It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYC had 88,891 abortions in 2005, 52% of all births paid for by Medicaid...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
www.nysun.com...

(page 3)

I can kinda see some points of view from the Pro-choice crowd regarding abortion but I find this statistic for New York City very distrubing.


The number of reported abortions in the city was down to a low in the past 10 years, to 88,891 in 2005 from 91,673 in 2004.

Of the city's births in 2005, 52% of them were paid for by Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. Of women giving birth in New York City, 44% were unmarried.


88,891 babies were aborted in 2005, in one city alone.

I am curious to hear opinions for the pro-choice 'crowd' and whether they feel this should really be acceptable. This is NYC only.....add in the other cities of America and you would probably have over 1.5 - 2 million aborted babies a year.

Not all these babies are deformed, from rapes or incest.

I guess a part of this that really bothers me is that these abortions are paid for by my (and yours) tax dollars, people seem to have lost all personal responsibility.




posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Good thread, ferret. I can certainly understand your questioning of the taxpayer's money going to abortion. I am pro-choice, but I also realize that for some folks, the pro-life group, it is state-sanctioned murder of innocents. It becomes a very tricky thing at that point. For me, I see it as keeping this already overpopulated planet's population down and that benefits all of society. This is nothing new, it goes back at least 14,000 years. The ancient tribes, when they began agriculture, eventually ran out of enough land to feed the entire tribe, so overpopulation became a problem for them, too. They quickly realized that they needed to do some kind of abortive methods to a fetus. This was done in a number of ways, but my point is, birth control is not a new idea.

Something that has always puzzled me: I worked for many years with alcholic/drug-addicted women who were mothers. They were long-term clients, some for several years. Now, I knew these women were severely messed up from multilple abuses, rapes, beatings and incest. But some of them, even into recovery would still become pregnant by accident. We tried educating them, counseling them, etc. but for some reason, which we never could determine, some seemed to keep having babies. I never have figured out why they did. I mean, if only for economic reasons, you'd think a woman would limit her offspring. They don't get much to live on, about $400 per month for a family of 2 or 3 kids. I can understand how easy it would be to forget to use your birth control if you're drunk, etc. but the ones in recovery???

Anyway, I write this so that maybe others will realize it's not as simple as education. It's a very big, complicated problem and no one can seem to agree on how to fix it, women on welfare giving birth to lots of kids and being a subsequent drain on the taxpayer's, I can see that. I'm not trying to judge these women, I'm saying I just don't understand it and maybe someone else out there has some good solutions.

Thanks for posting an important topic, Ferretman.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

The number of reported abortions in the city was down to a low in the past 10 years, to 88,891 in 2005 from 91,673 in 2004.

Of the city's births in 2005, 52% of them were paid for by Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. Of women giving birth in New York City, 44% were unmarried.






It says 52% of BIRTHS are paid by medicaid.. unless I missed something else.. however.. half the births being paid for on our tax dollar is just as disturbing to me- then how long we support these unweds with babies.. too many people on the system!

[edit on 22/12/06 by xander68]

[edit on 22/12/06 by xander68]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I am not pro-choice because I still think it's acceptable in certain cases, nonetheless, I don't believe abortions/births should be paid with tax payer money. These breeding rats should pay for their own mistakes.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by laiguana]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
I am curious to hear opinions for the pro-choice 'crowd' and whether they feel this should really be acceptable.


I am one of the pro-choice 'crowd' and I don't really see what the number has to do with anything. However many women need abortions should have them. Whether it's 2 or 100,000.



This is NYC only.....add in the other cities of America and you would probably have over 1.5 - 2 million aborted babies a year.


Only when you look at a fetus as a 'baby' does this seem overwhelming.



I guess a part of this that really bothers me is that these abortions are paid for by my (and yours) tax dollars...


I didn't see where the abortions were paid for by tax dollars. Did I miss something? Besides, I'd rather pay for someone to have an abortion than pay for them to have a child they can't afford.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I don't see anything in that article about abortions being paid for by taxpayer money.

I've never known anyone who got their abortion paid for by the state - it always cost them money out of pocket. I think there are times when the state picks up the tab, like when it comes to wards of the state. Could it be that underage girls from low-income families can get public money to abort their babies?

I don't know, I'll have to do some research. (Okay, from what I just read, according to the ACLU, NY pays for medically-necessary abortions for poor women, link below)

Link

From the cold, hard perspective of the bottom line though, you have to remember it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pick up the tab of another person for life.

Not nice to think about, but it's a fact.

The fact that women and their doctors are preventing almost 90k births a year in NY alone, that's scary. Overpopulation is a myth, and the most important resource for the future are the children. Every child we discard is another potential doctor, researcher, engineer, or public servant. The more people we have, the better our chances for innovation. It's very important to the health of our society.

That said, I'm pro-choice. No woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want. We just have to culture some more respect for life, and maybe reward good parents more, in order to engender the sort of mentality that would naturally result in a much lower abortion rate.

It's much harder to change the minds of the people, when it comes to the value of their own comfort compared to the value of bringing a life into the world, than it is to criminalize abortions or restrict them drastically, but the former has at least a hope of success, the latter has always proven to be a disaster that only causes more misery all around, for the mother, for the child, and for society as a whole.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I'm a member of the pro-choice crowd, and I've also has to terminate two unwanted pregancies due to complications.

I used birth control, and it failed. I was also attending to my studies during these times and an unplanned and unwanted child would have been devestating, not to mention I have a few genetic anamolies that I fear would have been passed on.

I'm under disability status due to schizoaffective disorder, and I rely on medicaid and medicare to help me with the outrageous costs of my inpatient treatment and medications...

...but these programs DID NOT cover the cost of my abortions.

That being said, a few more points of personal experience and observation on the issue:

Even though I was born to a well educated family, I've had to live in several lower-income neighborhoods for financial reasons. These areas are rife with conflicts and mentalities most Americans are completely oblivious to, though it would be unfair to state that all people in these areas fall into the same classifications.

The majority, however, do share certain characteristics.

What we view as standard education usually glides over the minds of a lot of them, their primary concern is survival and their own happiness. Many of the younger mothers I've met make it well know that they "are somebody" because of their children, and many others on the other end make callous jokes about how many children they've had to terminate as a sign of their desirability by males. These later women would not make good mothers.

On the other side of the spectrum are the addicts, the alcoholics, and so forth.

While they might recieve counseling for thier addictions, they don't always understand the concept of personal and community responsibility.

Much about the way they carry themselves speaks volumes that would attest to this. They are so ingrained in "the moment" that they forget to think about tomorrow.

In a way, it's still a very traditional tribal society.

Abortions, sadly, are sometimes used as the primary form of birth control because it provides the minimum amount of personal responsibilty.

Why am I pro choice and in favor of our tax dollars being spent?

I've seen these ghettos first hand.

I've spoken with the people, and come to understand why their world operates the way it does.

Quite simply, the adoption of a child isn't even an issue. Nine months and the pains of birth is too much of a committment for a young inner city mother who knows full well the chances of her baby being adopted by a loving family are exceedingly low.

Hopefully, one day, that will change.


[edit on 22-12-2006 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
My apologies. I was coming online in between Christmas baking and read it to be "abortion". But I see I was wrong, it's about births. I don't think Medicaid pays for abortions any more do they?

Anyway the rest of my post still stands, I just don't understand why these women insist on having lots of children.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Generally I am pro choice in certain situations but WOW I am shocked by that figure.

I used to live in a smallish town outside Syracuse a few years back with a population around 6000. In my high school of about 1,300 people there, supposedly at least 30 were performed annually. How they figured that out i'm not exactly sure, and I almost refuse to believe that, but after hearing alot of other stats, perhaps that number is real.

The population change that abortions could cause the country if none were performed would be quite significant. I still stand somewhat unsure on that issue.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Here in New York we have a thing called Child Health Plus.(Thank God!!) Its free medical coverage for poor children and discounted coverage if you make more then the lowest amount allowed for free coverage. It is available to ANYONE even illegal aliens. (This I do not agree with)
We also have Family Health Plus which is available to adults.

BTW that article does not mention abortions being covered by medicaid. Only the births. I don't think an elective surgery would be covered unless there was some type of risk to the mother or possible defect involved.



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   


We tried educating them, counseling them, etc. but for some reason, which we never could determine, some seemed to keep having babies. I never have figured out why they did.


These woman wern't having babies to have babies. They were having unprotected sex. Orgasms are another addiction to addicts. A heroin abuser will stick a used needle in his/her arm despite the consequences, that same heroin abuser will stick a used penis in his/herself.

Abortion will never be settled. Both sides are just too convicted. Their may not be a more emotional topic.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join