Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 38
The Turnaway Study is a five-year prospective longitudinal study which aims to understand the effect of abortion on women's lives. Women were recruited from 30 abortion clinics across the country where no clinic within 150 miles performs procedures at a later gestation. The study includes women just above the gestational limit who were turned away from an abortion (n=231), just below the limit who received an abortion (n=452), and who received a first trimester abortion (n=273). This analysis presents the socioeconomic consequences for a family when a woman receives or is denied an abortion.

At the time of seeking an abortion, there were no differences in financial well being between the women receiving and being denied abortions: 45% received public assistance, two thirds had household incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL) and the average household size was 3.7. One year later, 86% of women denied an abortion were living with the baby; 11% had placed the baby for adoption. Women denied abortion were more likely to be receiving public assistance (76% vs. 44%) and have household income below the FPL (67% vs. 56%) than women who received an abortion. The proportion of women who were denied an abortion, and were working full time, was lower than among women who received an abortion (48% vs. 58%).
Consistent with women's reasons for wanting an abortion, primarily that they could not afford a child, many families increasingly rely on public assistance and remain in poverty after being denied an abortion.

https://apha.confex.com/apha/140am/webprogram/Paper263858.ht...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course this is exactly the argument the really religious find most reprehensible. If you follow this through, why not just gas people who can't measure up economically.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Of course this is exactly the argument the really religious find most reprehensible. If you follow this through, why not just gas people who can't measure up economically.

Because it ignores the rest of the neo-religious argument: That it's not the reduced access to abortion that resulted in those mothers (and children) requiring public assistance, it's the failure of the private sector (the mothers' families and churches) to provide for them until the mothers can either pray their children['/s'] father(s) back to Jesus, find a suitable replacement husband at church, or start a huge business and make something of themselves financially like a Real American. Well, maybe not that last one.

EVERY child deserves the chance to be born into poverty so they have the same opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootiestraps. Obviously God wanted it that way.

-n8
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Turnaway Study is a five-year prospective longitudinal study which aims to understand the effect of abortion on women's lives. Women were recruited from 30 abortion clinics across the country where no clinic within 150 miles performs procedures at a later gestation. The study includes women just above the gestational limit who were turned away from an abortion (n=231), just below the limit who received an abortion (n=452), and who received a first trimester abortion (n=273). This analysis presents the socioeconomic consequences for a family when a woman receives or is denied an abortion.

At the time of seeking an abortion, there were no differences in financial well being between the women receiving and being denied abortions: 45% received public assistance, two thirds had household incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL) and the average household size was 3.7. One year later, 86% of women denied an abortion were living with the baby; 11% had placed the baby for adoption. Women denied abortion were more likely to be receiving public assistance (76% vs. 44%) and have household income below the FPL (67% vs. 56%) than women who received an abortion. The proportion of women who were denied an abortion, and were working full time, was lower than among women who received an abortion (48% vs. 58%).
Consistent with women's reasons for wanting an abortion, primarily that they could not afford a child, many families increasingly rely on public assistance and remain in poverty after being denied an abortion.


Why don't more women who don't have abortions put the baby up for adoption?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why don't more women who don't have abortions put the baby up for adoption?

No different than puppies.... one gets attached to 'em real quick.

Plus, you get a free Obamaphone!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course this is exactly the argument the really religious find most reprehensible. If you follow this through, why not just gas people who can't measure up economically.

The GOP cannot comprehend why I believe they are out to deliberately create more poor people and then systematically starve them to death.

6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Plus, you get a free Obamaphone!!

Don't you mean Bushphone?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CairnDad: Why don't more women who don't have abortions put the baby up for adoption?

Uhh, are you kidding?

There's this thing called "natural selection", and one of its primary tenets is that parents -- particularly mothers -- will generally make large sacrifices to ensure the welfare and survival of their offspring. Historically, this is done by raising them or ensuring that they're raised by close relatives. Nature has a definite hand in this that a few thousand years of "civilization" has not worn off.

rj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why don't more women who don't have abortions put the baby up for adoption?

It's a reasonable question. Here's part of the answer, from what I know, and I'm hoping it will stir a better answer from one of the vastly more articulate and opinionated people on this issue here:

The way I understand it, vetting of adoptive parents/families has never been much of an exact science. Orphanages would judge however they felt like it. Since those basically all went the way of the buggy whip (bad analogy), it's been a hodge-podge of state and local efforts, or if an expecting but reluctant mother is resourceful, an individual effort to find and approve parents for their "unwanted" child, Juno style. More recently, to hear DW tell it anyway, there have been religiously-oriented adoption agencies that say they've been forced to shut down because the federal government won't let them receive federal funds AND bar gay couples from adopting.

At any rate, the biggest reason appears to be a stark lack of good, reliable information about where to go for with it, in the face of most mothers' unwillingness to just wrap their baby up in a blanket, put it in a basket, ring the doorbell somewhere, and run. Apparently, a whole lot more money goes into abortion counseling than adoption counseling. Part of this dynamic, at least in one model where the adoptive parents pay for the mother's childbirth expenses, is that the modern "hospital" childbirth has become so expensive that only better-off parents can afford it. While that could also be seen as a positive (able to afford childbirth ~ able to afford to raise the child), it DOES result in a narrower potential adoptive parent pool.

So, my take is that if there were more families willing to adopt AND a better of way of matching mothers not willing or not able to have abortions, that would help.

There's also the fact that single mothers get several kinds of government assistance that single non-mothers don't get. It's not ALL maternal instinct, I promise. This was this sad case of one instinct being stronger than the maternal one: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/some-bish-on-fb-is-giving-... (with an ironic twist--I hope that was fake, actually). Not saying this public assistance is a bad thing, just saying that, as in just about everything and at the margin, money incents certain outcomes over others.

Finally, many young women want (or feel pressured) to become mothers because their friends do.

It would appear to me to take a whole lot of trust to put your baby up for adoption. That's why the approval process is a touchy one, and one that it's tough (for me anyway) to imagine Uncle Sam getting it right. "Hardest thing I've ever done" is probably a common refrain. It has to be an intensely basic and natural feeling for a mother to KNOW in all her heart that she and only she is the best possible person to raise that child. Being male, I can only begin to know what this feels like. (yes, fathers feel this too)

Now, I'll shut up so someone can tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

-n8
Print the post Back To Top