregnant teenagers are choosing to give birth and not to have an abortion."................The reasons for the trend among teenagers and the differences between non-Hispanic white and black and Hispanic teenagers merit further investigation. Among the possibilities are that antiabortion sentiment and acceptance of nonmarital childbearing may have increased among teenagers, especially among non-Hispanic white teenagers; that abortion services have become less accessible; that state requirements involving parental involvement and waiting periods may be posing new barriers; and that the teenagers who are most motivated to avoid childbearing are the ones who have adopted long- acting contraceptive methods. |
I know conservatives that won't even listen to Guttmacher because they consider it a mouthpiece for PP. Take that for what it's worth. The second quote is probably reasonable indicating the reasons for the 90's drop in abortion rates is multifactorial and hard to pin down. One thing to always watch for in the first quote is the selective group of patients. 1) teens 2) have had a child already 3) are using birth control. We've probably narrowed down to a relatively small population. I found a study from 2000 that showed long-acting hormonal contraceptive use was 15% among black women 18-44 and 3% among whites. So either the use dropped substantially (which is possible since this type of birth control has worries about cancer risk (the reason Pfizer took Norplant off the market)), or the original group Guttmacher mentioned is a non-representative group. |
Conservatives who wouldn't even look at an article using statistics taken from public records puzzle me - they must be very close-minded. I'm not sure what these authors would gain by "lying" when trying to summarize statistics from the different footnoted sources. Personally, I like to see what each side has to say.
Since the article was titled \"Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1996\" I figured that is who they were studying. :-) However, some of the reasons for the drop in abortions could most likely be said of women in the older age groups, especially the acceptance of "nonmarital childbearing", abortion becoming less accessible, and the increased use in all the different methods of birth control, whether because of the AIDS scare or not wanting to get pregnant. Today women have "Plan B", the morning after pill, which is readily available to women 18 and older without a prescription (in some areas 17 year olds can get it). |
|
|
|
05/11/2012 02:20:52 PM · #1323 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Conservatives who wouldn't even look at an article using statistics taken from public records puzzle me - they must be very close-minded. I'm not sure what these authors would gain by "lying" when trying to summarize statistics from the different footnoted sources. Personally, I like to see what each side has to say. |
I agree. People should always be willing to look at statistics, but they should always be able to look at the actual statistics (and it would be great if they had the education to interpret them for themself). You and I both know that stats can be spun to portray very different stories without actually lying about the stats. The gain by Guttmacher is clear and potentially a conflict in interest. They are described by wiki, as a "semi-autonomous branch of Planned Parenthood" and one can easily understand that the results of studies such as this can influence the money funnelled into or out of Planned Parenthood. This potential conflict of interest doesn't mean that the results are actually false, but it does raise a warning to be extra vigilant about nosing around the data. I would (and do) use that same cautionary application to a medical study funded by a drug company that has a vested interest in the disease being studied. Some doctors will simply ignore drug industry sponsored studies because they don't want to put the work into sorting out the good from the bad (which isn't always easy, you have to assume there is no "behind the scenes shenanigans"). This isn't unreasonable and someone who would do the same for Guttmacher would be, likewise, reasonable. |
|
|
|
05/11/2012 02:47:01 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Conservatives who wouldn't even look at an article using statistics taken from public records puzzle me - they must be very close-minded. I'm not sure what these authors would gain by "lying" when trying to summarize statistics from the different footnoted sources. Personally, I like to see what each side has to say. |
I agree. People should always be willing to look at statistics, but they should always be able to look at the actual statistics (and it would be great if they had the education to interpret them for themself). You and I both know that stats can be spun to portray very different stories without actually lying about the stats. The gain by Guttmacher is clear and potentially a conflict in interest. They are described by wiki, as a "semi-autonomous branch of Planned Parenthood" and one can easily understand that the results of studies such as this can influence the money funnelled into or out of Planned Parenthood. This potential conflict of interest doesn't mean that the results are actually false, but it does raise a warning to be extra vigilant about nosing around the data. I would (and do) use that same cautionary application to a medical study funded by a drug company that has a vested interest in the disease being studied. Some doctors will simply ignore drug industry sponsored studies because they don't want to put the work into sorting out the good from the bad (which isn't always easy, you have to assume there is no "behind the scenes shenanigans"). This isn't unreasonable and someone who would do the same for Guttmacher would be, likewise, reasonable. |
Granted statistics can be spun to further an agenda and funding but I find it ironic that a Planned Parenthood, implemented under Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970 to provide contraceptives, cancer screenings, and pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease testing at community health centers across the country, is now vilified by the Republicans. I wonder where women who have no health insurance are to go? :-/
|
|
|
|
05/11/2012 03:20:44 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
[Granted statistics can be spun to further an agenda and funding but I find it ironic that a Planned Parenthood, implemented under Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970 to provide contraceptives, cancer screenings, and pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease testing at community health centers across the country, is now vilified by the Republicans. I wonder where women who have no health insurance are to go? :-/ |
Not ironic at all when you consider 1970=no abortion. The issue is so polarizing that the shines with a glare so bright as to blind those against PP to its other benefits. PP is the de facto abortion provider in the US. But listen, just so it is clear, I have no problem with PP's role in doing all the other things it does. I think it is very helpful and very necessary.
Message edited by author 2012-05-11 15:23:25. |
|
