Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?
Digby is fed up with paying for Viagra:
I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won’t ever need such a pill. And anyway, it’s no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don’t think there’s even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)
Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings[.]
[...]
I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn’t want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
197 Responses to “Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?”
Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility.
Adoption is a way to take responsibility. Not having sex or having safe sex are ways to take responsibility.
I would phrase that a little differently. I do understand why roro and other abortion rights proponents see the abortion decision as a means of taking responsibility. However, it's a means of doing so after the fact when other decisions could have preempted the need to make that decision (at least in most cases except for rape.) And combining that with the fact that the majority of people don't view abortion as a medical treatment performed on a woman's own body (without considering that another human life is ended in the process) is obviously the reason that there is objection to taking responsibility in this delayed fashion rather than during the time when the pregnancy could have been prevented by other behavioral choices.
The bike riding and junk food eating analogies don't hold up well, either, because neither activity is as directly related to the negative outcome as is pregnancy related to unprotected sex. Most people could ride their bikes on a daily basis for life without having any injuries necessitating medical treatment, and there are so many other factors in diseases like heart disease that you can't directly say that eating french fries will result in a heart attack for the majority of partakers.
Which still sounds like this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
Quite true. Unless next up we'll have a congressional bill introduced to ensure that all women have publicly funded transportation to abortion clinics, and escorts who will ensure that no other person will attempt to influence her decision to abort.
Christine,
First, thank you for this thoughtful comment — it does help me understand your position a bit better.
That said….
The other (much more common) situation does not regard the fetus as a growing child at all and makes a choice to dispose of it- even if there is some thought process there too to determine what the quality of life would be for a child under the circumstances, making that decision after the fetus already exists is treating it as an inconvenient ball of tissue instead of an actual human, living being. And its that capriciousness that is morally repugnant to a lot of people.
If you've been to the Guttmacher site, which it appears you have, then you also know that the statistics on contraceptive use show that the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant are using some form of contraception. This hardly strikes me as defining “capriciousness” or having “no regard for the fetus as a growing child at all.” It strikes me, actually, as demonstrating strong awareness on the part of women of the potential consequences of sex and taking responsibility for preventing that.
And yes, obviously contraceptives sometimes fail, but that does not mean the woman has been irresponsible. And if you're suggesting that sexually active women who use contraceptives still do not have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then you are actually saying women who don't want children should not have sex, ever, at all. That, in my view, violates a woman's basic human rights, and just as a practical matter, is a complete non-starter.
It appears to me that the crux of your argument really is that it's unfair that women have no choice by nature but to be the ones who can get impregnated during an act of intercourse, so that they can't just walk away from the consequences like men can.
This is true. And perceptive on your part, since I never explicitly expressed that.
With abortion rights in place (meaning abortion on demand, not just abortions which are medically necessary for a woman's health, or rape/incest, or severe fetal abnormalities), I feel that men are actually MORE absolved of responsibility than ever before.
I don't see how, Christine. Men can walk away regardless, and they have done exactly that since the dawn of human history (as a general statement, obviously — I don't want this to be taken as male-bashing). Whether abortion is legal or illegal, men can walk away and often do. Furthermore, even if the law catches up with a delinquent father, it's not going to help if he is unemployed and penniless, too. If you can point to statistics that show men were more responsible about the unwanted children they fathered before Roe v. Wade, please do.
…many women bear emotional scars about a choice that they really didn't want to make but felt coerced into (either by other people or by circumstance.
It seems to me the solution to that problem is to make choice more meaningful by restructuring society so that women who DO want to keep their babies can do so even if the fathers take off for parts unknown. The problem you are pointing to is not that women who want abortions regret them later, but rather that women who don't want abortions, or who are not clear and confident about their choice, are conflicted, have mixed feelings, etc., often are pushed in the direction of ending the pregnancy because they have no one to turn to and no way (at least that they can see) to make an independent, financially stable life without being dependent on the man who helped create the baby. Going back to criminalizing abortion and depending on unenforceable, un-realizable fantasies of a world in which men step up to the plate and women have someone to take care of them makes no sense at all to me. Why not think outside of the box and actually make it possible for women to have, raise, and support children on their own if such are the circumstances they find themselves in?
OK. I will try to keep things as civil and straightforward as I can.
First, I made no mention of abortion in my post. None. I was only making reference to some of the comments being made about viagra by others. Therefore any equating or relating of my comment about viagra to funding of abortion was done by the reader, not by the author.
Second, I am and always have been pro-choice, and have had posts since you have been on this board stating so. So, there should be no question about that.
Third, I have not directly expressed my opinion on the funding issue, so anything you decided you thought I was saying did not and could not have come from me. The closest I came was when I said …language that supported current federal law against spending government funds may have made sense, or specific language using this bill to overturn that law or provide an exception, but to say no participating insurer can offer coverage seems draconian the other day about the Stupak Amendment (a comment, BTW, that you posted that you agreed with).
Fourth, your assertion of “your statement emphasized that very point (which had been explicitly mentioned here by, I think, roro), that it's just naturally assumed that the physical and psychological benefits of Viagra to the relationship between a man and a woman *are* benefits, while simultaneously ignoring or dismissing the fact that ending an unwanted, unviable pregnancy has similar very real benefits for that same relationship” is a logical fallacy. As I made no mention of abortion or its effect on couples, there is no basis to say 'because you commented on “A” but not “B”, that is a negative inference on “B”'. To use a legal term, it assumes facts not in evidence.
Fifth, your comment that This underlying message, or assumption, that a woman should weep in despair when her man's penis isn't working, and leap for joy when it's “fixed” almost borders on misandry. Sex is indeed part of a healthy, adult relationship. Perhaps, in the name of hyper-PC-speak, I should have said, 'This whole debate seems to assume there is no benefit for the other partner when their partner has to take Viagra”, but given your visceral reaction, I am not sure it would have helped. But I do agree I didn't write a long dissertation comparing and contrasting the myriad faults you found buried in my simple, straight-forward sentence.
Sixth, I made a follow-up post, after you accused me of misogyny, clearly spelling out the intent of my initial post. You however seem to have chosen to pretend I did not do so.
Seventh, Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure, right? WTF??? When have you seen me write ANYTHING remotely like that? I am as sexually liberated as they come, have been outspoken about that, have repeatedly stated that whatever two (or more) consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business and no one else.
Eighth, everything you wrote after the seventh point If a woman isn't ready for a pregnancy…I don't.
is again NOTHING remotely close to words I have ever written, and shows a deep anger at others that have written such stuff. But how am I supposed to defend myself against the words, thoughts and opinions of others, especially when I had no idea you were using them against me, and could not possibly have known?
Ninth, I started off in a very civil tone questioning you about your comments to me. You repeatedly refused to address my questions, continued to say my comments were misogynous, and hell yes, I got offended and defensive. Can you really blame me? Given my often expressed personal views on women and their equal rights to men, calling me or statements by me misogynist is truly offensive to me.
That brings us to the end of this issue. As I look over all of this in toto, there is no doubt in my mind that you dumped a shitload of garbage and anger you have in your mind at others for what they have said into my statement; words and thoughts that plain and simply were not there and would not be there from me.
While I appreciate your taking the time to spell out your reply to me and your candor in it, I have to admit it bothers me a lot, because almost nothing in there relates to words I have ever used here, opinions I have expressed, or positions I have taken.
I have re-read (numerous times) what I wrote. As I said earlier, I could have written it in completely gender-neutral words (to the extent one can discuss viagra in a gender-neutral manner). But even allowing for that, in my opinion, no one who did not read it with a preconceived desire to find misogyny in it and my words could possibly have done so.
I truly believe you have done me wrong on this one Kathy, and accused me of thoughts, opinions and attitudes that were not there or implied, and that I actually find repulsive in others.
Kathy…. I have provided sources for my statement. YOU have not. Back up your statement. I already have.
Since your statement was that most women who have abortions are pregnant because they were promiscuous, I am assuming that this request for sources is now a moot point, since you have acknowledged you did not know the correct definition of “promiscuous.”
Your refusal to understand and acknowledge this very real distinction comes off as at best ignorance or at worst woman hating. If Kathy comes off as “man-hating”, hell, I can't really blame her.
Yep. And as we know, “woman hating” is what the word “misogynist” means. <Meaningful pause.> And we both know how likely it is that the same men who accuse women of “male-bashing” are going to understand or admit that they are misogynistic. Seems like it just can't go both ways.
And as a point of *fact,* as I wrote to CStanley, the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception.
“this whole discussion is about something that won't make a bit of difference in the real world.”
I have no idea what you mean here. The lack of access and affordability of abortions keeps women who want them from getting them. In the real world. Worse access and higher cost will make that more of an issue. ????
If you ride a bike INCORRECTLY you will still be treated for your injuries. Good lord JD. Are you being purposefully obtuse here?
“Abortion is NOT a way to take responsibility. It is a way to SHIRK responsibility”
That is your opinion. It is NOT mine.
You're missing my point, but as I did not explicitly spell it out, I will do so now. My intention and purpose in writing my explanation was not to state or imply that you intended all the hidden underlying meanings I laid out. What I'm saying to you is that your initial statement was not original with you — it's a cultural cliche; a tired joke made over and over that comes with subtext and un-articulated baggage. You seem to be unaware that there is a history, a real, genuine attitude toward women that is being expressed even if you did not intend that meaning yourself.
It would have been good if you had already known this, but since you didn't, I'm fine with saying that it would be nice if you “got” it now that I'm explaining it to you. Clearly, you don't.
That being the case, I don't think there's anything further I can productively say to you on this subject.
“That's crap, roro. And you darned well know it.”
Um, no. Statement stands as written. You come off as either ignorant of the facts or just not giving a flip about them.
“Once again, you use the EXCEPTION to validate the MAJORITY.”
What “EXCEPTION”? What majority? The point is that you have no idea why women get abortions, you have no idea whether or not a woman can afford thousands in legal fees to go after an ex. Neither are your business, and what a woman does with her own body is not your decision. Whether her motives are pure or evil is not for you to decide. Whether she's having a “good” abortion or a “bad” abortion is not for you to decide. You are not the rule-maker. You are not in charge of other people's bodies or their behavior.
“only about her opinion being right.
As are you.”
I could care less what you think of me, JD. What I do care is about the ability for me and for other women to be in charge of their own medical decisions, and tohave access to the medical care that affect their own bodies. That is truly my biggest concern about the entire issue.
Higher cost? Worse access? Nothing is being taken away, that's been covered. You're arguing for expanded access to federal funds.
For a medical procedure, $300 to $600 and you're done is cheap. These women aren't sitting on some isolated island. In the real world there are relatives, friends, state programs, and yes, charities that help with these kinds of things. I seriously doubt any woman who could get an abortion, but only if the federal government paid for it.
“You are not in charge of other people's bodies or their behavior.”
And no one is asking to be. This is not a discussion on legal restrictions, but on funding restrictions. Do what you want; get what you want; pay for it yourself. Is that really so hard to understand?
Let me goose that gander.
You said: What I do care is about the ability for me and for other women to be in charge of their own medical decisions, and to have access to the medical care that affect their own bodies. That is truly my biggest concern about the entire issue.”
Perhaps we could substitute “all people” for “me and other women”. That would have you making a moderate statement.
You are correct that I am unaware that stating what I did the way I did is a culturally loaded statement full of hidden subtext and meaning, and generally known to society to be so.
Could you provide me some links about that? You have my curiosity up now on that matter )absolutely no pun intended).
Thanks.
Sure, dduck12. Any men who'd like an abortion should be able to get one too. Of course, if men needed abortions, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Yes, ProfElwood, it is a discussion on legal restrictions. Or perhaps you missed, like, 50 of the above comments about how women shouldn't be able to get abortions?
“Nothing is being taken away, that's been covered.”
Um, huh? Seriously? Go back and read something — anything — on what the effects of the amendment will be. I really can't be in charge of filling in every little gap for you. Not just for this quote, but for the entire comment — “islands” and “the real world” and all that.
“Yes, ProfElwood, it is a discussion on legal restrictions.”
Yeah, I guess I missed that. Who on this thread is arguing for making abortion illegal?
“Of course, if men needed abortions, it wouldn't even be an issue.”
You're probably right: we tend to take care of our problems ourselves. (I'm going to gone for a couple of days, so I'll have fun reading about how sexist that statement was when I get back.)
Sorry, you did not refer to abortions (I am Pro-choice), you said bodies. All I'm asking is for you to apply your standard for men also, in this case covering Viagra (also the women's version). Not fair?
The most recent example I am aware of was back a few months ago when the WaPo published an article about a C.I.A. program that was trying to buy cooperation from Afghan warlords by giving away supplies of Viagra. Here is the article on Blogrunner, and some of the reaction to it.
Note there are two separate issues with this story: The story itself — the C.I.A. program and whether it's a good idea or not — and the reaction in the blogosphere to both the program itself and the reaction to it.
Sure it's fair, that was part of my original comment on this thread. The point, yet again, that men's decisions about their own health care are not called into questions or restricted. Women's are. Goodness me, with all the people who just did not understand what the original piece was saying, it mustn't have been very good satire.
Sorry, again. the article, satire or not, was about Viagra. A whole bunch of you dragged it off course.
I and others have said multiple times that fair is fair, or words to that effect, at least I did. I also said we are beating a dead horse. Dostoevsky is really getting annoyed.
dduck12, if you think that article was about Viagra, you didn't get it.
I bow to your superior perspicacity. I said it was about coverage for a drug.
“Since your statement was that most women who have abortions are pregnant because they were promiscuous, I am assuming that this request for sources is now a moot point, since you have acknowledged you did not know the correct definition of “promiscuous.”
You know very well, Kathy, that I provided unbiased statistics as to THE REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS. I said nothing about statistics about promiscuity.
YOU STILL HAVE YET TO CONFIRM MY POST WITH THOSE STATS.
You simply choose to ignore it and say the exact opposite.
You said that most women have abortions because it is a health issue. I showed you proof to the contrary.
The VAST majority of abortions are because the woman does not want the baby – for a myriad of reasons.
It is THESE women that could have prevented the pregnancy through more responsible methods.
Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions.
“As a point of fact…the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception.”
That's GREAT!
Once again….. EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.
I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion…
Rape: 1%
Incest: 0.5%
Health problems of mother: 12%
Health of baby: 13%
(NOTE: Not more than 13 percent listed the above reasons)
Unready to have child: 32%
Too immature to have child: 22%
Parents (grandparents) want it: 6%
To avoid single parenthood: 48%
Partner doesn't want child: 14%
Doesn't want any more children: 38%
Can't afford a baby right now: 73%
Unmarried: 42%
Another note: All of the reasons given for the second set could have been prevented through more responsible action or self control.
PREGNANCY IS NOT AN INJURY, ya dolt.
How obtuse is that?
(sorry for the dolt comment, but it fit the situation. I don't really think you're a “dolt”)
I have no idea why women get abortions?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion…
from the Allen Guttmacher Institute.
Go check it out, please.
And what a woman does with her own body is EVERYONE'S business if she is committing murder. You can go ahead and consider an unborn child as a lumpy mass of cells if that helps you sleep at night. That does not take away from the point that life begins at conception. Once the cells begin to divide and synapses begin to fire, you've got a human being whether you like it or not. Your calling a baby a “fetus” makes it a little less cold to kill it as well.
Even the Japanese count age from the date of conception – as do many other cultures. So once you're born, you are already nine months old.
Hey roro. Why is it illegal to commit suicide?
Isn't that A WOMANS BODY as well? Don't you have the right to hurt yourself or kill yourself?
No, that's illegal. Why aren't you arguing for suicide rights?
I don't have much to add to the recent discussion, but I do have some parenthetical remarks. But since they are somewhat off-topic, I'll first address the topic of being off-topic. I think after 100 or so comments the rules about “staying on topic” shouldn't apply. After reading and writing the first 181 comments, I think I've earned to the right to post about my pet hamster if I felt like it.:) Besides, I don't know what more can be said about the original topic that hasn't already been said.
roro80: “The point, yet again, that men's decisions about their own health care are not called into questions or restricted.”
You're right, but it is the unique biology of women that makes the abortion issue controversial. Is there a medical procedure that exclusively applies to men that is comparable to abortion in the moral questions that it presents? I can't think of any. Is that fair? No. But neither is it fair that biology/mother nature/God/whatever has determined that women should bear the children and men don't have to. Obviously, men and women are different. If separate-but-equal is not really “equal”, then women and men will never be “equal” in that sense because we will never be equivalent. It seems the best we can do is deal with that the best we can and not expect equivalent treatment in cases where clearly it is biologically impossible.
“Yet it's very easy for one of the parties to skirt this responsibility, and essentially impossible for the other party. “Busting his butt” is a great option for those rich women whose men take off.”
I explained my position on the legality of abortion previously in this thread (I think it was this one–they've all run together in my head). I believe it should be illegal except when there are medical complications (which is quite broad, and in at least Kathy's opinion would make it legal most of the time). I don't expect you to care what I think should be legal or illegal, and I understand that the court has ruled on the subject, but my point is this: I think the man who abandons the mother of his child has committed an act at least as immoral, and at least as worthy of legal prohibition, as the women who gets an abortion.
I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
That link you provided is to an unknown person on an anti-choice site. It is not per the Alan Guttmacher Institute. He takes information from the AGI and then claims they're wrong. If you want statistics PER THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE SITE, then GO to the Alan Guttmacher Institute site.
I gave you a link to a highly respected, professional site and you give me a link to a site belonging to an individual who is unknown to anybody and has no credibility at all.
And then YOU tell ME to “Read it carefully, ok?”
You know very well, Kathy, that I provided unbiased statistics as to THE REASON WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS. I said nothing about statistics about promiscuity.
JD, you are having trouble keeping track of your own misinformation. I never said that you said anything “about statistics about promiscuity.” YOU said, repeatedly, that women who have abortions because they don't want or can't support the child are promiscuous. You defined promiscuous (paraphrasing) as having sex without taking precautions. Roro pointed out that your definition of “promiscuous” was incorrect. Here is your answer to her:
“And I stand corrected by the “promiscuous” definition. But besides symantics, which obviously is more important that the meat of the argument I presented; my assertion stands, correctly, that unwanted pregnancies are from lack of self control, or lack of precaution (my emphasis). If I do not want cancer, there is nothing I can do to stop it. If I do not want a child, I can CHOOSE not to have sex.”
I don't think that you yourself know what point you're trying to make anymore. First you tell us that women have unwanted pregnancies because they didn't use contraception. Then when I show you reliable information demonstrating that most sexually active women of childbearing age who don't want to get pregnant DO use contraception, you (a) deny that it's true and give me a new link to a junk site; (b) tell me again that “the vast majority of abortions are because the woman does not want the baby — for a myriad of reasons” — which is not the same issue as the contraception issue; and then (c) tell me, additionally, that “It is THESE women that could have prevented the pregnancy through more responsible methods. Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions.” You conclude by repeating your mantra that if women don't want children they can choose not to have sex — which also contradicts your simultaneous and previous assertions that you want women to “take precautions.”
You seem not to understand the distinction between the reason for the pregnancy and the reason for the abortion. The first is because of, in most cases, contraceptive failure; and the second is because, in the majority of cases, the woman who is pregnant does not want, is not emotionally ready for, or cannot support a child at that time. The two are different. They're not the same. You also don't seem to be clear about which assertion you are trying to convince me of. Are you trying to argue that most women have abortions for social reasons, or are you trying to argue that most women have abortions because they did not take precautions. The first is probably true (which I argued against before, but CStanley persuaded me I was mistaken on); the second is most definitely NOT true.
And again:
“As a point of fact…the overwhelming majority of women of childbearing age who are sexually active and do not want children are using contraception.”
That's GREAT!
Once again….. EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.
I'll say it one more time for you. Read it carefully. Ok?
Per The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI):
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion…
No. You are the one who needs to read, and think, more carefully, not me. My statement that most women of childbearing age who are sexually active and don't want children are using contraception WAS AND IS CORRECT, per the AGI, which you can go and look at again if you want to. That is THE RULE, not the exception. Remember, try to keep this straight: *We are talking now about “taking precautions” — being responsible, using contraception. We are NOT talking right now about WHY most women have ABORTIONS. We are talking right now about WHY most women have unintended and unwanted PREGNANCIES.
Edited to add: Okay, JD, here is the problem, right here. This line:
“Contraception failure is less than 1% of the reason for abortions.”
No one is saying contraception failure is the reason for ABORTIONS. It is (most frequently) the reason for the UNWANTED PREGNANCY. The reason for the abortion is that the pregnancy is unwanted. The reason for the pregnancy is contraceptive failure.
Of course you do.
I'm just wondering: As a practical matter, what do you think the punishment for suicide should be?
I don't know how others feel, but I am thinking about how odd it is that JD has to get his Alan Guttmacher Institute information from “Johnston's Archive” rather than getting it from… well, say… the Alan Guttmacher Institute?
And it IS Alan, not Allen.
Even the Japanese count age from the date of conception – as do many other cultures. So once you're born, you are already nine months old.
Do you have a cite for this?
Nope. It would be a sacrament.
Kathy, I don't have time to continue the discussion but just wanted to thank you too for this response. I find it so much better to speak in ways that help us understand each other instead of impugning motives…wouldn't you agree? We'll probably never agree on the substance of the issue, but we can better understand each other's perspective.
Just one brief comment and then I have to run- about the part where you agreed that your position is based on a desire to 'level the playing field' since women are the ones who bear more natural consequence of sexual activity- this really just speaks to our fundamental, philosophical disagreement over the role of government. I don't think it's desirable nor even close to being possible for government to do that in so many instances, so I never consider that as the role that government should play. Life just isn't fair, and there's no way that we're going to make it that way by fiat.
Can be found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/371100…
This is the study that JD mentions. Its there Kathy.
TABLE 3. Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most important
reason for having the abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987
(N=957) (N=1,773)
Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25 27
Can’t afford a baby now 23 21
Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
children are grown 19 8***
Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems 8 13***
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young 7 11**
Would interfere with education or career plans 4 10***
Physical problem with my health 4 3
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3 3
Was a victim of rape <0.5 1
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion <0.5 1
Parents want me to have an abortion <0.5 <0.5
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant <0.5 1***
Other 6 1
Total 100 100
East Asian age reckoning is a concept and practice that originated in China and is used in East Asian cultures. Several East Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolia, Taiwanese and Vietnamese, share this traditional way of counting a person's age, in which a person's age is counted starting from conception, rather than from physical birth. Newborns start at one year old, and each passing of a New Year, rather than the birthday, adds one year to the person's age; this results in people being between 1 and 2 years older in Asian reckoning than in the Western version.
From Encyclopedia Britanica and Wikipedia (read it in encyclo, cut it from Wiki).
Does it matter, Kathy. Even when I cite stuff, you don't actually address the information, you attack its pertenance or validity. The AGI info from the site I gave is accurate. It is merely the REASONS women have abortions.
As I've said at least three times now, most women of childbearing age who are sexually active but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant.
JD–
It does matter. And when you cite something on the Internet, you are supposed to provide either a link or some other way for the person you are speaking with to easily find it. How on earth am I supposed to find the above on Wikipedia with no link, no title, no way to identify or find the article on Wikipedia?
Even when I cite stuff, you don't actually address the information, you attack its pertenance or validity.
And that is because most of the time when you “cite stuff,” it *isn't* pertinent, even if valid, and usually I can't even find it (see above in this same comment).
“As I've said at least three times now, most women of childbearing age who are sexually active but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant.”
Ok, Kathy. You've missed the original assertion, again.
Most sexually active women of childbearing age but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant?
SO WHAT? That's obvious!!!!!! If they WANTED children, they wouldn't have used contraception!!!!!
Now… Let's make that statement pertinent, shall we?
Why do most women get abortions? Is it because “most” had failed contraception? No.
That is what I have been saying this entire time!!!! This is what is so darned frustrating.
I site WHY women have abortions.
You come back with some health-class information about women who don't want children use contraception? What does that have to do with MY statement?
GEEZ!
Why do most women get abortions? Is it because “most” had failed contraception? No.
Here is the logical sequence again, JD.
1. Woman is sexually active but does not want to have a child.
2. Woman uses contraception to prevent pregnancy.
3. Contraceptive fails to work as it should.
4. Woman becomes pregnant.
5. Woman does not want to be pregnant (refer back to number 1) and decides to have an abortion.
Here is JD's argument:
1. If a woman does not want to have a baby, she should be responsible.
2. Definition of being responsible:
(a) not have sex
(b) use contraception
3. Woman chooses responsible option b: Use contraception.
4. Contraception fails, woman becomes pregnant, woman has abortion.
Now let's revisit what you said above:
Kathy. You've missed the original assertion, again.
Most sexually active women of childbearing age but don't want children were using contraception at the time they became pregnant?
SO WHAT? That's obvious!!!!!! If they WANTED children, they wouldn't have used contraception!!!!!
Ummmm, yeah… that's true… so why have you been saying that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant she should act responsibly by not having sex, OR by using contraception?
Continuing:
Now… Let's make that statement pertinent, shall we?
Why do most women get abortions? Is it because “most” had failed contraception? No.
Ummmm, no…. It's because they don't want to have a child. I agree with that. Although I feel I must add, in the interest of accuracy, that I never said most women have abortions because they didn't use contraception. I said that most unwanted pregnancies happen because contraception fails. After all, if you're having an abortion, it must mean you're pregnant, right? And if you don't want to be pregnant and you were using contraception, it must mean your contraceptive method failed, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't need an abortion, right?
Now, going back to something you have said repeatedly: Those women (the ones who have abortions because they don't want a child) are irresponsible because if they didn't want a child, they should have either not had sex or used contraception.
But most of them DID use contraception!
Then you say,
I site WHY women have abortions.
You come back with some health-class information about women who don't want children use contraception? What does that have to do with MY statement?
Here's what it has to do with your statement: Most women who have abortions don't want the baby. Most women who have abortions are pregnant (well, actually all women who have abortions are pregnant). Most women who don't want children were using contraception at the time they had sex, and became pregnant. Therefore, your repeated claim that women who have abortions are irresponsible because they should have used contraception doesn't make sense.
Finally you say,
That is what I have been saying this entire time!!!! This is what is so darned frustrating.
To which I reply:Oh, JD. Tell me about it. I know exactly how you feel.
Kathy….. For the love of pete, you're killing me.
1. I stated that most women have abortions for reasons other than your many exceptions (rape, incest, health, and contraception).
2. The vast majority have abortions for other reasons. You dismissed my numbers on that because you didn't like the website. Unless you can show me other numbers as to WHY women have abortions, then I have to rely on what I have found.
3. I stated that women who could not afford children, should probably not have sex, or at a bare minimum, triple up on contraception (the words I used were “extreme precaution” I believe).
Where in the world does a statistic that says that most women who don't want sex use contraception fit into those statements? Yes, I got your intent from your last post. But I don't believe it fits my original assertion that MOST women have abortions for reasons other than for reasons they cannot control as named above. The vast majority of abortions are because the woman can't afford it, or doesn't want it, or is too immature, etc.
1. I have granted you this point. I granted you this point several comments ago. I told you that CStanley had persuaded me that the majority of abortions are for “social” reasons (can't afford, don't want, not ready, etc.). Perhaps your confusion, then, is that you somehow have not “taken in” or absorbed, the fact that I am agreeing with you now on this point.
2.See number 1, above.
3. I do not recall your using the phrase “triple up on contraception.” You used the phrase “take precautions” which must mean “use contraception” because I don't know what else it could mean. You did not say “extreme precaution.” You said that women who could not afford children or didn't want them for whatever reason should either abstain from sex or take precautions (i.e., use contraception). You did say “use contraception” but you did not say “extreme contraception.”
Where in the world does a statistic that says that most women who don't want sex use contraception fit into those statements?
Nowhere, because that is not what the statistic says, and it's not what I said it said.
As I'm sure you would agree, contraception is not an issue for women who do not want sex.
Contraception is an issue for women who DO want sex but DON'T want children.
But I don't believe it fits my original assertion that MOST women have abortions for reasons other than for reasons they cannot control as named above. The vast majority of abortions are because the woman can't afford it, or doesn't want it, or is too immature, etc.
And as I've said, I agree with that assessment. But somehow, in your mind, the contraceptive issue seems to be one of the reasons you think a woman might have an abortion. You keep saying that most women have abortions because they can't afford, don't want, etc., the baby, NOT because their contraceptive method failed. But what I am trying to find some way to get you to understand is that it's not either/or. It's not either the woman had an abortion because she couldn't afford a baby, or a woman had an abortion because her contraception failed. “Reason for abortion” and “use of contraception” are different in *kind.* They are not in the same category. A woman can have an abortion because she can't afford a baby, EVEN IF she DID use contraception. And that is because contraceptives can fail — even if you use more than one method.
You seem to believe, or you seem to be saying, at least, that *either* a woman has an abortion because she can't afford a child, *or* she has an abortion because her contraceptive method failed. And that does not make sense. Here is what makes sense: A woman gets pregnant after her contraceptive method fails and she has an abortion because she cannot afford a child.
Is this clear to you now, what I am trying to say to you?
Now, if you come back at me with something like, “Kathy, you still don't understand; I told you that most women have abortions because they can't afford a child, not because of failed contraceptive method,” I am going to scream so loud and so long that you WILL hear it in Texas, or wherever it is you are.