goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on February 04, 2014, 03:30:17 PM

Title: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 04, 2014, 03:30:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html)

maybe if we did provide free contraception for everyone, we could save a lot more lives?

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_296w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2014%2F02%2F03%2FHealth-Environment-Science%2FGraphics%2Fw-Abortion-02%2Fw-Abortion-02.jpg&hash=0bc064c1122a0c815e749e3b100e1f80ebdbb415)

Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: 06wildcat on February 04, 2014, 04:19:54 PM
There's three types of people when it comes to free contraception:
Reasonable people who will agree with it
People who disagree with it depending on who's proposing it
People who believe contraception = murder

2 and 3 outnumber 1 in a lot of areas in the country.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 04, 2014, 05:51:12 PM
There's three types of people when it comes to free contraception:
Reasonable people who will agree with it
People who disagree with it depending on who's proposing it
People who believe contraception = murder

2 and 3 outnumber 1 in a lot of areas in the country.

Reasonable people that oppose it depending on who's paying for it?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 04, 2014, 06:20:05 PM
Sounds like the ProLife crowd is more effectively getting their message out.  Really changing things. Good for them.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Paul Moscow on February 04, 2014, 06:28:19 PM
Unfortunately, one of the contributing factors to the abortion rate going down is that many states have literally restricted access by closing clinics.

Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Paul Moscow on February 04, 2014, 06:31:11 PM
There's three types of people when it comes to free contraception:
Reasonable people who will agree with it
People who disagree with it depending on who's proposing it
People who believe contraception = murder

2 and 3 outnumber 1 in a lot of areas in the country.

Reasonable people that oppose it depending on who's paying for it?

Nevermind that contraceptions lead to cost savings.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 04, 2014, 06:33:09 PM
If I told you we could drastically reduce the number of murders of precious, innocent babies in the United States, would your first quibble be over how much the program would cost?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: steve dave on February 04, 2014, 07:10:42 PM
Who's proposing this kk?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 04, 2014, 07:27:40 PM
Who's proposing this kk?

me.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: EMAWmeister on February 04, 2014, 07:32:16 PM
I really think abortion is horrible (with the obvious exceptions), and I think KK's proposal sounds great.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 04, 2014, 07:42:40 PM
If I told you we could drastically reduce the number of murders of precious, innocent babies in the United States, would your first quibble be over how much the program would cost?

Says the gas chamber salesman to Hitler.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 05, 2014, 11:23:28 AM
Hey KK, you know what's great about this country?  Freedom, including freedom of religion.  If for religious reasons someone disagrees with something that's okay.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 05, 2014, 11:24:45 AM
Hey KK, you know what's great about this country?  Freedom, including freedom of religion.  If for religious reasons someone disagrees with something that's okay.

wrong thread?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 05, 2014, 12:16:01 PM
DNR posted link but the story on cnn said that the rated dropped in all but four states.   The four states were alaska, idaho, and two other super red states.  Weird.  Keep it in your pants you creepy ultra cons.

Also, probably related, alaska has a rape occurance rate somethink like three times the national avg.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: mocat on February 05, 2014, 12:23:28 PM
alaska has a rape occurance rate somethink like three times the national avg.

well it's an absolute sausage fest up there. enter at your own risk
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 05, 2014, 12:34:18 PM
Wait, you actually think the government offering free contraceptives (which are already practically free) is going to have any effect on the abortion rate?

Well I was going to use a condom, but I couldn't dig 75 cents out of my couch cushions, so I just decided to bare back it and not pull out.  eff!  Better dig a couple hundo out of the couch cushion so I can pay to have my unborn child's skull crushed and vacuumed out of my wife's uterus to be thrown away as medical waste.

Yeah, I was going to get on birth control until I found out it was $7 a month and I had to go to the clinic to get a script for it.  So I said eff-it, humped around anyways, didn't buy condoms either cuz they're like $4 a box, and let some rando splooge inside of me.  eff!  Had to sell all the savings bonds my grandma gave me to afford, yet another, abortion down at "planned parenthood".
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 05, 2014, 12:40:37 PM
hormonal birth control is not $7/mo without health insurance.  condoms have a pretty high failure rate.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 05, 2014, 07:31:58 PM
hormonal birth control is not $7/mo without health insurance.  condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Pffft, okie dokie
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2014, 09:48:36 AM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 06, 2014, 10:05:06 AM
alaska has a rape occurance rate somethink like three times the national avg.

well it's an absolute sausage fest up there. enter at your own risk

Palin country
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 06, 2014, 10:07:56 AM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.

There is a % of the population that is broke, dumb as eff and incredibly horny.  I'd love to prevent them from further reproducing.  And if we can by giving them free birth control pills that they wouldn't otherwise buy, do it yesterday.

But I am glad to see you are on board with the morning after pill.  Some psychos are against that
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: ben ji on February 06, 2014, 10:38:34 AM

There is a % of the population that is broke, dumb as eff and incredibly horny.  I'd love to prevent them from further reproducing.  And if we can by giving them free birth control pills that they wouldn't otherwise buy, do it yesterday.


This
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: mortons toe on February 06, 2014, 11:32:34 AM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 06, 2014, 11:37:41 AM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.

The pull-out method is more effective than condoms.  Too bad we can't teach people that in school.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 06, 2014, 12:17:17 PM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.

The pull-out method is more effective than condoms.  Too bad we can't teach people that in school.

You guys buy chinese condoms at the Dollar General?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2014, 12:33:16 PM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.

There is a % of the population that is broke, dumb as eff and incredibly horny.  I'd love to prevent them from further reproducing.  And if we can by giving them free birth control pills that they wouldn't otherwise buy, do it yesterday.

But I am glad to see you are on board with the morning after pill.  Some psychos are against that

If they're that stupid, then they're too stupid to take the pills with the required regularity. Next solution?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 06, 2014, 03:34:12 PM
IUDs
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 06, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
so.... our argument is to forget about contraception because people don't want to/ won't use it. yea, that seems smart. 
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: DQ12 on February 06, 2014, 06:32:21 PM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.

The pull-out method is more effective than condoms.  Too bad we can't teach people that in school.
That seems untrue.  Do you have a source?

Quote
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Quote
Each year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly.
Each year, 18 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they don't always use condoms correctly.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm)
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 06, 2014, 06:45:02 PM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.

There is a % of the population that is broke, dumb as eff and incredibly horny.  I'd love to prevent them from further reproducing.  And if we can by giving them free birth control pills that they wouldn't otherwise buy, do it yesterday.

But I am glad to see you are on board with the morning after pill.  Some psychos are against that

If they're that stupid, then they're too stupid to take the pills with the required regularity. Next solution?

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 06, 2014, 07:14:46 PM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.

The pull-out method is more effective than condoms.  Too bad we can't teach people that in school.
That seems untrue.  Do you have a source?

Quote
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Quote
Each year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly.
Each year, 18 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they don't always use condoms correctly.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm)

You're right.  I got my numbers wrong.  Should've said is about as effective as condoms with the obvious caveats about a) no protection from STDs b) correct use.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Daddy Claxton on February 07, 2014, 07:27:22 AM

There is a % of the population that is broke, dumb as eff and incredibly horny.  I'd love to prevent them from further reproducing.


This

Lebensunwertes Leben.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2014, 09:18:08 AM
Here at goE its okay to say all poors are stupid and we should do everything we can to prevent them from procreating.

What a refreshing viewpoint.   :flush:


But yeah, mods keep slapping "racist piece of crap" on posters who disagree with your naive and perverted pov, rough ridin' hypocrites
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 09:41:39 AM
Here at goE its okay to say all poors are stupid and we should do everything we can to prevent them from procreating.

What a refreshing viewpoint.   :flush:


But yeah, mods keep slapping "racist piece of crap" on posters who disagree with your naive and perverted pov, rough ridin' hypocrites

Can someone explain the difference btwn "All" and "a % of" to this guy?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 09:54:04 AM
Here at goE its okay to say all poors are stupid and we should do everything we can to prevent them from procreating.

What a refreshing viewpoint.   :flush:


But yeah, mods keep slapping "racist piece of crap" on posters who disagree with your naive and perverted pov, rough ridin' hypocrites

Can someone explain the difference btwn "All" and "a % of" to this guy?

He wouldn't get it
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Daddy Claxton on February 07, 2014, 10:14:13 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally know a few ppl that fit the description exactly.  They by themselves equate to "a % of" because math, and I am making a radical assumption that they aren't alone.

Racist POS me if that is wrong.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 10:25:05 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point was illegitimate kids are not always a positive for those people in the lower income groups.  And they won't buy birth control so they should have access to it for free.

Or at least the morning after pill
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Daddy Claxton on February 07, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally know a few ppl that fit the description exactly.  They by themselves equate to "a % of" because math, and I am making a radical assumption that they aren't alone.

Racist POS me if that is wrong.

Nice. I would love to see this board's reaction if FSD had said that.
Lebensunwertes Leben.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 10:35:56 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally know a few ppl that fit the description exactly.  They by themselves equate to "a % of" because math, and I am making a radical assumption that they aren't alone.

Racist POS me if that is wrong.

Nice. I would love to see this board's reaction if FSD had said that.
Lebensunwertes Leben.

Yeah, trying to provide those with lower income free medical care is a real controversial position
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Daddy Claxton on February 07, 2014, 10:40:21 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point was illegitimate kids are not always a positive for those people in the lower income groups.  And they won't buy birth control so they should have access to it for free.

Or at least the morning after pill

That's different than "I want to stop people from procreating if I think they are stupid and poor" which is different than "poor people should get free healthcare". I suspected your point was as you re-stated. I was more surprised by the folks that agreed with your original statement.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
DC, taking the statement as needing to keep poor ppl from having kids is lazy.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 11:08:04 AM
Would someone explain it to me, or at least explain why "a % of" instead of "all" makes it an
acceptable viewpoint?

For the record, I suspect limestone's comment was a bit tongue in cheek and the part I didn't quote makes it less offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point was illegitimate kids are not always a positive for those people in the lower income groups.  And they won't buy birth control so they should have access to it for free.

Or at least the morning after pill

That's different than "I want to stop people from procreating if I think they are stupid and poor" which is different than "poor people should get free healthcare". I suspected your point was as you re-stated. I was more surprised by the folks that agreed with your original statement.

If I wanted that, I would advocate some type of temporary sterilization for those who receive gov aid. 

I just want widely available BC
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: slobber on February 07, 2014, 11:58:56 AM
condoms have a pretty high failure rate.

Yeahhh, you pretty much lost it with that one.

I mean, seriously... pull out and toss it on her chest, or her face, or her toothbrush, or just go ahead and BE the toothbrush. It really is quite simple.

The pull-out method is more effective than condoms.  Too bad we can't teach people that in school.
That seems untrue.  Do you have a source?

Quote
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.
Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Quote
Each year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly.
Each year, 18 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they don't always use condoms correctly.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/condom-10187.htm)

You're right.  I got my numbers wrong.  Should've said is about HALF as effective as condoms with the obvious caveats about a) no protection from STDs b) correct use.
FYP
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Daddy Claxton on February 07, 2014, 12:59:16 PM
DC, taking the statement as needing to keep poor ppl from having kids is lazy.

I'd say too literal more than lazy. But you endorsed the statement before limestone clarified, so what did you interpret the following statement to mean?:

"I'd love to prevent [a percentage of the population that is broke, dumb as eff, and incredibly horny] from further procreating"
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 01:16:10 PM
I don't need him to define such a statement to me.  I understand the discussion is about availability rather than mandatory.   Anyone following this issue should be able to put aside reactionary talking points and realise that.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: star seed 7 on February 07, 2014, 01:45:11 PM
I don't need him to define such a statement to me.  I understand the discussion is about availability rather than mandatory.   Anyone following this issue should be able to put aside reactionary talking points and realise that.

There will always be a % of the population that are dumbasses pretending to be intellectuals.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I don't need him to define such a statement to me.  I understand the discussion is about availability rather than mandatory.   Anyone following this issue should be able to put aside reactionary talking points and realise that.

There will always be a % of the population that are dumbasses pretending to be intellectuals.

Nuh uh, you are.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
A lot of really horrible people being outed in this thread.  The equivalent of the I hate n#gg#rs but am okay with black people is alive and well with so-called "poors"

Congrats, bigots  :flush:
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2014, 02:22:10 PM
Sometimes I think the need to keep posts short so that you don't get DNR'ed keeps others from understanding what is being posted.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2014, 02:29:08 PM
I would views the % of people who "shouldn't" have kids is relatively static across all income demographics, and the availability of "free BC" on those percentages would be about the same as the increase in "sugar bugs" if free candycanes were provided to the public.


If you aren't walking to the corner walgreens to spend $3 onrubbers, you sure as eff aren't taking the bus across town tovet them for free at the clinic. Get serious retards.  Maybe if we had a govt. paid for trojan man go door to door. . .
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: puniraptor on February 07, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
if you guys say withdrawal one more time, I''m going to demand an NSFW tag for this thread.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 07, 2014, 02:35:54 PM
widely available and easily accessible birth control =/= eugenics
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 03:57:40 PM
I would views the % of people who "shouldn't" have kids is relatively static across all income demographics, and the availability of "free BC" on those percentages would be about the same as the increase in "sugar bugs" if free candycanes were provided to the public.


If you aren't walking to the corner walgreens to spend $3 onrubbers, you sure as eff aren't taking the bus across town tovet them for free at the clinic. Get serious retards.  Maybe if we had a govt. paid for trojan man go door to door. . .

But you would scoop up a handful the one time you were there.

Much like lafene.  They'd give out 50+ rubbers at a time for like $2.00. 

Is there anything easier than telling who is getting boat raced in a discussion than the guy who brings up race?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2014, 07:08:00 PM
$2 is free?  Okay limestone, thanks for proving my point.  You're either gonna go get BC or you aren't.  Cost is so low it doesn't matter if its free, even to really poor people.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 07, 2014, 07:10:30 PM
condoms are not the only form of birth control.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2014, 07:12:39 PM
condoms are not the only form of birth control.

Making News!
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 07, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
$2 is free?  Okay limestone, thanks for proving my point.  You're either gonna go get BC or you aren't.  Cost is so low it doesn't matter if its free, even to really poor people.

You should get racist more, it at least gives your horrid arguments with no logic some explanation.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: star seed 7 on February 08, 2014, 03:38:07 AM
really this whole discussion is stupid since all healthcare (including all contraception) should be free to citizens.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2014, 08:44:56 AM
$2 is free?  Okay limestone, thanks for proving my point.  You're either gonna go get BC or you aren't.  Cost is so low it doesn't matter if its free, even to really poor people.

You should get racist more, it at least gives your horrid arguments with no logic some explanation.

I've got 5000+ posts, find a "racist" one. 

While the internet isn't a competition, its been fun pwning you over the last 24 hours, goofball. You should expect that every time you run with a bullshit libtard talking point like, "contraception isn't affordable and widely available". Use your brain bro

Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 08, 2014, 08:46:31 AM
Tap out
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2014, 08:48:45 AM
Tap out

Accepted
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 08, 2014, 09:08:44 AM
Tap out

Accepted

Noted
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on February 09, 2014, 12:08:23 AM
observed.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on October 02, 2014, 10:39:11 PM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2Fe3v_v8ICuY5cbtOlzYCMPiQGACw%3D%2F800x0%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale%28%29%2Fcdn1.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F2317216%2Fchoice_project.0.png&hash=b0dfc21a372825f39bbe3bfca6671fa23e62c913)

Quote
When financial and medical barriers are removed, it turns out teenagers this form of birth control more than they use pills: nearly three-quarters of the CHOICE Project participants in this study used some form of LARC, such as an IUD. Separate research has found that, nationally, just 4.5 percent of teenagers use this method.

Separate programs have had similarly dramatic results: Colorado saw teen birth rates decline 40 percent when it began providing free access to IUDs.

"We found that in a cohort of teenage girls and women for whom barriers to contraception (lack of knowledge, limited access, and cost) are removed and the use of the most effective contraceptive methods is encouraged, a large percentage opted to use LARC methods," the authors write.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/2/6891337/st-louis-gave-teens-free-birth-control-and-they-now-have-very-low (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/2/6891337/st-louis-gave-teens-free-birth-control-and-they-now-have-very-low)
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: TBL on October 03, 2014, 07:35:03 AM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids. Abortions are declining because of (1) state restrictions on abortion, and (2) shifting public opinion on abortion.

As to the contraception = murder point, I suppose some might believe that, but there's a pretty significant difference between preventing conception or embryo implantation and killing a fetus that, if not viable, has actually developed into some semblance of a human being with a heart, brain, nerves, etc. The silver lining of morning-after pills being available OTC and at hospitals is that it further reduces any argument for the necessity of abortion.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2Fe3v_v8ICuY5cbtOlzYCMPiQGACw%3D%2F800x0%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale%28%29%2Fcdn1.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F2317216%2Fchoice_project.0.png&hash=b0dfc21a372825f39bbe3bfca6671fa23e62c913)

Quote
When financial and medical barriers are removed, it turns out teenagers this form of birth control more than they use pills: nearly three-quarters of the CHOICE Project participants in this study used some form of LARC, such as an IUD. Separate research has found that, nationally, just 4.5 percent of teenagers use this method.

Separate programs have had similarly dramatic results: Colorado saw teen birth rates decline 40 percent when it began providing free access to IUDs.

"We found that in a cohort of teenage girls and women for whom barriers to contraception (lack of knowledge, limited access, and cost) are removed and the use of the most effective contraceptive methods is encouraged, a large percentage opted to use LARC methods," the authors write.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/2/6891337/st-louis-gave-teens-free-birth-control-and-they-now-have-very-low (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/2/6891337/st-louis-gave-teens-free-birth-control-and-they-now-have-very-low)

They don't have time for sexy-fun-time. They're all too busy protesting/burning down QT's and crap.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 03, 2014, 10:11:20 AM
Maybe if we had a govt. paid for trojan man go door to door. . .

Science proves this is the only way. Thanks Kat kid.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on October 03, 2014, 10:24:01 AM
Maybe if we had a govt. paid for trojan man go door to door. . .

Science proves this is the only way. Thanks Kat kid.

Teaching a lesson about personal responsibility or a never ending Holocaust of previous dead babies.  I guess we know which side you fall on.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on July 05, 2015, 02:40:38 PM
Contraception is already so cheap and readily available that making it "free" is unlikely to have much impact on the number of abortions. People either are, or are not, too stupid to obtain/use contraception if they don't want kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0)

Quote
WALSENBURG, Colo. — Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest ever real-life experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate for teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: star seed 7 on July 05, 2015, 02:55:30 PM
Interesting
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: sys on July 05, 2015, 02:58:49 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: renocat on July 05, 2015, 07:40:20 PM
A twist tie on the old weasel works, this seems like a good idea.  It's better than giving Dr. Hamburger work.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Canary on July 05, 2015, 08:33:42 PM
My views on contraception and abortion aren't really material to this thread.  But I do get disgusted by friends of mine who brag about banging lots of girls with zero regard to birth control.  Laziness and  irresponsibilty about the possibility of pregnancy when you have no regard to raising or supporting that pregnancy and child pisses me off. 
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 05, 2015, 10:01:58 PM
Interesting

Predictable
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on May 02, 2016, 12:57:18 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter)

It saddens me that Trump is the most likely candidate to make this case in this presidential cycle and I see NO one on the horizon that is willing to make this case as a public health/human rights issue.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: DQ12 on May 02, 2016, 01:47:29 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter)

It saddens me that Trump is the most likely candidate to make this case in this presidential cycle and I see NO one on the horizon that is willing to make this case as a public health/human rights issue.
I'm really not sure of the point the author is trying to make.  Just that abortion clinics are shutting down due to a number of factors?

What exactly would you have a president do to cure the issue?
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 02, 2016, 02:13:26 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter)

It saddens me that Trump is the most likely candidate to make this case in this presidential cycle and I see NO one on the horizon that is willing to make this case as a public health/human rights issue.
I'm really not sure of the point the author is trying to make.  Just that abortion clinics are shutting down due to a number of factors?

What exactly would you have a president do to cure the issue?

Executive order.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Kat Kid on May 02, 2016, 02:17:57 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter)

It saddens me that Trump is the most likely candidate to make this case in this presidential cycle and I see NO one on the horizon that is willing to make this case as a public health/human rights issue.
I'm really not sure of the point the author is trying to make.  Just that abortion clinics are shutting down due to a number of factors?

What exactly would you have a president do to cure the issue?

Promote free availability of contraceptives.  I'm guessing that there may be some executive actions.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: DQ12 on May 02, 2016, 02:21:05 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/?ex_cid=story-twitter)

It saddens me that Trump is the most likely candidate to make this case in this presidential cycle and I see NO one on the horizon that is willing to make this case as a public health/human rights issue.
I'm really not sure of the point the author is trying to make.  Just that abortion clinics are shutting down due to a number of factors?

What exactly would you have a president do to cure the issue?

Promote free availability of contraceptives.  I'm guessing that there may be some executive actions.
Ah yeah.  That'd be cool.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: renocat on May 02, 2016, 06:11:06 PM
I could support all forms except the so called after conception pill.  I wonder if planned hamburger would allow this.  I would be against condoms in the lunch line approach though for teeniebreeders.
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2016, 07:49:32 PM
I would expect b.o. or any whack job leftist to advocate against free contraceptives due to the adverse effect on abortion clinics. #thinkprogress
Title: Re: More contraception, more pro-life
Post by: star seed 7 on May 02, 2016, 08:05:51 PM
I would expect radical rightists like fsd to support abortion because #lessliberals