-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Nah the rape, in some cases, is how much he has to pay.
Last time I checked, the entire adult male populace knew that sex can produce babies and that people govern their own bodies.
Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?
BTW-You really should read the article.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Nah the rape, in some cases, is how much he has to pay.
Last time I checked, the entire adult male populace knew that sex can produce babies and that people govern their own bodies.
Is the entire female population exempt from the same knowledge?
No.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Define late-term abortion.
You really want to know?
WARNING! Do NOT click on the following link if you're squeamish.
Partial Birth Abortion, WARNING, graphic content!
Let's hear you justify this Busyman.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ava Estelle
Yes, let's. ;)
Actually, that's not fair, Ava.
It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, that's not fair, Ava.
It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
why?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, that's not fair, Ava.
It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
why?
Because it is effective.
Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
why?
Because it is effective.
Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see
"the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.
Again I ask why you say it is out of bounds. Just "because it is effective" is not a reason. It appears you are trying to make statements on behalf of the "opposition" making it seem that they want as many people to have abortions as possible and would make them comulsory given the chance. I could just as easily make the case that for the familiy research council any scientific evidence that counters their satements is out of bounds and not open to discussion.
scientific medical facts are not out of bounds, for either side......... mistruths are....on both sides.
I'm sure there is some nut out there that wants compulsory abortions, and I'm sure some nut will try to pin that person to "liberals". However even planned parenthood is not encouraging women to have abortions, no matter how anyone tries to frame it that just by performing them they are. They are simply allowing people to make the choice themself. And that's how it should be.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Because it is effective.
Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.
Again I ask why you say it is out of bounds.
Humorous that you fail to recognize rhetoric when you are not the one employing it.
I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.
What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?
Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.
What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?
Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line?
And if such a campaign were done....say in the media.... and if said campaign contained facts and only facts and not just rhetoric then no problem.... Making such a campaign compulsory and forcing clinics to show graphic images.... problem.
Do you think that these groups that are trying to get the cervical cancer vaccine banned "because it might encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show pictures of dead cancer victims?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.
Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate substantial numbers of these women change their minds about having an abortion on-the-spot.
Along those same lines, I guess PP assumes (rightfully) that minds might be changed, too, by showing graphic evidence of partial-birth-abortion, and that's bad for business.
What other reason could they have for obscuring and denouncing such techniques as "biased"?
Do you feel such efforts are out-of-line?
And if such a campaign were done....say in the media.... and if said campaign contained facts and only facts and not just rhetoric then no problem.... Making such a campaign compulsory and forcing clinics to show graphic images.... problem.
Do you think that these groups that are trying to get the cervical cancer vaccine banned "because it might encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show pictures of dead cancer victims?
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:
One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Watching people enjoying sex, I can do that, gissa job.
For anyone who doesnt understand that reference, it relates to "Boys from the Black Stuff", in which one of the characters (Yosser Hughes) says similar in relation to just about any job. e.g. "Bricklaying, I can do that, gissa job". The story, amongst other things, details his spiral into despair, caused by unemployment and his fight to keep his children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...er_bbc_150.jpg
It is a powerful indictment of Thatcherite Britain.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, wouldn't it be more effective and on-point if the people in question were themselves forced to view these pictures you speak of? :huh:
One would assume they would see them when showing them in an attempt to ban the vaccine surely.
But let's go in complete reverse if you don't like that idea. Perhaps those that want to ban the vaccine "because it may encourage sexual activity" should be forced to show people enjoying sex....after all they are trying to prevent people seeing that;)
Okay, sure.
We'd have each group offering (for voluntary consumption, of course) that which they believe would influence a desired outcome:
One shows two graphic examples (an ultra-sound photo and film of an abortion procedure) in the hope that fewer pregnant women will choose abortion, knowing that the result will be successful .
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
Either way the idea of compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
I think the baby should have some rights. Even tho' he or she is unable to claim them.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.
Either way the idea of
compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
Who said "compulsory"?
Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?
You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's
nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?
Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?
Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Another shows, in an effort (ostensibly) to boost consumption of a cancer vaccine, cinematic displays of people having enjoyable sex (call it soft-core porn), knowing the result will have no effect other than to stimulate sexual activity, have nothing to do with cervical cancer, and provide more pregnant women to perpetuate the "need" for abortion.
Yes, I can't see what you mean.
You have it the wrong way round. The group that wants to ban the vaccine has to show the enjoyable sex movie, just to show what it will lead to :dry:
So then what does it matter who shows the film?
Either way the idea of
compulsory viewing of images is unacceptable.
Who said compulsory?
No one in this whole equation has exclusive ability to claim what is or is not acceptable.
I think you'll find every set of debate rules states neither side can unilaterally declare anything unacceptable.
The decision to have an abortion or not is a private one, between the doctor and patient...............and it's
nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That makes utterly no sense. You began by saying they ought to show cancer victims; stick with that.
Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?
You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?
The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?
Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
Why?
Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
With all due respect, that is bullshit.
Why?
Why should someone you don't know have to seek your approval to do anything that doesn't affect you?:dry:
Fair point, let people go about their business, if it doesn't affect you personally.
I'm a middle class, white person, living in the UK, with a good standard of living and disposable income. So long as it doesn't affect me everyone else can do what they want.
Wait a minute. vidcc = republican. :blink:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Why? you want to show abortions and graphic images in clinics in the hope the woman will run out crying and still carrying...... so if they want to
ban vaccines they should show the "evil sex".
You didn't even answer about the ultrasound thingie; nothing about that should prompt any crying, I don't think.
The purely informational aspect of this would seem fairly benign, don't you think?
As to the other, I suppose the natural curiousity about the prospective procedure is somewhat attenuated by that which actually is apparent, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Besides, which, if you state it is not my business, who are you to say what is or is not acceptable?
You may subscribe to whatever sense of propriety you like; you may not choose mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
and it's nobody elses business. Not mine, yours the feds or the states.
So say the "feds", huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Then surely you must agree (for all the same reasons) that a man should have co-equal decision-making power as to whether or not he desires to participate financially in the child's rearing?
The man made his choice by not wearing a condom. I appreciate it take two to tango but there it is. If the woman decides not to have the baby then by your example the man is released is he not?. If she decides, as you would like, to have it then the two take equal responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps you'd prefer he be allowed to consult a physician on the question?
Do you think the exercise of such a right would have the effect of further increasing the number of abortions?
compulsory abortions at the behest of the male huh ? not going to fly. Of course if men feel they want to have sex and not have children they can always have the snip............. do you think he should ask a woman or the state for permission to do that?
Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?
If the woman decides to have the child, it is her decision only; if, in the name of true equality, the man decides he wants no part of a pregnancy, why should the woman be allowed to unilaterally include him?
As you state things, she has control over the degree of responsibility she herself exercises, and control of his as well.
Logic dictates a man have the right to disengage as well.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Where do you keep coming up with this compulsory shit?
laws are in process to try to make it mandatory...hence the compulsory however.---
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, that's not fair, Ava.
It's exactly the type of thing that can change someone's mind, and is, as such, out-of-bounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Because it is effective.
Visit Planned Parenthood, ask to see "the video about partial-birth abortion", and see what type of reaction you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I read a bit more, recently, about the effort (denounced by Planned Parenthood, BTW) to enlist pregnant females in a plan whereby an ultrasound picture would be taken and shown to the mother-to-be.
They want to take a picture and say "look look you evil sinner you are going to kill this baby...may it haunt you in nightmares for the rest of your days...but at least you will have days".
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation
Quote:
A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."
"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."
The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."
source
typical.
Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation
Quote:
A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."
"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."
The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."
source
typical.
Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:
Well that Democrat is an idiot but he is consistent. He is saying government will force a woman to have a child and then add that government will do more in helping to take care of the child. Consistent but I disagree.
I'm pro-choice and pro-welfare reform (in the opposite direction). I believe this legislation would encourage baby making which is something the welfare system does already.
It's laughable how this bill is offering the welfare olive branch to make banning abortion more palpatable.
I've been around my share of ghetto betheans that will have more babies to get another check.
This will in fact encourage irresponsible behavior.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Mississippi has a similar ban in process. It was propossed by a democrat and includes a "Socialist" Welfare Stipulation
Quote:
A Christian attorney in Tupelo, Mississippi, also has reservations about the legislation. While he says the proposed ban plays to the wishes of pro-life advocates, Steve Crampton says it also creates a huge welfare problem that the state cannot afford. The attorney explains that the bill contains a provision that entitles any women who receives family counseling during her pregnancy to free medical and educational care until the child reaches the age of 19. That, says the attorney with the Center for Law & Policy, amounts to "guaranteed welfare."
"We joked in the office that I might take my wife by if she's pregnant, get a little counseling, and all of a sudden the state is now on the hook for all of our child's educational needs and medical needs until age 19," Crampton says. "That's an enormous bill to foot. It sort of codifies that socialist view of government that most of us stand staunchly against."
The attorney admits he is somewhat puzzled by Holland's bill. "It is a very clumsy effort in the law, and I think it really suggests Mr. Holland's own leanings in the area of welfare," he says. "Frankly, I'm not all that convinced of his pro-life credentials either, despite his authorship of this bill. I mean, it really makes me scratch my head as to what he was thinking at the time."
source
typical.
Anti choicers talk about "protecting the child"....as long as they don't have to be involved once it's born...provide education and healthcare....what an evil idea :dry:
And the cure for all the ills is to KILL THE BABY/FETUS/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, right?
Y'know, I've wondered for quite some time now:
If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If abortion is "right", what on earth could ever be thought wrong?
Religion
edit: sorry not religion.....organised religion
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
That's fine, then.
I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.
So, belatedly....
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That's fine, then.
I think the circles we are going in are small enough for me to have called this thread quits a page or so back.
So, belatedly....
Belated whatever....yet you still post.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.
This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.
So to speak. ;)
ABORTION FUZZY MATH
The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.
Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.
Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.
The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.
South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.
Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.
Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.
I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.
This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.
So to speak. ;)
ABORTION FUZZY MATH
The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.
Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.
Good find. The only way contraception works is if it's used EVERY time. One slip up and all that state funded contraception to reduce the pregnancy rate means shit.
She fucks with contraception today
She fucks with contraception tomorrow
The next day she doesn't. Boom. Pregnant.
The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.
I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.
Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.
The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.
South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.
Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.
Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.
I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.
You've missed the point.
Again.
Oh, well.
BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?
One more thing:
You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.
If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.
Why is this, do you think?
And then there's this:
If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You've missed the point.
Again.
Oh, well.
I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?
Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
One more thing:
You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.
If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.
Why is this, do you think?
Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And then there's this:
If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.
Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.
I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.
Agreed
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?
Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a
private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
One more thing:
You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.
If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.
Why is this, do you think?
Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
And then there's this:
If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.
Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.
If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact.
Fact.
Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)
BTW-
Social engineering?
Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?
I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'spunk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.
I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.
Agreed
Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact.
rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Fact.
Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)
BTW-
Social engineering?
Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?
I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh:
WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes :cry:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'spunk.
Agreed
Cue vid's civil rights objection...:P
So you would be for that :huh: I was not aware that you were supportive of chinese style politics.... I mean you haven't exactly shown any love for them.
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.
Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.
You are wrong again, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Fact.
Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway. ;)
BTW-
Social engineering?
Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?
I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary? :huh:
WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes :cry:
You can't be serious.
You really have no idea?
OhmyGod...:huh:
-
Re: South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait
[QUOTE=j2k4]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.
Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.
You are wrong again, again.
statistics are not uniform... we have red states and blue states don't we? By your theory if 60% of SD vote for one party then surely 60% of every state would vote for the same party.....they mirror each other...right ?
Humans are indiviuals and if the bulk of humans act in one way in one area that doesn't mean the bulk of humans will act the same way in another.
Perhaps if the neocons realised this then we would have been a bit better prepared in Iraq instead of thinking they would welcome us (because "they think and act the same as us").
