>If your opinion were correct, Swedish women (who live in a country noted
>for its many parenting-friendly laws & social programs), for instance,
>would have more babies than, say, impoverished women in impoverished
>countries, for better-off women would have less to fear from motherhood,
>planned or unplanned. (But the fact of the matter is that they don't.)
>Generally speaking, the higher women's status, educational level, earning
>capacity relative to men, etc. are in a society, the less willing women are
>to give birth to babies. Also, historically, in America, for example, as
>women have come closer to gaining treatment equal to men, women have come
>to prefer a smaller and smaller number of children. Women's well-being has
>a reciprocal relation to a smaller number of children.
>
>Yoshie
But if you had read my thesis you would have seen that all of your arguments fall outside of the focus group (unplanned and or unexpected) and the alternative of choice must be available to make the analysis. At issue is using the issue of abortion as an index of social health.
Additionally, there is nothing at issue but the improvement of the index. If it is in the fractional percentile range I would be surprised, but improvement of a 10th of a percentage point could then turn out to be a 100 per cent gain. Appearances are everything. <g>
And then there's the "subject".
An aside, - I noted someplace or other this morning that "salon" is hosting a site for "mwt" (mothers who think).
Martin