|
For anything requiring hard facts, statistics, official positions, etc, I generally use Wikipedia as a filter/extension of Google... look up the article, then use the cited links at the bottom to start the real searching. Yeah, Wiki is pretty easy to tamper/vandalize, but the cites are there for a reason.Uh, you do know that the Wiki article has several cited articles/links at the bottom of the page? It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.No, but it's been my experience since returning to school that due to its mutability and tampering potential, using wikipedia as a source tends to be frowned upon for the purpose of citation.
Just a general FYI and the main reason why the warwoolf (and others) may react in kind.
Also, I pointed it out because it was fairly obvious that was the study he was citing, as it appears to be the only study that had positive findings on the topic.
And then I cited an article with links to tons that don't, despite attempts by the Heritage Foundation to create studies that show otherwise.
Because abstinence only programs are less effective. And in several studies, they actually make kids more likely to have sex.
It's kind of like when people recommend scared straight programs. It sounds like a good idea, but every study that has been done has shown kids who participate in those programs are actually more likely to become involved in criminal behavior afterwards.
Truthiness is not truth.
|
|
So...yeah, I did win.
On the internet.
... which is still a loss.
Usually when I win on the internet I click a button and either get a virus ... or maybe this.
Either way ... eh
|
|
So...yeah, I did win.On the internet.
... which is still a loss.
Usually when I win on the internet I click a button and either get a virus ... or maybe this.
Either way ... eh
** spoiler omitted **Spoiler:I'm not sure how you got 'women shouldn't be in the miltary' from 'homosexuals are infinitely less likely to become nondeployable'. And yes, I tend to ignore gender differences between soldiers.
Let's look at your original comment: "That's one thing I've never understood about the "don't ask don't tell" policy. You would think the military would want more homosexuals in the ranks. After all, they can't get pregnant and become non-deployable like heterosexual soldiers."
This comment only makes sense when comparing homosexual males to heterosexual females.
Heterosexual males can't become pregnant, so it doesn't make sense in their case.
Homosexual women can become pregnant, thus it doesn't make sense in their case.
The issue isn't really relevant to the sexual orientation, but to the sex of the individual or rather its capacity to get pregnant. So your original comment should read:
"That's one thing I've never understood about the "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to homosexual males. You would think the military would want more males in the ranks. After all, they can't get pregnant and become non-deployable like female soldiers."
Any other reading doesn't make any kind of logical sense. Of course, I know you were going for humor and logic wasn't necessarily an issue for you. I found the lack of logic humorous myself.
I accidentally got pregnant at Planned Parenthood.
And I'm a gay man.
Does that mean I may or may not serve in the military?
I'm so confused.
Due to President Obama's ending of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", you may serve openly in the military, if you met the age and health requirements. However, the fact that you are pregnant may be a problem for them. They may want you to wait until you have given birth before they allow you to enlist. It also depends on which service you want to join. The Marines would probably not take you, but you could easily get into the Army or Navy.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the phrase means in normal discourse. If you want to go natter at Sebastian for not dotting all the is and crossing all the ts, go right ahead. I'm sure he'll be deeply interested. I've played the game often enough to just not care about the semantic gamesmanship.
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.
Youre wasting your breath. Pres man's only rhetorical device is to create strawmen that don't make any sense outside his own mind. Either that, or he has a crippling lack of integrity and reading comprehension. In either event, arguing with him is pointless and most everyone knows to ignore his disingenuous arguments/lies.
Well, as someone who is convinced abortions are an important thing, I would like to give you my view of it. Please treat it as such.
The traditional society view of women is that women are defined by their ability to have children. From this comes a view that all things connected to childbearing needs to be decided from somewhere else - anywhere but by the woman herself. This is not empty scaremongering, many countries work in precisely this way. Most more advanced countries did work exactly like this only two or three generations ago. A woman can be relatively free until she sets her mind to getting married or getting children. Once that happens, either the state, her husband or her family will have the right to decide things for her. And the red line through all of this is - childbearing. Various types of repression of the woman is supported by the argument that a woman's place is in the home, by her children.
The right to have abortions in safe ways was one of the catalysts of women getting control of their own lives. Certainly, an abortion is not something to laugh about. It is something that hits everyone involved hard. However, taking it away means (to most who advocate the right to safe abortions anyway) reinstituting the subordination of woman in society. Consider also that most of said conservative countries also deny their population the use of contraceptives, and often have severe or ridiculous punishments for extramarital sex, and you get a picture of how massive the effect on the choices a woman can make.
In short, most women today do not want to be denied sex until married, and be denied contraceptives and abortions so sex leads to having children, which means you have to put away your plans for having an education and a future. Sure, it's sharp, but it's what I see as the alternative. I would not accept anyone else be treated the same way either.
Dog will hunt and teens will hump.
There's a reason Malthusian theories of over-population were so popular for over a century. The good reverend (and his readers) never imagined that we'd be able to control ourselves as well as we do now.
And if you think we don't control ourselves much now, well, that's kind of my point.
Personally, and I live in a region where many people (specifically young women) seem to think having a family is the be-all end-all of life. Young couples get together immediately out of school, have a child ... and then fall apart as they realise the touchy-feely feel-good relationships of the teenage years rarely hold up against the cold, uncaring realities of adulthood.
Most people pick themselves up and carry on, if not for themselves than their children. They have the support of their families and friends, more often than not, and while the child isn't as 'well off' as they would be in a stable, happy house-hold, they're still supported and loved.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of kids who run wild, swear, steal and in some cases actually attempt to assault people because that's the only way they know how. I see it, but the law will let me do nothing about it. I see young parents ignoring screaming children to 'teach them to wait'. I see children as young as two or three sucking on a bottle of coke, when they should really not even be going near that super-sugary crap, with all the horrible things in it, not so early in life. I've seen children tear apart a shop having a tantrum while the mother goes 'Now stop that, that's naughty' and walk out, leaving the enraged staff to clean up hundreds of dollars worth of damage and be unable to force the parent to pay for the damages.
Planned Parenting is a g*~&#*n sound idea. I'd prefer to see the youths involved talk to single parents who have lived hard lives, not tapes, the actual people. let them actually speak to a person who can tell them about having no social life after having a child, let alone raising one without a partner or when you're trying to put yourself through school or get a job. Tell them about how much they will miss out on having a child so early, being unable to set down a nest-egg of money to help give their child a better life than they have had, or the chance to see the world and gain new skills before settling down to the awesome responsibility that is a child.
Yes, having a child is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a RIGHT.
You have to have a license to breed dogs, yet anyone with working equipment can go out and spawn as many children as they want? Something isn't kosher here.
Stop and think about this for a second. In most western countries, the push in education is to 'normalize' education, political double-talk for 'lowering the bar so even the village idiot can pass and make us look good'. People leaving the schools today are actually getting dumber than they were twenty years ago, and then they go out into the work-force and get absolutely smashed by reality. There is a steadily growing group of, for lack of a better and more polite term, parasites in society who are quite skilled in manipulating the system to get what they want for a minimum of effort because 'it is their right'.
In Australia, for example, we have the single mother pension. What a useless load of crap. For every child the mother has, she gets a few hundred dollars. Not including what she can get out of the father, assuming she can prove he was actually the one, and don't even get me started on the 'prove you're innocent' crap the Family Court slaps on the males that appear before the board. Jesus H Christ are they vicious to anything with balls.
Next day, I get a letter at work from her lawyer for 'compensation' for emotional damage to her children and herself. Took two months waiting for the courts to clear, walk in, judge looks at me, looks at her and says "Again, Mrs .... ?" Then makes her pay for the costs and when I ask if I'm allowed to counter-sue for all the slander she's been slinging about in the local newspaper, the judge says it's unlikely that she'll be able to pay, then I ask if that's the case, why is she being allowed to have so many children when money is so tight, I'm told it's her right to have children.
"So does the mother's right to be trailer trash have more precedence than the childrens' right to grow up in an environment where they're not walking cash-machines and thieves in training?"
That almost got me contempt of court. I responded that I had the utmost respect for the courts, just not the jack-ass laws that helped parasites like this woman continue to bleed the system and turn what are supposed to be the most cherished things in her life into endless money-printing devices.
Finally, this woman eventually lost her children a year ago after being so drunk and stoned out of her mind that the now eight-strong brood was dropped down to three after the third-oldest popped the other, younger kids into the car and attempted to drive them to school, and instead reversed at full speed into an oncoming semi-trailer, instantly killing all of his siblings who were in the back seat. Finally, after that horrific incident, she got taken out of the 'too hard' basket and had her children taken off her. Some-Deity help those kids, because they are so messed up from the mother's attitudes, their fathers not wanting anything to do with them and the way society hand-balled them, I can't see how they can possibly have a healthy life.
I am a firm believer that everyone should have to pass a test to be able to have children, and an emphasis should be put upon adoption. This isn't any 'eugenics' crap or a belief in a superiority complex, but rather the test is basically 'to be a good parent you must understand this and do that for your child.". Strip away this bloody hollywood glamour of family life and show what parent-hood is, warts and all, rewarding and heartbreaking, a life-long endurance race that you never really win, but is mostly worth it because of those children you hold and know you are a part of their lives, for better or worse for everyone included.
Parenthood doesn't stop when they go to school. It starts easy until they start to walk, talk and think for themselves and crap does it get harder from that point on. Everything you say or do has a ripple-on effect with your child, from being polite to learning when to not say anything, to setting boundaries with or without punishment, emotional, reward/removal or physical (which I approve of, to a certain level. Belts, yes. Welts, no.) and knowing when to do something for your child as their parent, when to be there as a friend, when to guide them as an authority figure, and when to oppose them as the 'Masters' of the house.
Just recently my youngest cousin had his 21st, and he isn't planning on a child anytime soon. I told him 'Always carry five condoms in your wallet, and change them every month.'
'Why, I should carry twenty man!' he laughed. I smiled, remembering how I had felt at that age (now thirty) and how close I had come to being struck down with the 'child out of nowhere', and the friends I have had who have both struggled on to a happy life, and those whom have become lonely and embittered by it, and said this:
'Carry as many as you want. A child should never be looked upon by her parents as an accident, as something they wish they could go back and change. They're something you should love and cherish, totally, and it's hard to look at a child like that when their arrival stopped all your own dreams dead in their tracks.'
He stopped, looked at me, then looked back at the party going on out the back. Two of the girls were already pregnant and despite warnings from the adults, drinking heavily. He turned back to me, a very sober and weary expression on his face and nodded.
Ultimately, the responsibility for a child or a youth must rely upon the parents, and ultimately that is where all blame must reside when something goes wrong. But I also believe that a society that invests in making sure that families remain happy and emotionally healthy can only benefit.
Want to party hard? Fine, go get one of these suckers implanted. Even better for everyone involved, Guys, go get your tubes tied. Seriously, it worth it if you are the sort of imbecile who thinks condoms aren't fun, and it it totally reverseable, unlike the ladies' version, which incidentally must hurt like all hell. Seriously, have you seen the sort of things they can put on the damn things these days? Seriously, nobody can see the fun to be had with a glow-in-the-dark rubber and the lights turned off?
A woman can be relatively free until she sets her mind to getting married or getting children. Once that happens, either the state, her husband or her family will have the right to decide things for her.
I might point out that if a woman is married and has an abortion and something drastically goes wrong, to the point where she couldn't decide for herself, then it legally falls on her husband to decide matters of life and death for her (the same is true for the wife if something happens to the husband) [it exactly for reasons like this that same-sex couples want to be recognized as "married"]. Likewise, parents must also decide issues of life and death when it comes to their children. It is for this reason alone that I believe that outside of extreme cases (abusive husband/parent), that the husband and/or parents should be informed of this medical procedure.
There's a reason Malthusian theories of over-population were so popular for over a century. The good reverend (and his readers) never imagined that we'd be able to control ourselves as well as do now.
I think that the internet has a big impact on this as well. I think you have some people that would rather get on line/game then have sex, as crazy as that is.
As far as I know, no one in the medical community agress on when life begins. So to call it murder...
To nitpick just a little. There is no real debate within the scientific/medical communities as to when "life" begins. There are specific requirements for what constitutes life, and a parasitic early development Homo sapien certainly meets those qualifications.
No the argument is over when "person"-hood begins. If I kill an ant, I have not committed murder, because ants aren't "people", but they certainly are alive. The question isn't when life begins, but when is the parasitic organism a "person", either legally or ethically.
About the life boundary, or what you want to call it. Murder is an act committed against a PERSON. A person is something you are if you CURRENTLY are one, whether sleeping, drugged, or such. Potentiality is a pointless debate. The relevant issue is whether you have brain activity, more or less by definition, since most of the medical community accepts brain death as the definition of death. This begins to appear in sporadic and random form during (if I remember correctly) week 12 or so, becoming real activity a number of weeks later.
Also being a firm believer in people's ability to make their own decisions, it does not in any way surprise me that serious information about sex lowers pregnancies. People, even 14-16 year old people, have a desire to understand things they come in contact with. Lying to children has never been a good policy.
Yes it has to have brain activity to be a person. Also I find one of the reasons murder is wrong is because everything that person has worked for in the future like getting ahead on homework, saving money, building a character they want to play, wargames terrain, studied for a test, is not basicaly wasted when you kill them. An aborted fetus has none of those problems.
I'm going to take the Barbaric, Villainous view on this (partly because I haven't yet) and ask why I should be paying for other people's mistakes?
I generally agree with helping my fellow citizen to improve her or his life, and don't see a problem with an organization dedicated to filling in the holes in sexual health education which (opinions inbound!) our failed public schooling system and occasionally awful parenting practices have left gaping. I'm also not against an organization providing medical, financial, and social support for those people/families who find themselves in an Unexpected Population Increase Event.
My main problem is for those organizations to be at all tied to government money (I'm a political extremist and a religious fanatic, too, if you care to indulge in attacks ad hominem). I feel that requiring a person to support social changes which their personal beliefs are opposed to is a Bad Thing, regardless of how archaic, idiotic, harmful, or backward those beliefs may or may not be (mine are).
I also know from personal experience and years of study that nobody wins an argument (I like the rhyme: "A man convinced against his will/is of the same opinion still"). We can each state our opinions and beliefs like reasonable people (which is a discussion), but on some (or even most) of the issues presented in a topic like this, most people's beliefs were formed through either personal experience or the guidance of someone they hugely loved and/or respected. Nothing said here is likely to apply strongly enough to change that; it would take an equally strong emotional event to change those types of opinions or beliefs. Not even a well-cited wikipedia entry has the power to change that (shocking, I know).
So, having stated my beliefs, I'll enjoy reading more in this thread, because I like other people's opinions, and because I don't watch enough TV to continually fill the Drama Meter in my life.
|
About the life boundary, or what you want to call it. Murder is an act committed against a PERSON. A person is something you are if you CURRENTLY are one, whether sleeping, drugged, or such. Potentiality is a pointless debate.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Sounds a bit like -- "My name's Anakin and I'm a person."
Brain wave activities, etc. Blah blah blah. Abortions can be performed at any time before birth. They do not do brain scans to make sure it's a "person" or not.
Here's what I don't get. There are pictures up at the local hospital that have "before" and "after" pictures. "Before" being when the baby was born -- very premature. Sometimes even two months or more premature. The "after" pictures show them years later as a child.
Technically speaking, it's the same piece of "meat" that we are talking about. Yet, for some reason, if a woman gives birth prematurely and then decides to kill the fetus, this is abhorrent and the woman is very likely to go to prison. But it's perfectly legal for the woman to kill the same piece of meat as long as it's still in her body. And the "brain wave" activities in both cases are most likely the same.
I'm going to take the Barbaric, Villainous view on this (partly because I haven't yet) and ask why I should be paying for other people's mistakes?
Because otherwise you end up with feral gangs of mutant teenagers roaming the streets, preying on the citizenry, constantly replenishing their numbers through dry-humping, texting their friends and stealing your handkerchieves.
Kind of like Oliver Twist, except with cellphones (and dry-humping).
EDIT: Not ninja'ed, 'cuz LazarX didn't mention dry-humping.
|
|
"Paying for someone else's mistakes" is only a part of the problem. A big chunk of the argument against Planned Parenthood is also "why are my tax dollars being used to support something I find morally reprehensible?" (aka. abortion)
Yeah yeah, tax dollars can't be actually used for abortion, but they do free up money from PP that IS used for abortion... therefore supporting it (in a roundabout way).
DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with the above, but I can understand where they're coming from. *shrug*
"Paying for someone else's mistakes" is only a part of the problem. A big chunk of the argument against Planned Parenthood is also "why are my tax dollars being used to support something I find morally reprehensible?" (aka. abortion)
Yeah yeah, tax dollars can't be actually used for abortion, but they do free up money from PP that IS used for abortion... therefore supporting it (in a roundabout way).
DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with the above, but I can understand where they're coming from. *shrug*
EVERYONE'S tax dollars go to pay for things that they find reprehensible. It's the nature of living in a large democracy.
I find the War on Drugs reprehensible. I find the War on Terror reprehensible. How do you "defeat" terror? It's an idea. Drugs are objects. How does one defeat a class of objects?
Why are we sending soldiers to die in Iraq but not in the Congo?
I accept that my tax dollars will go to the support of things that I find reprehensible, and I do my utmost as a citizen to combat those things that I find reprehensible so that my tax dollars do not support them. In general, however, I am a great believer in personal freedoms, and so I do not oppose privately funded actions by legal adults, even self harming ones.
Let no one be mistaken: the opponents of Planned Parenthood (with few exceptions) could give a Dire Rat's ass about the funding; what they want is an end to abortion, for anyone, anywhere, for any reason, period. Thus, I tend to view arguments posed in this manner as red herrings.
Disclaimer noted. It would be completely fair to say, however, that just because tax dollars may free up money for PP to use for abortions, the fact remains that they ARE NOT USING TAX DOLLARS for these purposes. This issue is ridiculously unimportant in the grand scheme of things, PP is doing nothing illegal, and the whole thing is red meat thrown to appease voters.
About the life boundary, or what you want to call it. Murder is an act committed against a PERSON. A person is something you are if you CURRENTLY are one, whether sleeping, drugged, or such. Potentiality is a pointless debate.I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Sounds a bit like -- "My name's Anakin and I'm a person."
Brain wave activities, etc. Blah blah blah. Abortions can be performed at any time before birth. They do not do brain scans to make sure it's a "person" or not.
Here's what I don't get. There are pictures up at the local hospital that have "before" and "after" pictures. "Before" being when the baby was born -- very premature. Sometimes even two months or more premature. The "after" pictures show them years later as a child.
Technically speaking, it's the same piece of "meat" that we are talking about. Yet, for some reason, if a woman gives birth prematurely and then decides to kill the fetus, this is abhorrent and the woman is very likely to go to prison. But it's perfectly legal for the woman to kill the same piece of meat as long as it's still in her body. And the "brain wave" activities in both cases are most likely the same.
Unless one is being willfully obtuse, the "some reason" is pretty obvious: People have the right to control their own body. In the former case, the woman's body is no longer involved.
"Blah blah blah?" Overall a condescending and dismissive post. Simply not worthy of you.
I'll post a third warning in this thread...Please be civil to each other. This is a topic with a lot of heated opinions on both sides, and I will shut this thread down if it continues downhill. As a reminder, here are the forum rules:
- Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
- Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
- Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
- Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
- Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
|
|
Unless one is being willfully obtuse, the "some reason" is pretty obvious: People have the right to control their own body. In the former case, the woman's body is no longer involved.
Except that they apparently don't have control of their bodies or they wouldn't be in the situation they're in. (And don't cry "rape victims" either -- I have a hard time believing that PP is performing 1,000 abortions a day strictly for rape victims.)
Outside of that, in one case, the sack of meat has a voice and in the other it doesn't.
Maybe I am obtuse. In one case, the sack of meat is the woman's body and she has complete control over it because it's her body. But the minute she gives birth, something magical must happen to the exact same sack of meat. I mean, it is still a parasite. (And anyone with kids will agree with this.) It is still dependent on others for survival, locomotion, food, etc. It is the same size, the same weight, the same appearance. Yet this sack of meat isn't the woman's body.
"Blah blah blah?" Overall a condescending and dismissive post. Simply not worthy of you.
Maybe so. "Brain waves" kind of pissed me off. It was a brilliant "Chewbacca Defense". It said nothing but made it look like they knew what they were talking about.
Getting back to Planned Parenthood, I can appreciate and get behind many (most?) of the services that they provide -- especially those prior to pregnancy. The problem that I have is comparing how they help once someone gets pregnant. In one year ('08 - '09) they performed 332,278 abortions. In the same year they did 977 adoption referrals. That just feels like the choices they are offering are a bit skewed.
In one year ('08 - '09) they performed 332,278 abortions. In the same year they did 977 adoption referrals. That just feels like the choices they are offering are a bit skewed.
What's this mean?
Do you think the option of adoption referral was not offered to the abortion patients?
Or do just not like the fact that 332 out of 333 patients opted not to wait nine months?
In one case, the sack of meat is the woman's body and she has complete control over it because it's her body. But the minute she gives birth, something magical must happen to the exact same sack of meat. I mean, it is still a parasite. (And anyone with kids will agree with this.) It is still dependent on others for survival, locomotion, food, etc. It is the same size, the same weight, the same appearance. Yet this sack of meat isn't the woman's body.
One is in the womb, the other isn't. Nothing really magical about it. And I agree that children are utterly helpless and dependent upon others for their survival, but the key is any responsible adult can perform that job once the child is born. No woman should be forced to carry a baby to term against their will, whereas once the baby is born, control over her own body is no longer an issue.
I get that we fundamentally disagree, but I'm honestly having a hard time believing these are the distinctions we disagree about.
Getting back to Planned Parenthood, I can appreciate and get behind many (most?) of the services that they provide -- especially those prior to pregnancy. The problem that I have is comparing how they help once someone gets pregnant. In one year ('08 - '09) they performed 332,278 abortions. In the same year they did 977 adoption referrals. That just feels like the choices they are offering are a bit skewed.
If those numbers are accurate, I'd certainly like to know why. Is there some legal barrier to adoption? A shortage of adoptive parents? Again, I don't believe that a woman should ever be forced to carry a baby to term, but I would hope that more than one in 300+ would be willing to consider adoption. In fact, I would prefer every case in which the mother's health isn't at serious risk end in adoption, not abortion. But that's not my choice to make -- or to impose.
|
|
In one year ('08 - '09) they performed 332,278 abortions. In the same year they did 977 adoption referrals. That just feels like the choices they are offering are a bit skewed.What's this mean?
Do you think the option of adoption referral was not offered to the abortion patients?
Or do just not like the fact that 332 out of 333 patients opted not to wait nine months?
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
I know a number of couples who cannot conceive. But since "product A" isn't really being sold out there, they have had to go out of the country to adopt.
It has nothing to do with the "quality of the product" in this case. There is huge money in doing abortions. There's not nearly the same amount of money in adoption services and a lot more work.
This kind of thing is seen all the time.
Option ARM loans were the number one loan product for a number of years. It was a poorer product. Difficult to understand. But very easy to get people qualified. AND brokers could make a LOT more money selling them. People were lied to. They weren't offered all the products or options available. Yet is was, by far, the number one mortgage loan product for a number of years.
When numbers are this skewed, it generally means that there is more to it than simply a better "product".
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
I know a number of couples who cannot conceive. But since "product A" isn't really being sold out there, they have had to go out of the country to adopt.
I'm sorry... "product A" isn't being "sold" out there? There are thousands of children awaiting adoption all over the US. So I don't see why anyone who want to adopt really have to go out of the country to do so before the current number of children within the US available for adoption reaches 0 (same goes with every country, really).
Unless it so happens that these childless couples are way too discriminatory about what kind of kid they want to adopt."Oh they have to be fuzzy buzzy cute little babies, preferably white, but asian are ok too, but certainly no black babies..."
In one year ('08 - '09) they performed 332,278 abortions. In the same year they did 977 adoption referrals. That just feels like the choices they are offering are a bit skewed.What's this mean?
Do you think the option of adoption referral was not offered to the abortion patients?
Or do just not like the fact that 332 out of 333 patients opted not to wait nine months?
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
I know a number of couples who cannot conceive. But since "product A" isn't really being sold out there, they have had to go out of the country to adopt.
** spoiler omitted **
Except that in order to get an adoptable baby (Product A) you have to have a pregnant mother who wants to shoulder all of the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy for nine months, go through the trauma of giving birth, just to give the baby away to strangers.
I'm not a woman, but that sounds like a tough sell to me.
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
It reaffirms what we already know to be true about human behavior: Convenience and instant gratification are powerful motivators.
I don't see any evidence of Planned Parenthood pushing an organizational agenda of abortion.
Except that in order to get an adoptable baby (Product A) you have to have a pregnant mother who wants to shoulder all of the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy for nine months, go through the trauma of giving birth, just to give the baby away to strangers.
I'm not a woman, but that sounds like a tough sell to me.
I'm forced to agree.
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
I know a number of couples who cannot conceive. But since "product A" isn't really being sold out there, they have had to go out of the country to adopt.
I'm sorry... "product A" isn't being "sold" out there? There are thousands of children awaiting adoption all over the US. So I don't see why anyone who want to adopt really have to go out of the country to do so before the current number of children within the US available for adoption reaches 0 (same goes with every country, really).
Unless it so happens that these childless couples are way too discriminatory about what kind of kid they want to adopt.
"Oh they have to be fuzzy buzzy cute little babies, preferably white, but asian are ok too, but certainly no black babies..."
The other option, and this is speculative and not a slander against people Moff knows, is that for some reason the adoptive agencies don't want to give them babies.
EDIT: I was going to say Mr. Rimmer, but that doesn't look right.
|
|
If those numbers are accurate, I'd certainly like to know why.
The numbers came from Wikipedia and they are footnoted. More than that, I'm not sure. It seems like there are a number of flaky organizations trying to take them down and being stupid about it.
I know that we will disagree about the other. A lot of it (as you know) is religious based -- but that really doesn't have a place here.
I guess that I just wish that an organization called "Planned Parenthood" did more to actually help people become good parents. Yet it seems far more focused on keeping people from becoming parents. And while that is important, I really feel that the world needs more and better parents -- not more ways to shirk responsibility.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not sure that doctors who perform abortions are compensated above and beyond what other specialist doctors receive. If you're really out for the money, you'd be better served becoming a plastic surgeon. Not only will you get paid as much (and probably more) than you would performing an abortion, but you would also have a significantly lower chance of getting gunned down/protested/stalked in the course of your work.
It strikes me that the doctors who perform abortions are doing so because they have strong beliefs about the benefit of their services to the women who receive it; not because they get paid more or because they like killing babies.
Or, maybe they do. Getting paid to kill other humans is a helluva gig.
I'm also not sure that doctors who perform abortions are compensated above and beyond what other specialist doctors receive. If you're really out for the money, you'd be better served becoming a plastic surgeon. Not only will you get paid as much (and probably more) than you would performing an abortion, but you would also have a significantly lower chance of getting gunned down/protested/stalked in the course of your work.
It strikes me that the doctors who perform abortions are doing so because they have strong beliefs about the benefit of their services to the women who receive it; not because they get paid more or because they like killing babies.
Or, maybe they do. Getting paid to kill other humans is a helluva gig.
This, too. Well, except for the third paragraph.
The other option, and this is speculative and not a slander against people Moff knows, is that for some reason the adoptive agencies don't want to give them babies.
I understand the process can be harrowing, and that it sometimes produces very irrational outcomes. I guess I can see why, but I'm sure that doesn't stop it from being incredibly frustrating, especially when anyone with the proper gear can pop out kids on a whim.
Kinda reminds me of that bit in Idiocracy...
If those numbers are accurate, I'd certainly like to know why.The numbers came from Wikipedia and they are footnoted. More than that, I'm not sure. It seems like there are a number of flaky organizations trying to take them down and being stupid about it.
I know that we will disagree about the other. A lot of it (as you know) is religious based -- but that really doesn't have a place here.
I guess that I just wish that an organization called "Planned Parenthood" did more to actually help people become good parents. Yet it seems far more focused on keeping people from becoming parents. And while that is important, I really feel that the world needs more and better parents -- not more ways to shirk responsibility.
I feel that if one knows, or even suspects, that one will be a bad parent it is one's responsibility to not have children.
...the world needs more and better parents -- not more ways to shirk responsibility.
Exactly. See? Sometimes we agree. ;)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Careful folks. Let's keep this extremely touchy subject conceptual and not personal. I haven't removed any posts, but there are a few that are toeing the line of personal attacks rather than friendly debate.
I think this is an important issue to discuss, so don't make us shut this thread down.
|
|
You tell me. If you are selling two different products -- each equally viable -- and 0.29% choose product A and 99.71% choose product B, what does that tell you?*
I know a number of couples who cannot conceive. But since "product A" isn't really being sold out there, they have had to go out of the country to adopt.
I'm sorry... "product A" isn't being "sold" out there? There are thousands of children awaiting adoption all over the US. So I don't see why anyone who want to adopt really have to go out of the country to do so before the current number of children within the US available for adoption reaches 0 (same goes with every country, really).
Unless it so happens that these childless couples are way too discriminatory about what kind of kid they want to adopt.
"Oh they have to be fuzzy buzzy cute little babies, preferably white, but asian are ok too, but certainly no black babies..."The other option, and this is speculative and not a slander against people Moff knows, is that for some reason the adoptive agencies don't want to give them babies.
EDIT: I was going to say Mr. Rimmer, but that doesn't look right.
There's more to it than that and each case is different. Most adoption agencies limit adoptions to only one. Has nothing to do with ability or anything else. One couple I know fully paid for all things medical relating to the birth and baby. Prenatal care, checkups, ultrasounds, etc. Some of it is that American agencies are more restrictive.
The carrying the child to term and then giving it up -- yeah, and that's been a problem. Three times with friends I know they did all the work, paid all kinds of money to take care of the birth mom, got to the birth and the birth mom pulled the plug on the deal leaving the adoptive parents without a child and thousands of dollars poorer.
It's always seemed odd to me that (nearly) anyone (female) can get pregnant, but it seems to take a proverbial "act of God" to adopt.
I feel that if one knows, or even suspects, that one will be a bad parent it is one's responsibility to not have children.
Certainly. But I expect we can agree that some people who choose to have an abortion do so for petty reasons. And while I believe to the very tips of my toes that it remains their choice, and theirs alone, that doesn't mean I have to respect them for their decision.
