the incompatibility of pro-choice and anti-choice worldviews

[chimerically]

I've realized that I could never effectively argue with most anti-choice activists about birth control and abortion because we would be making completely different assumptions about the world -- different and fundamentally incompatible paradigms, in Kuhn's terms (since I've been reading lots of and about him in my philosophy of science class). Their arguments about what the Bible says about sex and other topics hold no weight for me. My arguments about problems of abused and neglected children, overpopulation, and a woman's right to control the course of her life hold little or no weight for them.

The point where we might be able to actually speak to one another, rather than past one another, is the issue of viability and when "life" starts, but even there they take what I see as ridiculously extreme views such as "life starts at conception" or sometimes with the possibility of conception (thus, the fight against birth control as a preventative measure) that I can't possibly agree with, given the messy realities of life: so many fertilized eggs don't implant, so many proto-fetuses don't last even a week, etc.

Furthermore, if they take this stance, why aren't they attacking in-vitro fertilization as vehemently as they are abortion and birth control? Multiple fetuses are grown and then one (or sometimes a few, but certainly not all) is implanted, and the rest are discarded. Isn't that murder in their eyes? Shouldn't all viable fetuses be given the chance to live in that case too? Funny how the intention of the couple seems to change the morality of the fetuses: people who are going through in-vitro fertilization want to be parents while people practicing birth control don't.

Along those same lines, it's also very strange that some anti-choice people take childlessness to be irresponsible, while from an environmental perspective, I think that having children is the more irresponsible choice (which, of course, some eco-minded parents mitigate in various ways, as I hope I would too if/when I have children -- but all things considered, that's still another person using a lifetime's-worth of resources, which is not small even when minimized). And moreover, making sure that one has children at a point in one's life when they can be best provided for seems to be, to me, a lot more responsible than risking having kids as soon as one starts having sex, which for a very large part of the population is very young (even with abstinence-only education like I grew up with, as a recent study shows). Of course, the anti-choice people would say one shouldn't be having sex until one is prepared to have children (which is the often-unsaid corollary to most of their points), but that's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own set of worldview incompatibilities, and I'll save that for another post (though you're welcome to rail in the comments if you want to).

No wonder this is such a hotly-contested debate. Except that it's not really a debate at all.

(NOTE: I don't mean to imply that one side is more "rational" than the other, even though I have made it clear which "side" I am on. These sorts of disagreements happen all the time, in many areas. My main argument is that the incommensurability of worldviews prevent the two sides from even seeing eye-to-eye.)

Comments

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends upon how you read the statistics. I believe it is much higher. It is documented that accurate statistics are hard to capture. It's also pretty key (in my view) to make a distinction between the terms "unplanned" and "unwanted" - I believe that the unwanted is probably closer to the halfway point in the U.S. and world but that "unplanned" is significantly higher. Partly because we all have different definitions of the word "plan" obviously which (in my view) is more than just having sex with the intention of having a child. In my own situation, every single one of us (my sisters and I) were all unplanned pregnancies. I was probably the only one not wanted by my mother but wanted by my father. I'm told my mother wouldn't even hold me after I was born because I had red hair.
Depending upon how statistics are acquired, I think more people would be willing to openly say that they didn't plan for a child than didn't want a child. Not all countries are accounted for in the world statistics; my guess is that the rates will be more dramatic in countries where it's impossible to obtain statistics for whatever reason. I don't believe that the numbers that do exist are an accurate measure, and there already seems to be discourse on the reality of the numbers.

I don't assume that unplanned pregnancies result in child abuse - that's a stronger statement that what I said:

"I think it was the child abuse that got me. I started to realize that by having such a strong opinion like my family on the whole facing the consequences thing that it really is to the detriment of a % of children out there."

A % of those unplanned pregnancies are unwanted children. A % of those are the ones that face child abuse. I don't have actual statistics on that and those are also difficult to obtain between we don't have a consistent way of capturing and measuring that data. The volunteer work I did for CASA was pretty clear that a fair number of the kids were unwanted more than planned/unplanned but likely it seems more reasonable that they were unplanned and unwanted because it'd be probably less common to plan for a child and then to abuse it.

But sites like this one, this one, and probably a host of others do show that at least for a % of cases there is a link between unplanned pregnancies and child abuse (to be fair, they also don't make a distinction between unplanned and unwanted, and i think there is a significant difference between becoming unexpectedly pregnant and whether you would want the child or not).

I think most would agree that child abuse is selfish and has costs to all. If you don't want a child then you shouldn't be irresponsible and get pregnant and add further costs to everyone else but even more so to the child that is born. I think if you do have a child (whether planned or unplanned) then you have a responsibility to care for that child and make sure its needs are met, whether you want it or not. Or give it up for adoption. A child deserves more than a careless, irresponsible parent who wouldn't give a shit about whether they lived or died. I would argue the same goes for a pet as well. Another life is not a consumer product that can be used and abused at will.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends upon how you read the statistics. I believe it is much higher.

Please show me statistics saying that it is much higher.
This says 49% are unplanned. (more here)

And this, this also says about half. I can find more if you like. Yes, it's hard to characterize, and it's larger for some groups (teens have more unplanned pregnancies), but I was talking from statistics when I said "about half" and not making a guess.

I'm not particularly surprised at the link between unplanned pregnancy and child abuse; what I doubt is whether it's the unplannedness that really matters. It seems likely that the risk factors for abuse have substantial overlap with risk factors for unplanned pregnancies. (ie, teenage parents are more likely to be abused, and teen pregnancies are more likely to be unplanned).

Your notion of unwanted children is a bit odd--women can always give children up for adoption, and there are plenty of a families out there wanting to adopt. So if a woman keeps a child, it's wanted in some sense of the word.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

Please show me statistics saying that it is much higher.

No. I believe they are much higher because they are not making a distinction between unplanned and unwanted, which would dramatically change existing statistics. There is research on the statistics not being accurate and not taking a real worldview because it is not possible to obtain that. I can show you lots of flawed data too: it is pointless. I don't believe that only 50% of pregnancies are planned, meaning that there is a plan for another living human that will be in your life for 18 years — being beyond intentionally having sex to have the child.

I can find more if you like.

It would entirely miss the point and the basis from which I am coming from.

I was talking from statistics when I said "about half" and not making a guess.

Do you ever consider that statistics are flawed or not comprehensive enough? Ever? I mean, there is research that says that the way questions are being asked (even anonymously) do affect results - does it not bother you that there is a HUGE difference between the terms "unplanned" and "unwanted" and what exactly is a plan? There was also research that I read that said that they don't have numbers for every country in the world because it's impossible to get it from some - do you really think those countries are likely to have the ones that have a plan?

I'm not particularly surprised at the link between unplanned pregnancy and child abuse; what I doubt is whether it's the unplannedness that really matters. It seems likely that the risk factors for abuse have substantial overlap with risk factors for unplanned pregnancies. (ie, teenage parents are more likely to be abused, and teen pregnancies are more likely to be unplanned).

Whether you want to phrase it as a "risk factor" or as a "link" or an "assumption" or whatever is just semantics with much relevance. I supposed you could say that poverty is also a "risk factor" or a "link" or an "assumption" as well - you asked me where why I was assuming this connection and I said I clearly and obviously was not (proving that with links) and somehow it's just another word like "risk factor" but yet acknowledge that there is a link? That seems odd/confused to me.

Your notion of unwanted children is a bit odd--women can always give children up for adoption, and there are plenty of a families out there wanting to adopt. So if a woman keeps a child, it's wanted in some sense of the word.

Because everything revolves around the individual and they live in a vacuum and their actions dictate their thoughts? To not want something does not mean that you would give it up. Now let's think of some basic reasons why. Societal pressures. Religion. Selfishness. Because you plan to pimp out your child to support your drug habit. Because your child will be selling your drugs for you. Because the thought of actually dealing or caring for your child never occurred to you. Oh wait. And then child abuse goes in a cycle so it's the whole "this is how I was raised and so this is what I do and it's not my fault b/c I didn't want to get pregnant in the first place." A mental deficiency where you can be both abusive and not want your child. You could have the kid because you're pressured into it but then you don't want it so you abandon it (I've known someone whose never known her parents for this exact reason - it's hard to hear her talk about her life as a result of her parents having had a child they didn't want). You should volunteer for awhile or even visit your local CASA office or equivalent organization - you'd be surprised at the huge range of illogic that affects some of these kids. It's heartbreaking. Odd? Maybe. It's a hard reality.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

Do you ever consider that statistics are flawed or not comprehensive enough? Ever?

Of course. But I trust statistics gathered by researchers--who were looking specifically at "unplanned" pregnancies (not "unwanted children") over my, or anyone else's, gut feeling.

Worldwide, I don't have the foggiest clue, and didn't mean to imply that I did. I was speaking of the US.

Whether you want to phrase it as a "risk factor" or as a "link" or an "assumption" or whatever is just semantics with much relevance. I supposed you could say that poverty is also a "risk factor" or a "link" or an "assumption" as well - you asked me where why I was assuming this connection and I said I clearly and obviously was not (proving that with links) and somehow it's just another word like "risk factor" but yet acknowledge that there is a link? That seems odd/confused to me.

Supposing you find children of unplanned pregnancies are more likely to be abused. There are two possibilities:
(1) Being the result of an unplanned pregnancy makes one's parents more likely to be abusive, as a sort of revenge for surprising them.
(2) The factors that lead to unplanned pregnancy are the same or similar to the factors that tend to lead to child abuse. (ie, teens are more likely to be stupid about birth control and sex, and teens are more likely to be abusive parents, therefore, you see more abused children of unplanned pregnancies, but it has nothing to do with the plannedness or unplannedness o f the pregnancy)

You could have the kid because you're pressured into it but then you don't want it so you abandon it (I've known someone whose never known her parents for this exact reason - it's hard to hear her talk about her life as a result of her parents having had a child they didn't want).

I can perfectly well believe this happens. But I think the issue is more complex than you're capturing with the word "unwanted." The sort of deal where parents have children and then regret it (and are broken enough to mention that to the child) may even happen with a planned or mostly-planned pregnancy. I can see how having a child may in some circumstances be a desirable way out of one's current life and therefore "wanted", but then once the child is actually there, it becomes a burden and is "unwanted".

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

"I trust statistics gathered by researchers--who were looking specifically at "unplanned" pregnancies (not "unwanted children") over my, or anyone else's, gut feeling."

I'm not presenting this as scholarly research but as my thoughts. If I were to present it, I would start from scratch and re-evaluate the statistics. Just because there are published numbers somewhere that you can grab a statistic from - I don't care how "professional" the researchers are - it doesn't make it correct. I doubt we'll agree here - you value statistics far more than I do and that's just inherently where we're going to disagree. Statistics are not fact. You are using someone else's numbers to base your conclusions on without looking at how they obtained that data and if you agree with it and if it represents your conclusions so it's not that much stronger (in my opinion).

I think it's key to make a distinction between the terms unwanted and unplanned before doing research in which you're drawing conclusions from.

"Supposing you find children of unplanned pregnancies are more likely to be abused."

I don't know about "more likely" - there is a well-documented link there and that was my point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the planned/unplanned is the sole reason why a child gets abused or not or even that distinction has any strong, distinctive relationship in the rate of abuse because there are many reasons.

(1) Being the result of an unplanned pregnancy makes one's parents more likely to be abusive, as a sort of revenge for surprising them.

No. It's really not that linear.

(2)

No. Again, far too linear in conclusions. Having an unplanned/planned pregnancy is one decision. Choosing whether or not to abuse is an entirely different decision. Humans are not at all consistent and you can't say that one necessarily follows the other. But you can see patterns, and that was my original point: there is a clear link between the rate of unplanned pregnancies and child abuse...as much as you trust the data which is known to not be accurate. There is also not the key distinction between "unwanted" and "unplanned" in this research either - instinctively, I want to say that the rate of child abuse is much higher in unwanted pregnancies than unplanned...and if that distinction were made in the statistics, it would likely show that there is more of a correlation between unwanted children and child abuse than unplanned and child abuse. That's rather significant in my mind.

I can perfectly well believe this happens. But I think the issue is more complex than you're capturing with the word "unwanted."

Likewise, I think your conclusions are weak and based on statistics that are questionable at best. I would agree that it's a complex issue and words don't capture that complexity - regardless of what words you use. I could also argue that we're coming back full circle with my argument that I don't believe the term "unplanned" alone really captures the complexity of the issue either :)

The sort of deal where parents have children and then regret it (and are broken enough to mention that to the child) may even happen with a planned or mostly-planned pregnancy.

Agreed; and people having far too romantic of a view of what having a child is like. I'm an advocate of having teens babysit to actually deal with a child for a number of hours a day and think about whether they're realistically ready to be parents at a young age. I didn't get the chance to do this, but when I just barely 21 I dated a guy who had a 2-year-old son and after living with him practically day and day out for awhile, I knew I wasn't ready to be a mother. I liked the idea of kids, but the reality of it was not something I was ready to take on. I realized that the instant the child first called me "Mommy" (I wasn't his mother - his mother walked out on a marriage and left the child - I'll never know the answers on that b/c I only heard my then-boyfriend's side of the story and I don't like basing opinions from one side of the story). I'm not saying that "wanted" children and child abuse doesn't happen; I think it's far less likely. And then once again we're back to the same problem: how, exactly, do you defined "wanted"? and "planned"?

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's key to make a distinction between the terms unwanted and
unplanned before doing research in which you're drawing conclusions from.

They DO make that distinction! The aren't explicit about it because they make NO ATTEMPT to look at "unwanted pregnancies".

I could also argue that we're coming back full circle with my argument that I don't believe the term "unplanned" alone really captures the complexity of the issue either :)

I never said or meant to imply that "unplanned" is the only thing that matters. You made a statement of fact (saying the vast majority of pregnancy are unplanned) that differs from the current best expert understanding of the situation. I thought you might care.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

They DO make that distinction! The aren't explicit about it because they make NO ATTEMPT to look at "unwanted pregnancies".

Why do they make that distinction but yet not find it valid enough to look at it?

I could also argue that we're coming back full circle with my argument
that I don't believe the term "unplanned" alone really captures the
complexity of the issue either :)

I never said or meant to imply that "unplanned" is the only thing that
matters. You made a statement of fact (saying the vast majority of
pregnancy are unplanned) that differs from the current best expert
understanding of the situation. I thought you might care.

I think saying that it was a "statement of fact" is also probably stronger as well. But just because you also state a statistic as "fact" even though I think the research is flawed and not a realistic projection of numbers by "experts" (who do, in fact, also question the validity of the number and the tricky ways that's interpreted/able to be gathered). I just see this as you value the numbers; I don't. Whether you state the numbers of whether I state what I think doesn't mean that either are "facts" - it's incredibly subjective-based data. I care to not repeat statistics I don't support just as much as you care to use statistics.

I seriously doubt we'll agree on these points, so it's best to just agree to disagree. Rather ironic...given the original post about the inability for two sides to see each other's vantage points.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

Why do they make that distinction but yet not find it valid enough to look at it?

"Was this pregnancy planned?" is a relatively simple question. There are weird cases where it's hard to say "planned" or "unplanned" (like someone I know, who was planning to have kids until she lost her job, got back on the pill, and found herself pregnant) but generally it's a straight-forward question.

"Was this child wanted", given all the complexities we've discussed, is not. How one would determine the wantedness or lovedness of a child, or attempt to measure percentages on that, I have no clue, and I'd be very suspicious of any attempt to do so.

In short, despite a few tricky cases, planned vs. unplanned is not a subjective question. Wanted vs. unwanted is.

who do, in fact, also question the validity of the number and the tricky ways that's interpreted/able to be gathered

Please point me to the experts who dispute that about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

"Was this pregnancy planned?" is a relatively simple question. There are weird cases where it's hard to say "planned" or "unplanned"

In short, despite a few tricky cases, planned vs. unplanned is not a subjective question.

You've got to be joking, yes? I think it's incredibly naive to not think that this is subjective.

one from the state of Minnesota:

"family planning is the voluntary pre-pregnancy planning and action of people to prevent, delay, or achieve a pregnancy. It is also a fundamental step to improving health outcomes for women and children. Family planning services include counseling and education, pre-conception care, screening and laboratory tests, and family planning methods..."

Even the word "pre-pregnancy planning" isn't objective either - March of Dimes:

[had to cut lists for length]

1. Diabetes, high blood pressure, infections or other health problems?
2. Medicines or home remedies?
3. Taking a multivitamin pill with folic acid in it each day?
4. Getting to a healthy weight before pregnancy?
5. Smoking, drinking alcohol and taking illegal drugs?
6. Unsafe chemicals
7. Taking care of myself and lowering stress?
8. How long to wait between pregnancies?
9. Family history, including premature birth?

Emotionally?

* Why do you want to have a baby?
* How will a child affect your relationship with your partner? Are you both ready to become parents?
* Are you prepared to raise a child alone?
* How will a baby affect your future plans?
* Religious or ethnic differences?
* Child care?
* Are you prepared for a sick/special needs child?
* Can you see yourself as a parent?
* What did you like/not like about your childhood?

Physically?

* Multivitamin with 400mcg of folic acid every day
* Pre-pregnancy checkup
* Eat healthy, maintain healthy weight
* Stop smoking, alcohol, drugs
* Avoid infections
* Avoid hazardous substances
* Talk to you health care provider about your family history, genetics and birth defects.


Financially?

* Take a look at your budget.
* Check the leave policy where you work.
* Check your health insurance
* Make saving a habit.
* Review or purchase long-term disability and life insurance coverage.
* Check out special benefits that you may qualify for such as Medicaid and WIC.

By your logic, none of the above is subjective and 40% of Americans view this as "planning"?

If you think that most people define planning as just having sex intentionally, then I don't agree that that's "planning" - in any sense of the word - so then I'd argue that your definitely is incredibly subjective.

I doubt that all those interviewed and asked whether their pregnancy is planned that they have the above thoughts in their head. I think it's way higher for unplanned in any real meaning of the word. I think the confusion of those definitions do change the numbers.

It's interesting that they put wanted and intended in the same definition block; I wouldn't have done that. They should be separate since it's quite possible to intend to have a child and then not want it.

It's interesting to me that you'd only be suspicious here - is it b/c there isn't a number to cite by an "expert". I just don't get how you're ok with the 40% number w/o questioning that when it seems very subjective to me.


Please point me to the experts who dispute that about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

Point me to 100 studies that show what they've used as criteria for their definition of "planned" vs. "unplanned" and tell me they all match exactly. And over time despite cultural/societal changes. Prove to me that's objective. And that that number will match the 40%.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

You've got to be joking, yes?

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.

It's interesting to me that you'd only be suspicious here - is it b/c there isn't a number to cite by an "expert".

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.

Point me to 100 studies that show what they've used as criteria for their definition of "planned" vs. "unplanned" and tell me they all match exactly. And over time despite cultural/societal changes. Prove to me that's objective. And that that number will match the 40%.

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%.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

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.

[anemone.livejournal.com]

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.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were using a different definition of unplanned. I should have said about half of all pregnancies are unintented (most things I've read use "unplanned" to mean that). Sorry to have led down such a long path over such a simple misunderstanding of terminology.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

I don't know...maybe I wasn't communicating it well either ...just very frustrating. What bothers me about the statistics that are being used is that the words are very different meanings.

1. Intention. This, to me, is the act of having sex with the idea of having a baby. I could believe that maybe it's in the 40% range. This is now how that number is typically written. It is written as "40% planned" - my original thought is that that number has got to be way higher.

Why?

2. Planned v. Unplanned. The whole idea of what is a "plan" is very subjective just as much as something like minimum parenting standards. I would even venture to say that the criteria that is used to justify taking way kids (like lacking a safety plan which does include basic food/shelter and being financially response enough to care for a basic minimum)..is more than a fairly large % of people would give give in their pre-pregnancy planning. I doubt that enough people to go to pre-pregnancy planning...certainly not in the 40% range. I think here is where we started to go awry. I think this number of pregnancies that actually have a plan that would be realistic for raising a child - that's very likely much lower than 40%.

3. Wanted/Unwanted. I also feel that this deserves more consideration too as a separate category. I think earlier when I'm saying "wanted" I am more making a distinction b/w "wanted" and "intended" vs. "planned".

I think if you were to ask many if they planned their pregnancy, many (most?) would assume that means did they intend to have this child meaning not use protection and/or intentionally having sex with the goal of conception. That is very different from asking them if they have a pregnancy that is planned which should be more than just intentional sex.

My main thought is that I believe that the number is way higher for unplanned pregnancies than 40% so I don't like and won't cite "40% unplanned" b/c I believe that is untrue...it's a significant enough difference between meanings of words to me imho poor research and therefore, I would question the conclusions. It is probably close to "40% unintended" - maybe. I could buy that's true.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

sorry "It is written as "40% unplanned"

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the numbers that would have a realistic plan for a child is likely closer to 15-20% but it's hard to say that for certain since my idea of a plan is likely going to more detailed and thought out than someone else's. It should cover basic components like health of self before, during and after pregnancy; health of relationship (regardless of marital status) for a long-term 18-year commitment of raising a child preferably; awareness of basic parenting; financial planning that is not paycheck to paycheck or month to month but something more stable, etc.; common views on key issues like religion, parenting, discpline, etc. for relationships. There's no way I would have a child w/ a partner who could not answer these questions for me and yet there are plenty of couples who have children with far less knowledge. It doesn't mean that they're going to fail, but I would put them more in the unplanned category regardless of their intention or desire to have children. There's a reality to raising kids and being there for them and giving them a healthy environment that goes well beyond having them in the first place.

What I think would be interesting is if they took a group of people and surveyed them (as best as they could get data) for how many of these points they have a plan for and then compare that with the reasons why people wind up losing their children to see how closely they parallel.

We know the major reasons for divorce are communication, finances, and trust. If you surveyed couples before they got married, there is a fair number that would already have these issues in their relationship on the wedding day or some wouldn't have done something basic like talk about financial patterns, decide who control finances, see if that's realistic during the dating relationship and then wind up divorcing later over finances after it's a much larger issue.

[fanlain.livejournal.com]

I also don't really care what the statistics are at all unless they're closer to 0%. Even at closer to 50% or (I believe much higher) - whatever arbitrary statistical number you want to pull out of air or data - the point is that the numbers are much higher than they really should be, and that's a serious problem that is affecting the lives of children every single day in huge ways. And their children. And their children. Somehow, we have to make parents and would-be parents accountable and responsible for choosing to have a child regardless of the circumstances. Even if it means giving it up. Abortion may not be the answer for all groups so we need to have more than one method for finding balance of all children, regardless of whether they were planned/unplanned or wanted/unwanted.

We already have various methods for people to deal with a baby if they cannot give it a decent quality of life. It's various other circumstances that are affecting which methods are opted for - or not. And that's tough to do much about b/c it seems impossible to tell parents to be accountable/responsible unless they're so far to the extreme that it's an easy legal case to prove and to forcibly remove the children from shockingly bad homes. I suppose it'd be interesting to do an anonymous survey to those that have lost their children to ask them why they had them in the first place.

I attend a court hearing once and watched a mother lose her infant. She had the delivered the child while she was high on cocaine. When they made the ruling, they asked her if she had any thoughts. All she did was bitch about the social services. What was oddly chilling to me is never once in the entire hearing did she ever express any emotion. She looked very shut down. And the system does a decent job of documenting attempts at getting people to be responsible when they're not. I just went home and cried; it was a very hard thing to watch.