The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:37:19 -0000

The AGI also concludes:

Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition

"personal choice" 98% (78-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility (32 %)
--economic 30% (21-36 %)
--to avoid adjusting life (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship (12-13 %)
--enough children already (4-8 %)
--sex selection (<0.1 %)

Quantifying cases involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.

These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases--rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby--are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI&#39s surveys of 1987 and 2004 (as well as the detailed statistics from Minnesota) suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:14:29 -0000

That is a lie. Absolutely untrue, and not even knowable. Your presumption is breathtaking.

He does have his posted study, and while it doesn&#39t equla 93% it adds up to 82%

What about you Kathy, where are your facts?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:27 -0000

In music, or politics? :-)

In music only, my mom is a moderate, who shares my belief that a woman should have the right to chose early in the pregnancy before mental activity can take place in the fetus but opposes late term abortions, and that taxpayers should not be burdened with stupid decisions made by others including abortions for women who couldn&#39t afford the cost of their pregnancy, an abortion, or the day after pill. My father on the other hand is strictly pro-life, but he never discusses the issue unless directly asked and doesn&#39t seek to push his views on others beyond his vote.

My mom is also I big opponent of the welfare state, and was very fond of Hiliary Clinton for what she represented to women. Had Hiliary won the nomination she had said she was undecided on who to vote for, but she voted for McCain since Hiliary wasn&#39t running. My mom is also strongly anti-war as she sees war as always the wrong answer, yet she is supportive of the troops and getting them the best as her brother was a marine in WWII, my father was a soldier, and my brother served as well. She may hate war, but she certainly loves our soldiers.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:37:19 -0000

The AGI also concludes:

Summary and conclusions: Based on these figures, the following estimated percentages are suggested (along with ranges of values from the above studies and analyses):

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition

"personal choice" 98% (78-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility (32 %)
--economic 30% (21-36 %)
--to avoid adjusting life (16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship (12-13 %)
--enough children already (4-8 %)
--sex selection (<0.1 %)

Quantifying cases involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the highly subjective use of this term (as demonstrated by the wide range in percentage of abortions reported for this reason). It is likely that the number of cases involving clinical mental illness falls towards the low end of the range given above.

These official state statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI figures for the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of three. In any case, however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases--rape, incest, life/health of mother or baby--are a very small fraction of cases. They are arguably a poor premise for formulating general public policy regarding abortion. At the other extreme, AGI's surveys of 1987 and 2004 (as well as the detailed statistics from Minnesota) suggest that a significant fraction of abortions are obtained by mothers who have the means to care for a child but do not want their lives inconvenienced. This is an example of the consequences of the current extreme policy in the United States regarding abortion.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:14:29 -0000

That is a lie. Absolutely untrue, and not even knowable. Your presumption is breathtaking.

He does have his posted study, and while it doesn't equla 93% it adds up to 82%

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: 2004 Study
Not Ready for children: 25%
Too immature: 7%
Relationship problems: 8%
Has all the children she wanted already: 19%
Can't afford a baby right now: 23%

25=7=8=19=23 = 82.

Futhermore the number is probably greater than 82% as the study cited also says

woman's parents want her to have abortion <0.5%
husband or partner wants her to have abortion <0.5%
-would interfere with education plans/career plans/would interfere with care of children or dependents 4%
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant <0.5%

That would bring the total to around 87% with 6% still in an "other" category that may or may not indicate irresponsibility.

Contrast that with:

rape/incest <0.5%
mother has health problems 4%
possible fetal health problems 3%

For a total of under 8%

with 6% in an "other" category, that may or may not indicate responsibility.

The study was done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

The Guttmacher Institute is a non-profit organization which works to advance reproductive health as defined by the World Health Organization. The institute operates in the United States and globally "through an interrelated program of social science research, policy analysis and public education." According to their mission statement, this program aims to "generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate, promote sound policy and program development and, ultimately, inform individual decision making."
The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Center was renamed in memory of Alan Frank Guttmacher, an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood, and the Guttmacher Institute became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977. Guttmacher's four decades of experience claims to demonstrate that scientific evidence — when reliably collected and analyzed, compellingly presented and systematically disseminated — can make a difference in policies, programs, and medical practice.

What about you Kathy, where are your facts? What studies have you looked at that make you knowledable Kathy? or are you just arguing from your own breathtaking presumption?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Leonidas — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:08:27 -0000

In music, or politics? :-)

My mom is also I big opponent of the welfare state, and was very fond of Hiliary Clinton for what she represented to women. Had Hiliary won the nomination she had said she was undecided on who to vote for, but she voted for McCain since Hiliary wasn't running. My mom is also strongly anti-war as she sees war as always the wrong answer, yet she is supportive of the troops and getting them the best as her brother was a marine in WWII, my father was a soldier, and my brother served as well. She may hate war, but she certainly loves our soldiers.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:04:28 -0000

Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!

It&#39s from a 2004 study. :-|

I&#39m not sure why you sound so shocked by the statement, either. Almoderate said pretty much the same thing and you didn&#39t even refer to it, much less ask for sources.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:27:55 -0000

"when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?"

Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!

I gave you MY source for my figures. 93-98% of abortions are for UNWANTED pregnacies not resulting from rape or incest.

UMMMMM. Your assertion is completely false - as far as my research has taken me. It is possible that I missed something. Eductate me, Kathy. Tell me your sources of your claim that most aborted pregnancies are WANTED! I&#39ll go ahead and hold my breath.

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: 2004 Study
Not Ready for children: 25%
Too immature: 7%
Relationship problems: 8%
Has all the children she wanted already: 19%
Can&#39t afford a baby right now: 23%

Wow. It really looks like those children were "wanted" huh?

That&#39s why I can&#39t "understand that".

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:06:41 -0000

The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical.

Ummmm, then why do you keep writing things like this:

"Kathy, with the exception of rape and incest, no one FORCES pregnancy. Why do you fail to realize that?"

and this:

"Women are free to chose with whom to sleep with and to choose to not have sex at all. Once again, why do you not see that?"

and this:

"Instead of individual responsibility prior to pregnancy, you want the government to support after-the-fact regret."

when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?

Why do you keep repeating the same ridiculous lines about loose women and forcing Americans to pay for UNWANTED pregnancies when in most cases the pregnancy WAS wanted?

I don&#39t understand why you do that, JD. Why do you do that? Why don&#39t you realize that most of the time women who choose abortions do so because something has gone terribly wrong with a pregnancy they PLANNED and WANTED, or there is some unforeseen threat to their health or life?

Why can&#39t you understand that?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

GreenDreams — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:53:53 -0000

Nice try Jefferson, but no sale. American citizens are the only ones protected by our Constitution. Murder is illegal, unless you&#39re the Bush administration. We will never agree that terminating a pregnancy is murder. It isn&#39t. It&#39s a legal medical procedure that allows a woman to choose not to start a family if she&#39s not ready, if she&#39s afraid of the risks of pregnancy or within the first trimester, for any reason or no reason. It&#39s just plain stupid to think people will "not have sex." They will. Sometimes their birth control will fail. Sometimes they were lied to about a man&#39s fertility, as some men will be lied to about a woman&#39s. Whatever the reason, we have more than enough wanted children. We don&#39t need to force women to have a child they don&#39t want.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:52:03 -0000

Another nice attempt to belittle me or my views, Kathy.
Thanks for taking the trailer-park approach.

I have acknowleged their points. But I have to admit, I&#39m a bit busy warding off your constant ramble to give them the time they deserve. The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical. Yours are not. I get along with moderates, conservatives, AND liberals - when they use logic in their arguments. You have already proven to me that you don&#39t read my threads - only a hitpoint or two to counter. I have used logic to the best of my ability. If others point out flaws in my logic, then I&#39ll address it or recant it. You do not do that. When someone points out a flaw to your logic or argument, you only attack or belittle.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:29:28 -0000

JD, do you read anything in these threads? I know that you must, because you reply to other people&#39s comments. But your responses read like you haven&#39t taken in or understood or *seen* any of the words you&#39ve read. I mean, I don&#39t even know what it means to read in this context. You say things that you couldn&#39t possibly say if you had read some of the other comments on this page, or others. Have you read, for example, Almoderate&#39s comments? It&#39s not an issue of disagreeing. You repeat claims you&#39ve made before, that have been addressed and challenged by others, and just repeat the same claims without acknowledging their points. You don&#39t seem to *see* what they&#39ve written. I&#39m not just talking about what I&#39ve written. It&#39s just the weirdest thing.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:04:28 -0000

Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!

It's from a 2004 study. :-|

I'm not sure why you sound so shocked by the statement, either. Almoderate said pretty much the same thing and you didn't even refer to it, much less ask for sources.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:58:07 -0000

Green,

I didn&#39t think you were defending irresponsibility. Based upon what you&#39ve written in the past, that really doesn&#39t seem like your approach. I did not mention anything about when the life of the mother is threatened. That is an ethical decision that a mother or doctor must make. My wife has told me in the past (as most parents would) that if that were the case, she would want for the child, not her, to live.

And I agree that it takes two to tango. Personal responsibility does not fall only upon the woman - that is a sexist approach. Yes, any woman could "accidentally" get pregnant in order to better her situation - that happens now and has throughout history. Once again.... men, too, must reap the benefits of an adventurous penis. If you cannot afford or want a child (or don&#39t want to pay child support for 18 years), DO NOT HAVE SEX! That goes for men and women.

But as I stated earlier.... What about illegal aliens in reference to your definition of a citizen? You did not address that. You said that non-citizens are not covered. Can I then legally kill illegal aliens?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:27:55 -0000

"when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?"

Where in the heck is your source for that little OPINION, Kathy?!!!

I gave you MY source for my figures. 93-98% of abortions are for UNWANTED pregnacies not resulting from rape or incest.

UMMMMM. Your assertion is completely false - as far as my research has taken me. It is possible that I missed something. Eductate me, Kathy. Tell me your sources of your claim that most aborted pregnancies are WANTED! I'll go ahead and hold my breath.

REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: 2004 Study
Not Ready for children: 25%
Too immature: 7%
Relationship problems: 8%
Has all the children she wanted already: 19%
Can't afford a baby right now: 23%

Wow. It really looks like those children were "wanted" huh?

That's why I can't "understand that".

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:06:41 -0000

The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical.

Ummmm, then why do you keep writing things like this:

"Kathy, with the exception of rape and incest, no one FORCES pregnancy. Why do you fail to realize that?"

and this:

"Women are free to chose with whom to sleep with and to choose to not have sex at all. Once again, why do you not see that?"

and this:

"Instead of individual responsibility prior to pregnancy, you want the government to support after-the-fact regret."

when both I and others (most notably, Almoderate) have said repeatedly that most pregnancies that are aborted were WANTED PREGNANCIES?

Why do you keep repeating the same ridiculous lines about loose women and forcing Americans to pay for UNWANTED pregnancies when in most cases the pregnancy WAS wanted?

I don't understand why you do that, JD. Why do you do that? Why don't you realize that most of the time women who choose abortions do so because something has gone terribly wrong with a pregnancy they PLANNED and WANTED, or there is some unforeseen threat to their health or life?

Why can't you understand that?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

GreenDreams — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:58:27 -0000

I&#39m not defending "irresponsible sexual practices." I&#39m defending a woman&#39s right to make medical decisions affecting her body. Regardless of the ethical, moral or religious debate about when "life" begins, there is no debate about what defines an American citizen. It&#39s in the Constitution. They are BORN here, not conceived but BORN. Or they are naturalized. Constitutionally, an adult woman has rights. A fetus does not. Period.

Want to change the definition? Amend the Constitution. But consider all the ramifications of subordinating one person&#39s rights to another. On your conscience would be the deaths of all women who die during a pregnancy or childbirth that they and their doctors did not believe were in her best interest. But I don&#39t think you particularly care about that. You would still feel righteous about fetuses being protected, even if women died as a result. After all, it was their "irresponsible behavior" in the first place, right?

But beyond that, consider the other ramifications, which I have elucidated. If the fetus has rights elevated above the woman&#39s, why should she not be forbidden by law to drink, smoke or undergo any medical procedures or take any drugs that could threaten the now more-sacred-than-her fetus within her? Now you have potentially hundreds of women who get pregnant by accident but must sacrifice their health and life for "her baby" which may very well not survive the pregnancy anyway.

Another point. It takes two to tango. Do you support forcing the father to marry her, to participate in parenting, to pay til the child is 18? Then any woman who wants a baby and a meal ticket can "accidentally" get pregnant and bingo, child support.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

GreenDreams — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:53:53 -0000

Nice try Jefferson, but no sale. American citizens are the only ones protected by our Constitution. Murder is illegal, unless you're the Bush administration. We will never agree that terminating a pregnancy is murder. It isn't. It's a legal medical procedure that allows a woman to choose not to start a family if she's not ready, if she's afraid of the risks of pregnancy or within the first trimester, for any reason or no reason. It's just plain stupid to think people will "not have sex." They will. Sometimes their birth control will fail. Sometimes they were lied to about a man's fertility, as some men will be lied to about a woman's. Whatever the reason, we have more than enough wanted children. We don't need to force women to have a child they don't want.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:52:03 -0000

Another nice attempt to belittle me or my views, Kathy.
Thanks for taking the trailer-park approach.

I have acknowleged their points. But I have to admit, I'm a bit busy warding off your constant ramble to give them the time they deserve. The posts of Almodeate and others are respectable for the most part because they are logical. Yours are not. I get along with moderates, conservatives, AND liberals - when they use logic in their arguments. You have already proven to me that you don't read my threads - only a hitpoint or two to counter. I have used logic to the best of my ability. If others point out flaws in my logic, then I'll address it or recant it. You do not do that. When someone points out a flaw to your logic or argument, you only attack or belittle.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:29:28 -0000

JD, do you read anything in these threads? I know that you must, because you reply to other people's comments. But your responses read like you haven't taken in or understood or *seen* any of the words you've read. I mean, I don't even know what it means to read in this context. You say things that you couldn't possibly say if you had read some of the other comments on this page, or others. Have you read, for example, Almoderate's comments? It's not an issue of disagreeing. You repeat claims you've made before, that have been addressed and challenged by others, and just repeat the same claims without acknowledging their points. You don't seem to *see* what they've written. I'm not just talking about what I've written. It's just the weirdest thing.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:58:07 -0000

Green,

I didn't think you were defending irresponsibility. Based upon what you've written in the past, that really doesn't seem like your approach. I did not mention anything about when the life of the mother is threatened. That is an ethical decision that a mother or doctor must make. My wife has told me in the past (as most parents would) that if that were the case, she would want for the child, not her, to live.

And I agree that it takes two to tango. Personal responsibility does not fall only upon the woman - that is a sexist approach. Yes, any woman could "accidentally" get pregnant in order to better her situation - that happens now and has throughout history. Once again.... men, too, must reap the benefits of an adventurous penis. If you cannot afford or want a child (or don't want to pay child support for 18 years), DO NOT HAVE SEX! That goes for men and women.

But as I stated earlier.... What about illegal aliens in reference to your definition of a citizen? You did not address that. You said that non-citizens are not covered. Can I then legally kill illegal aliens?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:11:50 -0000

All I am suggesting is two things.

1. Stop defending irresponsible sexual practices. It is the cause of at least 93% of all unwanted pregnancy. A woman and man makes the decision to have sex in every one of those cases. Of course, the "me generation" wants to keep sex as a fun hobby and to be lifted up to the status of recreation. People have that right, of course; but sex comes with responsibility. If you cannot take the responsibility of a possible pregnancy, DO NOT HAVE SEX!!!!

2. The beginning of life. That&#39s the big debate. When your "mass of cells in the uterus" begins to fire synapses, it becomes life. As far as your citizen argument, it doesn&#39t hold water. With your definition, I can go ahead and murder any illegal alien I can find. They&#39re not citizens - they were not born here nor naturalized - why not kill them because I can&#39t afford to support them (with my tax dollars) either.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:04:32 -0000

To ProfElwood:
"Obviously. And just as obviously, he was wrong. A fetus does not have the legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "child" or not."

And "obviously" blacks were not human beings either. They had no legal OR moral rights of a person, whether you use the word "niggar", "slave", "darkie", or "negro". Your thought processes are so polluted by liberalism that you are talking in freakin&#39 riddles. You have made your own mind up (just like the racists of the 19th Century) that a "fetus" is not a human being. All hail Kathy the "god".

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:00:51 -0000

"who are you to tell me that I shouldn&#39t consider war to be murder, but you have every right to consider abortion murder"

Okay. But I just don&#39t believe you when you say that ALL war is murder. Would you consider it murder if you shot someone attempting to rape you? Would you consider the Army committing murder if they were defending against a, say, Chinese invasion of New York?

I have justified my comments on the abortion is murder subject. Now why don&#39t you actually justify your position on "war is murder" instead of talking in circles and using rhetorical crap?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

JeffersonDavis — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:58:02 -0000

"That is a lie. Absolutely untrue, and not even knowable. Your presumption is breathtaking."
I have cited this before, Kathy. As high as 98% of all rapes per the CDC and AGI studies are elective - vice rape or incest. But from other studies it is as low as 91%. I erred on the side of precaution and stated an average of 93% of all unwanted pregnacies were electively aborted.
Just because you don&#39t believe something doesn&#39t make it a "lie". You&#39re being ridiculous.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion...

And I agree with you on war. If you do not support the war, your tax dollars should not support it. I totally understand that opinion. As I said, because I wear the uniform, doesn&#39t mean I like war. I actually hate war. Any warrior worth his/her salt would tell you the same.