Married women make up about 1 percent of abortions.
Marital status and abortion.
[Article in English, French]
Wadhera S1, Millar WJ.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
This article examines the marital status of women who obtained abortions between 1974 and 1994, with particular attention to those who were married or in common-law relationships.
DATA SOURCES:
The data come from Statistics Canada's publications on abortions, in-patient hospital morbidity data, and reports from the United States.
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES:
Crude and age-standardized abortion rates from 1974 to 1994 were calculated by marital status.
MAIN RESULTS:
While abortion rates were highest for single women, those who were married (including common-law and separated) accounted for over one-quarter of all abortions performed in 1994. Since 1974, the age-standardized abortion rate per 1,000 married women aged 15 to 44 almost doubled from 6.6 to 11.2. For most of these women, it was their first abortion, and the majority had taken at least one pregnancy to term.
Marital status and abortion. - PubMed - NCBI
National Institute of health investigation
I suggest that we end relying on the Judiciary on this matter. That the House and Senate create actual laws, which have codes, regulations, etc. to handle the problem. Democrats had the upper hand. They could have simply legislatively solved the problem. They had a court behind them. But they punted. I believe there are two ways.
1. Amend the constitution
2. Create actual laws we all can read and understand on this issue.
Both sides have ways to solve this.
How do you solve the violation of women's Constitutional rights if such rights were also recognized to protect the unborn?
They cannot be treated equally under the law...how do you justify believing that the unborn are more deserving of Constitutional rights than women? One cannot have them without superseding the rights of the other.
I suggest that we end relying on the Judiciary on this matter. That the House and Senate create actual laws, which have codes, regulations, etc. to handle the problem. Democrats had the upper hand. They could have simply legislatively solved the problem. They had a court behind them. But they punted. I believe there are two ways.
1. Amend the constitution
2. Create actual laws we all can read and understand on this issue.
Both sides have ways to solve this.
Sorry:
14% married
another 31% living together
That's almost 50% in committed relationships
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 | Guttmacher Institute
(And I dont know what you were reading but even your own source doesnt agree with 1% :roll
If you think the best way to stop/prevent abortions is to outlaw abortions, you're lying to yourself and ignoring all the facts.
In fact, what needs to be done is to drastically reduce unwanted and/or unplanned pregnancies.
When women don't become pregnant, they don't get abortions. Amazing huh?
So how does one logically and realistically reduce unwanted pregnancy? <--- There is the crux to the whole abortion debate
1) honest and real sex-education starting BEFORE puberty sets in
2) no more "abstinence only" nonsense
3) birth control - education about it, affordable, free, covered by health insurance, easier access to it
4) health care - affordable, covered by health insurance, easy access, free for lower income/unemployed
5) stop shaming and demeaning women when it comes to sex
6) stop insisting sex should only be for procreation
That's the best place to start.
While it's never going to be possible to 100% eliminate all abortions from happening, what can be done is to drastically reduce the number down to almost nothing that isn't a medical necessity or due to rape/incest type scenarios.
That's what most are really talking about anyway.
Trying to prevent abortions after conception will not work.
The goal should be preventing conception, in as many instances as possible, unless conception is actually the goal.
So the question is, if you're pro-life (or anti-abortion) from the legal point of view, are you actually willing to commit to working towards an honest solution or not? Are you willing to work towards the prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than the outlawing of something that won't change the outcome in the long run?
To prevent abortions, you must prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Are you willing to work towards that goal or not?
Footnote : sex-shaming females isn't the path forward regarding any of this either - don't go down that path
I have never heard that the Judiciary can amend the constitution. When did the Judiciary amend the constitution to stipulate a right is to maim and kill other humans in her control?
I have never attacked the women. I point out real stories of what women who had abortions have come to terms with. And women who were about to get abortions, but did not, came to learn from their children who they allowed to be born.
1. More common than discussed is the major problem for women is that a loving relationship can and is ruined by abortions. She ends up being the mother to her own failure in a relationship.
2. Why wish harm on relationships knowing the destructive power of an abortion?
3. Women who shun abortions, though at first wanting one, end up with children who come to them later to show enormous respect and appreciation they were allowed to be born alive and live with loving families.
11 out of 1 thousand is by percentage not 1 percent.
1 in 100 is 1 percent. So you are right, I should have said .1 percent and not 1 percent.
I have never heard that the Judiciary can amend the constitution. When did the Judiciary amend the constitution to stipulate a right is to maim and kill other humans in her control?
IMO thats already been done. What punt? RvW as been revisited already and stood.
SOME people are simply trying to change them, violate them and or violate the rights of women either directly or indirectly.
WHile RvW has grey area only SOME people are trying to dishonestly work grey areas and or violate rights . .
and by some people, i mean extremists who happen to be prolifers . . .BUT most certainly not all or even the majority of prolifers are doing this.
Changing the constitution isnt needed but i would be fine to make it easier to understand for those that dont. if it was changed to simply read abortions are a legal right for body autonomy and right to privacy, they can happen for any reason before viability (21 weeks) and after viability only under certain circumstances and those circumstances should be between a patient and doctor. (But the general rules apply: risk to mothers physical/mental health / fetal defects) STates can regulate up to any point where it doesn infringe on those rights and those regulations again should be based on MEDICAL SCIENCE concerns, policies and procedures. NOT back door ways to try and violate rights :shrug:
This is basically how it is right now except RvW picked 50% viability at 24 weeks.
They havent good thing that made up fantasy also has nothing to do with abortion LMAO holey dishonesty batman LMAO
You missed what I bolded in YOUR source and ignored mine.
That's pathetic.
q.) I am sorry to report that the SCOTUS is not in charge of legislation and simply can rule on it.
2.)So Roe v Wade has never been made as part of the legal code.
3.) A true solution, and use slavery as an example, is to amend the constitution or at the very least codify it in law where all can study the actual laws.
You agreed with me then attempted to mock us both.
all meaningless feelings in regards to rights and laws and play no legit role in the matter.
Nope i only mocked your fantasy claim that doesn't apply to this topic then you deflected and dodged but that, like your non-analogous fantasy, also failed. LMAO
sooo here we are in the same spot your analogy failing and it factually not applying to abortion nor can you make it.
You stated married women have abortions in "significant numbers." I refuted that using the government study itself. What you bolded does not change the fact you are wrong.
1.) who said they were???
2.) who said it was legal code?
3.) the solution is already done all people have to do is to stop trying to violate the rights for women
11.5% is significant.
14% is significant.
I would be worried if I had an 11/5% of dying on the way home this evening.
You are flat out saying the Us Government lied. I made one mistake but you compound it further.
1.)Arguments are virtually 100 percent based on feelings.
2.)I mock the idea abortion is a right. It was a ruling by the SCOTUS
3.) and like the SCOTUS ruling in the case of Dred Scott approving slavery, can easily be solved as in Dred Scott with an amendment to the constitution or even laws created by the US congress.
4.) I am not saying this will end abortion, it will finally make it part and parcel of legislated laws.
You will not slither away from what you said. I propose we do what normally is done. Create actual laws. And you seem dead set against this being part of US law.
choooo choooo here comes the dodge train . . more dodges. .this keep getting easier and easier!1.)Why do you fear real laws?
2.) If you truly want to be part of law, all we need do is sanctify what you want by law. It was done for Dred Scott.
Your source spelled out 11.5%...I bolded it for you.
So please acknowledge that 11.5% and 14% are significant. (the 14% is much more recent)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?