<p>I won’t respond to ANY posts to this thread. All I wanted to say was;</p>
<p>“Thank you ladies!” Finding other alternatives; Holding the guys and yourselves more responsible; and considering the “Big Picture” is very much applauded. “Thank You!”</p>
<p>hold on before you start yelling “Halleluiea!”
If you’ve ever read Freakonimics, you’d realize that this could mean higher crime rates. The people who aren’t being aborted and are now being born statistically have a very high probability of becoming tomorrow’s criminals. just throwing my controversial borrowed biased high-class unbased opinion out there</p>
<p>It’s entirely hypothetical and does not take into consideration all known and unknown factors. And, since those babies were never born, there is no way to know all the unknown factors.</p>
<p>Actually it’s been fairly well documented in the past. If you assume past outcomes are likely to hold true in the future, it’s fairly probable that the claim is correct unless the overall profile of who gets and does not get abortions has changed. Freakonomics.</p>
<p>WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
• Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7] </p>
<p>• Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.[7] </p>
<p>• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]</p>
<p>• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[7]</p>
<p>• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]</p>
<p>• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).*[3]</p>
<p>Levitt and Dubner were simply citing the statistical probability; they never claimed that legal abortion was good policy BECAUSE of this correlation.</p>
<p>By that logic, simply killing all poor people would be an even better way to cut crime rates. Its called eugenics, and nobody with an iota of conscience or a grasp of 20th century history would stand for it.</p>
<p>It amazes be that the pro-abortion crowd will admit that a fetus already has a genetic makeup and is likely to follow a certain course when it bolsters their argument, but are just as quick to refer to a fetus as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite” when it doesn’t.</p>
<p>I really don’t get this aspect of human beings. Abortions can be avoided by using contraceptives. It’s a lot cheaper for a woman to require a man to use a condom than it is to get an abortion (not to mention all the medical risks and the killing of another human), yet many women still have unwanted pregnancies.</p>
<p>AIDS can kill you, yet gays continue to have unprotected sex. </p>
<p>How can there be so many stupid people in this country when it comes to sex?</p>
<p>The article only reports that the rate per 1000 women has dropped; we don’t know whether it’s gone up, down, or stayed the same per 1000 pregnancies.</p>
<p>I hope this new number reflects a decrease in unwanted pregnancies, but that’s not clear from the data.</p>
<p>Almost everyone I know uses a condom. Most girls I know also use the pill (the sexually active ones, rather). Best-case, the pill has a 99% success rate, while male condoms have an 89% success rate (probably higher with better vigilance about breaking condoms, but still). Therefore, even with both measures in place, the rate of total contraception failure (both pill and condom failing) is 0.11%. Seems small, but with millions of people having sex with contraception, obviously there will nonetheless be lots of unwanted pregnancies, all precautions aside. I don’t see how this is surprising to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I find that bigoted. How about “AIDS can kill you, yet people continue to have unprotected sex”? Gays aren’t the only ones who get AIDS, and aren’t the only ones who have unprotected sex.</p>
<p>The absence of pregnancy as a factor to consider has obviously led to less use of protection in gay communities, but I find it reflective of underlying bias that you don’t even consider the large number of straight people who don’t use protection and get AIDS as a result.</p>
<p>razorsharp, you’re making a lot of assumptions about who gets abortions. Some women don’t have the choice of using birth control, because of rape or sexual abuse. Some try to use it, inadvertently use it incorrectly (because of misguided sex ed teachers, inexperience, or what have you) and find that it fails. Some use it correctly and find that it fails. And some women intend to get pregnant and then find that the fetus is sick or deformed, or that carrying the pregnancy to term would seriously threaten their health, or that their relationships or financial situations have changed and they can no longer care responsibly for a baby. There are countless reasons to get an abortion other than sexual stupidity.</p>
<p>
…and so do straights, who are just as vulnerable to AIDS. HIV/AIDS is no longer a gay problem; it’s an equal-opportunity disease. What an offensive claim.</p>