http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...suffer-poverty
Meanwhile women who were denied abortions are more likely to find themselves in public assistance (e.g Welfare, foodstamps, etc.)
This is not at all surprising, a lot of women who get abortions do so because they simply can't support that child either emotional or financially.
Sorry Alex. Although I do agree that the study does show significant trend, it barely has enough people in it to qualify for significance. They need to follow more women( in the tens of thousands) before anything can be said definitely.
I would hope the government would give more money to see if it is true.
A lot of studies start with a smaller sample size and slowly build up.
If I told you that a woman got pregnant and she was making minimum wage at her job, I think it's pretty clear that that child will drastically impact her financially.
Single people or couples who are either poor or just making ends meet do not have the luxury of having kids.
And while I'm NOT advocating for anyone to use abortion as a contraceptive measure, it is important to understand your priorities.
Bringing a child into a world of poverty isn't ideal.....and a woman has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body.
It might sound cynical, but real life isn't exactly pretty.
a lot of young couples who have kids get government help in the form of WIC, foodstamps, medicaide, and other forms, so they are at poverty level but still have children, poor people don't have the luxury of having kids? where are you from?
also does it mention more poor people get abortions?
so sure, if you kill your baby you will have more money because you do not have a baby to take care of.
I should've said it more clearly.....poor people don't have the luxury of PLANNING to have kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewsbury
Most of the time it's an accident, after all, who plans to have kids when they can't even support themselves?
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewsbury
"kill your baby"?
Every single legal abortion in this country is done before the fetus has properly developed (AKA viability).....what they are "killing" is NOT a baby or even a legitimate human to be accurate.
BTW, just so we're clear, if in the future there is a way to have viability BEFORE the 20-24 week period (AKA Third Trimester) then I would not be in favor of abortions.
In my mind....what they are aborting is NOT a human....plain and simple.
then why if you don't kill it, it pops out as a baby human?
if you kill a toddler, they won't become a tween,
if you kill a teen they won't become an adult,
if you kill a fetus, it won't become a baby
Sorry Alex but I can't buy this one. I also read a report that women how women who have abortions have an increased chance to get breast cancer.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/index/
No the answer is not to have more abortions or even to deny public assistance to those who woman up and raise their kids but to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Why is that such a hard concept for both sides of the abortion debate to grasp?
Surely you must see the fallacy in asserting this argument right?Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewsbury
I could say that a sperm if given the chance also has the chance to become human, right?
I could say that a zygote also has a chance to become human, but would you consider that an actual human?
You may as well call a child an adult and let them drink alcohol, since there's no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewsbury
only if you don't kill them, once dead, it is all over
alex, any life growing within the womb, is life. we will never agree on this, and that is ok.
ut to say women who have abortions are less poor than those who have the baby, is about 1st grade as you can get. if i didn't have 3 daughters, raised them, and paid for college, I would be rich right now.