I don't see any advocacy there. It's just an observers statement of issues addressed in a program(s). The only stated opinion is that abortion is nasty.
I think I pretty clearly advocate for stronger social programs and outreach. Obviously abortion is a nasty business. It's preventable and should generally be avoided, but it should be available. Any woman who has went through an abortion would tells you its the least desirable option as far as contraception/birth control is concerned.
OK then prove it with links to the studies you have read instead of just waving in the direction of Guttmacher. Give the links to studies so we can see the actual numbers and percentages.
I've linked this
exact study in two of my other posts. Go read them. I'm not going to continue running errands for you.
No. Why should character be part of reducing abortion. Why does it have to be proven that women are really, really slutty and irresponsible before setting up a free contraceptive program. The Colorado program was simply a matter of money and organization.
Listen, the simple fact is this: the lower classes have significantly higher birth rates and significantly higher numbers of abortions. It's true they have less access to contraception at least educationally and financially speaking, but it's also true that even with this access and institutional support, they still seem to lack the
je ne sais quoi to reliably use contraception. Whether we agree that is due to genetics or some other nebulous issue is largely irrelevant to me. The point is there should be a concerted effort to cull the higher birth rates. For the competent but "down on their luck", this will lead to social mobility. For the permanent underclasses, the issue will resolve itself. In either case, both of our concerns are managed.
I have a link that says that is not true.
The Colorado initiative you keep mentioning demonstrates a number of things which I've already conceded are true: coherently managed government initiatives will reduce abortions and unintended pregnancy among the targeted demographics. That's great and I endorse it!
It doesn't change the fact that even after CFPI, fertility in these lower classes remained significantly higher than more privileged socioeconomic classes, with many people electing to not take LARCs even when available, which suggests that education, access, and nebulous "socioeconomic factors" are not the only explanatory variables as I've maintained.
Because you don't give any links to your information.
Or you just don't read my posts. Wouldn't be the first time.
Come on guy, don't even try that on us. We've seen that kind of language juxtaposition over and over.
What exactly am I trying to juxtapose? It is objectively true that the upper middle and middle classes in particular perceive targeted social programs as being dishonorable and lowly. It's possible this is uniquely an American phenomenon which has so much of its founding mythology bound up in rugged individualism.
The US was doing the same thing until the religious right started mucking in the politics of abortion. I wish someone in the IRS had the balls to deny church groups their tax exemption when they start lobbying for anti-abortion legislation. How the women in Maine handle their reproductive lives is not any business of some self righteous little churchmen in Texas.
We agree.