Pro-Choice / Pro-Life Retread

[ur-bane]

That was a good post, Plissken. And because most statistics are from sites with agendas, I stated that I wanted to do more research.

Once again I am at work where I cannot read .pdf documents, but I found what is considered to be a reliable source for unbiased abortion statistics.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to check it out and see if there are any stats about abortion vs. income?

[Cail]

Request denied by WatchGuard HTTP proxy.
Reason: one or more categories denied helper='newWebBlocker.1' details='sex-education'
Method: GET
Host: www.agi-usa.org
Path: /

Well, it won't be me....

[Prebe]

The reasons women cited as “most important” are that they are not ready for a child or another child (25%), and they cannot afford a baby right now (23%). Nearly four in 10 women surveyed said they had already had all the children they wanted. The reasons women gave in 1987, the last year in which this survey was conducted, were similar.

Emphasis mine.
It shouldn't prevent them from using contraception. Unless they are catholics of course.

[Cail]

Most American Catholics have no issue with contraception.

The "Cannot afford a baby now" statistic is near worthless. Whether you make $20,000/year or $120,000/year, there are people that think they can't afford a baby. My household income was $38,000/year when my daughter was born, and we made it work. It's the old adage; if you wait until you can afford it to have a child, you'll never have a child.

[ur-bane]

Is that the only survey available? It is showing a date of 1987? Surely changes have taken place in 18 years since the compilation of those statistics?

And what I am really trying to find is the percentage of abortions by income levels, as illustrated in my post a page or two back.

[Prebe]

No, the study is comparing data from 1987 and from 2004, and is truly interesting. However, I am afraid that nobody here will have a smoking gun to point at their peers.

[ur-bane]

Not looking for smoking guns, Prebe.

My curiosity is that I had been previously under the impression that women with lesser incomes would be more likely to have an abortion than those with higher incomes.

If this is not the case, IMHO, it strikes hard at the validity of the "I can't afford a child" argument that is commonly used, and further categorizes abortion as a substitute for contraception.

[Plissken]

Not to keep harping on the bias of that site, but:

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Now, ignoring the most obvious point - which is that approximately 111.7% of women having abortions are mentioned in these stats - what kind of worldview does it take to not even notice (when writing or reading the copy for this site, apparently) that apparently Pagans, Muslims, Hindis, etc, don't have any abortions?

[ur-bane]

It just goes to show you that all these types of statistics are misleading, and accuracy is questionable no matter what.

Something from the CDC site:

Women aged 20--24 years were known to have obtained 33% of all abortions for which age was adequately reported. Women aged <15 years were known to have obtained <1.0% of all abortions in areas where age was reported (Table 4).

So far it seems to favor teens as having less abortions, which would be accurate. But let's take a further look at the same paragraph:

Abortion ratios were highest for the youngest women (708 abortions per 1,000 live births for women aged <15 years)

So basically, anyone can take any part of the statistics that suits their agenda, and make a believable case.

Abortion ratios are commonly used (in my recent research) to identify abortion rates for a group of women.

EDIT: Here's the site, with all the raw data stats in tables at the bottom of the (really long) page. Draw your own conclusions: Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000

[Prebe]

Now, ignoring the most obvious point - which is that approximately 111.7% of women having abortions are mentioned in these stats -

117%??? Then it's about time we do something about it!

[ur-bane]

Um, Prebe...you didn't ignore the most obvious point.

[Prebe]

Sorry ur-bane. I just can't help thinking that a 111.7% are to many abortions
Before we know, the figure will have gone up to 200% or more!

[Plissken]

ROTFLMAO!

[sgt.null]

ur-bane : i don't let it get me down. most folks say that i have unrealistic expectations.

the stats can be used in many ways, but the total number of abortions is heart-breaking. and not being blessed with children, it pisses me off that anyone would think they have enough children. as if children were just another pair of shoes. i treasure my grandson, but my stepson could care less about him. this attitude seems widespread.

[Plissken]

ur-bane : i don't let it get me down. most folks say that i have unrealistic expectations.

the stats can be used in many ways, but the total number of abortions is heart-breaking. and not being blessed with children, it pisses me off that anyone would think they have enough children...

Sometimes, I think that this is the heart of the matter. "I'm not satisfied with how my life has turned out,and others have let me down, so I'm going to judge others based on my disappointment."

[sgt.null]

plissken: as pessimistic as i can be about our goverment i still believe that man is capable of so much. that's why i want to lock up criminals and lift people from the poverty loop. how much better would the world be if folks didn't have to worry about the necessities and could focus on improving themselves? how many Bachs and Picassos are out there who have to give up their talents for survival? how many who die needlessly?

[Plissken]

That's a good question. Why is it directed at me?