Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the something else that's going on is called population. numbers. there are more people needing services in the cities than in rural areas. there are more people, children that are needy than in rural areas.
The childhood poverty rate should be higher for Whites, though, as the rural poverty-level Whites have no FP Clinics or PP abortion facilities near them for miles and miles. But it's not.
It's a matter of statistics. Why are Whites with no facilities around for miles and miles able to control their fertility, while Blacks need a 5 times higher abortion rate even though PP Clinics with contraception services heavily targets their neighborhoods?
To put it terms you'll better understand, no PP facilities in some areas (rural White poor) is yielding FAR better FP results than multiple facilities in urban minority neighborhoods. Why? It should be the exact opposite if "lack of access" was actually to blame.
how do you know if women in rural areas "are far more able to control their fertility"?
By looking at the childhood poverty rates by race/ethnicity. Another poster has already pointed out that poor Whites tend to live in rural areas, whereas poor minorities tend to live in urban areas.
Quote:
"irresponsibility"? your answer to the core of my unanswered questions.
What do you suggest is the cause of Blacks' 5 times higher abortion rate? It sure as hell isn't lack of access to contraceptive services. PP specifically targets minority neighborhoods for their facilities locations.
What the OP wants to paint is that Planned Parenthood is mainly about abortions, when in reality it is a minor part of what it does. PP mostly provides medical services to women, many of whom are poor and live in remote rural areas.
Policies that defund PP are evidence that the right wing cares not about women's health.
What the OP wants to paint is that Planned Parenthood is mainly about abortions, when in reality it is a minor part of what it does. PP mostly provides medical services to women, many of whom are poor and live in remote rural areas.
PP facilities aren't located in remote rural areas. They're in urban and larger town areas. Read the map:
The childhood poverty rate should be higher for Whites, though, as the rural poverty-level Whites have no FP Clinics or PP abortion facilities near them for miles and miles. But it's not.
It's a matter of statistics. Why are Whites with no facilities around for miles and miles able to control their fertility, while Blacks need a 5 times higher abortion rate even though PP Clinics with contraception services heavily targets their neighborhoods?
To put it terms you'll better understand, no PP facilities in some areas (rural White poor) is yielding FAR better FP results than multiple facilities in urban minority neighborhoods. Why? It should be the exact opposite if "lack of access" was actually to blame.
rural woman travel to urban cities to get services they don't get near home. this reflects not on their local stats but on the stats for the PP in the urban areas.
if you really want to understand the answers to your questions you need to understand why women get abortions. the presence of a PP does not incite woman to have abortions.
By looking at the childhood poverty rates by race/ethnicity. Another poster has already pointed out that poor Whites tend to live in rural areas, whereas poor minorities tend to live in urban areas.
What do you suggest is the cause of Blacks' 5 times higher abortion rate? It sure as hell isn't lack of access to contraceptive services. PP specifically targets minority neighborhoods for their facilities locations.
PP does not specifically target minorities because they set up in an urban area. you want to believe because they are in cities that makes it a fact. PP is there to provide a service for the population as a whole.
rural woman travel to urban cities to get services they don't get near home. this reflects not on their local stats but on the stats for the PP in the urban areas.
Again, look at the childhood poverty rates by race/ethnicity. Poor rural Whites that have no PP anywhere near them for miles and miles bear fewer children into poverty than the poor urban minorities (which PP specifically targets) that have much easier access to contraception services and abortions. Why is that?
PP does not specifically target minorities because they set up in an urban area. you want to believe because they are in cities that makes it a fact. PP is there to provide a service for the population as a whole.
Well, the population "as a whole" has very different abortion rates when the data is broken down by race/ethnicity. Blacks and Latinas are 5 times and 2 times more likely, respectively, to have an abortion than Whites. Why? Especially when PP and their FP services particularly target urban minority neighborhoods.
So it's OK to kill a baby one minute before they are born but not one minute after?
OK, I see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
OK. One day. And it doesn't matter how many. The issue is you think it's OK to kill a baby before birth but don't agree with killing a baby after birth.
If the objective is to stop women from having babies they don't want and cannot afford to support, why not kill them after birth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
The fact that you have to resort to such ridiculous extremes proves one thing: your argument against abortion is weak and unsustainable.
Drama queen much?
Actually I think Roadking raises legitimate and important questions. It troubles me that some here have chosen to simply attack the poster instead of actually sharing their answers to the questions.
I am pro-choice now (wasn't always) but the whole "grayness" of this issue is indeed troubling to me. Ok, we may agree an abortion shouldn't be performed 1 minute before birth, or 1 day, or 2 weeks, or ??? We can keep going backwards until we get to a point where we say, "ok, on this day abortion is ok, but the next day it's not" ??? Or perhaps there is a period of time in there that is gray--even a pro-choice person might say maybe it's ok that day or maybe it's not?
I know that many pro-choicers (myself included) focus on the gestational age of viability outside the womb, but that is not an absolute, concrete point.
To me, abortion ends up being the lesser of two evils, as a young fetus won't suffer as much in an abortion as a completely unwanted child could potentially suffer in a lifetime. But, as sick as this sounds, that same logic could just as easily be applied after birth, so it's not really a satisfying justification for abortion to me. I do struggle with the questions Roadkill raised, but truly have no solid answers.
So how many of you have ever been to a Planned Parenthood Office for any service.
Yo.
When I was just out of college, working for $160 a week with no employer-sponsored health insurance, I used Planned Parenthood for annual exams and birth control. The sliding scale made the exams and birth control affordable, the medical staff was knowledgeable and thorough.
I'd recommend Planned Parenthood to anyone. It's been a true lifesaver for many women. And men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
rural woman travel to urban cities to get services they don't get near home. this reflects not on their local stats but on the stats for the PP in the urban areas.
True - when I lived in rural southern Ohio I traveled to the big city to access Planned Parenthood's services. Now it has a satellite clinic in the town where I lived.
Quote:
if you really want to understand the answers to your questions you need to understand why women get abortions. the presence of a PP does not incite woman to have abortions.
Don't bother - that particular person seems to think that women just driving or walking past Planned Parenthood run in to get abortions on the fly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
