jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (76 posts)

Reducing Abortion Rates

  1. Sychophantastic profile image81
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    Studies show that abortion rates drop when contraception is free and accessible. Should the government provide free and accessible birth control as one approach to reducing the number of abortions?

    Here is one link to that data:

    http://medschool.wustl.edu/news/patient … ive_Choice

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No.  There is absolutely no reason outside of blackmail to require anyone to pay for the entertainment of someone else, and that's what you're asking for with "free" birth control (which is not "free" at all).

      Personally I find the concept behind black mail (give me free birth control or I'll either have an abortion or saddle society with another kid I won't take care of) quite distasteful.   Either pony up the costs of your entertainment or don't participate.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But these people are poor Wilderness and cant afford contraception (said sarcastically) they would rather wait and see and pay $500!!!!!!!!

        Socialism loves blackmail................................................

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, of course the "gimmee" crowd is all for it.  Blackmail actually makes sense when everything is an entitlement.

      2. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Given your demonstrated personal principles and perspective, this response is not a surprise, but your  characterization of the issue as simply a matter of personal responsibility sounds a bit like someone willing to;
        "... cut their nose off just to spite their face."

        Blackmail? Really? That conjures up the dark image of a teenager standing in the shadows holding a loaded penis; captioned; "Gimme da rubber or the girl gets it!"

        I also don't like the idea of "another"  government supported social program using taxpayer money to give someone something "free" that common sense would expect them to pay for themselves.

        Free condoms? Geez Louise, want me to hold your pants for you too?

        But, even with this perspective, I don't have a problem with the various State government condom distribution programs because...

        1) there appears to be valid research data that shows CD, (condom distribution), programs are saving much more in future taxpayer-paid medical/welfare/social costs than the cost of the CD program. Your perspective seems to fall into the "penny wise, pound foolish" category.

        2) ya ain't gonna stop 'em from screwing around

        So yes, I can live with a State program to give away a "free" dollar condom today to avoid paying $10,000, (just seems like a cute big number), for medicaid or WIC or SNAP benefits later.

        GA

        *ps - note my "State" clarification - I do not believe this is an area the Federal government should be involved in - other than perhaps supporting State efforts

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree that it is probably penny wise-pound foolish.  Most refused blackmail is as the consequences are always worse than the blackmail itself.

          But there is a matter of self respect, and of how far do we let it go to boot.  There is also the question of other methods - birth control is not limited to the pill or condoms.  Sterilization comes to mind, with an almost perfect record behind it.  (And truthfully, I would probably support condom giveaways anyway - purchased in quantities of 10 million, it shouldn't be a penny apiece.)

          But what is the difference in state/federal being involved here?  I'm not following that one?

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I see the federal level as a conglomerate of communities - the states.

            I see the states as large communities. I believe the members of any community have the right to set their own rules.

            I believe states are much more responsive to and reflective of its citizens.

            ... so, if the majority of state citizens want to do something, it's their choice. If I don't like it - to the point I don't want to tolerate it, I can work to change it - or move. For instance, I enjoy visits to New York and Massachusetts - but I would not live in either state.

            Not the same case on the federal level - at least as I see it.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I see, and understand (I think).  But why stop there?  Why not city/county level?  Is not a state a conglomerate of counties, which is in turn a conglomerate of cities?

              Mind you, I can think of several reasons I wouldn't want cities OR counties to have much power, but I'm asking for your thoughts.

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, my state reasoning applies all the way down to neighborhood associations - which I don't like, and would not live where ruled by one.

                My point is that, although it may seem just semantics, a group of people, a community, has every right to make their own rules, (within realistic reason of course), as long as the majority of members agree. One always has a choice not to be a part of a group if their disagreement is strong enough.

                I do not see the Federal level in the same light. It isn't citizens represented - it is legislators, and I believe that legislators at the federal level are much less representative of their citizens than at the state level.  Yes, they are supposed to represent their constituents, but we have all seen how that works once they get to D.C.

                Also, leaving a nation is not the same as leaving a community. As I see it.

                For instance; New York and its silly failed soda ban. I think that was a dumb law, but if New Yorkers want it, it is not my place to complain - I am not a New Yorker.

                A more serious and illustrative example would be an Amish community. Their community rules are a sharp contrast to "the rest of us," and members that want a different lifestyle can and do leave. So it is none of my business how they decide to manage their affairs.

                But what if Amish rules came from the federal level and applied to all of us?

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I see.  I would disagree with the basis of the idea that the majority is always right.  Our constitution is mostly a set of limits applied to government (in this case the federal level) and protections for the minority.  Not a blanket statement the majority can do what they wish.

                  Minorities must always be protected, and your mention of NYC pop law is a good example.  The majority has no ethical right to impose such a ban and should not do so.  Saying a minority can move if they don't like it is insufficient; they have as much "right" to live peacefully as the majority does, just not the political pull to MAKE it peaceful.

                  I am not aware of any laws forcing anyone in Amish country to follow Amish tenents.  They might like to have such laws but the law of the land prohibits such control over others.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I guess we are in that fog of semantics and inferred intentions.

                    I did not intend to imply majority rule is always right, or that only the wishes of the majority are valid.

                    Should I have used consensus instead? Should I have devoted a few paragraphs defining acceptable parameters for the descriptor "reasonable?" Or declaring that majorities don't automatically trump minorities in any case?

                    I suppose I should have included the disclaimer that my thoughts were framed within the concept of legal and ethical considerations. But it is not usually beneficial to state the obvious, and I thought my statements conveyed the framework of those considerations. My mistake, I should have been more clear - or you less picky, one or the other anyway.

                    I now regret using the NYC example, because it forces me to defend something I think is wrong, but...

                    And again, within constitutional and legal restrictions, the "majorities" that elected the numbskulls that promulgated the silly soda laws, (which of course were shot down by the court),  have every right to make such laws for their "community."

                    As for saying the minority can move...
                    "Saying a minority can move if they don't like it is insufficient; they have as much "right" to live peacefully as the majority does, just not the political pull to MAKE it peaceful."

                    You do understand the irony of that statement don't you? You are lamenting the reality of society. What happened to your personal choice and personal responsibility perspective? In real life, if one does not like something there are three choices; work to change it, move away from it, or accept it.

                    Do you see another choice?

                    "I am not aware of any laws forcing anyone in Amish country to follow Amish tenents"

                    There you go again... I would offer to take the blame for being unclear, but I think you knew exactly what I was saying. My Amish example was in reference to sharply differing community rules. Do you not see the life of an Amish community being any different from any other? Do you not think anyone leaves an Amish community? There was no mention of federal laws in the example.

                    GA

                    [later edit] oops, I was in a rush and distracted. I did not mean to sound so harsh, sorry.

      3. gmwilliams profile image81
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, sadly, many people refuse to take responsibility regarding the sexual area.  This not only applies to young unmarried and/or uncommitted people but to MARRIED persons also.  There are married people who have sex irresponsibly, either having MORE children than they can take off emotionally, financially, and psychologically and WE ARE ALL paying for such irresponsibility in one way or another!

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are right.

          There must be other factors overriding the sense of responsibility though. I think many people fool themselves into why they get pregnant "accidentally". I think procreation is an instinct that tends to win out even over out big brains and maturity as a sentient species.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Young people hook up.  Society can either pay for the prevention, or pay for the results.  Paying for the prevention is cheaper.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Paying for the education would be cheaper in the long run.

      EG
      This is why you shouldn't have unprotected sex
      This is why you should educate your children about having unprotected sex
      This is why your children should educate their children about having unprotected sex.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Education is part of prevention.  But only part.  As OP showed, you prevent many problems by enabling those kids who have sex to have safer sex.

    2. gmwilliams profile image81
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      While I agree that contraception should be made accessible, young people must learn the responsibilities and the psychological and emotional, even psychic ramifications of sex.   Young people must be taught that they must be mature and responsible, knowing all the aspects of sex emotionally, mentally, and psychologically before electing to indulge in sex.  They should realize that if they AREN'T ready or prepared, then DON'T, pure and simple!  Sex is not the be and end all!

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Have I not produced/printed those Tee shirts that say, "STEP AWAY FROM THE EGGS?"
    (...or "TESTOSTERONE!")
    It would be so capitalistic of me!  And so greedy to try to make money off of the wise and willing!  But somehow I don't think those Tee shirts will be a very successful product. sad )

  4. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    Make abortion illegal.

    Easy. Done.

    1. crankalicious profile image87
      crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Make abortion illegal?" This is just a horribly misinformed answer to a complex problem that requires actually thought.

      http://crankalicious.hubpages.com/hub/T … ion-Debate

      Educate yourself.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Misinformed answer?

        Sorry, I'm simply opposed to killing babies.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am too. Your answer is just so simple. I think every teen should watch an abortion video or two. The way they have to rip apart the baby's body in the womb before they can vacuum it out… I think the head has to be severed first.  ( BTW  A human embryo will become a human baby. ) Just step away from the testosterone, ladies.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly.

            1. crankalicious profile image87
              crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You can be opposed. I have no problem with that. But it's a non-thinking answer to a complex issue that does not address numerous public policy considerations and public health concerns. Making abortion illegal does nothing to stop abortion. Among other issues: how do we criminalize it? Does a mother who gets an illegal abortion because her baby is going to be born with its brain on the outside of its body get the death penalty? Does the person who performs the abortion? And does a US citizen who travels outside the US to get her abortion suffer the same penalty as a woman who cannot afford to travel and has her abortion in a back alley? Want to stop abortions? Distribute free birth control and educate, educate, educate. But you're opposed to that.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bedrooms are for making babies. Picnics are for making babies, Hay is for making babies. An isolated location in the mountains by a stream is good for making babies. Stay away from those places too.
                And it is truly free.
                "Free" birth control HAS TO BE PAID BY SOMEBODY!
                WHY ME?

                Everyone should pay for their own romping, wherever it occurs. 
                ...and for whatever consequences occur as well. Here is another hint:
                Don't think sex is not dangerous.
                It is… in SOOOOO many ways!

                1. crankalicious profile image87
                  crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  OMG, of course somebody is paying for it, but it's a lot cheaper to give somebody a five cent condom than to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars down the road for all the health needs associated with either an abortion or an unwanted baby or an uncared for baby.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Free condoms send a bad message to the ones with their hands out. "Have at it. Have at it.  Barn yard animals have at it and we are no different from them. Do not wait until you find the man or girl of your dreams. Do not wait until you have a house/apt. and yard/park and a job and an extra bedroom. "

                    A better message would be this: "If you cannot afford your own condoms then you can't afford to have sex.
                    - and furthermore, there are consequences if you do and you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions and behavior… not all of us."
                    Right?

              2. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Please. I think we can all agree that we're all referring to the waste of life abortions that occur due to an unwanted pregnancy. Let's not group that nonsense in with medical necessity or emergency. Do I appear THAT stupid to you?

                1. crankalicious profile image87
                  crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Believe it or not, I'm opposed to the concept of somebody being so stupid that they have unprotected sex, end up pregnant, and have an abortion twenty weeks down the road out of convenience. However, as public policy, it happens. And if we don't provide a safe procedure for all women, we're just forcing those who are poor to head to the back alleys while those with money will go to Canada or overseas. Go ahead and try to answer my questions though. How do we make it illegal? What will the penalties be? I assume the death penalty, RIGHT?

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I actually don't really care much anymore. I consider this sick society yours, not mine. If it were up to me, I would change just about everything.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I really do not believe that Condoms paid for by *the people* will reduce abortions.
                    and of course, abortions should not be illegal either when it is a necessary medical procedure.
                    I do not think *the people* should pay for someone's abortion though. That is what should be illegal.
                    Of course, Obama Care will take care of that one just fine.
                    …won't it?

  5. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    wilderness,

    I truly respect you and your positions, but while your questions are correct, your conclusion is wrong. Science has done precisely what you are requesting with regard to global warming. Rather than explain myself, I will provide you a link:

    http://www.jeffreybennett.com/a-global-warming-primer/

    I did not make any insinuation. That man produces CO2 by itself does not mean man is the cause of global warming. That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the scientific evidence has concluded that man is the cause of rising CO2 levels that are causing climate change.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Let's see here.  "Climate change" equates to global warming in this case - that is what is being discussed, after all.  CO2 does not decrease global temperatures; it raises them.

      Now, you say that your claim is not that man is the cause of global warming, then in the next sentence say that "man is the cause of rising CO2 levels that are causing climate change." - replace "climate change" with it's equivalent of "global warming" in this context and you have exactly that.  "Man is the cause of global warming, via the effects of the CO2 he is producing".  Which is what I said; a strong insinuation (now a flat out statement) that man is the cause.  Very poor science, and something that is normally left to the chicken littles, always crying that the sky is falling.

      Does you link answer any of those few questions I ask?  Does it ask any others?  Or is it just more claims that it is all due to man without ever investigating the problem?

      1. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You will have to read the link, I guess.

      2. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is no doubt that human activity is adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Today’s carbon dioxide concentration is already some 40% higher than it was at the time of the American Revolution, and at its current rate of increase will reach double its pre-industrial level by around 2060 to 2070.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are correct in that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere - we breathe it out if nothing else.

          But to go further, and claim that because it is half again the concentration 200 years ago, AND that human activity has been responsible for that increase, well, that just hasn't been shown to be true. 

          Instead we find folks saying it, but lacking any proof.  They refuse to look at other causes, they ignore other known activities and simply repeat the claim that it is man caused as if saying it enough times is proof.  It isn't.

          And along the way the fear mongers tend to leave out a few facts, such as CO2 levels have increased over historic known highs by far less than 40%.  90,000 years ago it was 3/4 of what it is now, for instance. 

          But I'm not particularly interested in arguing the cause of global warming - all I've said is that it is poor science to make unfounded conclusions, such as man is the primary, or sole, cause of the global warming we're seeing.

          1. crankalicious profile image87
            crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I would say the proof is in the link.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              OK - I read your link.  Nowhere is there any data on the amount of heat rise due to man made CO2.  Just a statement that we produce CO2 and are therefore responsible for all global warming - pretty much what I said you were claiming.  And that is a complete scientific fallacy, which I've also tried to explain to you.

              1. crankalicious profile image87
                crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't see how you can draw that conclusion after reading this:

                The clear concern is this: In recent decades, the concentration has skyrocketed to more than 400 ppm, making the current carbon dioxide concentration far higher than it has been for at least 800,000 years. The timing of this rise makes it fairly obvious that human activity is responsible for it, but there’s additional evidence that makes it even more certain that the rise is due to us: The isotopic composition of the carbon in fossil fuels is slightly different from that from other sources, and careful measurements leave no doubt that the added carbon dioxide is coming largely from the burning of fossil fuels.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What conclusion?  I'm telling you that no conclusion can be drawn as to the causes of global warming and you tell me it is man because man breathes like any other animal!  You simply cannot conclude that man is the primary or sole cause (which you have stated) of global warming because we produce greenhouse gasses.  It is insufficient to make such a conclusion.

                  And no, it is NOT "far higher" than it has been for 800,000 years - only about a third and it was higher than that at times in the past.

                  Here's another science fact for you; a correlation in time does NOT indicate causality.  It is that kind of fallacy that gives the lie to the conclusion being claimed.

                  If fossil fuels are producing a greater percentage of CO2 than in the past, it means we're doing a better job of controlling forest fires and burning less fresh vegetation.  (Now, I don't believe that, but it is an indication of the type of questions that a competent scientist will answer before declaring we're at fault.)

          2. crankalicious profile image87
            crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No matter how much I might respect somebody's opinions, I prefer to trust the scientists on this issue. I should also note, I recently saw a factoid that indicates that David Koch has contributed over $67 million dollars to climate change denial groups. This has undoubtedly muddied the waters.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              ...because what they report is completely unbiased, what-so-ever, for any reason, at-all-times. Good to know. I am such a sinner for my mistrust. One of us is going to hell sooner than later.

              1. crankalicious profile image87
                crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                People who don't understand science or how it works or what happens to get to a consensus within the scientific community tend not to trust it.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Either that or tend to trust the "scientist" that produces an emotional argument that resonates within the listener.  Somehow the word "science" has become a holy word, infallible even as those "doing science" are found to be lying through their teeth.

                  1. crankalicious profile image87
                    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No scientist and no person who understands science would describe any particular experiment as infallible or science in a general way as infallible. But again, if the scientific method is followed, then it's as close to truth as we can get in most cases. I suppose we can start arguing about whether the earth revolves around the sun. I guarantee you if Fox News started reporting it the other way around, we'd see a huge spike in those who believe it. That emotional argument of which you speak has a perfect example in the work of Andrew Wakefield.

  6. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 3 years ago

    I was addressing you both, sorry.

    Oh please do elaborate on the scientific theories you don't believe.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Which ones? Most of them.

      Big Bang, Evolution, the whole lot for the most part.

      1. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So among the things we can conclude is that you and I cannot possibly have a debate that means anything to either of us.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Probably. I do enjoy a pointless debate now and again though.

          And I like your stick figure drawing, it's cute. There's a start.

        2. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What I meant to say was, so, you think all scientific theories (or most) are correct?

          1. crankalicious profile image87
            crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think most established scientific theories, like the big bang and evolution, are based on a mountain of evidence, have been peer reviewed, and are the closest thing we have to the truth that we are able to know. I'm sure over time additional evidence will surface that will alter the theories here and there in terms of things like the age of the earth and the development of man. I believe they are correct insofar as the theories are supported by the evidence.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are huge discrepancies in both evolution and Big Bang. I think that things evolve, just not by random mutation. I think there is a pattern behind it. The Big Bang is held up by too many assumptions that makes the theory collapse if even one thing is wrong. I think it is more likely that an electric universe theory will pan out to be more accurate.

              1. crankalicious profile image87
                crankaliciousposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have a background in either evolutionary biology or astronomy? And you realize that random mutation has been witnessed and is the basis for the theory?

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have a basic knowledge of evolution and astronomy. I know that all scientists do not agree. I can base my own thoughts on facts I find presented, and often disagree on what those facts mean.

                  I know that random mutations occur. That doesn't mean I think that it is the basis of evolution. Those, to me, are accidents that have little lasting effect on the process. I think it is self-regulating.

 
working