No. Most people know when they have sex whether they are hoping for it to result in a baby or not. If they are hoping for a baby, the resulting hoping there won't be for a baby, it is unplanned.
That is not my definition of planned v. unplanned. That is my definition of intention vs. unintentional. They are VERY different words, in case if anyone hasn't noticed. It's obviously not "objective" as you assume.
No, it's because the definition you want to use for "wanted" is too subjective and complicated to evaluate in a way that can produce a meaningful statistics.
Again, I didn't use "wanted" in anything I've written just now. I don't think you are actually following/reading/thinking about anything I'm saying but simply toggling words without realizing the value of the meaning of those words.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees. Why is it then my turn to come up with 100 studies? As far as matching exactly, I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%.
As I said earlier, we are never going to agree and this is utterly pointless to keep on going with this discussion. I think you are not making sense.
1. I think if people mean intention or not when they are creating studies, they should say that. That is not the same as planned v. unplanned. 2. A plan isn't just the act of having sex intentionally. That's ludicrous. To say that what is the definition of planning is objective is utterly naive - for crying out loud, we don't even have a defintion of minimum parenting standards. 3. To cite a statistic like 40% planned and say that's fact is citing research from which there's some methodolgy which you obviously don't seem to care about but yet all you care about is arguing w/ me b/c I don't give you some equally stupid number pulled out of the air. What bothers me is that you don't even question the methodology - somehow just b/c there's a number and a % sign then it's fact to you and anything outside of that is not ...unless there's a counter number regardless of how subjective the data is? That's a scary reliance on numbers.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees.
If you read previous posts of mine, I did make one link to that. I didn't keep track of every single link. Many just cite and repeat the 40-50% number without questioning how they arrive at that (or whether they even agree with those assumptions). Actually, that would discount the quality of the research to me.
"I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%."
I just don't understand your logic. It seems very lacking to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-16 03:01 am (UTC)That is not my definition of planned v. unplanned. That is my definition of intention vs. unintentional. They are VERY different words, in case if anyone hasn't noticed. It's obviously not "objective" as you assume.
No, it's because the definition you want to use for "wanted" is too subjective and complicated to evaluate in a way that can produce a meaningful statistics.
Again, I didn't use "wanted" in anything I've written just now. I don't think you are actually following/reading/thinking about anything I'm saying but simply toggling words without realizing the value of the meaning of those words.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees. Why is it then my turn to come up with 100 studies? As far as matching exactly, I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%.
As I said earlier, we are never going to agree and this is utterly pointless to keep on going with this discussion. I think you are not making sense.
1. I think if people mean intention or not when they are creating studies, they should say that. That is not the same as planned v. unplanned.
2. A plan isn't just the act of having sex intentionally. That's ludicrous. To say that what is the definition of planning is objective is utterly naive - for crying out loud, we don't even have a defintion of minimum parenting standards.
3. To cite a statistic like 40% planned and say that's fact is citing research from which there's some methodolgy which you obviously don't seem to care about but yet all you care about is arguing w/ me b/c I don't give you some equally stupid number pulled out of the air. What bothers me is that you don't even question the methodology - somehow just b/c there's a number and a % sign then it's fact to you and anything outside of that is not ...unless there's a counter number regardless of how subjective the data is? That's a scary reliance on numbers.
You said experts disagree with the about half statistic, I ask for one such expert (because if I'm incorrect, I like to know) who disagrees.
If you read previous posts of mine, I did make one link to that. I didn't keep track of every single link. Many just cite and repeat the 40-50% number without questioning how they arrive at that (or whether they even agree with those assumptions). Actually, that would discount the quality of the research to me.
"I never claimed they did all match exactly--and I'm sure they don't. I've been saying "about half" throughout for that very reason. I take that to mean somewhere between 40% and 60%."
I just don't understand your logic. It seems very lacking to me.