The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Fetus Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Fetus Jesus Jetus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 But for real I'm against abortion after the heart starts beating. That's around six weeks. Figure it out before that or pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 No, abortion isn't the only option. And how many women do you think wouldn't know they were pregant after MONTHS ? I mean, seriously. Btw, the other options are, adoption. But abortion, even to a "pro-choicer"... has to have restrictions, and qualifications. This dirtbag marxist incompetent president has always favored, politically, total "rights of women"....to murder their unborn, and BORN children, as they see fit. It was testified before Congress, and Obamao couldn't care less during the testimony, about partial birth abortions, and leaving born children to die, alone and uncared for, in a closet. abortion/murder rights? How convenient. A lot of votes from irresponsible women voters. Trouble is, the born and unborn children have the right to live, too. Another option, is not going around having sex before marriage. But, like Chris will probably opine, that is not going to happen with all sorts of women. Trouble is, that's their choice alright. But the repercussions are there. With irresponsibility, comes responsibility for the results. Society (that is, LIB society, can't put safety nets all over the surface of our country, figuratively, and literally, to avoid consequences of risky behavior. Suppose a kid drives his dirtbike over an obvious cliff on purpose, to make a video. but, he gets paralyzed. Somebody needed to learn consequences of being stupid and doing stupid things to destroy your life. But libs will campaign for legislation the requires a safety net installed anywhere anybody could intentionally] drive over something and get hurt. and they will criminalize any kind of ownership of a place where some idiot like woody would do something really stupid and get hurt. And then they'd try to tax everybody to pay for safety nets, and special licences for owning ponds, and hills, and trees, and cliffs, and dirt trails, and bogs, and driveways, just in case something ever happens when some stupid kid gets hurt on it while racing a gokart while trespassing while drunk driving with no hands. But, getting back to abortion and risky behavior... to pro-choice people, if a mother gets pregnant, and intentionally does a lot of alcohol and hard drugs to murder, or damage the unborn child. do you still think that is her choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 No, abortion isn't the only option. And how many women do you think wouldn't know they were pregant after MONTHS ? I mean, seriously. It happens - to fat women, a lot. A friend of mine (large lady) didn't know she was pregnant for about 4 months I think. Btw, the other options are, adoption. But abortion, even to a "pro-choicer"... has to have restrictions, and qualifications. I agree, abortion has to be restricted - for example over here, where it's available on the NHS, there's a limit of 24 weeks (ish), after which it becomes illegal. Another option, is not going around having sex before marriage. But, like Chris will probably opine, that is not going to happen with all sorts of women. Trouble is, that's their choice alright. But the repercussions are there. With irresponsibility, comes responsibility for the results. What does marriage have to do with children? I smell your religious beliefs creeping in there. Suppose a kid drives his dirtbike over an obvious cliff on purpose, to make a video. but, he gets paralyzed. Somebody needed to learn consequences of being stupid and doing stupid things to destroy your life. "You were stupid enough to have sex in the first place, you deserve to have your life ruined" - you continue to give more emphasis to the foetus than that actual fully grown person. But, getting back to abortion and risky behavior... to pro-choice people, if a mother gets pregnant, and intentionally does a lot of alcohol and hard drugs to murder, or damage the unborn child. do you still think that is her choice? I'm not sure I follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 What bugs me is that the people who support this are the same people who bitch about the government playing too big of a role in American lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Actually what bugs me the most is that the welfare of these children is at the bottom of the list of considerations. Blowing your load into some bitch you don't give a rats ass about, regardless of the consequences, is at the top. It really is easy to prevent. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Actually what bugs me the most is that the welfare of these children is at the bottom of the list of considerations. Blowing your load into some bitch you don't give a rats ass about, regardless of the consequences, is at the top. It really is easy to prevent. WSS Common man, don't be a downer....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 I never said that. You said "in all but extreme cases" that abortions happen because the mother was irresponsible. That wording makes it sound like a very high number. Irresponsible sounds like they used no contraception. You realize there is a failure rate, correct? http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar Here, an abortion provider in Britain, 66% of women getting an abortion there were using some form of contraception at the time. I found one study for the US that had the number at 50%. That doesn't sound like a high number of people being irresponsible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why did you quote yourself without adding anything to your original statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Man who knew 66% of the time birth control was worthless? That certainly is not what the industry would have you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 That's not what that data is saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 I know man but you've got to speculate 66% of British abortion receivers are using birth control wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Which also something you can't take from the data... Contraception does have a failure rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Actually what bugs me the most is that the welfare of these children is at the bottom of the list of considerations. Blowing your load into some bitch you don't give a rats ass about, regardless of the consequences, is at the top. So have the state force an enormous responsibility on a person who's demonstrably irresponsible. Fantastic idea. And these same people complain about too many people mooching off Obama's food stamps. Irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Let's not kid ourselves. These people are NOT squirting out pups by the millions because they can't get hold of birth control. Love em or hate them Planned Parenthood passes this shit out like toilet paper to anybody that asks for free or next to free. Whoever is hyperventilating over this proposed bill could probably take a deep breath and realize that nothing is going to happen. These morons know where babies come from and have them to give their miserable shit bag lives meeting. Not because they've conscientiously used birth control or are unable to obtain it. This is just something for the Liberals to squeal about and keep hammering away at the women vote. We'd be better off if the state forced a bunch of them to have abortions. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 What bugs me is that the people who support this are the same people who bitch about the government playing too big of a role in American lives. Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 I love this: "This is just a personal view. Im not a medical doctor, Becker said." Yet he feels empowered to make decisions (via this bill)with enormous medical ramifications to every woman in the state of Ohio... Not to shit on this thread and turn it into a gun debate (again), but now you know how gun owners feel when a clueless politician legislates a ban or imposes restrictions on a gun that they can't even identify cosmetic parts and pieces they're restricting properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don't think the government should legislate against it, but I think it should also refrain from funding it (abortions). Why do my insurance premiums need to keep rising because of ignorance? The point we are at right now is that the only thing the government isn't doing is actually fucking the woman and getting her pregnant. Edit: Because really, what else can we do for them?? Teach them safe, teach them abstinence (pffff), pay for their birth control, pay for the abortion, and if none of that works, pay for the kid til he/she's 18. After all of this, you want an abortion for free because you're a fucking dummy? Fine, that will be 1 month of food stamps, dummy. Go hungry for a month. Maybe it will sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 You are putting this all toward ignorance. I've posted the data, contraception does fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Not to shit on this thread and turn it into a gun debate (again), but now you know how gun owners feel when a clueless politician legislates a ban or imposes restrictions on a gun that they can't even identify cosmetic parts and pieces they're restricting properly. I understand where you're coming from, and I can understand how a legislator should GE informed of what he or she is legislating, but I don't think that is on the same level here. The health and medical aspect of it requires a deeper understanding IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I understand where you're coming from, and I can understand how a legislator should GE informed of what he or she is legislating, but I don't think that is on the same level here. The health and medical aspect of it requires a deeper understanding IMO I'd argue that it's comparable. Just the complete and utter lack of knowledge of what they're banning and a lack of understanding of why they're banning it really irks me. The prime gun control example of this was the assault weapons ban in 94 - the AR-15 and Mini 14 both take .223 ammo. You can get magazines that carry over 10 rounds for each of them (not sure what the ruling is on magazines nowadays), they're semi-automatic, they're both accurate at rifle range (ie. you can hit something up to 400m away if you know what you're doing). For all intents and purposes, the performance of the guns is identical, yet only one was banned. Here's a picture of both of them. Can you guess which one was banned and why? I see the same ignorance in a large portion of many other movements - pro-life, anti-net neutrality, anti-violence in video games, anti-gay marriage. The common denominator in all of these cases is that they're all in favor of taking away individual rights, and that they use fear to push their legislation through congress. In all those cases, it's the right who's wailing "But think of the children," yet it's the left who uses the same shit argument on gun legislation. There are legitimate arguments to be made against my own position in all these cases, but I just absolutely hate that ignorant fearmongering is the major driving force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I vote the black one was banned, it is scarier looking... I see where your coming from, but I think that the more complicated the issue the more understanding is needed to legislate it. In this regard, I think the health and science behind women's reproduction, pregnancy, etc is more complicated then types of guns and their uses. That being said, I'd still prefer knowledgeable people for both when it comes to legislation. It seems like more often than not that isn't the case in Congress. I've already used the "evolution is a lie from the pit of hell" guy a lot as a good example of this, as he is on the science board. Or how about "the internet is a series of tubes" guy? There are a lot of politicians that are no more than that, politicians. They were trained to argue and debate, not to understand and solve problems. That is one big reason why I think we need more people from STEM disciplines in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 If cal was some sort of code writer in his former life that would fall under a stem discipline, no? At least under MINT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Its on the outer edges of STEM, and back when Cal was programming on punch cards I'm not sure how much went in to it, but yeah I guess. Sad to say, but Cal may actually understand some of these topics better than some Congressmen. Maybe. I may be overreaching. Either way, he'd still have to get the votes and as soon as the crazy comes out, he'll lose the votes (or maybe gain them in the deep south) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 nice call, woody. But I only did punch cards in school right after I got out of the service. then it all changed to terminals. But some students losing it, giving up, and throwing their big, worthless pile of IBM cards across the room was great. they floated around like butterfiles, and the students would be cursing and screaming that they were dropping the class. Priceless, and very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I've had a handful of older people at Michigan describe their days in school studying engineering/comp sci. One common factor is their stories about the punch cards, lol. Getting them all in order, heading up to the lab in the evening, and letting the program run overnight. Something we cna do now in like 3 seconds. Michigan had a few very old computers on display in the Computer Engineering building. One is part of a very old and famous one, but I forget the name. I think it is the same one where te term "debugging" arose... from finding an actual bug inside lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 I never said that. You said "in all but extreme cases" that abortions happen because the mother was irresponsible. That wording makes it sound like a very high number. Irresponsible sounds like they used no contraception. You realize there is a failure rate, correct? http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar Here, an abortion provider in Britain, 66% of women getting an abortion there were using some form of contraception at the time. I found one study for the US that had the number at 50%. That doesn't sound like a high number of people being irresponsible to me. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htmThe CDC estimates the greatest failure rates are at about ½ of the "study" you posted (a poll from a single clinic - come on, buddy). With ranges from <1% to 26% for different methods. "Pulling out" & the "rhthym method" clocking in at just over the 20% mark. Condoms at 18%, and the pill & other female hormone based all <10%. So an avg of 15-ish % and actual "effort" coming in below the 10% mark. So 90+% effective when effort & knowledge are employed. Not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted June 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Its on the outer edges of STEM, and back when Cal was programming on punch cards I'm not sure how much went in to it, but yeah I guess. Sad to say, but Cal may actually understand some of these topics better than some Congressmen. Maybe. I may be overreaching. Either way, he'd still have to get the votes and as soon as the crazy comes out, he'll lose the votes (or maybe gain them in the deep south) Completely off-topic but did you go through a STEM program? Just wondering because we got my son into our towns first STEM school. He will be the first class to go through the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm The CDC estimates the greatest failure rates are at about ½ of the "study" you posted (a poll from a single clinic - come on, buddy). With ranges from <1% to 26% for different methods. "Pulling out" & the "rhthym method" clocking in at just over the 20% mark. Condoms at 18%, and the pill & other female hormone based all <10%. So an avg of 15-ish % and actual "effort" coming in below the 10% mark. So 90+% effective when effort & knowledge are employed. Not bad. That's the failure rate - not the proportion of abortions made up of failed contraceptives. Not saying that's necessarily a big number, mind, just that given the amount of people having sex every week - pucking a number out of my arse for demonstrative purposes, 1 in 5 people? about 60 million then - if 10% of that results in contraceptive failure then that's 6 million unplanned pregnancies every week where they took reasonable measures to prevent it. That number sounds a little high, though, so I suspect the number of people having sex is much lower, which is a depressing thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.