Yes, GG, I understood the point. Perhaps if I rephrase my post like this:Originally Posted by GGT
Is 5 abortions in a 10 year span the threshold you, Nessus, would actually set, or just a random number used in example? If so, why would 1-4 be 'acceptable'? If someone has so much at stake and didn't learn from her first mistake, how can society ever expect any change in her behavior? What can society do about it anyway?
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Probably more/better sex education, perhaps taught in sessions by outside groups like Planned Parenthood instead of our corrupt teachers. But it's also clear the problem isn't necessarily from people born and educated here. There's a large bracket of 20-somethings who move here who are getting abortions, so in many respects this may suggest a failure of sex education in other parts of Amerika/the world. Which in turn means that these resources and educational materials must be pitched to 20-somethings more aggressively, as there is a compelling interest for the government to do this.
More articles about this-
February 3, 2011
City’s High Abortion Rate Defies Easy Explanation
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
At a time when evidence suggests that people in New York City are smoking less, eating better and biking more, one health statistic that has not budged is the abortion rate.
Two of every five pregnancies in the city end in abortion, a statistic that has barely changed in more than a decade. At a news conference last month, Timothy M. Dolan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, called the city’s 41 percent abortion rate “downright chilling.” And on Thursday, State Senator RubĂ©n DĂ*az Sr. of the Bronx brought up the figure repeatedly as he urged a group of anti-abortion ministers to spread the word that abortion was nothing less than an attack on minorities.
“They might think that we will take over, and that they’ve got to stop us,” said Mr. DĂ*az, who also is a minister. “What they did, they are killing black and Hispanic children.”
Nationally, the issue is receiving a new round of attention, with numerous state legislatures and the House considering bills that would add restrictions on abortion, and Planned Parenthood was recently a target of undercover videos by an anti-abortion group.
But city health officials and groups that support access to abortion say that behind the 41 percent statistic — nearly twice the national rate — are complex social and legal factors: fewer obstacles to abortion in state law; the absence of mandatory sex education in New York City public schools; the ignorance of people, especially young ones, about where to get affordable birth control; and the ambivalence of young women living in poverty and in unstable relationships about when and whether to have children.
And although the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion is basically unchanged, a particularly vulnerable group, teenagers, is having fewer babies and fewer abortions.
The hand-wringing has led to a rare moment of synchronicity between the Catholic Church and pro-choice women’s groups, as both say they are disturbed that the rate is so high, but disagree over what to do about it.
“Listening to Archbishop Dolan, I took a little bit of comfort in that he recognizes it is important to bring this rate down,” said Joan Malin, president of Planned Parenthood of New York City. But, she added, “The way we think about these issues is to really step back a bit and say that the major concern or the underlying issue that we think is so important is the high rate of unintended pregnancies.”
The issue came to light with the city health department’s recent release of its annual Vital Statistics report, which showed that 41 percent of pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, in 2009 ended in abortion.
Health experts say the abortion rate is tied to factors like race and income.
“If you look at the pregnancy rates by race and ethnicity in New York City versus nationally, they are essentially the same for black and Hispanic teenagers, and lower for whites,” said Susan Craig, a spokeswoman for the city’s health department.
There were 126,774 births, 11,620 miscarriages and 87,273 abortions in New York City in 2009. Despite the contention of some critics that New York, with its liberal abortion laws, is a destination state for abortion, nonresidents accounted for only about 7,000 of these abortions. (Factoring out nonresidents does not alter the 41 percent abortion rate, because 10,000 nonresidents also gave birth in the city.)
The little-changed abortion rate figure is a commonly cited statistic. But it masks large changes in fertility among teenagers.
Since 1996, the number of babies born to teenagers has fallen by 39 percent. The number of abortions has fallen by more than 16 percent, even though the population of teenagers has risen modestly. Ninety percent of the teenage mothers were not married, according to health department estimates.
In that age group in 2009, the rate of abortions was strikingly high for blacks (74 percent), followed by whites (66 percent) and Hispanics (53 percent). The rate was also very high for Asians (74 percent), though they were much less likely to become pregnant.
The drop in teenage pregnancies and abortions, however, was not enough to significantly alter the overall abortion rate. Most abortions, like most pregnancies, occurred among women in their 20s. Women in their 30s had abortions 29 percent of the time, and women 40 and older about a third of the time. Unmarried women accounted for 84 percent of abortions in 2009.
New York State law does not place as many restrictions on abortion as laws in some other states, like requiring parental consent for minors, or requiring women to undergo counseling that discourages abortion or to go through a waiting period.
According to Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues, the high rate of unwed pregnancy and abortion among poor women is a sign of ambivalence. They are torn, she said, between the desire to have a baby and the realization that it would be hard to bring up a child as a single mother.
“In the U.S., most women want to have kids,” Ms. Jones said. “If you don’t have a lot of money, when is the responsible time to say, Now I want to have a child? How long are you supposed to put this off?”
That inner conflict could be seen recently in several women coming out of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center, a family planning and abortion clinic in Greenwich Village.
A 17-year-old girl there to pick up a friend said she had had an abortion in May. It was her second; the first was when she was 15. The girl said she sometimes used condoms. “But I wasn’t using them when I got pregnant,” she said. “I might use them more now, but I don’t know.” Like the other women outside the clinic, she asked not to be named to preserve her privacy.
A 20-year-old woman being helped by two male friends said she had her first abortion at 16, and also had a 7-month-old child. “It was an accident,” the woman said. “I used a condom every time, but I already have a kid, and I’m not ready for another one.”
Another woman, who was 22, said she had become pregnant after not using birth control because a doctor had told her she was infertile. “I’ve always been against abortion,” the woman, who lives on Staten Island, said. “But if I had a kid now, it would have a terrible life. I’d rather wait.”
The health department distributes a pocket-size guide to clinics where teenagers can get medical care and low-cost or free contraception (information that is also available through the city’s 311 hot line).
It has provided training in issues like protecting confidentiality and dispensing contraception to 50 clinics serving 32,000 teenagers a year in the neighborhoods with the highest pregnancy rates among teenagers.
School-based classes use role-playing to help teenagers “learn how to negotiate maybe saying, I don’t want to have sex,” said Deborah Kaplan, assistant commissioner of the health department’s bureau of maternal, infant and reproductive health.
Condoms are distributed through health offices at every public high school, Ms. Kaplan said.
Archbishop Dolan agreed to speak out with other religious leaders at a news conference last month at the invitation of the Chiaroscuro Foundation, an anti-abortion group coordinated by an investment banker active in conservative causes, according to the archbishop’s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling.
The archbishop “reaffirmed and was looking to spread the word as well of the archdiocese’s longstanding commitment that any woman who is pregnant and in need can come to the Archdiocese of New York for assistance,” Mr. Zwilling said.
On Thursday, Senator DĂ*az, who, like the archbishop, advocates abstinence and not condom use, called abortion “a business,” and his wife, Leslie, said that handing out condoms to teenagers promoted promiscuity. “Abortion is the law of the land, and there’s nothing we can do about that,” she said. “But we can try and reduce the number, and that’s what our main goal is: to make it rare.”
Juliet Linderman contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/ny...4abortion.html
And you want people here to stop slicing and dicing your posts? Maybe you can expound on the bolded part; how are our teachers corrupt and how does this corruption affect their teaching sex-ed?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Was just a snipe at a local issue, where our teacher's union compared our mayor to Hosni Mubarak for closing failing schools and opening new ones in their places.
Your post shows why we have a social problem. (See my bolded words?) When it comes to unintended pregnancies, abortions are just one symptom.
IMO, we need more men to get in on the dialogue and acknowledge their share of this problem. Not just AFTER a woman has become pregnant, or complaining about legal paternal responsibilities, or wanting an "economic abortion". It's not enough for men to say, "But she said she was taking The Pill so I didn't use a condom!" or some such.
Birth control shouldn't mostly be left up to women. Abstinence isn't enough. Condoms aren't enough. We need better birth control for men. The only way that's going to happen is for men to expect it and demand it.
Seems to me it would be more productive to focus on male birth control than women's abortions, at this point.
This kind of assumes women are dumb, inactive vessels who have sex happening to them, and it's in God's hands whom gets condom sex and whom doesn't. How is a woman supposed to be more secure after asking the guy "are you on the pill" than otherwise? The man can lie just as easily as the woman.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
No, it's recognizing that all the major discoveries in birth control have focused largely on women. Women have plenty of options, but not so many for men. The medical and pharmaceutical industries probably did that on the premise that "women have more at risk" with pregnancy. I am challenging that out-dated conventional wisdom. It takes two to tango....
Ideally, both men AND women would have the ability to "protect themselves" from pregnancy 99.99% of the time. Condoms don't compare to the BCP, it's just something we can 'see'.
If I were a man.....I'd want something similar to a female IUD or BCP for my own use. Even better if we both have and use those things! I'd still use a condom to prevent STDs.
Male contraceptives (outside barrier methods like condoms) are generally much more challenging to get working at high efficiency when compared to female oral contraceptives or IUDs/vaginal rings. This is because you need to stop millions of sperm, but you only need to stop a single ovulation event (or a single implantation event) in the woman. This is a red herring put forth by people who think they're supporting equal treatment of the sexes when in fact they're just butting up against the realities of biology. As it is, current methods of birth control (assuming you use two and use them as directed) should be more than sufficient to keep unwanted pregnancies down to a manageable minimum.
We've already done that biological "red herring" thread, wiggin. Long ago and far away, in another forum with another name.
I recall we even had a poll, asking men if they'd take a pill, use an injection, or undergo a temporary procedure (like the kinds of things India has been experimenting with....)
You can be glib about equal treatment of the sexes all you want, or how difficult it is to change millions of sperm and so much easier to focus on female ovulation or implantation. I hope you're proven wrong over time. One day, it might prove easier to change something like sperm, produced by the millions, or gigajillions, than it is to change any more of the female reproductive system.
When it comes, it may look so simple as to be amoment. Changes in spermatic synthesis, its proteins or enzymes or motility, any number of things that could be easily reversed with few side effects.
I kind of want to start a poll now, asking men what they would do for their own reproductive freeeeedom besides using condoms. My polls aren't known for being very good, though.
'Easily'? I don't understand why you think this. It's already easy to prevent ovulation, and has been for half a century. It happens once a month, has clear hormonal triggers, and has relatively few side effects. Research into male oral contraceptives hasn't been nonexistent, but there's very little pressure to come up with something since it's a much bigger challenger - spermatogenesis happens at a roughly constant basal rate, and changing hormone levels to reduce it is prone to significant side effects and poor efficacy (reducing a sperm count from a million to 10k may reduce your chances of pregnancy, but the chances are still pretty good). There are non-hormonal methods that sport fewer side effects and somewhat higher efficacy, but they have other problems: bioavailability might be low from oral ingestion, after removal of the drug it often takes quite a while for normal spermatogenesis to resume, and their efficacy is still far worse than the Pill.
edit: I don't buy these arguments about giving individuals free control of their reproduction in a manner that is uncoupled from their partner. Let's be honest, anyone you have sex with you should at least theoretically be willing and able to raise a child with (or at least be willing to get them pregnant and deal with the consequences) - no method of birth control is perfect. Thus, any choice on the use of contraception and protection should be a joint one, and using the most effective methods available for contraception (female oral contraceptives) and STD protection (latex condoms) simply makes sense.
This is why I also find it a little crazy that there's a lot of interest in developing adequate ways for women to protect themselves from STDs in the absence of condoms (complaints about the comfort of condoms set aside for now). I get that in some of the developing world there are unequal power relationships and so women might not be able to insist on the use of a condom (or turn down sex), so a discreet way to protect against STDs (a la vaginal gels and the like) might not be unreasonable. But in a normal sane society I don't see the argument for 'taking control' of your protection - especially since condoms will almost certainly be better than anything else we can come up with. You're having sex with the person, for crying out loud, can't you just have a simple agreement about protection and contraception? Clearly you get along well enough to bump uglies, a simple conversation isn't unreasonable.
wiggin, there are millions and millions of women who would disagree with you about how "easy" it is to prevent ovulation. Or unintended pregnancy. Or what lengths women should have to go to. First generation meds had too many side effects, from long term health problems to fetal anomalies. BCP users ended up with tons of problems, and we're still trying to sort out estrogens and cancers from heart disease, etc. And of course, in the context of this thread, only women undergo abortions....but men are involved and affected, too. It shouldn't just be a women's contraceptive issue. IMO.
You're also speaking as if all sex occurs within a relationship with a partner, and a conversation about protection and contraception. Strap on a condom and let's go! Nothing could be further from the truth. But I started a thread in General Chat, if you want to contribute your male point of view.
Yes, early pill formulations weren't perfect especially in terms of side effects. So what? Now they're more effective than any non-abstinence/reversible method of birth control, and far safer.
I'm not making a moral argument about whether women should be responsible for birth control or not (I think such arguments are stupid); such decisions should always be a joint one IMO regardless of who actually uses the birth control. I'm making an argument about efficacy. There's little evidence to support the suggestion that you'd be able to find a more effective (and safe) method of male birth control than female oral contraceptives. Why waste effort when appropriate use of the pill stops nearly every pregnancy from occurring?
In a similar vein as above, the best method of protecting against STD transmission is a condom, hands down. Diaphragms and other methods are flawed at best. This isn't saying that men should be responsible for preventing STD transmission, even though I'm sure some moralistic argument could be made (men are more likely to pass STDs to women than vice versa, so they should bear more responsibility, they tend to have more partners, yadda yadda yadda). Rather, it's arguing that by far the most effective method is for a guy to put on a condom, so that's what should happen in a rational discussion.
It's not such a So What for women who ended up with estrogen-fed cancers. You did make a "moral" argument that it's a wasted effort to expand male birth control, since what we have now is good 'nuff.
Science changes and moves us forward. Challenge conventional wisdom about "appropriate use of the pill" meaning Women Only.
That's not a moral argument, nor is it the argument I'm making.
Some old formulations of the pill may have led to an increased chance of certain cancers, yes. Upon much larger datasets from longitudinal studies in the last few decades, though, I am unconvinced there is a significant correlation between oral contraceptive use and cancer.
You seem to forget that the condom hype of the 1990's started as a way of preventing AIDS and other STD's, even though it ws known as contraceptive since the time of sheepskin sheathes. Only recently with the advent of superior latex materials has the condom been considered an effective contraceptive, however. My problem with your post is that it takes responsibility for their own bodies away from women. Unless you like setting the equal rights movement back a hundred years, which I do not. Yes, men have responsibility in this as well, but it's not our bodies and futures. The male med student career is in less jeopardy from an unwanted pregnancy in Nessus' example. Is it fair? Of course not. But that is the reality, not much "fair" in life. I tell my daughters to respect themselves by protecting themselves. I advise them to avoid sex without commitment, but I know that I can't expect them to be prudish little darlings forever.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Then I didn't write it out clearly enough, since Nessie said basically the same thing.
To clarify: women are responsible for their bodies, and using birth control and protection from STDs. Absolutely. I'd like to see more men wanting (demanding) more options than just a condom or vasectomy. Or a 'better' condom material, that comes in colors or flavors, or His 'n Her joy jelly. It's the 21st century FFS.
But sex includes the man's body and it's his sperm. Men DO have just as much at risk as women, without the actual pregnancy/delivery. They can be accidental parents too, and that lasts a lifetime. We all know sex in a committed relationship can weather an unintended pregnancy much differently than a one night stand, or promiscuous random sex. But now that we have DNA testing (even OTC paternity test kits, I heard an ad on the radio for that....) men can be obligated to pay child support for 18 years.Yes, men have responsibility in this as well, but it's not our bodies and futures. The male med student career is in less jeopardy from an unwanted pregnancy in Nessus' example. Is it fair? Of course not. But that is the reality, not much "fair" in life. I tell my daughters to respect themselves by protecting themselves. I advise them to avoid sex without commitment, but I know that I can't expect them to be prudish little darlings forever.
Men can't demand women have an abortion, or keep the pregnancy to term, or keep the child or adopt. There's been quite a lot of male opinion expressing this frustration and "unfairness" about that. Some have suggested an "economic abortion", but that's still after the fact. The only way I can see more empowerment for men is to provide them with better male birth control. Not to replace women's birth control, but to enhance it! And I think it's a possibility in the future.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, in theory. But again, the reality is that a woman cannot trust that the wonderful guy she decided to sleep with is actually so wonderful. You don't have to track down the mother (unless she abandons the child after birth) and coerce her to take responsibility for the child. Which does not always work on guys. I have known guys that really didn't mind having judgements against them, or losing their licenses, or anything else the law could throw at them. Complete assholes, but they're out there, living happily on the run, free from a screaming baby. My point is that women have to be the grown-ups when it comes to family planning, or better yet don't have sex with horny boys but actual men. You know, the kind that is willing sacrifice to meet his responsibilities, do the right thing and all. We're out here, too.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Wiggin, you seem to be forgetting the women who can't take the pill, for whatever reason. When I reached my 30's, my blood pressure soared! I could no longer take the pill. I opted for the depo-provera shots, but not all women want a shot ever 3 months, or can afford the office visit it entails every 3 months. I was lucky because Medicaid did pay for it.
Yes, women have lots of options when it comes to birth control. Yes, a woman should take responsibility for her body and her health. BUT, a real man will still use a condom! Especially for the one night stands and the random hit and run fucks!
When The Kid was in high school, they had a mandatory class their Jr. and Sr. years, called Health and Life. I guess BFE was still behind the times, because all they taught was abstinence. (That has changed since 2006 when The Kid graduated. Now they teach prevention and abstinence, but at least they now mention birth control and STD control) Of the 12 or 13 girls in his Sr. class, 8 were mothers before graduation and 1 was pregnant at graduation. I guess abstinence didn't work so well!
If you go back to my generation, mid to late 40's now, you find a few more abortions than you would expect. In my class of 15 or 16 girls, I think 8 had abortions before our sophomore year was over, and 1 was pregnant and planning to give it up for adoption. (Her family were strict Catholics, but she missed the part about unmarried sex, I guess!) Now I realize there isn't much to do in BFE except drink, drive around, and fornicate, but we still had a high percentage of pregnancies in our class. I think the Jr. class had an equally high number of abortions. I have no idea about the Sr. class. The Freshman class only had 1 or 2 pregnancies that I know of, and both ended in abortion.
Is that rate too high? Yeah, IMO! But putting a number on how many is too many is a bit hard. I do believe anyone who goes for a 2nd abortion because they are using that as a method of BC, should receive counseling and be given a good lesson on BC and ways to prevent pregnancies. If for no other reason than the fact that abortions are a serious medical procedure. We know repeated abortions raise the probability of medical problems.
*Caution, personal anecdote ahead*
I have a friend who has had no less than 6 abortions. (possibly more) She had an allergic reaction to the early pill, so assumed the newer ones would cause the same problems, couldn't afford the shots, and hated condoms with a passion. She tried an IUD, and it almost killed her, she was one of the few that it caused uncontrolled bleeding. So, she decided to use abortion as BC. The last one she had, at age 46, was the one that caused her a shitload of problems. Somehow her uterus was punctured, possibly because it was weakened from previous abortions. She came home from Colorado, (nearest place that performs abortions) and thought the bleeding was normal, since she had bled after her other ones. Her husband just happened to come in off the road. (Yes, you nosy people, she was married to The Friend. She is NOT the one he left me for!) He hadn't even known she was pregnant! The next morning, when he got up, she was pasty white, and cold to the touch, but still coherent. (At least as coherent as Mona ever got! lol) He immediately took her to the doctor in Casper, when they had to give her 3 units of blood, and perform a hysterectomy. What amazed me was, she was pissed they did a hysterectomy. Stupid woman!
The point of that little story is...using abortion as a form of BC is damned dangerous, and can prove fatal, in some cases! I feel anyone who has 2 should be educated in other forms of BC! (Of course, if it is for medical reasons, that can be a bit different. It's still dangerous tho.) To say nothing about the fact that NOT using a condom increases the chances of getting an STD!
Have I always followed my own advice in regards to the condom...no! Have I had multiple pregnancies...yes. Have I had multiple abortions...HELL NO! But, as I have gotten older and more outspoken, I find it easier to ask a man to wear a condom! I think many young girls are embarrassed to ask a man about diseases. (Yes, that man might lie about that tho.) I also think many of them are embarrassed to ask a man to wear a condom. For some reason, asking questions like that seem to be taboo. We need to move past the embarrassment and start having open discussions about sex, STDs, and birth control. Until we move past that embarrassment, we will have unwanted/unexpected pregnancies, some resulting in abortion. We will have STDs passed around, and the medical problems that go with them. We just need to learn to be more open about our sexuality. I tried to teach The Kid the reality of sex...it can cause infections if the partner is infected with an STD, and it can result in pregnancy. I also provided him, and a few of his friends, with condoms. I can honestly say that none of those pregnancies in his graduating class could be attributed to him. He has decided to wait until he is more financial stable and finds the woman for him, before he has sex. I am proud of him for that decision.
I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
Atari bullshit refugee!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote