- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Riddle Me This Pro-Lifers
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:29 pm to ZweiBierBitte
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:29 pm to ZweiBierBitte
quote:
Post your source.
Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008
Jenna Jerman,Rachel K. JonesandTsuyoshi Onda
This report includes data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2014 Abortion Patient Survey on the sociodemographic characteristics of abortion patients and analyzes changes in these characteristics since the previous survey in 2008. The report also examines abortion patients' insurance coverage and method of payment used.
United StatesAbortion: Demographics
TAGSMedicaid
KEY POINTS
• In 2014, the majority of abortion patients (60%) were in their 20s, and the second-largest age-group was in their 30s (25%).
• The proportion of abortion patients who were adolescents declined 32% between 2008 and 2014.
• No racial or ethnic group made up the majority of abortion patients: Thirty-nine percent were white, 28% were black, 25% were Hispanic, 6% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were of some other race or ethnicity.
• Fifty-nine percent of abortion patients in 2014 had had at least one previous birth.
• In 2014, three-fourths of abortion patients were low income—49% living at less than the federal poverty level, and 26% living at 100–199% of the poverty level.
• The vast majority of abortion patients (94%) identified as straight or heterosexual. Four percent identified as bisexual; fewer than 1% as lesbian, gay or homosexual; and 1% as something other than straight, gay or bisexual.
• Many abortion patients reported a religious affiliation—24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.
• Abortion patients were less likely to have no health insurance coverage in 2014 than in 2008 (28% vs. 34%), likely because of the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-five percent of patients had Medicaid coverage, 31% had private insurance and 3% each had either insurance through HealthCare.gov or a different type of insurance.
• The majority of patients (53%) paid for their abortion out of pocket; Medicaid was the second-most-common method of payment, used by 24% of patients.
And source of 2/3 18&19 pregnancy.
Teenage Abortion Statistics
About 750,000 teens get pregnant each year. Two-thirds of these pregnancies, however, are 18 and 19 year olds, who may or may not be married.
quote:
Adding: that also has nothing to do with sex education. Poor education in middle school and high school doesn't simply correct itself later in life.
Wrong if you are 20+ you are an adult.
Can vote, buy a gun, serve in military, etc..
Your dismissal of these adult women is extremely paternalistic.
Besides here is the complexity of sex education:
If tab A is put in slot B, use a contraceptive.
Condom, only male method, 85% as typically used. Can prevent STDs at about same rate.
The pill 92% as typically used. Will not prevent STDs.
Diaphragm 84% as typically used. Will not prevent STDs.
Spermicide 71% as typically used. Increases chance of STDs with continued use.
No contraceptive 15% effective. Will not prevent STDs.
Abstinence 100% as typically used. Will prevent STDs 100%.
Here’s your sex education diploma!
This post was edited on 5/13/18 at 11:37 pm
1
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:33 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
My Church is teaching abstinence that is 100% effective while contraception is not.
If abstinence is 100% effective, explain how Jesus was born to a virgin mother.
quote:
Bet you don’t answer!
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:34 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:A miracle?
If abstinence is 100% effective, explain how Jesus was born to a virgin mother.
quote:You lose
Bet you don’t answer!
This post was edited on 5/13/18 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:35 pm to ZweiBierBitte
In the end, the abortion question boils down to a balancing of rights. The rights of the woman versus the rights of the embryo/fetus/child (EFC). A determination of the point at which EFC rights vest is inherently subjective. Conception, 1st trimester or birth canal ... all are equally subjective to serve as a point at which rights accrue. And the answer is philosophical, not biological.
What bothers me most about these discussions is the vitriol from the Pro-Lifers. With the exception of a few East Coast feminazis, VERY few Pro-Choice folks make the stupid argument that Pro-Lifers are just getting their kicks by trying to control every uterus in the nation. Most of us acknowledge that your position has little to do with "control," but instead arises from strong convictions regarding your interpretations of "right vs wrong."
In return, Pro-Life folks argue (almost to the person) that Pro-Choice folks are the personification of evil, rather than acknowledging that our position also arises from careful consideration and a balancing of rights as we see them.
It says something about both camps, in my view.
What bothers me most about these discussions is the vitriol from the Pro-Lifers. With the exception of a few East Coast feminazis, VERY few Pro-Choice folks make the stupid argument that Pro-Lifers are just getting their kicks by trying to control every uterus in the nation. Most of us acknowledge that your position has little to do with "control," but instead arises from strong convictions regarding your interpretations of "right vs wrong."
In return, Pro-Life folks argue (almost to the person) that Pro-Choice folks are the personification of evil, rather than acknowledging that our position also arises from careful consideration and a balancing of rights as we see them.
It says something about both camps, in my view.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:36 pm to ZweiBierBitte
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:37 pm to ZweiBierBitte
You think that church people don't know about safe sex? If they didn't, most church households would consist of like 20 kids.
Pro choice should focus more on safe sex.... and less on lessening the punishment for deliberately spreading hiv to unsuspecting partners.
Pro choice should focus more on safe sex.... and less on lessening the punishment for deliberately spreading hiv to unsuspecting partners.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:38 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why do you keep on accusing us of opposing birth control? A few hardcore catholics that post here are opposed to birth control, but most people on here are fine with their usage.
I am in that camp, but not for religious and moral reasons ALONE. The Birth control pill and diaphragms are not good for the health of women. I don’t have a health argument for Condoms, however. (Unless a woman is allergic to latex)
Im not arguing- Just pointing that I really do worry about the long term unknown effects of long term birth control pill consumption by the majority of American and European women.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:43 pm to ZweiBierBitte
Wow, you are pretty fricking retarded.
Hate to be so blunt, but frick man.
Hate to be so blunt, but frick man.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:46 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
Abstinence 100% as typically used. Will prevent STDs 100%.
Except it doesn't work.
LINK
Abstinence only sex education leads to higher rates of pregnancies and higher rates of abortion.
If you want to reduce abortion, stop believing that kids (which become adults) won't have sex if Pastor Jim or Father Paul tell them not to.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 11:58 pm to ZweiBierBitte
Morality is defined by society, and it can be found on a scale. Something can be deemed "wrong" by society without rising to the level of being "immoral." And something can be deemed "immoral" without rising to the level of "evil." The further up the scale we go, the greater level of unanimity that is required. "Right vs wrong" may not need much more than a simple majority opinion. "Immoral" needs much more ... some sort of supermajority. To deem something "evil,"I think you need near-perfect unanimity,.
Ted Bundy may have given a lot of thought to his acts and convinced himself that his acts were moral, but society (with near-unanimity) evaluated the matter differently.
In this debate, the majority of the population feels that abortions are appropriate in some situations, such as life of the mother. An abortion in that instance cannot even be called "wrong," though it would certainly be considered unfortunate by even most advocates. First trimester abortions solely for purposes of birth control have less support and whether they are "right or wrong"is certainly a question open to good faith debate. Abortion late in the second trimester has less-still support, and we can certainly have a discussion regarding the morality of such a procedure. Birth canal abortion of a healthy, full-term fetus can certainly give rise to a legitimate discussion of "evil."
But equating all four scenarios is simplistic in the extreme. And I continue to ask why Pro-Lifers on this Forum are unable to discuss this topic without hurling inaccurate, emotion-based insults at those who disagree with them.
Ted Bundy may have given a lot of thought to his acts and convinced himself that his acts were moral, but society (with near-unanimity) evaluated the matter differently.
In this debate, the majority of the population feels that abortions are appropriate in some situations, such as life of the mother. An abortion in that instance cannot even be called "wrong," though it would certainly be considered unfortunate by even most advocates. First trimester abortions solely for purposes of birth control have less support and whether they are "right or wrong"is certainly a question open to good faith debate. Abortion late in the second trimester has less-still support, and we can certainly have a discussion regarding the morality of such a procedure. Birth canal abortion of a healthy, full-term fetus can certainly give rise to a legitimate discussion of "evil."
But equating all four scenarios is simplistic in the extreme. And I continue to ask why Pro-Lifers on this Forum are unable to discuss this topic without hurling inaccurate, emotion-based insults at those who disagree with them.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:10 am to AggieHank86
In concise summary, my thought is that Homo Sapiens chromosomes do not automatically confer "rights" and that emotional triggers like "beating heart" (the steer that provided tonight's steak once had a "beating heart") or "the ability to feel pain" CERTAINLY do not confer rights (microbes can arguably feel something akin to "pain").
Sentience confers rights. Non-sentient creatures are not entitled to "rights" (e.g. livestock). Among humans, sentience clearly arises over time. I don't pretend to be wise enough to KNOW precisely WHEN the threshold of sentience has been crossed for an individual organism (or for a species), but I am fairly confident that an early-term fetus has not yet crossed that threshold. As such, any analysis must consider at least two factors: the likelihood that some threshold of sentience has been reached and the magnitude of any imposition upon the rights of a sentient being.Applying this analysis, the question is one of comparing the likelihood of sentience (from zero to one) multiplied by the burden of the violation (from zero to one) for the mother against the same calculation for the fetus.
Abortion is inherently a balancing of the "rights" of the mother and the fetus, even at the ends of the spectrum that say "zero rights" for one or the other. When conducting that balancing, I come down on the side of giving greater weight to a KNOWN sentient (usually the mother) over a "MAYBE" sentient (usually the fetus).
As such, a significant imposition upon the rights of the mother (forced pregnancy from conception thru birth) will usually outweigh the maybe-rights of a maybe-person (even if the magnitude of the maybe-rights is quite large).
First Trimester. (Mother sentience) times (burden of pregnancy) versus (Fetus sentience) times (burden of termination).
1*0.75 versus 0.1*1
0.75 > 0.1
Abortion acceptable
As the fetus matures, its maybe-rights gains greater weight in this analysis as it moves from a maybe-sentience toward a probably-sentience. At the same time, the remaining burden of the pregnancy decreases for the mother As such, the imposition upon the mother begins to weigh less-heavily in the analysis.
Third Trimester. (Mother sentience) times (burden of pregnancy) versus (Fetus sentience) times (burden of termination).
1*0.25 versus 0.75*1
0.25 < 0.75
Abortion not acceptable
This is why I have no problem with early-term abortion and significant problems with late-term abortion.
Keep in mind, however, that there clearly exist rare circumstances in which the mother is NOT sentient (vegetative state) and the balancing would ALWAYS come down in favor of the fetus.
"Oh, oh, oh, you aren't giving me any bright lines!" No, I am not. Bright people understand that there are few (if any) bright lines in life. Instead, there are lots of gray areas.
Sure, from a legislative perspective, you must pick a "bright line," but that is both entirely subjective and done solely for purposes of enforcement.
Sentience confers rights. Non-sentient creatures are not entitled to "rights" (e.g. livestock). Among humans, sentience clearly arises over time. I don't pretend to be wise enough to KNOW precisely WHEN the threshold of sentience has been crossed for an individual organism (or for a species), but I am fairly confident that an early-term fetus has not yet crossed that threshold. As such, any analysis must consider at least two factors: the likelihood that some threshold of sentience has been reached and the magnitude of any imposition upon the rights of a sentient being.Applying this analysis, the question is one of comparing the likelihood of sentience (from zero to one) multiplied by the burden of the violation (from zero to one) for the mother against the same calculation for the fetus.
Abortion is inherently a balancing of the "rights" of the mother and the fetus, even at the ends of the spectrum that say "zero rights" for one or the other. When conducting that balancing, I come down on the side of giving greater weight to a KNOWN sentient (usually the mother) over a "MAYBE" sentient (usually the fetus).
As such, a significant imposition upon the rights of the mother (forced pregnancy from conception thru birth) will usually outweigh the maybe-rights of a maybe-person (even if the magnitude of the maybe-rights is quite large).
First Trimester. (Mother sentience) times (burden of pregnancy) versus (Fetus sentience) times (burden of termination).
1*0.75 versus 0.1*1
0.75 > 0.1
Abortion acceptable
As the fetus matures, its maybe-rights gains greater weight in this analysis as it moves from a maybe-sentience toward a probably-sentience. At the same time, the remaining burden of the pregnancy decreases for the mother As such, the imposition upon the mother begins to weigh less-heavily in the analysis.
Third Trimester. (Mother sentience) times (burden of pregnancy) versus (Fetus sentience) times (burden of termination).
1*0.25 versus 0.75*1
0.25 < 0.75
Abortion not acceptable
This is why I have no problem with early-term abortion and significant problems with late-term abortion.
Keep in mind, however, that there clearly exist rare circumstances in which the mother is NOT sentient (vegetative state) and the balancing would ALWAYS come down in favor of the fetus.
"Oh, oh, oh, you aren't giving me any bright lines!" No, I am not. Bright people understand that there are few (if any) bright lines in life. Instead, there are lots of gray areas.
Sure, from a legislative perspective, you must pick a "bright line," but that is both entirely subjective and done solely for purposes of enforcement.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:11 am to ZweiBierBitte
quote:Abstinence doesn't work?quote:
Abstinence 100% as typically used. Will prevent STDs 100%.
Except it doesn't work.
The hell?
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:13 am to Roaad
quote:
Abstinence doesn't work?
Abstinence only education.
Have you been deliberately obtuse on here for 12 years, or is that something new?
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:13 am to Roaad
quote:Abstinence is like Communism. It works better in theory than in practice.
Abstinence doesn't work?
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:17 am to ZweiBierBitte
In my opinion, evangelical does not equal Christian. So, if you could get back to me on how many actually elect, saved, invisible body of a Christ church members are having abortions versus the visible, claim to be saved though actually showing no fruit of it ones, that would be great.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:25 am to ZweiBierBitte
“Murdering black babies is now called Healthcare.” - Candace Owens
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:43 am to ZweiBierBitte
quote:
quote:
Abstinence 100% as typically used. Will prevent STDs 100%.
Except it doesn't work.
LINK
Abstinence only sex education leads to higher rates of pregnancies and higher rates of abortion.
If you want to reduce abortion, stop believing that kids (which become adults) won't have sex if Pastor Jim or Father Paul tell them not to.
Wow I post where almost 90% of abortions are performed on 20+ year old adult women who know ALL ABOUT SEX.
I show how little you need to know to choose and use contraceptives.
And like a stimulus and response lab rat, you grab only the single sentence concerning abstinence.
Then you say abstinence ONLY will not work.
1) I didn’t advocate ABSTINENCE ONLY amoeba mind. I said that if you are going to put tab A into slot B use contraception.
2) Abstinence works 100% of the time when used, and it is the ONLY CONTRACEPTION method that prevents STDs 100% of the time.
Now as far as your link. Mic covers news, opinion, reviews and analysis around arts, entertainment, celebrity, LGBTQ, social justice, police brutality, dating, sex, feminism, body positivity, space, innovation, climate change.
Hardly an unbiased source or a lover of religion.
If you look at the map you will see other possible correlations.
1) The map is of teen birth rates NOT abortions. The higher Southern birth rate COULD be do to fewer abortions because of morality against killing the unborn.
2) Nation wide the higher birth rates occur in higher poverty states.
3) Nation wide the higher birth rates occur in higher minority states (black and Hispanic).
4) California, the liberal dream state, has equal teen birth rates as Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.
5) California has a HIGHER teen birth rates than Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
6) California ONLY had a lower birth rate than the perpetual #50, Mississippi.
Only a biased source would focus in on religion. I used sources biased toward your position.
Now we both know you have an almost religious faith in sex education despite the short comings of your evidence and the superiority of mine. So I will waste no more time trying to correct your mal-education.
So I wish you a goodnight and a good life, and say goodbye because I have work in the morning.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:56 am to ZweiBierBitte
quote:
Abstinence only education.
What percentage of people would you say are in that camp?
All Pro-lifers?
Less than 18% of all Americans?
Hell, the overwhelming majority of conservatives support abstinence and comprehensive sex ed.
Any education that does not emphasize the supremacy of abstinence is scientifically ignorant.
quote:Sick.Burn.
Have you been deliberately obtuse on here for 12 years, or is that something new?
Posted on 5/14/18 at 1:02 am to Gaspergou202
But but abstinence DOESN'T work, pro lifer!!
...we all know it's coming.
...we all know it's coming.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 1:07 am to ZweiBierBitte
Actually, I’m going to give him a 6.5/ 10 on the troll meter. It’s funny, I have read the entire thread for almost 5 pages.
He set his trap (troll) on Mother’s Day and no one noticed it.
Maybe we were just out and about getting brunch and appreciating all of the wonderful things our mothers did for us in our lives.
OP, obviously doesn’t feel the same way we do. And that’s okay.
The troll came in unnoticed but it’s been detected. Operations are underway to take out the target.
He set his trap (troll) on Mother’s Day and no one noticed it.
Maybe we were just out and about getting brunch and appreciating all of the wonderful things our mothers did for us in our lives.
OP, obviously doesn’t feel the same way we do. And that’s okay.
The troll came in unnoticed but it’s been detected. Operations are underway to take out the target.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News