Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 242

sgtclub · 07-13-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have one sure fire way to lower the # of abortions - federally subsidized birth control and more sex education.

Why aren't those policies pushed? Who's holding them back. Aren't we all agreed that we wanted less abortions? If so, what reason on earth would we have not to implement policies which absolutely achieve that result?

What are you smoking? Do you really think that a lack of birth control and sex education is the reason? I would bet that the rate of abortions is highest in large cities, which are nearly all liberal and in which both birth control and sex ed is plentiful.

Shape Shifter · 07-13-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
What are you smoking? Do you really think that a lack of birth control and sex education is the reason? I would bet that the rate of abortions is highest in large cities, which are nearly all liberal and in which both birth control and sex ed is plentiful.

And where there are more abortion clinics?

nononono · 07-13-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have one sure fire way to lower the # of abortions - federally subsidized birth control and more sex education.

Why aren't those policies pushed? Who's holding them back. Aren't we all agreed that we wanted less abortions? If so, what reason on earth would we have not to implement policies which absolutely achieve that result?

Sheesh, a number of years ago, my health plan (which was otherwise a good one) wouldn't even cover birth control. Pregnancy, yes, abortion, yes, birth control, no. Stupidity.

sgtclub · 07-13-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And where there are more abortion clinics?

I would be willing to make the same bet on a per capita basis.

ltl/fb · 07-13-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would be willing to make the same bet on a per capita basis.

After adjusting for income and proportion of children who come from families with both parents, one parent, or no parent (raised by other relative/foster child/in an institution)? And I think you underestimate what goes on in rural communities. Hell, you probably think that most TANF money goes to cities . . .

I think Slave put the koolaid in your water supply on this one.

Shape Shifter · 07-13-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would be willing to make the same bet on a per capita basis.

Whiff. For some women in rural, isolated areas, abortion really isn't an option.

ltl/fb · 07-13-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Whiff. For some women in rural, isolated areas, abortion really isn't an option.

Or, abortions that are going to be done by medical personnel and get recorded as such aren't an option.

sgtclub · 07-13-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Whiff. For some women in rural, isolated areas, abortion really isn't an option.

Make all the adjustments you want for things of this nature. I bet it isn't even close.

Look, I'm not arguing for or against abortion, so you can step down from your dogmatic soapbox. The only thing I am arguing is that federally funded birth control and more sex ed will have little effect on the numbers.

Penske_Account · 07-13-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
'Cuz then we'd have to admit that kids/unmarried persons actually do have sex and there's not much we can do to stop it.

Public schools can't teach kids to be literate or to add 1+1. Why have them move into other areas? Enough of my tax dollars already go down the drain (and add that to the $15K per kid I have to spend for private school to make up for the failure of he public school, thanks, btw, to the destruction of the same by the Teacher's Unions (hi Sidd!)).

Given my 103 IQ, on the internet, I may be more intelligent than the average person, but is there really a crisis of knowledge that sex=babies in kids age 11 and above? In my day there wasn't-although I was a youth during the height of the sexual revolution, although not as old as Bilmore (hi Wonk!), but maybe the MTV culture has blurred the understanding and kids today believe in the stork.

Shape Shifter · 07-13-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Make all the adjustments you want for things of this nature. I bet it isn't even close.

Look, I'm not arguing for or against abortion, so you can step down from your dogmatic soapbox. The only thing I am arguing is that federally funded birth control and more sex ed will have little effect on the numbers.

I'm having difficulty following your logic, and if you followed the FB more closely, you'd know that I'm Mensa-qualified (though still dumbest).

Replaced_Texan · 07-13-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would be willing to make the same bet on a per capita basis.

That's probably right. Compare New York City and DC to their surrounding areas.

Source: MMWR Abortion Surveillance for 2001 (released November 2004)

Gattigap · 07-13-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Make all the adjustments you want for things of this nature. I bet it isn't even close.

Look, I'm not arguing for or against abortion, so you can step down from your dogmatic soapbox. The only thing I am arguing is that federally funded birth control and more sex ed will have little effect on the numbers.

Not so easy to blow off, you know. You're adjusting for shit like:

* Market conditions in which folks choose not to set up rural areas
* State laws that make abortions more difficult
* Proximity of those states to other states where pregnant women seeking an abortion are able to pursue the "Hello option" and drive to a more receptive jurisdiction
* Probably other factors that aren't occuring to me now.

That would skew the per capital data significantly, I imagine, and I also imagine that studies aren't likely to follow all of that stuff, so you're probably safe with your bet in that neither you nor Shifty can be easily proven right.

Shape Shifter · 07-13-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Source: MMWR Abortion Surveillance for 2001 (released November 2004)

The table doesn't address availability of birth control and sex ed, or availability of abortion in rural areas. club's arguing that these have no or little effect. I beg to differ.

Replaced_Texan · 07-13-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The table doesn't address availability of birth control and sex ed, or availability of abortion in rural areas. club's arguing that these have no or little effect. I beg to differ.

I wasn't saying that. I was just saying that his numbers probably are right.

Hank Chinaski · 07-13-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I also don't think that they have any particular obligation to speak out, much like Democrats have no particular obligation to disavow Robert Byrd, and Republicans have no particular obligation to disavow David Duke.

If Robert Byrd was saying the klan is the way of the Democratic party (instead of its more pernicious ways of hurting minortiy groups) would it be on teddy or one of them to say no? there are clerics saying jihad is a-okay. It seems to me that other clerics should be saying soemthing contrary- especially if* the vast majority of the group doesn't support the bombings.

*big if- huh?