Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:16 am

Particles wrote:

I doubt anybody is thinking before they have sex, "I won't bother using contraception because I can just have an abortion." The people not using contraception aren't putting that much thought into it. Or it could be they were steered away from contraception by what their abstinence education told them.

Then you are living in a fantasy world if you believe this. That is exactly the thinking process of many young people today. I work with the youth of our church and this is the attitude our society has created among teens and young people. I have a ministry at two jails and this is the attitude I witness among young men who are incarcerated. If you do not believe people see abortion as a means of birth control, you are severely out of touch with reality.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Particles » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:13 am

Chapabel wrote:
Particles wrote:

I doubt anybody is thinking before they have sex, "I won't bother using contraception because I can just have an abortion." The people not using contraception aren't putting that much thought into it. Or it could be they were steered away from contraception by what their abstinence education told them.

Then you are living in a fantasy world if you believe this. That is exactly the thinking process of many young people today. I work with the youth of our church and this is the attitude our society has created among teens and young people. I have a ministry at two jails and this is the attitude I witness among young men who are incarcerated. If you do not believe people see abortion as a means of birth control, you are severely out of touch with reality.


They are probably some, but I doubt it's a significant factor out of all abortions. I don't think it should matter as to the legality of abortion for those who do that in any case.

I have two questions for you, Chapabel. Since you only responded to that part, do you concede the rest of my post? And, under what circumstances do you believe abortion should be legal, if ever?
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:33 am

Particles wrote:
I have two questions for you, Chapabel. Since you only responded to that part, do you concede the rest of my post? And, under what circumstances do you believe abortion should be legal, if ever?

Just because I did not address your each and every point does not mean I agree with you.

When should an abortion be legal? Never. I have attached an article about the decision of one woman who chose to carry her child full term despite the best advice of doctors.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/13/doct ... e-aborted/
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Particles » Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:02 am

Chapabel wrote:
Particles wrote:
I have two questions for you, Chapabel. Since you only responded to that part, do you concede the rest of my post? And, under what circumstances do you believe abortion should be legal, if ever?

Just because I did not address your each and every point does not mean I agree with you.


Sure, but can you or can you not justify your disagreement? If you can, why don't you? When you don't, it implies you can't.

When should an abortion be legal? Never.


Then, that proves that you would still force women seeking abortion to have have birth, even if they make that "effort of someone's part" to prevent pregnancy. So, contraception is irrelevant to the legality or to actual "control" of reproduction.

You said, "Women already have control over their reproductive destiny reproductive destiny." But you only counted abstinence and contraception. To have meaningful control would include ending pregnancy when contraception fails.

I have attached an article about the decision of one woman who chose to carry her child full term despite the best advice of doctors.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/13/doct ... e-aborted/


How is this relevant? Who's arguing women should be forced to have abortions?
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:40 pm

Sure, but can you or can you not justify your disagreement? If you can, why don't you?

What exactly would you like me to justify that I haven't already? I believe abortion is murder and I believe people look at abortion as a means of birth control. I feel people should show more responsibility if they are going to participate in sex and accept the consequences whether it be the conception of a child or an STD.

Then, that proves that you would still force women seeking abortion to have have birth, even if they make that "effort of someone's part" to prevent pregnancy. So, contraception is irrelevant to the legality or to actual "control" of reproduction.

When did it become evil to make someone accept responsibility for their actions? You use words like "force" as if expecting someone to accept the consequences for their actions is somehow wrong. Should men be "forced" to support their wives and children? Should people be "forced" to send their children to school? Should people be "forced" to care for their aged parents? Should people be "forced" to feed their pets? Come on.

You said, "Women already have control over their reproductive destiny reproductive destiny." But you only counted abstinence and contraception. To have meaningful control would include ending pregnancy when contraception fails.

So you too see murder of an infant as a viable means of birth control. I see it as evil. I see innocent life as very precious not just an inconvenience due to a result of careless sex.

How is this relevant? Who's arguing women should be forced to have abortions?

How is this relevant? Did you read the piece? Tebow's mother was advised by doctors to abort for a number of medical reasons both for her and the child. Tim Tebow is a living testimony that doctors can be wrong and give poor advice. How many Tim Tebows have been aborted? How many scientists have been aborted who could have unlocked cures for cancer? How many artists have been murdered in the womb that could have brought beautiful music and art into the world? It's not about forcing it's about allowing. Allowing infants to live in order to live their lives just as you and I have.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:22 pm

Chapabel wrote:Then you are living in a fantasy world if you believe this. That is exactly the thinking process of many young people today. I work with the youth of our church and this is the attitude our society has created among teens and young people. I have a ministry at two jails and this is the attitude I witness among young men who are incarcerated. If you do not believe people see abortion as a means of birth control, you are severely out of touch with reality.


Some people think abortion is adoptable if they get pregnant, but MOST people need abortions because of poverty. Here's a breakdown of what women are having abortions. Like most things you tend to argue, your personal anecdotal experiences are nothing like reality. Teens are the smallest group of fertile women having abortions. I have more commentary after the first link:

Link

How old are most women who obtain abortions in the United States?

Answer
More than half of American women obtaining abortions are in their 20s.[32] Women aged 20–24 have the highest abortion rate of any age-group (40 abortions per 1,000 women).

How many U.S. women obtaining abortions are already mothers?

Answer
Six in 10 American women having an abortion already have a child, and more than three in 10 already have two or more children.[32]

What proportion of U.S. women obtaining abortions are religious?

Answer
More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month.[38] The abortion rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.[32]

What is the racial or ethnic background of U.S. women who have abortions?

Answer
No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority of women having abortions: 36% are non-Hispanic white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are women of other races.[32]

Which racial or ethnic groups are most likely to have abortions in the United States?

Answer
Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion (40 and 29 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, respectively) than non-Hispanic white women do (12 per 1,000).[32] The higher rates reflect the fact that black and Hispanic women have high unintended pregnancy rates (91 and 82 per 1,000 women, respectively), compared with non-Hispanic white women (36 per 1,000 women).[26]

What proportion of abortions in the United States are among poor women?

Answer
Women with family incomes below the federal poverty level ($18,530 for a family of three) account for more than 40% of all abortions.[32] They also have one of the country’s highest abortion rates (52 per 1,000 women). In contrast, higher-income women (with family incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) have a rate of nine abortions per 1,000, which is about half the national rate.

Why do women in the United States have abortions?

Answer
Most women identify multiple reasons for having an abortion: Three-fourths cite concerns for or responsibility to other individuals, including children; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[40] The reasons U.S. women give for having an abortion reflect their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life.

In which regions of the United States are women most likely to have an abortion?

Answer
In 2008, the abortion rate was highest in the Northeast (27 abortions per 1,000 women), followed by the West, the South and the Midwest (22, 18 and 14 per 1,000, respectively).[31]

How many abortions in the United States occur in the second trimester?

Answer
In the United States, only about one in 10 abortions occur in the second trimester. More than nine in 10 occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and more than six in 10 occur in the first eight weeks.[37] The availability of medication abortion and new techniques that allow surgical abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy are likely to reinforce the trend toward earlier abortions.


Most women who have abortions are already mothers, and a significant number are under $18,000 a year (below poverty level). I figured you'd really enjoy the high 7 out of 10 women getting them are religiously affiliated. Some much for Jesus's impact on your lady folks (no worries-- they are forgiven by god. Just not by you... since you're more important than your god is, right?). But there's more. I had the dubious honor of checking into your state's "Comprehensive" (sic) Sex Education laws. Imagine my total lack of surprise when I found this:

Southern Carolina Comprehensive Health Education Program

ECTION 59-32-5. Short title.

This may be cited as the "Comprehensive Health Education Act".

HISTORY: 1988 Act No. 437, Section 1.

SECTION 59-32-10. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

(1) "Comprehensive health education" means health education in a school setting that is planned and carried out with the purpose of maintaining, reinforcing, or enhancing the health, health-related skills, and health attitudes and practices of children and youth that are conducive to their good health and that promote wellness, health maintenance, and disease prevention. It includes age-appropriate, sequential instruction in health either as part of existing courses or as a special course.

(2) "Reproductive health education" means instruction in human physiology, conception, prenatal care and development, childbirth, and postnatal care, but does not include instruction concerning sexual practices outside marriage or practices unrelated to reproduction except within the context of the risk of disease. Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.

(3) "Family life education" means instruction intended to:

(a) develop an understanding of the physical, mental, emotional, social, economic, and psychological aspects of close personal relationships and an understanding of the physiological, psychological, and cultural foundations of human development;

(b) provide instruction that will support the development of responsible personal values and behavior and aid in establishing a strong family life for themselves in the future and emphasize the responsibilities of marriage.

(c) provide instruction as to the laws of this State relating to the sexual conduct of minors, including criminal sexual conduct.

(4) "Pregnancy prevention education" means instruction intended to:

(a) stress the importance of abstaining from sexual activity until marriage;

(b) help students develop skills to enable them to resist peer pressure and abstain from sexual activity;


(c) explain methods of contraception and the risks and benefits of each method. Abortion must not be included as a method of birth control. Instruction explaining the methods of contraception must not be included in any education program for grades kindergarten through fifth. Contraceptive information must be given in the context of future family planning.

(5) "Local school board" means the governing board of public school districts as well as those of other state-supported institutions which provide educational services to students at the elementary and secondary school level. For purposes of this chapter, programs or services provided by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in educational settings must be approved by the local school board.


No wonder your women are getting knocked up and getting abortions. Once again we find religion at the bottom of idiot-fying people and robbing them of data and information that allows them to make sound, wise, and well informed choices. We know this is religiously driven because ONLY the religiously handicapped promote this short sighted, stupid, and catastrophically useless method of "Abstinence only".

So when you want to lay blame? Stop looking at "evil liberals". The real villain in this adventure looks back at you when you shave.

You don't like abortions? EDUCATE YOUR KIDS.

That should be step one. Robbing people of reproductive freedom should be step 2 trillion.

But this will never sink into moral thugs like you, will it? Never. Which is why we have a culture war.
Last edited by Keep The Reason on Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:25 pm

Chapabel wrote:How is this relevant? Did you read the piece? Tebow's mother was advised by doctors to abort for a number of medical reasons both for her and the child. Tim Tebow is a living testimony that doctors can be wrong and give poor advice. How many Tim Tebows have been aborted? How many scientists have been aborted who could have unlocked cures for cancer? How many artists have been murdered in the womb that could have brought beautiful music and art into the world? It's not about forcing it's about allowing. Allowing infants to live in order to live their lives just as you and I have.


And let's turn this around. How many Hitlers were NOT Aborted? How many Pol Pots and Stalins and Maos and Il Jongs and Hirohitos were allowed to slaughter millions because they were ALLOWED to go to term? How many Jeffrey Dahmers and Charles Mansons and Ted Bundys murdered innocent people simply because their mothers couldn't abort them?

It's a stupid argument that works both ways. Ghosts who were never born are never missed. We may have lost any number of brilliant cancer curing geniuses to a miscarriage by now. It's a stupid argument. Recommend you drop it.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:48 am

Keep The Reason wrote:Most women who have abortions are already mothers, and a significant number are under $18,000 a year (below poverty level). I figured you'd really enjoy the high 7 out of 10 women getting them are religiously affiliated. Some much for Jesus's impact on your lady folks (no worries-- they are forgiven by god. Just not by you... since you're more important than your god is, right?). But there's more. I had the dubious honor of checking into your state's "Comprehensive" (sic) Sex Education laws. Imagine my total lack of surprise when I found this:

Southern Carolina Comprehensive Health Education Program

ECTION 59-32-5. Short title.

This may be cited as the "Comprehensive Health Education Act".

HISTORY: 1988 Act No. 437, Section 1.

SECTION 59-32-10. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

(1) "Comprehensive health education" means health education in a school setting that is planned and carried out with the purpose of maintaining, reinforcing, or enhancing the health, health-related skills, and health attitudes and practices of children and youth that are conducive to their good health and that promote wellness, health maintenance, and disease prevention. It includes age-appropriate, sequential instruction in health either as part of existing courses or as a special course.

(2) "Reproductive health education" means instruction in human physiology, conception, prenatal care and development, childbirth, and postnatal care, but does not include instruction concerning sexual practices outside marriage or practices unrelated to reproduction except within the context of the risk of disease. Abstinence and the risks associated with sexual activity outside of marriage must be strongly emphasized.

(3) "Family life education" means instruction intended to:

(a) develop an understanding of the physical, mental, emotional, social, economic, and psychological aspects of close personal relationships and an understanding of the physiological, psychological, and cultural foundations of human development;

(b) provide instruction that will support the development of responsible personal values and behavior and aid in establishing a strong family life for themselves in the future and emphasize the responsibilities of marriage.

(c) provide instruction as to the laws of this State relating to the sexual conduct of minors, including criminal sexual conduct.

(4) "Pregnancy prevention education" means instruction intended to:

(a) stress the importance of abstaining from sexual activity until marriage;

(b) help students develop skills to enable them to resist peer pressure and abstain from sexual activity;


(c) explain methods of contraception and the risks and benefits of each method. Abortion must not be included as a method of birth control. Instruction explaining the methods of contraception must not be included in any education program for grades kindergarten through fifth. Contraceptive information must be given in the context of future family planning.

(5) "Local school board" means the governing board of public school districts as well as those of other state-supported institutions which provide educational services to students at the elementary and secondary school level. For purposes of this chapter, programs or services provided by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in educational settings must be approved by the local school board.


No wonder your women are getting knocked up and getting abortions. Once again we find religion at the bottom of idiot-fying people and robbing them of data and information that allows them to make sound, wise, and well informed choices. We know this is religiously driven because ONLY the religiously handicapped promote this short sighted, stupid, and catastrophically useless method of "Abstinence only".

So when you want to lay blame? Stop looking at "evil liberals". The real villain in this adventure looks back at you when you shave.

You don't like abortions? EDUCATE YOUR KIDS.

That should be step one. Robbing people of reproductive freedom should be step 2 trillion.

But this will never sink into moral thugs like you, will it? Never. Which is why we have a culture war.

South Carolina is not my home state. However, would you not agree that abstinence is a 100% means of birth control? I see nothing wrong with teaching kids the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage. The consequences of unprotected sex (pregnancy & STD's) needs to be taught and continually reinforced. Again, you remove all responsibility from parties involved and continue the blame game. In the liberal's eyes everyone else is to blame except the ones responsible. You call them victims. The real victims are the innocent unborn children. Until you show me some compassion for the unborn, don't cry your crocodile tears in front of me, 'cause I ain't buying.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:54 am

Chapabel wrote:South Carolina is not my home state.


My apologies I thought you said you were. I see you're from Tennessee, who laws are even stupider, if such a thing is possible.

Link

Tennessee legislature passes abstinence-only sex education bill

Wednesday 2 May 2012 at 1:15 PM ETby Michael Haggerson

The Tennessee House of Representatives [official website] has passed a bill [HB 3621, PDF; bill summary] that augments the state's abstinence-only sex education curriculum to allow parents to sue school teachers or organizations that promote "gateway sexual activity." The bill went to the governor for consideration on Tuesday. The bill defines "gateway sexual activity" as "sexual contact encouraging an individual to engage in a non-abstinent behavior." The stated purpose of the bill is to promote sexual risk avoidance, provide medically-accurate information, discuss the challenges that single teen mothers face and to "[d]iscuss the interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression." Critics of the bill argue that what "gateway sexual activity" is and what it means to demonstrate "gateway sexual activity" are sovaguely defined [TriCities report] that even holding hands or hugging could constitute an actionable offense.

The debate between abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education remains a controversial topic in the US. Thirty states received federal funding [SIECUS report] for abstinence-only sex education programs in 2010, including 14 of the 16 southern states. Critics of comprehensive sex education programs argue that it promotes sexual activity in teens [PBS Religion & Ethics report] and leads to physical and emotional distress. Critics of abstinence-only education argue that it just does not work and point out that teen pregnancy rates are the highest in states with abstinence-only education [ThinkProgress report]. Other studies have shown that even accounting for socioeconomic status, teen education level, teen ethnicity and availability of Medicaid, increased emphasis on abstinence-only education is positively correlated [study] with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. US President Barack Obama [official website] initially ended [People's World report] former president George W. Bush's abstinence-only sex education policy, but in May abstinence-only education was re-added [ThinkProgress report] to the Department of Health and Human Services' [official website] evidence-based pregnancy prevention program list [text].


LOL, "gateway sexuality". Because humans aren't driven to have sex unless they get to dance and hold hands. :roll:

However, would you not agree that abstinence is a 100% means of birth control? I see nothing wrong with teaching kids the importance of abstaining from sex until marriage. The consequences of unprotected sex (pregnancy & STD's) needs to be taught and continually reinforced. Again, you remove all responsibility from parties involved and continue the blame game. In the liberal's eyes everyone else is to blame except the ones responsible. You call them victims. The real victims are the innocent unborn children. Until you show me some compassion for the unborn, don't cry your crocodile tears in front of me, 'cause I ain't buying.


Of course abstinence is 100% but given human drives to have sex it's clearly a complete fantasy to expect it to ever work. It never did and it never will.

We're evolved to fuck and especially so as puberty wanes. Whether you like our actual evolved nature or not doesn't change the demonstrable fact that as evolved primates we like to fuck about as much as we like to breathe and eat.

Everything you write says little about the unborn but speaks volumes about punishing people who like to fuck. Who knows, maybe getting some was denied you and now you have some need to let others feel shame for sex, or maybe you're just religiously brain-shackled (we know the latter is true, but the former may be as well) . In either case, your rules for other people's sexuality is a non-starter. Apply them to yourself all day and night, but that right ends exactly where the hair on your skin ends.

I am utterly not concerned with fetuses that have no consciousness and no nerves. I am very concerned with fetuses that are past that point and I would not be at all liberal about aborting fetal human beings that have grown to the point where they have developed their sense of pain and their consciousness. These Rubicons are definable. But previous to those points of development, they are not "children". They are developing tissues with no sense of self, no sense of pain, no awareness. I am as bothered by aborting them as I would be if they miscarried, which happens pretty regularly. Is it a happy day? No, people generally don't generally celebrate a miscarriage, but is it "moider, moider most foul" ? No. It's not murder either.

And finally, I don't care about the religiously blinkered idea of ensoulment. Souls are fairy tales, and even if they weren't, an aborted soul would simply ho back to heaven anyway, or be sent into a different body.

Unless of course you had an evil psychopathic god who would send an aborted soul to Hell anyway, and there's no way the god of the Bible does crazy shit like that, right? Nah, never.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:39 am

Keep The Reason wrote:
Of course abstinence is 100% but given human drives to have sex it's clearly a complete fantasy to expect it to ever work. It never did and it never will.

We're evolved to fuck and especially so as puberty wanes. Whether you like our actual evolved nature or not doesn't change the demonstrable fact that as evolved primates we like to fuck about as much as we like to breathe and eat.

Everything you write says little about the unborn but speaks volumes about punishing people who like to fuck. Who knows, maybe getting some was denied you and now you have some need to let others feel shame for sex, or maybe you're just religiously brain-shackled (we know the latter is true, but the former may be as well) . In either case, your rules for other people's sexuality is a non-starter. Apply them to yourself all day and night, but that right ends exactly where the hair on your skin ends.

I am utterly not concerned with fetuses that have no consciousness and no nerves. I am very concerned with fetuses that are past that point and I would not be at all liberal about aborting fetal human beings that have grown to the point where they have developed their sense of pain and their consciousness. These Rubicons are definable. But previous to those points of development, they are not "children". They are developing tissues with no sense of self, no sense of pain, no awareness. I am as bothered by aborting them as I would be if they miscarried, which happens pretty regularly. Is it a happy day? No, people generally don't generally celebrate a miscarriage, but is it "moider, moider most foul" ? No. It's not murder either.

And finally, I don't care about the religiously blinkered idea of ensoulment. Souls are fairy tales, and even if they weren't, an aborted soul would simply ho back to heaven anyway, or be sent into a different body.

Unless of course you had an evil psychopathic god who would send an aborted soul to Hell anyway, and there's no way the god of the Bible does crazy shit like that, right? Nah, never.

I'm pretty sure I've stated that I'm not concerned with the who, where, when and how people have sex. I know it's going to happen. My position is one of responsibility. If people want to have sex, then they should be responsible and take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies or deal with the consequences. Why is "responsibility" such a profane word for liberals? It seems liberals feel that it should be the government's responsibility to end unwanted conceptions through state sponsored abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood. Why shouldn't individuals be held responsible for their actions?

If you are not concerned with killing infants that do not possess a conscience, sense of self, sense of pain or sense of awareness, are you equally unconcerned with killing people with severe mental and physical disabilities who also lack a sense of conscience, self, pain and/or awareness? Do you consider individuals who have suffered traumatic brain and bodily injuries and remain in a living yet unresponsive state to simply be a mass of tissue no more worthy of life? Do they too deserve to be snuffed out as well because of the inconvenience and burden they present to their loved ones? If unwanted babies can be denied life, so too must other individuals who do not meet your standard of what constitutes quality of life, right?

And from the theological point, the soul of infants do indeed enter rest in the presence of Jesus.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:06 pm

Well, as usual you simply walk by my every point, not addressing anything, and move onto your next talking point.

Laws in these fungangelical states are total mess, leading to higher instances of teen pregnancy. As usual we see a major correlation. The higher a state is ranked in religiosity, the more likely it is to produce a higher number of pregnant teens.

Top 10 States with least pregnancy rates and ranking as religious (the first number is pregnancy rates per 1,000, and the second number is how they rank religiously:

1 New Hampshire 28 -- 46th least religious (tied with Vermont)
2 Vermont 32 -- 46th least religious (tied with New Hampshire)
3 Minnesota 36 -- 31st least religious
4 Maine 37 -- 43rd least religious
4 Massachusetts 37 -- 44th least religious
6 Utah 38 -- 12th most religious -- (MORMON)
7 Wisconsin 39 -- 37th least religious
8 North Dakota 42 -- 22nd least religious (about 50/50)
9 Nebraska 43 -- 14th least religious
10 Iowa 44 -- 32nd least religious.

Sources:
Teen Pregnancy Rates per 1000 by state
Religious Ranking of States from Most to least religious

These were 2009/2010 numbers and they haven't much changed.

Just to make it clearer, here's the MOST religious states -- the top 10. And their ranking on the preggers list.

#1 Mississippi -- 76 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls (we have a weiner! Most religious, highest teen pregnancies. Who'd've thunk it?))
#2 Alabama -- 62 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls
#3 Arkansas -- 73 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls
#4 Louisiana -- 69 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls (seeing a pattern yet??)
#5 Tennessee -- 62 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls (apparently Jesus ain't listening in your state, Chap ol' Chap)
#6 South Carolina -- 65 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls
#7 Oklahoma -- 69 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls (where the sperm comes whipping 'cross the plains!)
#8 North Carolina -- 59 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls (w00t! Someone broke below 62!)
#9 Georgia -- 64 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls
#10 Kentucky -- 62 preggers per 1,000 teenage girls

All the most religious states are doing HORRIBLY in the Teen Pregnancy minimialization race. You know why? Because your religion clouds your understanding of how this shit works!. There is utterly no other reason. Rather than thinking about this as a human problem you think of it as a moral one, and your morals are derived from an authoritarian source, and authoritarians cannot think outside of these marching orders models. Let's further decimate your next points...

Chapabel wrote:I'm pretty sure I've stated that I'm not concerned with the who, where, when and how people have sex. I know it's going to happen.


Good. You start off fine. Then you immediately jump the rails and crash the train:

My position is one of responsibility. If people want to have sex, then they should be responsible and take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies or deal with the consequences.


Your laws and entire approach PURPOSELY BLIND people to what being responsible means. Your state laws ONLY advocate for abstinence, and even YOU argue for it as if it's a viable solution. You are self-contradicting. You are saying:

1. I'm not concerned with who, where, when and how people have sex.
2. People should ABSTAIN from sex. That's the ONLY 100% solution.

These are both things you are consistently saying here. you don't see to realize #2 contradicts #1. Just be honest. What you REALLY want are people to be pious non-sexual entities only engaging in sex after having some ritual you deem "holy". That's what you REALLY want.

And even then, abortion should remain legal for women who do not want to bring a pregnancy to term. It's their bodies. Not mine. Not yours. Theirs. Get that through your religiously armored head. It's theirs. Not yours. Theirs.

Why is "responsibility" such a profane word for liberals?


It's not. This is a bullshit claim, made by people who can only spout blinkered talking points. It's actually vile, and deserves a hearty: "Fuck you, asshole."

Having said that, let's expose what YOU mean by "responsibility". As a progressive myself, I'm an extremely responsible individual. I work my job, I am faithful to my spouse, I work for political progress, I support freedom for people classically denied it by authoritarians like yourself, I work for a fair level playing field with my government so if you want to be religious you can, and if you don't want to be religious you need not be without the government having ANYTHING to say about any of it other than -- "We must be neutral and grant all sides EQUAL FOOTING".

So take your claim of "responsibility is a profane word" for liberals and shove it. Now, let's get to some truths here:

The difference between us is, I adopt a sense of responsibility that is more Christ-like and you adopt one that is more Christian. Massive difference. You think in terms of the "me". For you, you're a "everyone should pull them up by their bootstraps" conservative type of fellow. You'll make some half-hearted claim that you support the most broken, but chances are your standards for who is actually broken is highly narrow and qualified. So how it actually translates into actual action is very very thin.

You're the type who goes around saying shit like, "I made it through tough times, so can everyone else." So you go through life with a string attached to any charity you might be compelled to do. It's all in service to breeding more of YOUR kind of Christianity. Let me make it plainer for you. You're the type of religious person who would have walked by the beggar in the good Samaritan story. You would tell that person, "Get up, help yourself!"

My sense of my role is "we". That happens to INCLUDE me, but it doesn't JUST include me. It includes everyone else as well. As a "we" thinker, I want to make sure other people who don't have the same chances I had (as a white male who is born into a social structure where I was effectively born sliding into home base from the base) have some degree of support I don;t need and they do need.

I care about the 13 year old rape victim who under your world would be forced to have a baby she didn't want created out of a violent act of abuse. I care about the stressed poor woman who works extra jobs to support her kids, and cannot afford another. And I champion humans who delight in their sexuality, free from your medieval moral code, enjoying their bodies and pleasure rather that feel mired down in your death-cult misery of sin, and hell. Who wants your shitty, dark, humanity-ending world view?

It seems liberals feel that it should be the government's responsibility to end unwanted conceptions through state sponsored abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood. Why shouldn't individuals be held responsible for their actions?


There are NOT government sponsored abortion clinics. Stop lying. 9th commandment. Lying for Jesus makes Jesus cry. You are lying. And you know it.

Link Abortion was made legal in the United States by the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973, and during the first three years of legalized abortion, Medicaid (the government program that provides health care to low-income pregnant women, children, the elderly and the disabled) covered the cost of terminating a pregnancy.

However, in 1977 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which put limitations on Medicaid coverage of abortion, allowing it only in the cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was physically endangered. Over the years, those two exceptions were eliminated. In 1979, abortions performed if a mother's life was endangered were no longer allowed, and in 1981 abortions performed due to rape and/or incest were denied.

As the Hyde Amendment must be passed by Congress annually, the pendulum of opinion over abortion coverage has swung back and forth very slightly over the years. In 1993 Congress permitted abortion coverage for victims of rape and incest, and the current version of the Hyde Amendment also permits abortion for women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies.

The ban on federal funding for abortion affects more than low income women. Abortion is not covered for women in the military, the Peace Corps, federal prisons, and those who receive care from Indian Health Services.


If you are not concerned with killing infants that do not possess a conscience, sense of self, sense of pain or sense of awareness, are you equally unconcerned with killing people with severe mental and physical disabilities who also lack a sense of conscience, self, pain and/or awareness?


My position is completely consistent. I specifically said that a fetus at a certain point in its development PREVIOUS to the Rubicons of consciousness and nerve development is no different from any miscarriage. So what do you do? You jump OVER that demarcation line and put up a strawman. Okay, I'll play your game because doing so exposes the failure of your position.

Let's go pre-natal (pre-birth) first. If it were found that even a late term fetus had some disease like aencephaly (born without a brain) I would STILL leave it to the parents / mother to decide what she would do. chances are massive that such a baby would die very soon. There are some exceptions (and yes this is Wiki because it's a convenient compilation of information).

Prognosis
There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.[4][20]

Five recorded cases of anencephalic children surviving for longer periods of time are Stephanie Keene of Falls Church, Virginia, USA, who lived for 2 years 174 days; Vitoria de Cristo, born in Brazil in January 2010 and surviving until July 17, 2012;[21] Nickolas Coke[22] of Pueblo, Colorado, USA, who lived for 3 years and 11 months, and died October 31, 2012;[23][24] and Angela Morales, from Providence, Rhode Island.[25]

In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant's ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition, and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as futile efforts. Some clinicians and medical ethicists view even the provision of nutrition and hydration as medically futile.[citation needed]


Do you consider individuals who have suffered traumatic brain and bodily injuries and remain in a living yet unresponsive state to simply be a mass of tissue no more worthy of life? Do they too deserve to be snuffed out as well because of the inconvenience and burden they present to their loved ones? If unwanted babies can be denied life, so too must other individuals who do not meet your standard of what constitutes quality of life, right?


No, of course not. This is a total strawman. People who have reached the point you use as an example here have PASSED THAT DEMARCATION POINT. It's incredibly simple. The people who you use as an example here are full human beings who almost certainly have built relationships and bonds with those who care about them and love them and hold out hope for their recovery. And even then, at some point it's perfectly acceptable to decide to gently and lovingly end that person's life. I have had to make that decision for a loved on, and it's hard. Terribly hard. But an aneurysm had blown out 70% of his brain and he was never going to survive it. We could have left him on mechanical support for days or even weeks, but to what end?

For the record, I -- in my "liberal irresponsibility" mode -- have already covered my closing moments of life should I ever be found in such a state. My family knows exactly what I expect, and what I want. They don't have to deal with making such decisions themselves since I, again as someone who you accuse of thinking the word "responsibility" is profane -- have legally settled all such matters. Pretty irresponsible of me, eh?

So calling the spade a spade, all you're doing here is trying to reduce this into some callous and unfeeling black or white dilemma that it's not, never has been, and never will be. I am talking about fetuses that are no different from the countless fetuses that are miscarried, apparently with PERFECT ACCEPTANCE by your fictional gods. You are extrapolating that into murdering Aunt Edna because she tripped and fell and had a traumatic brian injury. Again, the utterly vile depths of the "Christian" is on display for all to see. Having no moral argument to base their authoritarian impulse on, they have to pervert and twist straight forward arguments into nonsensical numb-nuttery.

You guys definitely are consistent in one way, that's for sure. It's in your utter lack of principles and ethics in terms of arguing for your positions. You'll lie, cheat, steal, and obscure at every turn.

And from the theological point, the soul of infants do indeed enter rest in the presence of Jesus.


Then
What
The
FUCK
Are
You
WORRYING
ABOUT????

By your own words, these "children" are in PARADISE FOREVER. You've found the magic key! you want people to go to heaven, well then abortions GUARANTEE IT!

Jesus Kee-ryst, how utterly dumb can this get?

Chap: "I want people to go to heaven so I want them to choose Jesus."
KtR: "Wait -- what about just killing them in the womb? Won't they go to Heaven then?"
Chap: "Yes."
KtR: "Isn't that what you want?"
Chap: "Yes."
KtR: "Doesn't abortion ensure it?"
Chap: "No abortions! These people should be born so they can sin and maybe turn away from god and Jesus and then go to Hell!"
KtR: "Isn't that 180° opposite to what you want?"
Chap: "Jesus! Responsibility! Heaven! Jesus! Babies!"

Shit. You guys are loons, seriously. no two ways about it.

And by the way -- you're part of the 19% and as John Oliver says, "What the FUCK is wrong with you people??"

John Oliver on Stupid Anti-Abortion Laws
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:34 pm

Your last post is rich. You accuse me of strawman tactics when it is you who has built a King Kong size chaff-dude. Our discussion is not about teen pregnancy. It is about abortion. You are attempting to turn the focus onto another issue and hide the stats that are relevant to this discussion. I do not dispute the stats that in the Bible Belt we may have a higher number of teen pregnancies. We marry our girls at an apparently younger age. My daughter was married at 18. If she happens to become pregnant within the next 10 months, she will be one of your teen pregnancy statistics. Therefore, let’s look at some telling stats shall we?

I find it very interesting that the states that have the highest abortion rate are also states with a liberal bent. One source revealed these amazing statistics of the most abortions. In order they would be New York, Maryland, D.C., Delaware and New Jersey. https://top5ofanything.com/list/047aa5e ... tion-Rates

This site revealed similar results with Delaware, New York, New Jersey, D.C., Maryland, and California in the top slots. http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/25-stat ... abortions/

This site shows that three extremely liberal states are so ashamed of their abortion rates that they no longer report their abortions. That would be your home state of California, Maryland and New Hampshire. http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/ One point of interest that needs to be clarified, Florida has a higher rate of abortions than other southern states, but Florida also happens to be the relocation destination of most Yankees that move south. Just thought I’d throw that in.

While you decry Mississippi for having the highest teen pregnancy rate while being the most religious, Mississippi also has the lowest abortion rate in the country. It appears that while young Mississippians often engage in sex, they are more willing to step forward and accept responsibility and care for their children than the spoiled, entitled socialists of California.

One statistic I found very disturbing is one that I thought that you as a liberal would be at the forefront heralding. According to this website: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009. The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total. Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008, though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population. The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions (37.7% according to the CDC11).


From the same article we have John Piper's take on this:
The de facto effect (I don’t call it the main cause, but net effect) of putting abortion clinics in the urban centers is that the abortion of Hispanic and Black babies is more than double their percentage of the population. Every day 1,300 black babies are killed in America. Seven hundred Hispanic babies die every day from abortion. Call this what you will—when the slaughter has an ethnic face and the percentages are double that of the white community and the killers are almost all white, something is going on here that ought to make the lovers of racial equality and racial harmony wake up

Where, oh where, are the liberal’s racial outcry? Why aren’t liberals on their soapboxes demanding less abortion among the black and Hispanic community? Could it be that deep down liberals are actually the real racists in our country? Do the liberals not care one whit that the black and Hispanic communities suffer higher than normal abortion rates? Oh, say it ain’t so. Or do you liberals just want more and more abortions among non-Hispanic and non-black communities to even things up? Let's pump more money for abortion clinics into white neighborhoods. Lets level the playing field by killing more white babies. Oh the humanity...Let’s take a breath and move on shall we?

Your laws and entire approach PURPOSELY BLIND people to what being responsible means. Your state laws ONLY advocate for abstinence, and even YOU argue for it as if it's a viable solution. You are self-contradicting. You are saying:
1. I'm not concerned with who, where, when and how people have sex.
2. People should ABSTAIN from sex. That's the ONLY 100% solution.

Now you’re simply being dishonest. I asked if you agreed that abstinence was a 100% guarantee to prevent STD’s and pregnancies to which you agreed. I also stated that I knew people would have sex and I was not concerned with the details of their sexual prowess. My only concern is that they exercise responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is no contradiction in my statements at all unless you twist my words.

It's their bodies. Not mine. Not yours. Theirs. Get that through your religiously armored head. It's theirs. Not yours. Theirs.

I agree. But who speaks for the bodies of the infants growing inside the woman’s body? Where is their voice? Who speaks for the men who have fathered these children? How many women have abortions without telling the fathers? Don’t these men have a say? Not every man that impregnates a woman is a rapist. Perhaps they would like to raise their sons and daughters. For a bleeding heart liberal, you have zero compassion for the innocent and uninformed. If these women were so concerned about their bodies, they would have used protection in order to prevent becoming pregnant. It’s very hypocritical for these women to demand their sovereignty over their body when they didn’t care enough to take a pill, or have their partner sheath their sword (In the military we had a saying “No glove, no love”).

You don’t like my comparison of aborting a child and killing a severely disabled person perhaps because it hit a little too close to home? Maybe you didn’t like the fact that putting a pillow over a mentally disabled person in order to end his/her life is no different than ripping an infant out of the mother’s womb. Both are horrible, monstrous acts. So you brush it off as a “nonsensical numb-nuttery.” Well, suck it up Buttercup. I see no difference in killing a person with a severe mental disability without any awareness of his surrounding and aborting an innocent child in the womb.

BTW, going down your rabbit trail of showing how much better you are at being Christ-like than I am is exactly the same trail the woman at the well used with Jesus. When confronted with facts that are uncomfortable you resort to “religious” talk in order to divert the conversation. It’s not a matter of comparing your Christ-likeness with others; it’s a matter of comparing yourself with Christ. Your whole “I’m more like Jesus than you are.” attitude is both self-serving and childish. If you are indeed more like Christ than I am, then I am glad for you, I’m not jealous of you.

I saw the video you posted of John Oliver. My advise for JohnBoy is don't move to a state that has strict abortion laws. It's a free country, so he can live where ever he wants to. Or better yet, he could take his British butt and stiff upper lip back across the pond. If America does not suit him go back to merry ol' England.

One last thing...do you eat with that filthy mouth? Do you really kiss your loved ones with that soiled pie-hole? I've told you before that using such vulgar words is a sign of ignorance and is very uncouth. Just trying to help you out Bud.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:56 pm

Chapabel wrote:Your last post is rich. You accuse me of strawman tactics when it is you who has built a King Kong size chaff-dude. Our discussion is not about teen pregnancy. It is about abortion. You are attempting to turn the focus onto another issue and hide the stats that are relevant to this discussion. I do not dispute the stats that in the Bible Belt we may have a higher number of teen pregnancies. We marry our girls at an apparently younger age. My daughter was married at 18. If she happens to become pregnant within the next 10 months, she will be one of your teen pregnancy statistics. Therefore, let’s look at some telling stats shall we?


What a liar you are. You are the one who created the entire "responsibility and abstinence" argument. And teen pregnancies is where the concern lies. Who gives a shit if married adults are having kids? That's what they are supposed to be doing, Brainiac.

Non-pregnant teens and adults don't need abortions. So there's no need to count them. Duh!

I find it very interesting that the states that have the highest abortion rate are also states with a liberal bent. One source revealed these amazing statistics of the most abortions. In order they would be New York, Maryland, D.C., Delaware and New Jersey. https://top5ofanything.com/list/047aa5e ... tion-Rates


Well of COURSE they are higher in liberal states -- there are CLINICS there, for fuck's sake! In your religious states they've been closed down. So now, instead of those abortions happening in your states, these women have to go elsewhere thus driving up the numbers.

Here, let's use your precious Mississippi as an example:

The State of Abortion in Mississippi; A View of the Country's Future? Link

Jackson Women's Health Organization is the last abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi, and if anti-choice protesters have their way, it too will shut its doors. The state had seven clinics, but slowly each has been closed. Roe v. Wade secures women's rights to choose to terminate a pregnancy but the lack of access to services precludes many women in Mississippi from exercising this right.

The Jackson clinic is located squarely in the Bible Belt in a state in which an overwhelming majority of elected officials are anti-choice. For example, the state's Governor, Haley Barbour, issued an official proclamation designating the seven days leading up to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as "a week of prayer regarding the sanctity of human life."1 According to the same proclamation, Barbour also ordered the placement of small white crosses on the lawn of the State Capital "in memory of the unborn children who die each day in America."2

Susan Hill, the owner of the Jackson clinic, explained, "Mississippi is the picture of the future. It's the perfect laboratory for any restriction [on abortion] - there's no way, politically, that it won't sail through the legislature."3

Mississippi has some of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country. For example, it has one of the most sweeping conscience clauses in the country, allowing any health care provider to refuse to provide any abortion-related service. The state's laws also require women to wait at least 24 hours after an initial consultation with a doctor before having an abortion. Mississippi is also one of only two states which require the written consent of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion, though a judicial bypass option is available.

Anti-choice activists hail Mississippi's policies. Pat Cartrette, the executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi, a Christian anti-choice group in the state, says that her group no longer advocates for restrictive abortion policies because all of their priorities have been enacted by the state. Instead, the group is focusing their efforts on closing down the last remaining abortion clinic. She explained, "We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion…If we shine the light on the abortionists and the abortion industry, it will self-destruct, and we're seeing that happen in Mississippi."4

Anti-choice protesters are pleased that there is now only one clinic left in the state. Roy McMillan, who has been protesting outside Mississippi clinics for 25 years, said, "thankfully we've arrived at a time I always wanted - where the women have to come through us."5 He continued, "I would love our state to be the first to be abortion-free…The governor should send the Highway Patrol and the National Guard to close this clinic down."6 McMillan has been arrested over sixty-two times and has been a controversial activist over the years. He has threatened violence against clinic staff and once said he was inspired by protesting with Paul Hill, an activist who later killed an abortion doctor.7

Despite constant harassment by anti-choice protesters, the Jackson Women's Health Organization continues to operate and see patients. Betty Thompson, a previous director of the clinic and now a consultant, said, "we're just going to have to fight each time… As long as we're in compliance with the laws, I think we'll be able to function."8 She said the restrictions are hard for the patients, particularly for low-income women who must find money both to pay for the procedure as well as to stay in the area overnight to fulfill the 24 hour waiting period requirement. Still, she says, "a young woman who's made up her mind to have an abortion will find a way to pay for it. She'll sell whatever she has at a pawn shop, steal, prostitute herself. She'll run in here - not walk, but run."9

Women with the means to do so often travel outside of the state to access abortion services. Planned Parenthood does not operate a clinic in Mississippi, but instead monitors the state from a neighboring office in Alabama. Larry Rodick, the head of Planned Parenthood's Alabama office, explained, "some Mississippi women drive across the state line to get abortions, but the poorest of the poor are either having the kids or getting a back-alley abortion. Some of these women probably end up getting sick and dying, though we'll never know because they don't put it on the death certificate."10

Many pro-choice activists are worried that what is happening in Mississippi is a glimpse of what may happen in the near future. "It's the canary dying in the mine," said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "It's what can happen if the constant strategy of chipping away at Roe is not met with sufficient push-back from the pro-choice movement," she warned.11

For the 98 percent of Mississippi women who live in a county without an abortion provider, it is almost as if Roe v. Wade was not still in existence. Susan Hill, who was a social worker before Roe, explained, "Mississippi is like the rest of the country was before 1973." She said that the women who arrive at her clinic "have that same look in the eye now. They have to go through the same kind of struggles."12

There are some in Mississippi, however, who are fighting back against the anti-choice protesters. The Mississippi affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women are starting an abortion-rights coalition which will work to challenge the anti-choice protesters as well as counter abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Mississippi schools.

Meanwhile, the clinic is determined to stay open no matter what. Susan Hill, the clinic owner, said, "The state and the protesters are determined to close us and we're determined to stay open. It's the classic fight to the finish."13


So what a surprise. Can't get 'em in Miss, so you go to a state where you CAN get them. Duh again!

You use Guttmacher quite interestingly, as in, "cherry picking the shit out of everything". Let's do a side by side comparison, shall me?

Guttmacher Tennessee

Pregnancies and Their Outcomes

• In 2011, there were 6 million pregnancies to the 63 million women of reproductive age (15-44) in the United States. Sixty-seven percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 18% in abortions; the remaining 15% ended in miscarriage.

• In Tennessee, 113,900 of the 1,276,630 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2011. 70% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 15% in induced abortions.

• In 2011, 1.1 million American women obtained abortions, producing a rate of 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The rate is a decrease from 2008, when the abortion rate was 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44.

• In 2011, 16,720 women obtained abortions in Tennessee, producing a rate of 13.1 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some Tennessee residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate decreased 15% since 2008, when it was 15.3 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Tennessee represent 1.6% of all abortions in the United States.

Where Do Women Obtain Abortions?
In 2011, there were 14 abortion providers in Tennessee; 9 of those were clinics. This represents a 8% increase in overall providers and a a 10% decline in clinics from 2008, when there were 13 abortion providers overall, of which 10 were abortion clinics.

• In 2011, 89% of U.S. counties had no abortion clinic. 38% of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2008, one-third traveled more than 25 miles.

• In 2011, 96% of Tennessee counties had no abortion clinic. 63% of Tennessee women lived in these counties.

Restrictions on Abortion

In Tennessee, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 1, 2015:

  • A woman must receive state-directed counseling and then wait 48 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
  • Health plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act may not provide coverage of abortion.
  • The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
  • The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
  • Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.




This site revealed similar results with Delaware, New York, New Jersey, D.C., Maryland, and California in the top slots. http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/25-stat ... abortions/

This site shows that three extremely liberal states are so ashamed of their abortion rates that they no longer report their abortions. That would be your home state of California, Maryland and New Hampshire. http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/ One point of interest that needs to be clarified, Florida has a higher rate of abortions than other southern states, but Florida also happens to be the relocation destination of most Yankees that move south. Just thought I’d throw that in.


As usual, wrong. They don't do these studies every year, so the latest figures are for 2011. Guttmacher is the national go-to for this and your Tennessee figures (2011) are exactly the same as for California. So -- WRONG.

Guttmacher California

Pregnancies and Their Outcomes
• In 2011, there were 6 million pregnancies to the 63 million women of reproductive age (15-44) in the United States. Sixty-seven percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 18% in abortions; the remaining 15% ended in miscarriage.
• In California, 802,400 of the 7,917,182 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2011. 63% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 23% in induced abortions.
• In 2011, 1.1 million American women obtained abortions, producing a rate of 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The rate is a decrease from 2008, when the abortion rate was 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44.
• In 2011, 181,730 women obtained abortions in California, producing a rate of 23 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some California residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate decreased 16% since 2008, when it was 27.4 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44.

Abortions in California represent 17.2% of all abortions in the United States.

Where Do Women Obtain Abortions?
• In 2011, there were 1,720 abortion providers in the United States. This is a slight (4%) decrease from 2008, when there were 1,787 abortion providers. Thirty-five percent of these providers were hospitals, 19% were abortion clinics (clinics where more than half of all patient visits were for abortion), 30% were clinics where fewer than half of all visits were for abortion, and 17% were private physicians' offices. Sixty-three percent of all abortions were provided at abortion clinics, 31% at other clinics, 4% at hospitals and 1% at private physicians' offices.

• In 2011, there were 512 abortion providers in California; 160 of those were clinics. This represents a 2% decline in overall providers and a a 5% decline in clinics from 2008, when there were 522 abortion providers overall, of which 169 were abortion clinics.

• In 2011, 89% of U.S. counties had no abortion clinic. 38% of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2008, one-third traveled more than 25 miles.

• In 2011, 45% of California counties had no abortion clinic. 5% of California women lived in these counties.

Restrictions on Abortion
• In California, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of December 1, 2015:
California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states


Now here's the best part. In eeeeevil liiiiibbberal California, abortions are going DOWN. An article from 2014:

Link

California abortion rate falls to lowest level in decades

California women today are about half as likely to get an abortion as their peers 20 years ago, according to a study released Monday.

Roughly 23 of every 1,000 California women of child-bearing age had an abortion in 2011, down 5 percent from 2010, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies reproductive health. In 1991, about 44 of every 1,000 California women had an abortion.

Investigators cited increased use of birth control and improvements in birth control efficacy for the trend. Birth rates have fallen during the same period. The same trend occurred nationwide.

Abortion is still common in California. About 182,000 abortions were performed here in 2011. The state's abortion rate is about 40 percent higher than the national average. At the current rate, more than one in three California women will have had an abortion by the age of 45.

The Guttmacher Institute contacted every known abortion provider in America for its study. Since the state of California does not publish official abortion statistics, the Guttmacher Study, which is conducted regularly, is considered one of the best indicators of how often abortions occur here. The Institute supports abortion rights; its statistics are often cited by those on both sides of the issue.


And this is WITH sexual education and available clinics. In other words, in your blinkered state you have the worst of all worlds. Higher teen pregnancies (out of wedlock sinful pregnancies according to you). So to answer your lame ass quesiton about "married hillbillies", lol. no those figures only represent UNMARRIED teens:

Link

TENNESSEE

Over 29% of the families in Tennessee do not have fathers present in the home – Tied 7th highest in the nation.
Over 33% of the babies born in Tennessee are born out of wedlock - sixth highest in the nation.
Over 66% of teen births in Tennessee are out of wedlock.


Great job you and Jesus are doing! Keep it up and let's thank Satan for local states that do allow your knocked up girls to get it dealt with in a humane and safe manner.

Summary: In a state where abortions are available, the clinics exist so of course the actual number of abortions is higher.

Hey you know where there are NO abortions? In the middle of the fucking Atlantic ocean. Care to guess why? I guess that's paradise on Earth innit!

While you decry Mississippi for having the highest teen pregnancy rate while being the most religious, Mississippi also has the lowest abortion rate in the country. It appears that while young Mississippians often engage in sex, they are more willing to step forward and accept responsibility and care for their children than the spoiled, entitled socialists of California.


WRONG again . Go watch the John Oliver piece. As he says, there are exactly 4 times as many "s's" in Mississippi than there are abortion clinics". There's only ONE clinic in the entire state.

It's low because it's been effectively OUTLAWED but now watch how high the child abuse, crime, and back alley abortions rise.

It's perverse arguing like this that tells us that you are an evil guy at heart. A liar through and through. Cruel and without heart. You think it's heroic to lock people out of their reproductive rights thanks to your idiotic, stupid, iron age superstitious religious nonsense -- that didn't even say SHIT about abortion anyway.

Good opportunity to share this:

Last Clinic Standing
Folks may or may not know that the Supreme Court is hearing a very important case impacting abortion access on March 2, 2016.
The issues in this case directly affect the people of Mississippi and the outcome could mean the difference between staying open and shutting down.
So what are we gonna do about it?
Jackson Women’s Health is gonna stand up and represent outside the United States Supreme Court house on March 2!
That’s right. The Pink House is heading to the Court House to make our voices heard!
Know someone who’s gonna be there too?
Wanna stand with us??
Send us a message on our Facebook page and we will keep an eye out for you!


One statistic I found very disturbing is one that I thought that you as a liberal would be at the forefront heralding. According to this website: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009. The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total. Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008, though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population. The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions (37.7% according to the CDC11).


Once again you do not get the argument. You think because I am pro choice I am pro abortions for all, any time you want them!

No.

I am MUCH more pro education and pro ending of poverty. Minorities like blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to get abortions because they are poor and are denied equal opportunities. As usual, you Sick Samaritans cannot possibly see the chain-linking of various issues. Poverty leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to poverty. In that loop, one of the only escapes is to feel good, even in a short term. Thus, drugs, drinking, and sex are all higher because of it. So of course the ramifications of such lives is going to be higher.

So what's YOUR plan to help lift these people out of poverty? Let me guess:

"Pick yourselves up by the bootstraps you lazy fucks!"

Great plan.

Where, oh where, are the liberal’s racial outcry? Why aren’t liberals on their soapboxes demanding less abortion among the black and Hispanic community? Could it be that deep down liberals are actually the real racists in our country? Do the liberals not care one whit that the black and Hispanic communities suffer higher than normal abortion rates? Oh, say it ain’t so. Or do you liberals just want more and more abortions among non-Hispanic and non-black communities to even things up? Let's pump more money for abortion clinics into white neighborhoods. Lets level the playing field by killing more white babies. Oh the humanity...Let’s take a breath and move on shall we?


Yes of course we care which is why we seek a higher minimum wage. And regulation of business so they cannot just export jobs. 20 years ago the top employers were companies like the car companies, and the dot coms. Today it's Walmart and Macdonalds. Liberals want to fix the bigger problem and we want to do it with real-world solutions, not your "Halp us Jeezus!" nonsense. We want actual solutions that work.

We COULD invest in our people and educate them and subsidize energy-efficient companies to get us out of reliance on oil, but guess who keeps stopping those choices? Republicans. We could totally change our entire country, become energy self-sufficient, stop polluting, rebuild our infrastructure, educate our populace, give jobs that cannot be off-shored to every American and raise millions out of poverty -- but we cannot do ANY of this with Republicans blocking every smart choice imaginable.

You want to lower abortions? GET PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY. If you REALLY want to end this "slaughter" as you call it, get people working, get them making a decent living, give them education, give them protection, and teach them responsibility-- ALL of these things TOGETHER will work.

But you will not do it. Instead, you blame the only group that has a solution that works right in front of you. and your own local governmental failures you actually think are heroic, like you think making abortions all but unobtainable in Mississippi represents "responsible youths".

Now you’re simply being dishonest. I asked if you agreed that abstinence was a 100% guarantee to prevent STD’s and pregnancies to which you agreed. I also stated that I knew people would have sex and I was not concerned with the details of their sexual prowess. My only concern is that they exercise responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There is no contradiction in my statements at all unless you twist my words.


I have illustrated how you are saying one thing but arguing for another. You thwart the very things that would lower pregnancies. I will challenge you on that in a bit -- read on.

I agree. But who speaks for the bodies of the infants growing inside the woman’s body? Where is their voice? Who speaks for the men who have fathered these children?


No one. They are not yet PEOPLE with RIGHTS. Nature itself ABORTS a third of them! Where's your outrage that god culls 33% of all pregnancies? Nowhere! Because you know it is not the killing of a person.

And who made YOU the fucking voice for them? Who are YOU to speak for these non-people? What makes you think YOU'RE god's voice?? How do you know that god doesn't plan for EACH of them t5o be aborted, so they could go to heaven? Who are YOU to interfere with god's plans?

I'm not the voice for women who want their reproductive destinies in their own hands-- THEY are saying that. I'm not saying it for them. So why don't you speak for YOU and shut the fuck up speaking for a bunch of zygotes who never asked you for a single fucking thing? Arrogant prick. All hail Chapbel, who speaks for the desires of the aborted. Because they have clearly VOTED him as their spokesperson.

Arrogant pricks. Arrogant.

How many women have abortions without telling the fathers? Don’t these men have a say?


No they DON'T have a say. It's not their bodies. It's their sperm. That's it. They don't have a say in whether someone else is forced to carry their irresponsibility to term. What is wrong with you?? you don't own women. Get it through your head. You don't own them!

Not every man that impregnates a woman is a rapist. Perhaps they would like to raise their sons and daughters. For a bleeding heart liberal, you have zero compassion for the innocent and uninformed. If these women were so concerned about their bodies, they would have used protection in order to prevent becoming pregnant. It’s very hypocritical for these women to demand their sovereignty over their body when they didn’t care enough to take a pill, or have their partner sheath their sword (In the military we had a saying “No glove, no love”).


Again you completely pervert the issue. For one, you are an advocate of STEALING THAT EDUCATION FROM THEM. You want to DENY them that knowledge, then you then cry your ludicrous tears about how they've acted in ignorance. YOU SET IT UP THAT WAY!

When I hear from you that you're working to change your backwater states. medieval Sex Ed laws, THEN maybe you can say, "well at least they are informed." Until such time, you have NO credibility on that issue. You're part of the problem!

Second, sometimes people get pregnant ANYWAY. The contraception fails. So you want to punish them for that (because really, you want abstinence as you've already argued for).

Third, and this answers your claim that I am dishonest from earlier --you don't give a FUCK for those children because you don't care if they are born into abusive homes, in poverty, or from rape or incest. You simply do not care. You'd force those births and continue a chain of suffering. This is why I call you vile. You want nothing to do with actually fixing any of this-- all you care about is slut shaming and forcing people to adopt your iron age morality. If you did care, you'd work towards educating people and helping them conquer poverty, but you don't do it. Instead, you vote in people who will make it harder for them, and then curse them to even more har5dship by having more children.

You don’t like my comparison of aborting a child and killing a severely disabled person perhaps because it hit a little too close to home? Maybe you didn’t like the fact that putting a pillow over a mentally disabled person in order to end his/her life is no different than ripping an infant out of the mother’s womb. Both are horrible, monstrous acts. So you brush it off as a “nonsensical numb-nuttery.” Well, suck it up Buttercup. I see no difference in killing a person with a severe mental disability without any awareness of his surrounding and aborting an innocent child in the womb.


No I didn't like it because it was patently stupid.

If you don't know the difference between a 30 year old car accident or stroke or brain aneurysm victim with a wife and kids and mother father and siblings who is brain dead and a 3 month old fetus who has none of those things, then don't mind me as I classify YOU as the brain dead guy as well. You are indeed brain dead if you don't see a difference-- but not to worry. Even as brain dead as you are, I'd defend your right to continue living since I DO know the difference between a brain dead adult like you and a 3 month old fetus.

If you are indeed more like Christ than I am, then I am glad for you, I’m not jealous of you.


Stop worrying about me and try being more like the guy you want everyone to convert to. It might not work, but at least you'd wind up being a decent human being instead of the moral shipwreck you are now.

I saw the video you posted of John Oliver. My advise for JohnBoy is don't move to a state that has strict abortion laws. It's a free country, so he can live where ever he wants to. Or better yet, he could take his British butt and stiff upper lip back across the pond. If America does not suit him go back to merry ol' England.


I think you misunderstand. You're part of the idiotic 19%. You're in the stupidest of minorities. It's YOU who should leave. Maybe to a nice theocracy somewhere, like Uganda. You're anti-American because you want to rob rights from adults to their own reproductive freedom.

Why do you hate America so much?

One last thing...do you eat with that filthy mouth? Do you really kiss your loved ones with that soiled pie-hole? I've told you before that using such vulgar words is a sign of ignorance and is very uncouth. Just trying to help you out Bud.


And yes, I eat with this mouth. Food is delicious. And I kiss my loved ones without a hint of trouble. In fact, your entire focus on this is just plain weird. As I've explained it before: It's done for a reason. You deserve that level of vulgarity. My words are merely a simple way for me to illustrate how disgusting and cruel I find you, how unprincipled your attempt to defend these horrifying positions are, and how hypocritical you are at the drop of a hat. Your disregard for real living human beings in favor of zygotes is catastrophically stupid and destructive. So you earn a "Fuck you. Fuck you in spades."

Considered the message delivered.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:36 am

Well, there you go. Instead of maintaining some type of civil decorum, you fly off into another one of your profanity-laced, name-calling diatribes again. Why do I even bother with you? 20 years ago I would have driven to the left coast and taught you a lesson in manners and the consequences of rude behavior. Now, I simply pity you. You are so full of hate, anger and bitterness. You revile every person who disagrees with your position whether they are believers or not. You are nothing more than a loud-mouth bully.

BTW, it is you who is the pathetic hypocrite. In one statement you declare how sex is almost as important as eating breathing to a primate:
We're evolved to fuck and especially so as puberty wanes. Whether you like our actual evolved nature or not doesn't change the demonstrable fact that as evolved primates we like to fuck about as much as we like to breathe and eat.


Then you try to play the concerned liberal wanting to educate people out of their primal instincts:
I am MUCH more pro education and pro ending of poverty. Minorities like blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to get abortions because they are poor and are denied equal opportunities. As usual, you Sick Samaritans cannot possibly see the chain-linking of various issues. Poverty leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to poverty. In that loop, one of the only escapes is to feel good, even in a short term. Thus, drugs, drinking, and sex are all higher because of it. So of course the ramifications of such lives is going to be higher.


So which is it you hypocrite? Do people get abortions because they are a higher form of animal or because they are poor and uneducated?

When I encounter vile, self-centered, blow-hards like you I am reminded of Jesus' grace. He still loves you despite your dark, evil heart. You like videos so much why don't you watch my buddy Greg Locke. And I leave you with this: https://www.facebook.com/PastorLocke/vi ... 3/?fref=nf
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Particles » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:01 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sure, but can you or can you not justify your disagreement? If you can, why don't you?

What exactly would you like me to justify that I haven't already?


The rest of the post. Should I repost the whole thing?

I believe abortion is murder and I believe people look at abortion as a means of birth control. I feel people should show more responsibility if they are going to participate in sex and accept the consequences whether it be the conception of a child or an STD.


Saying what you believe isn't of much use here unless you can explain why you believe what you believe.

Then, that proves that you would still force women seeking abortion to have have birth, even if they make that "effort of someone's part" to prevent pregnancy. So, contraception is irrelevant to the legality or to actual "control" of reproduction.

When did it become evil to make someone accept responsibility for their actions? You use words like "force" as if expecting someone to accept the consequences for their actions is somehow wrong. Should men be "forced" to support their wives and children? Should people be "forced" to send their children to school? Should people be "forced" to care for their aged parents? Should people be "forced" to feed their pets? Come on


Having an abortion when you don't want a child is accepting responsibility. And so is using contraception. Yet, contraception can fail. And so you are dodging the fact that contraception is irrelevant to the legality of abortion, so it was irrelevant other than showing your condescending and controlling attitude toward women.

You said, "Women already have control over their reproductive destiny reproductive destiny." But you only counted abstinence and contraception. To have meaningful control would include ending pregnancy when contraception fails.

So you too see murder of an infant as a viable means of birth control. I see it as evil. I see innocent life as very precious not just an inconvenience due to a result of careless sex.


So, like I said, it was disingenuous of you to bring up contraception. It doesn't matter, you want to force birth on anyone who gets pregnant, probably including rape victims too. In your position, responsibility really has nothing to do with it.

How is this relevant? Who's arguing women should be forced to have abortions?

How is this relevant? Did you read the piece? Tebow's mother was advised by doctors to abort for a number of medical reasons both for her and the child. Tim Tebow is a living testimony that doctors can be wrong and give poor advice. How many Tim Tebows have been aborted? How many scientists have been aborted who could have unlocked cures for cancer? How many artists have been murdered in the womb that could have brought beautiful music and art into the world? It's not about forcing it's about allowing. Allowing infants to live in order to live their lives just as you and I have.


And still not relevant, unless you think women are having abortions because they had no idea there was a chance they could have given birth to someone who became a scientist. You're just further exemplifying your ignorant, condescending attitude toward women.

Chapabel wrote:You like videos so much why don't you watch my buddy Greg Locke. And I leave you with this: https://www.facebook.com/PastorLocke/vi ... 3/?fref=nf


Chapabel, I will grant that that video is a perfect embodiment of your form of Christianity, in its self-serving, petty, prideful boorishness.
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest