HHS moves to reclassify contraception as "abortion"

[Justforfun000]

Metatwaddle Wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this happening in statistically significant numbers? Also, did it ever occur to you that it takes a lot of fucking money to take care of children, and that after you've covered those expenses, there's basically nothing left from the extra welfare bonus?

Yes and I'll link some farther along. However I also have my own personal experiences of many girls I grew up with in school who got pregnant during their teen years with people they didn't have strong relationships with and ended up on welfare. I asked a couple why they didn't use contraception and got various answers. None of them were good ones. They were irresponsible when it came right down to it. Same group of girls had more kids later. Usually different father. They were taught birth control along with the rest of us. Did they apply it? No.

These women exist and I saw it with my own two eyes. I never suggested there were a statistically LARGE number of women who do this. However after searching the literature, it looks like there may actually be a big number.

I'll jump down your throat if I fucking feel like it, you stupid douchenozzle.

Well shove it up your ass then you snot-faced cumrag. I have a right to comment on my experience and I stand by my assertion that these women acted irresponsibly. On top of that, the statistics for repeat abortion below also provide evidence for my point. I already conceded I used a very poor choice of words and then told you exactly what behavior I was trying to specificaly condemn.

Obviously the men shared some blame, but the most common birth control used during the 80's where I lived was the pill so the man had to take it on faith she was on it.

You're damn right it sounded like you were condemning their promiscuity. That's what "loose" and "slut" mean. And I don't believe for a second that you're not inclined to judge women's sexual morality, because you just did so with that previous remark. But there's no real point in arguing that.

You can believe what you want but I have never shown any indication in the past showing a judgmental attitude towards sex and/or (responsible) promiscuity. I have no sex hang-ups and see nothing whatsoever wrong in engaging in the act itself with one or multiple people, married or not.

As I said, it was a poor choice of words because it wasn't properly representing the part of their behaviour that I was calling down. Irresponsibility.

Durandel Wrote:

Can anyone tell me where this mythical "loose slut" is who keeps banging men without protection and then running off to get the morning-after pill or a first-trimester abortion on a regular basis is? Does anyone here know any woman who acts this way?

http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm

Unfortunately, it doesn't have to be a constant repitition. Sometimes it's enough to throw caution to the winds a couple of times and bang, their pregnant. The point is that many of these girls, DID have the knowledge to prevent conception with birth control methods and chose not to act on it.

Some quotes from the above:

"One million teens in the USA will become pregnant over the next twelve months. Ninety-five percent of those pregnancies are unintended. About one third will end in abortion; one third will end in spontaneous miscarriage; and one third will continue their pregnancy to term and keep their baby."

"Almost half of all teen mothers end up on welfare."

Let me clue the perma-virgins into something. It's scary when a girl gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be. Having a condom break on you is scary. Having condom-less sex with a girl who's on birth control but has told you she would not get an abortion if she got pregnant is scary. The whole fucking concept of having a child without intending too is mind-boggling. Take this from someone who's had a couple of close calls. It freaks you the fuck out. I can't imagine how it must feel for the woman, but I'm sure that having one of those close calls is more than enough to scare a woman into insisting on protection from that point on.

Yes this is undoubtedly true in most cases, and a good thing it is but no one can deny that the statistics above show a great deal of women getting pregnant through unprotected sex. They can't possibly ALL be from condom breakage.

Look, I feel sorry for the ones that get into this mess because it IS a very hard decision to have to make and it has serious consequences whatever way they choose to go.

But I am still justified in feelnig the ones that deliberately have children, especially multiple broods when they have no serious relationship and/or rely on the state to look after them are being irresponsible and sucking on the government teat for decades.

Even in my own extended family I have an example. My partner's brother has 3 kids from an earlier relationship. He moved down to New Brunswick and shacked up with a girl he met on the internet. She already had a couple of kids and is on welfare. He's on disabiity. So what did they do? Had another child almost immediately. Guess who's paying for it? Taxpayers. Sadly he's basically abandoned his previous kids which also happened in an unmarried relationship that obviously wasn't strong to begin with.

Ultimately I think it's really shameful to treat conception so lightly. Women should be very concerned about their body as well as the possible future of any child brought into the world.

Metatwaddle Wrote:

That's why justforfun's "medical coverage removes disincentives to pregnancy!" argument is so transcendentally clueless that you have to wonder if his parents have ever given him The Talk, or if he's ever seen an actual female in real life.

I did not make an argument like that. You misinterpreted that from what I was saying. I was pointing out that medical costs that are covered here in Canada are something that every taxpayer foots the bill for. I have a right to judge the usage of said costs. I think it's shameful to be burdening our health care system when we have completely preventable options in birth control, and In any event, here is some more evidence showing you that there ARE a great deal of women out there who are getting pregnant irresponsibly becuse they are doing it more then once.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100208.html

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. This fact—not new, but dramatically underscored in a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute on the characteristics of women having repeat abortions—may surprise and concern some policymakers, even prochoice ones. However, policymakers should be more disturbed by the underlying fact that the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States is so high, and that so many women experience repeat unintended pregnancies. Some of these pregnancies end in abortion and some end in unintended births. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a woman to experience both of these outcomes, as well as one or more planned births, during her lifetime.

Reducing repeat abortion must start with reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, which goes back to the basic challenge of helping women prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. In that regard, the almost 7,500 family planning clinics across the country certainly are doing their share, given that unintended pregnancy prevention is their primary mission. Beyond that, both abortion providers and providers of services to women giving birth also contribute, since contraceptive counseling and the provision of a birth control method upon request are standard components of high-quality postabortion and postpartum care.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, there is no practical solution to the welfare baby problem. What are we going to do, punish the kids by denying them opportunities in life? Forcibly sterilize the parents? Education only goes so far, and has little effect on the kind of retrograde morons who pop out piles of kids starting at age 16.

The only thing we can really do is attach a huge social stigma to it. Humiliate welfare recipients who lack the self-respect to already feel humiliated that they are on welfare.

[Surlethe]

Welfare babies are an unfortunate consequence of the tradeoff between screwing poor people and creating a system to help them, which permits parasitism. Either you have to accept screwing over the poor (easily rationalized by accepting the American Dream and concluding that if you are poor, you deserve to be poor, and oh, helping the poor is the job of charities and not the government) or you have to accept the existence of parasitism on the system. In either case, perfection is impossible; the best you can do is try to mitigate the consequences of the poor relief system (or the lack thereof) your values demand.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong Wrote:

Unfortunately, there is no practical solution to the welfare baby problem. What are we going to do, punish the kids by denying them opportunities in life? Forcibly sterilize the parents? Education only goes so far, and has little effect on the kind of retrograde morons who pop out piles of kids starting at age 16.

I know. It's extremely disheartening to see this trend still going strong in this day and age. We really don't have a good answer because as you say, the poor kids have to be taken care of most importantly. It's just a shame people are not choosing to be ultra-careful and responsible with their birth control.

The only thing we can really do is attach a huge social stigma to it. Humiliate welfare recipients who lack the self-respect to already feel humiliated that they are on welfare.

Even this approach is indirect, but it's probably beneficial by example. It might hopefully make other girls think a lot harder about the stigma they would be receiving if they also got into this predicament.

[Metatwaddle]

Metatwaddle Wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this happening in statistically significant numbers? Also, did it ever occur to you that it takes a lot of fucking money to take care of children, and that after you've covered those expenses, there's basically nothing left from the extra welfare bonus?

Yes and I'll link some farther along. However I also have my own personal experiences of many girls I grew up with in school who got pregnant during their teen years with people they didn't have strong relationships with and ended up on welfare. I asked a couple why they didn't use contraception and got various answers. None of them were good ones. They were irresponsible when it came right down to it. Same group of girls had more kids later. Usually different father. They were taught birth control along with the rest of us. Did they apply it? No.

Oh my god, you have anecdotal evidence! Wow! Clearly I've been in the wrong this whole time and should immediately concede all my points to you.

These women exist and I saw it with my own two eyes. I never suggested there were a statistically LARGE number of women who do this. However after searching the literature, it looks like there may actually be a big number.

If the number is statistically insignificant, then the portion of your tax dollars going to pay for repeat abortions is also statistically insignificant since the burden is shared by all taxpaying Canadians. In other words, you can shut the fuck up with your dumbassed whining.

I'll jump down your throat if I fucking feel like it, you stupid douchenozzle.

Well shove it up your ass then you snot-faced cumrag. I have a right to comment on my experience and I stand by my assertion that these women acted irresponsibly.

Right, because this is obviously about your "right to comment", and the evil feminazi is trying to squash your right to free speech.

You can believe what you want but I have never shown any indication in the past showing a judgmental attitude towards sex and/or (responsible) promiscuity. I have no sex hang-ups and see nothing whatsoever wrong in engaging in the act itself with one or multiple people, married or not.

As I said, it was a poor choice of words because it wasn't properly representing the part of their behaviour that I was calling down. Irresponsibility.

Your "No, really, I'm okay with it and that's not what I meant!" remark is about as convincing as Michael Richards trying to claim he's not a racist after telling a black heckler he would have been lynched fifty years ago.

If you didn't associate promiscuity with irresponsibility, you wouldn't have referred to irresponsible women as "loose sluts".

Obviously the men shared some blame, but the most common birth control used during the 80's where I lived was the pill so the man had to take it on faith she was on it.

We're not talking about the 80s, we're talking about now, and your anecdotal evidence means jack shit.

Durandal Wrote: (Meta note: learn to spell, asshole)

Can anyone tell me where this mythical "loose slut" is who keeps banging men without protection and then running off to get the morning-after pill or a first-trimester abortion on a regular basis is? Does anyone here know any woman who acts this way?

http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm

Do you even read the shit you link to? The article clearly states that the US's high teen pregnancy rates are astronomical compared to other industrialized nations (including Canada, where you're from, so I don't know why the fuck you're going on about the US's teen pregnancy rates) as a direct result of insufficient education about contraception. And it's not just in schools, either, according to the article: it's hangups talking about it at home and in the media.

Your own article contradicts your argument. You lose, dipshit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't have to be a constant repitition. Sometimes it's enough to throw caution to the winds a couple of times and bang, their pregnant. The point is that many of these girls, DID have the knowledge to prevent conception with birth control methods and chose not to act on it.

What's "many"? And your original blathering was about women having multiple abortions. Which is it? Are all women who have abortions irresponsible sluts who take your money and don't use birth control, or just those of us who have more than one? I'm dying to know.

"One million teens in the USA will become pregnant over the next twelve months. Ninety-five percent of those pregnancies are unintended. About one third will end in abortion; one third will end in spontaneous miscarriage; and one third will continue their pregnancy to term and keep their baby."

Your article clearly states that the rate is much lower in other countries because they have greater education and access to birth control. Either you're a flaming dumbass who didn't read the entire article, or you're a dishonest little shit.

"Almost half of all teen mothers end up on welfare."

What the hell does this have to do with sexual irresponsibility? Don't try to make it about your precious fucking tax dollars, because these statistics aren't even from your own country.

Let me clue the perma-virgins into something. It's scary when a girl gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be. Having a condom break on you is scary. Having condom-less sex with a girl who's on birth control but has told you she would not get an abortion if she got pregnant is scary. The whole fucking concept of having a child without intending too is mind-boggling. Take this from someone who's had a couple of close calls. It freaks you the fuck out. I can't imagine how it must feel for the woman, but I'm sure that having one of those close calls is more than enough to scare a woman into insisting on protection from that point on.

Yes this is undoubtedly true in most cases, and a good thing it is but no one can deny that the statistics above show a great deal of women getting pregnant through unprotected sex. They can't possibly ALL be from condom breakage.

Newsflash from 2002: the US has shitty sex education (thank you, President Bush) and some really weird hangups with talking about sex. And even here, the majority of women getting abortions used birth control in the month that they got pregnant, and the rate is even higher for women who are getting their second or subsequent abortion, proving that most women do learn from stupid decisions and are more careful after one accidental pregnancy.

My source for that, by the way, is the Guttmacher study. You know, the one you linked to.

Look, I feel sorry for the ones that get into this mess because it IS a very hard decision to have to make and it has serious consequences whatever way they choose to go. But I am still justified in feelnig the ones that deliberately have children, especially multiple broods when they have no serious relationship and/or rely on the state to look after them are being irresponsible and sucking on the government teat for decades.

Remember that thing about backing up your claims by providing evidence that this happens in statistically significant numbers? You still have to do that. This is SDN, not Shitty Debate Forum for Flaming Idiots. Then again, if I read your posts on a regular basis, I'd probably make that mistake too.

Even in my own extended family I have an example. My partner's brother has 3 kids from an earlier relationship. He moved down to New Brunswick and shacked up with a girl he met on the internet. She already had a couple of kids and is on welfare. He's on disabiity. So what did they do? Had another child almost immediately. Guess who's paying for it? Taxpayers. Sadly he's basically abandoned his previous kids which also happened in an unmarried relationship that obviously wasn't strong to begin with.

For the third time, provide something more than anecdotes or sit the fuck down.

Ultimately I think it's really shameful to treat conception so lightly. Women should be very concerned about their body as well as the possible future of any child brought into the world.

Wow, I'm sure glad we've got wise and benevolent menfolk like you to tell us women that we should be concerned about our bodies and our kids. Because, you know, men have a much better track record of caring about women's bodies than women do, and are much more concerned about their kids. That's why the majority-male medical profession is so concerned about women's health, and it's deadbeat mothers who run off and don't take care of their kids and avoid the child support authorities.

Metatwaddle Wrote:

That's why justforfun's "medical coverage removes disincentives to pregnancy!" argument is so transcendentally clueless that you have to wonder if his parents have ever given him The Talk, or if he's ever seen an actual female in real life.

I did not make an argument like that. You misinterpreted that from what I was saying. I was pointing out that medical costs that are covered here in Canada are something that every taxpayer foots the bill for. I have a right to judge the usage of said costs.

I notice you're furious at the women for daring to use taxpayer funds for these abortions, but you say nothing about the men who impregnate them.

But then, maybe I'm judging you too soon. Maybe when you ranted about "loose sluts banging new guys on a regular basis", you were actually talking about pregnant gay men.

I think it's shameful to be burdening our health care system when we have completely preventable options in birth control.

Guess what? Birth control doesn't always work. The large majority of women having their second or subsequent abortion are not only on birth control, but are using a highly effective form of it.

In any event, here is some more evidence showing you that there ARE a great deal of women out there who are getting pregnant irresponsibly becuse they are doing it more then once.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100208.html

Okay, now I know you don't read what you link to. The two studies you linked to in your post have been giving me all the ammo I need for my post, but this just takes the fucking cake.

In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.

refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control

refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control

As Elfdart would say, you are one dumb twat.

[Justforfun000]

Metatwaddle wrote:

Oh my god, you have anecdotal evidence! Wow! Clearly I've been in the wrong this whole time and should immediately concede all my points to you.

Anectdotal evidence isn't worthless you idiot! It's just not good enough for scientific theories or certain types of studies. My personal experiences are TOTALLY valid if I'm referring to "some" people. I never tried to state any specific number.

If the number is statistically insignificant, then the portion of your tax dollars going to pay for repeat abortions is also statistically insignificant since the burden is shared by all taxpaying Canadians. In other words, you can shut the fuck up with your dumbassed whining.

Who says it's statistically insignificant? I don't know what the percentage is in Canada, but it doesn't fucking matter moron. So based on YOUR say so, the level of cost is minor so I shouldn't have a right to criticize waste and abuse of our health system? Fuck you!

Right, because this is obviously about your "right to comment", and the evil feminazi is trying to squash your right to free speech.

Do you want a hat to go with your strawman? I DO have a right to comment and I never accused you of trying to stop me. I just think you're overreacting and acting like a fucking asswipe, and that's why I'm arguing with you.

Your "No, really, I'm okay with it and that's not what I meant!" remark is about as convincing as Michael Richards trying to claim he's not a racist after telling a black heckler he would have been lynched fifty years ago.

I don't have to convince you. If you want to close your mind and act like a little child with their fingers in their ears going "Lalala I can't hear you", then fill your boots. Humans make mistakes and sometimes words are spoken or written in a slant that's not actually meant as it reads.

In this case, a girl getting repeatedly pregnant and aborting instead of using birth control is being very irresponsible and some would brand her a loose slut. It's an opinionated judgment that anyone can choose to identify in someone's character if they sleep around indiscriminately and irresponsibly. You just want to nail me to the cross over it even though I already admitted that it was a poor choice of words as wasn't meaning to focus on the promiscuous instead of the irresponsibility. You don't want to let it go. So If you can't accept a concession for part of my debate, then why are you even bothering to argue with me? Your mind is made up.

If you didn't associate promiscuity with irresponsibility, you wouldn't have referred to irresponsible women as "loose sluts".

This is an assumption that I feel all promicuous women are "loose sluts". I don't and I already said that. It was the two behaviors being present concurrently that brought the label to my mind.
I felt their irresponsibility combined with their promiscuity was negative BECAUSE of the consequences and the selfish burdens they were putting on society, so I had that label pop up in my head. Still on later reflection, I basically agreed with you that it wasn't a truly fair correlation, so I considered it a poor word choice. Can we move on now?

We're not talking about the 80s, we're talking about now, and your anecdotal evidence means jack shit.

I was talking about ANY time. Who gave you the say so on what period we are restricted to referencing? In any case I did link a much more recent study as well. And again, fuck you. My anectdotal evidence is not worth "jack shit". Personal experience is not automatically dismissed as worthless just because it's not a clinical study. Not when you are simply commenting on what you have seen yourself in reality. It's perfectly valid for me to say I have seen women abuse the system and get pregnant by being irresponsible, and that's all I have said in the first place. If you're that brain dead that you can't see the simple truth in that, then you're hopeless.

Do you even read the shit you link to? The article clearly states that the US's high teen pregnancy rates are astronomical compared to other industrialized nations (including Canada, where you're from, so I don't know why the fuck you're going on about the US's teen pregnancy rates) as a direct result of insufficient education about contraception. And it's not just in schools, either, according to the article: it's hangups talking about it at home and in the media.

Your own article contradicts your argument. You lose, dipshit.

Bzzt. Go back to reading comprehension school idiot! I never GAVE a specific number for Canada, did I? I only spoke of my own experiences here. The article clearly states that there are many women having repeat abortions and ergo, we have demonstration of irresponsibility. The article did NOT say what percentage of these girls were properly educated, but it certainly wasn't saying that all of them were ignorant so it wasn't their fault. You're just pulling every excuse out of your ass to pretend you actually have a refutation to my position. You're going to have to do better then that!

What's "many"? And your original blathering was about women having multiple abortions. Which is it? Are all women who have abortions irresponsible sluts who take your money and don't use birth control, or just those of us who have more than one? I'm dying to know.

Aha! At least you're asking the right question. "Many" is a non-specific amount. It's used generally when you aren't TRYING to state specific percentage or absolute number regarding statistics. Oh gee...I guess that means that since I gave non-specifics, I actually had a valid point because I was referencing people I personally saw demonstrate irresponsibility.

And stop trying to pin me down to a black and white fallacy. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I myself never used the word "all" in ANY statement I made towards women who were either pregnant, teenaged or adult, aborting once or many times, etc.. I said quite clearly the ones who are deliberately ignoring birth control and getting pregnant that puts a burden on our health care either through abortion or more welfare loads are the problem. That's easy enough for anyone to see that isn't trying to twist my position into an "All women are sluts" angle.

Your article clearly states that the rate is much lower in other countries because they have greater education and access to birth control. Either you're a flaming dumbass who didn't read the entire article, or you're a dishonest little shit.

So the fuck what? Who's arguing that? That's a basic finding that seems to correlate well with evidence of birth control education. It still doesn't mean OR say that all women who are getting pregnant are ignorant of birth control. YOU know bloody well that's not the case either. As I said, some or many (take you pick) women are deliberately ignoring what they were taught and getting pregnant irresponsibly. Is this getting through your thick fucking skull yet or do I need a jackhammer?

What the hell does this have to do with sexual irresponsibility? Don't try to make it about your precious fucking tax dollars, because these statistics aren't even from your own country.

Oh my mistake. It's not at all irresponsible to have a child that is instantly going to become a state funded welfare case for the next 20 years instead of waiting to have children when someone is in a good family unit that can actually contribute to society by properly working and raising their child themselves. You really ARE an idiot.

And I told you before that I don't need statistics from my country to comment on people I've seen with my own eyes abuse the system. I don't care if it 5 people or 500,000. The principle remains the same.

Newsflash from 2002: the US has shitty sex education (thank you, President Bush) and some really weird hangups with talking about sex. And even here, the majority of women getting abortions used birth control in the month that they got pregnant, and the rate is even higher for women who are getting their second or subsequent abortion, proving that most women do learn from stupid decisions and are more careful after one accidental pregnancy.

And this is a good thing. And why would you even assume I would argue against this? Maybe because you haven't been really listening to me since this started. I already said most women are not to blame. I used the words "some" or "many" to make my point which again is NON-SPECIFIC. You keep trying to paint me as someone that is damning the entire female race when my words haven't said any such thing.

Remember that thing about backing up your claims by providing evidence that this happens in statistically significant numbers? You still have to do that. This is SDN, not Shitty Debate Forum for Flaming Idiots. Then again, if I read your posts on a regular basis, I'd probably make that mistake too.

Look you moron, I do not need to provide statistically significant numbers because none of my points have anything to DO with the amount of women acting irresponsibly. Even 2 of them would be enough when I said "some", but anyone with half a brain know that there are far more then that and so "many" was perfectly valid as well. So stick your so called backing up your claim up your ass with your head.

I notice you're furious at the women for daring to use taxpayer funds for these abortions, but you say nothing about the men who impregnate them.

Liar! Just more proof you're not reading what I'm saying with any degree of comprehension. From earlier in my posts:

Obviously the men shared some blame, but the most common birth control used during the 80's where I lived was the pill so the man had to take it on faith she was on it.

Guess what? Birth control doesn't always work. The large majority of women having their second or subsequent abortion are not only on birth control, but are using a highly effective form of it.

Your obvious refusal to actually characterize what I said properly is starting to piss me off. I never said ANYTHING about just having abortions as the criteria for irresponsibility. I said when it went hand in hand with unprotected, irresponsible sex. Naturally those who are actually trying to prevent conception with proper birth control are not to blame if the methods fail. Certainly not when they are as effective as the pill normally is. You're making enough fucking strawmen to be able to fill a 4 acre farm.

Okay, now I know you don't read what you link to. The two studies you linked to in your post have been giving me all the ammo I need for my post, but this just takes the fucking cake.

It still doesn't refute my point! I never said the majority of women. Ever. I said some. And my examples were always very specific on their behaviour combined with their pregnancy. I never made any claim that suggested all people who get abortions are irresponsible. You just keep trying to claim that I am. Well sorry to disappoint you, but you're wrong.

[Metatwaddle]

[snip]

I'm not going to quote your entire post, because it's all a variation on the theme of "I didn't say it was a statistically significant number of women!" It seems that your entire argument rests on the idea that it doesn't matter how many women have irresponsible abortions, as long as at least three of them do.

Having just looked up the statistics myself, I can see why ignoring the numbers is so critical to your argument: because when you actually realize how much of your precious hard-earned money is being spent on abortions, it becomes crashingly obvious that your reaction is wildly out of proportion.

I couldn't figure out the cost of a single abortion in Canada, but I am guessing it is not that different from one in the United States. In 1996, a publicly-funded abortion in the States cost Medicaid $130 US. That's the most recent estimate I have, and the cost may have increased slightly since then. Source

In 2004, there were about 100,000 abortions performed in Canada. The rate was higher in 2003, so the rate may have declined even further since then. Source

According to this article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, 35.5% of abortions in Canada are repeat abortions, and 60% of the women having repeat abortions were using birth control. That means only 14% of abortions in Canada, or 14,000 abortions per year, were from repeat abortion patients who were not using birth control at the time. At $130 per abortion, that is a cost of $1.8 million per year to Canadian taxpayers. The population of Canada is about 33.4 million.

Guess how much money the average Canadian is paying every year for "loose sluts" to have abortions?

Six cents.

[Justforfun000]

But why are you arguing this with me? I was talking about the principle of the thing. Are you saying that I shouldn't judge a women who A) Knows about birth control, B) chooses to have unprotected sex and becomes pregnant, and C) Must use the public health system to abort the baby or conversely go on welfare to support her and the baby for the next 20 years?

Your've conveniently ignoring that entire point which is the ONLY real point I said to you. You went off on a tangent about my terminology "loose sluts" which was partially valid because it seemed to indicate I was focusing on promiscuity instead of irresponsible behavior that leads to abortion or state sponsored welfare for a couple of decades. I already admitted that was poorly said.

I never once said this is in a way that suggested the majority of women were to blame, OR that all women who get abortions are irresponsible. I think you simply let your emotions get the better of you and jumped down my throat with too many strawmen.

[SirNitram]

Metatwaddle wrote:

Oh my god, you have anecdotal evidence! Wow! Clearly I've been in the wrong this whole time and should immediately concede all my points to you.

Anectdotal evidence isn't worthless you idiot! It's just not good enough for scientific theories or certain types of studies. My personal experiences are TOTALLY valid if I'm referring to "some" people. I never tried to state any specific number.

Is there any realistic reason we should believe a word you say, now?

[Justforfun000]

Is there any realistic reason we should believe a word you say, now?

What do you mean? You doubt I'm telling the truth from my own experiences? Do you find those people and their actions to be an unlikely event?

[LadyTevar]

But why are you arguing this with me? I was talking about the principle of the thing.

I think you yourself said the perfect rebuttal to arguing the "principle of the thing[/i]

I think you simply let your emotions get the better of you and jumped down my throat with too many strawmen.

There's no principles in your argument, only strawmen and BS pulled out of your ass in a frantic attempt to prove Metatwaddle wrong. Stop now, before the real flaming starts.

[Metatwaddle]

But why are you arguing this with me? I was talking about the principle of the thing.

No, you weren't. You were talking about large numbers until I proved to you that your statistics actually supported my argument, not yours. Then you claimed that you had never said anything about statistical significance in the first place.

Metatwaddle Wrote:

Do you have any evidence of this happening in statistically significant numbers? Also, did it ever occur to you that it takes a lot of fucking money to take care of children, and that after you've covered those expenses, there's basically nothing left from the extra welfare bonus?

Yes and I'll link some farther along.

However after searching the literature, it looks like there may actually be a big number.

On top of that, the statistics for repeat abortion below also provide evidence for my point.

Yes this is undoubtedly true in most cases, and a good thing it is but no one can deny that the statistics above show a great deal of women getting pregnant through unprotected sex.

In any event, here is some more evidence showing you that there ARE a great deal of women out there who are getting pregnant irresponsibly becuse they are doing it more then once.

Your argument was never about principle; it was about your tax dollars.

I was pointing out that medical costs that are covered here in Canada are something that every taxpayer foots the bill for. I have a right to judge the usage of said costs. I think it's shameful to be burdening our health care system when we have completely preventable options in birth control, and

Six cents per capita per year does not constitute a significant burden. Your total health care spending is $148 billion. Since you obviously have a fear of doing math, I'll do it for you: that's five orders of magnitude above the $1.8 million for repeat abortions for women not using birth control.

I never once said this is in a way that suggested the majority of women were to blame, OR that all women who get abortions are irresponsible. I think you simply let your emotions get the better of you and jumped down my throat with too many strawmen.

Fuck you and fuck your patronizing comments. You cited statistics, they didn't go the way you wanted them to, and now you're denying that your argument was ever statistical in the first place. You're a lying little shit.

[Justforfun000]

There's no principles in your argument, only strawmen and BS pulled out of your ass in a frantic attempt to prove Metatwaddle wrong. Stop now, before the real flaming starts.

I don't know how you can say that. Honestly, I don't. I immediately conceded the words I used were misleading to my argument and narrowed it down very specifically. What exactly is wrong with my argument? Mike seemed to get it as he made a reference to people that got pregnant at 16 and became a burden on the welfare roles.

Well if you can show me that somehow I'm looknig at this wrong, I'm willing to listen. If there's more then one against me, maybe I need to rethink my argument. but I'm unsure where you think I've gone wrong.

[SirNitram]

Is there any realistic reason we should believe a word you say, now?

What do you mean? You doubt I'm telling the truth from my own experiences? Do you find those people and their actions to be an unlikely event?

I find 'THE PRINCIPAL OF THE THING' in the face of conclusion actual evidence and ranting about a few personal experiences unmoving. I have no reason to believe your personal experiences. I suggest you remember that.

[Justforfun000]

Metatwaddle wrote:

No, you weren't. You were talking about large numbers until I proved to you that your statistics actually supported my argument, not yours. Then you claimed that you had never said anything about statistical significance in the first place.

But I didn't say a large number in the first place and you proved this by quoting me later after I looked for some more evidence online. And all I aid was "MAY actually be a big number".

And there are a of women getting pregnant through unprotected sex. It was over a million a year, wasn't it?

Your argument was never about principle; it was about your tax dollars.

And also an unfair position to put children in, bringing them into the world when not in a sensible family unit that can suppurt them,.

Six cents per capita per year does not constitute a significant burden. Your total health care spending is $148 billion. Since you obviously have a fear of doing math, I'll do it for you: that's five orders of magnitude above the $1.8 million for repeat abortions for women not using birth control.

But you still don't feel the principle applies regardless of the monetary value?

Fuck you and fuck your patronizing comments. You cited statistics, they didn't go the way you wanted them to, and now you're denying that your argument was ever statistical in the first place. You're a lying little shit.

I searched for statistics after you demanded them of me. You made it about the numbers, I didn't. I don't understand why you don't see that. All I needed to do was find any support showing irresponsibility causing unwanted pregnancies, abortions and welfare cases. I was doing it purely to cite something objective along with my own personal cases I saw in my own country.

[SirNitram]

'YOU MADE IT ABOUT THE NUMBERS, NOT ME' That's because numbers have solidity, reliability.. Things your claims, unstrengthened by objective evidence, sorely lack.

JustForFun, I advise you to shut the fuck up unless you're willing to have a proper debate, not 'What I claim to have seen'.

[Justforfun000]

I find 'THE PRINCIPAL OF THE THING' in the face of conclusion actual evidence and ranting about a few personal experiences unmoving. I have no reason to believe your personal experiences. I suggest you remember that.

Fair enough, but is there any real reason to disbelieve me either? Why would I have an opinion on it if I didn't have some real life experiences that swayed me one way or the other? Surely you don't think it's that hard to find people that had children knowing they would have to rely on the welfare system as just one example.

In any case I can't prove my personal experiences, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because I still felt that the principle of getting pregnant without proper precautions and the resulting consequences was the real point. Providing they had the education and option of obtaining birth control of course. I would be surprised if people are disagreeing with me on that basic assertion.

[LadyTevar]

There's no principles in your argument, only strawmen and BS pulled out of your ass in a frantic attempt to prove Metatwaddle wrong. Stop now, before the real flaming starts.

I don't know how you can say that. Honestly, I don't.

Easy, I read what you wrote and it jumps out at me: STRAWMAN, FALLACY, STRAWMAN, BULLSHIT.

I immediately conceded the words I used were misleading to my argument and narrowed it down very specifically.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the concession... where was it?
Oh, yes... where you Strawmaned calling it the "Principle of the thing" Not a concession, and not narrowing it down. Try again.

What exactly is wrong with my argument? Mike seemed to get it as he made a reference to people that got pregnant at 16 and became a burden on the welfare roles.

Ahhhhhhh... nice Appeal to Authority Fallacy here, especially since Mike's yet to see this last display of brilliance you've pulled out of your lying ass.

Well if you can show me that somehow I'm looknig at this wrong, I'm willing to listen. If there's more then one against me, maybe I need to rethink my argument. but I'm unsure where you think I've gone wrong.

Maybe if you were actually LISTENING to Metatwaddle, you might learn something. But you've shown yourself to be too wrapped up in arguing with her/him, so you're just being a stupid, stubborn dick.
THAT is where you've gone wrong, just so you get the hint this time.

[Kanastrous]

The only thing we can really do is attach a huge social stigma to it. Humiliate welfare recipients who lack the self-respect to already feel humiliated that they are on welfare.

Perhaps every use of food stamps at a store and every deposit of a welfare check at a bank, could be accompanied by a loudspeaker announcement by the clerk handling the transaction - ladies and gentlemen, please give a big hand for Susie at register six - she's spending your money wisely, today.

Having slept on it I have to agree that a certain level of brain development/activity seems the best criteria for 'start of human life.'

Although there are a lot of people out there who should worry, if we were to decide to apply that standard, post-partum.

[SirNitram]

Fair enough, but is there any real reason to disbelieve me either?

Yes. It's called 'Not being a gullible idiot'. You are free to bubble and burble about how it's so unfair that you are held to standards, but no, no one is going to blindly and blithely assume you're not talking out of your ass unless you back it up with evidence.

This is not a new concept on SDN.

Why would I have an opinion on it if I didn't have some real life experiences that swayed me one way or the other? Surely you don't think it's that hard to find people that had children knowing they would have to rely on the welfare system as just one example.

Why would you have the opinion.. Because you're a sexist, conservative reactionary? That's the common reason people have such idiotic thoughts. It's the 'Welfare Queen' lie all over again, but unfortunately, you are not Reagan talking to idiotic people. You are on SDN.

In any case I can't prove my personal experiences, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because I still felt that the principle of getting pregnant without proper precautions and the resulting consequences was the real point. Providing they had the education and option of obtaining birth control of course. I would be surprised if people are disagreeing with me on that basic assertion.

Yes, yes, sulk on, whine about the 'Principle of the thing' because you realize there is no way for you to substantiate your claim, and insist it's totally unfair to be expected to provide more than 'I SAWED IT'.

The objective harm being doing here is trivial, quite apparently. So you screeching like a little child about 'The Principle' means nothing to me.

[Justforfun000]

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the concession... where was it?
Oh, yes... where you Strawmaned calling it the "Principle of the thing" Not a concession, and not narrowing it down. Try again.

I conceded the words "loose slut" were not proper. That left me discussing irresponsibility and I did narrow it down. You didn't see that?

Ahhhhhhh... nice Appeal to Authority Fallacy here, especially since Mike's yet to see this last display of brilliance you've pulled out of your lying ass.

But he echoed my point. He even gave suggestions on what to possibly do to make it a stigma that might be a perventative. You don't see that as agreeing with me? How else would you take it?

Maybe if you were actually LISTENING to Metatwaddle, you might learn something. But you've shown yourself to be too wrapped up in arguing with her/him, so you're just being a stupid, stubborn dick.
THAT is where you've gone wrong, just so you get the hint this time.

Well maybe both of us are having a hard time listening to each other because it seems like a lot of things I tried to clarify wasn't being heard. Maybe you can sum up her position for me as you take it and how I'm missing the point. I'm getting confused.

[Broomstick]

You know, the Bush administration has seriously pissed off so many Americans and has done such unacceptable things, I almost wonder why the hell there hasn't been a large contingent of Americans who forcibly storm the White House and eject Bush from office.

We can't afford enough gas to drive to DC.

[Justforfun000]

Yes. It's called 'Not being a gullible idiot'. You are free to bubble and burble about how it's so unfair that you are held to standards, but no, no one is going to blindly and blithely assume you're not talking out of your ass unless you back it up with evidence.

Again, fair enough. But how else can I present a personal opinion without referencing some real life experiences and how that's formed my opinion? Anyone can choose to disbelieve me of course, but I see nothing wrong with telling others of people I've known and what I've seen. It's still true to me and what I'm posting.

Why would you have the opinion.. Because you're a sexist, conservative reactionary? That's the common reason people have such idiotic thoughts. It's the 'Welfare Queen' lie all over again, but unfortunately, you are not Reagan talking to idiotic people. You are on SDN.

I'd be far from conservative in my beliefs towards sex. All I can say is that seeing many teenage girls in my high school end up with fatherless kids and going out of school to collect welfare a less then ideal circumstance.

[SirNitram]

Yes. It's called 'Not being a gullible idiot'. You are free to bubble and burble about how it's so unfair that you are held to standards, but no, no one is going to blindly and blithely assume you're not talking out of your ass unless you back it up with evidence.

Again, fair enough. But how else can I present a personal opinion without referencing some real life experiences and how that's formed my opinion? Anyone can choose to disbelieve me of course, but I see nothing wrong with telling others of people I've known and what I've seen. It's still true to me and what I'm posting.

The answer to your question, you infantile brat, is you don't present personal opinions, especially as fact. You don't whine about 'True to me'. You discuss logically or you don't type up responses.

Why would you have the opinion.. Because you're a sexist, conservative reactionary? That's the common reason people have such idiotic thoughts. It's the 'Welfare Queen' lie all over again, but unfortunately, you are not Reagan talking to idiotic people. You are on SDN.

I'd be far from conservative in my beliefs towards sex. All I can say is that seeing many teenage girls in my high school end up with fatherless kids and going out of school to collect welfare a less then ideal circumstance.

Which is not, no matter what you say, evidence of being wildly irresponsible and purposefully going there. Many factors could lead to that: Lying assholes, restrictive parents, local laws about parental consent and abortion, restrictions on contraception, proven failure of Abstinence Only Sex-Ed..

Hey, look, two of those are what Bush is trying to enforce!

[Broomstick]

Any abortion, including an RU-486 abortion, usually involves a lot of side effects afterwards; the common ones are bleeding, cramping, nausea and diarrhea for two to four weeks. So basically it's like a period, prolonged by a factor of three, with nausea and diarrhea.

Is someone really going to try to convince me that's easier for women than using a goddamn condom?

You sir, have obviously NEVER tried to argue a reluctant man into using a condom!

Also, asswipe, sometimes contraception fails.

Seriously - many women put up with nausea and diarrhea during their periods, too. So, instead of 5 days maybe it's 10. That might not be "fun" but it might also be preferable to nine months of pregnancy, labor and delivery, and 18 years of raising the rugrat. Seems that being a woman at all comes with "side effects", including condescending jackasses presuming to take away a woman's choice "for her own good".