DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Birth control rant
Pages:   ... [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Showing posts 1401 - 1425 of 1503, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/31/2012 05:51:41 PM · #1401
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How do you explain the bias in third child sex? Surely you must have a viable alternative explanation!?

Maybe you could ask a doctor about alternative explanations... like gender selective fertility treatments, which are readily available in the U.S. and oh, gee... don't appear to be targeted as a "problem" by legislators. Can the real motivation behind this bill be any more obvious?
05/31/2012 06:15:17 PM · #1402
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So it's someone's "interpretation" of statistics, without ever citing a single documented case where it's known to occur.

One kid getting run over is too many, let's ban cars ...

His ignorance is showing. It's not even possible to know the gender in over 95% of abortion cases in the U.S., and the root causes of Asian gender bias (dowries, the ability to earn money, and property inheritance rights) don't really apply here, yet sex-selective abortions are a big problem... IF you believe that's what the bill is really about.


Now your ignorance is REALLY showing. To quote the study from the Proceedings...

"Since 2005, sexing through a blood test as early as 5 weeks after conception has been marketed directly to consumers in the U.S., raising the prospect of sex selection becoming more widely practiced in the near future."

Even if we take your stat at face value, 5% of 1.2 million abortions is 60,000. That's three times the homicides in the US or double the number of deaths from influenza.

The takehome though is it's now fairly easy to tell the gender of the baby well into the first trimester.

05/31/2012 06:20:12 PM · #1403
You guys are either as blind as an ostrich with its head in the ground or as stubborn as a mule. Take your pick. I won't dither about what the scientific studies obviously show (and you guys are usually such fans of science).

Shannon, sex-selective IVF IS a possibly answer, but it's an unlikely one given the cost. It probably explains a very small portion of the statistics while the much cheaper abortion explains a much larger portion.
05/31/2012 06:27:13 PM · #1404
it's fun to go back to the original post of mine and see just which part people have a beef with;

The topic seems like a bit of a sticky wicket for abortion supporters. I think most abortion supporters in this country are personally uncomfortable with the idea of abortions performed for the reason of sex selection. However, politics being what they are these days, I think the powers feel compelled to defend abortion under all circumstances and so do a fair amount of verbal dancing in their defence (eg. it's about doctor-patient confidentiality, not about sex selective abortion). As an analogy, I think most gun owners are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of high-powered assault rifles or hollow point bullets being readily available to the public, but the NRA defends assault rifles as part a "no ground given" strategy to defend gun rights in general. If the fight is being waged over high powererd assault rifles then it ISN'T being waged over handguns. Likewise, if we are fighting about sex-selective abortions, we aren't fighting about more "mundane" abortions.

Hmmm. I never talked about support or opposition to the bill being debated. I mentioned most people for abortion are uncomfortable with sex selection. I said sex selection does go on in our country (supported by an actual scientific study). I said it doesn't go on as much as in Asia (supported by a general lack of gender bias in our population). Every statement is true to the core (well, the one about pro-choice people being uncomfortable with sex selection abortions is somewhat of an assumption, but not a large one).

And yet we've generated 20+ posts of people yammering and complaining and bitching and spluttering. Oh Achoo! You are so wrong. You are so biased. How could you?!?

Really.
05/31/2012 07:15:50 PM · #1405
The thing is doc, most pro choice people are uncomfortable with abortion for any reason. But, we feel it's not OUR right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. If someone doesn't want a child, for any reason, medical, financial, or gender based, who really feels they have the right to force that person to have the child anyway? Do you? If your daughter was raped as a young teenager and became pregnant, would you really force her to have the baby after the trauma she already had endured? Answer like a father, honestly, would you? And if your answer is yes, then what? Force her to raise it? Raise it yourself? Give it away like the trouble it will be? A woman doesn't have to give a reason to have an abortion. I know a number of people that have had them. They didn't give a reason. I even called one up and asked her if she was ever asked for a reason and she said no. So how can you outlaw something that can't be found out? If you do then you open the door for asking. Then you open the door to saying, no, your reason isn't good enough for me. That's what makes this whole issue stupid.
05/31/2012 07:20:26 PM · #1406
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Now your ignorance is REALLY showing. To quote the study from the Proceedings...

"Since 2005, sexing through a blood test as early as 5 weeks after conception has been marketed directly to consumers in the U.S., raising the prospect of sex selection becoming more widely practiced in the near future."

Even if we take your stat at face value, 5% of 1.2 million abortions is 60,000. That's three times the homicides in the US or double the number of deaths from influenza.

The takehome though is it's now fairly easy to tell the gender of the baby well into the first trimester.

So your contention is that my statement about gender being unknown in 95% of abortion cases in reference to possible Asian sex selection from a 2000 census study is ignorant because a blood test available since 2005 can now determine sex as early as 5 weeks? Thanks for pointing that out, genius. Then you acknowledge that sex-selective fertility treatments are a viable explanationâ without taking issue with the practiceâ but it's expensive (the most common Ericsson method is relatively cheap).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I said sex selection does go on in our country (supported by an actual scientific study).

The study does NOT say this is accomplished via abortion, and prenatal sex selection is openly offered by fertility clinics without apparent issue.

Message edited by author 2012-05-31 20:41:58.
05/31/2012 07:57:36 PM · #1407
Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is doc, most pro choice people are uncomfortable with abortion for any reason. But, we feel it's not OUR right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. If someone doesn't want a child, for any reason, medical, financial, or gender based, who really feels they have the right to force that person to have the child anyway? ...............


+100
05/31/2012 08:24:01 PM · #1408
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

it's fun to go back to the original post of mine and see just which part people have a beef with;

The topic seems like a bit of a sticky wicket for abortion supporters. I think most abortion supporters in this country are personally uncomfortable with the idea of abortions performed for the reason of sex selection. However, politics being what they are these days, I think the powers feel compelled to defend abortion under all circumstances and so do a fair amount of verbal dancing in their defence (eg. it's about doctor-patient confidentiality, not about sex selective abortion). As an analogy, I think most gun owners are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of high-powered assault rifles or hollow point bullets being readily available to the public, but the NRA defends assault rifles as part a "no ground given" strategy to defend gun rights in general. If the fight is being waged over high powererd assault rifles then it ISN'T being waged over handguns. Likewise, if we are fighting about sex-selective abortions, we aren't fighting about more "mundane" abortions.

Hmmm. I never talked about support or opposition to the bill being debated. I mentioned most people for abortion are uncomfortable with sex selection. I said sex selection does go on in our country (supported by an actual scientific study). I said it doesn't go on as much as in Asia (supported by a general lack of gender bias in our population). Every statement is true to the core (well, the one about pro-choice people being uncomfortable with sex selection abortions is somewhat of an assumption, but not a large one).

And yet we've generated 20+ posts of people yammering and complaining and bitching and spluttering. Oh Achoo! You are so wrong. You are so biased. How could you?!?

Really.


This abortion bill sponsored by the House Republicans reminds me of the tactic the Republicans are using around the issue of voter fraud, but at least in the case of voter fraud we have a hard number to deal with (under 20 documented cases in the U.S. in the last Presidential election). So their "solution" to a practically non-existent "problem" is to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters via Draconian voter I.D. laws. In the case of sex-selective abortion, I don't think there's even been any attempt to produce a number or an estimate, and even if we accept that some sex-selection is taking place in the U.S., we can't say how many are via abortion and how many are via IVF techniques or blood-test kits or any other method. So the "solution" to something we don't even know is a "problem" is to potentially disenfranchise whole groups of women based on their ethnicity. And, of course, in both cases, voter fraud and sex-selective abortion, the goal of the Republicans is not to solve a problem but to disenfranchise as many people as possible. So, yeah, it's going to be difficult to discuss this issue with you when the starting point is wholly disingenuous.
05/31/2012 08:38:25 PM · #1409
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

even if we accept that some sex-selection is taking place in the U.S., we can't say how many are via abortion and how many are via IVF techniques or blood-test kits or any other method. So the "solution" to something we don't even know is a "problem" is to potentially disenfranchise whole groups of women based on their ethnicity.

There are dozens of perfectly legal fertility clinics openly specializing in gender selection with nary a hint of Republican outrage. The agenda here is comically obvious.
05/31/2012 08:42:48 PM · #1410
Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is doc, most pro choice people are uncomfortable with abortion for any reason. But, we feel it's not OUR right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. If someone doesn't want a child, for any reason, medical, financial, or gender based, who really feels they have the right to force that person to have the child anyway? Do you? If your daughter was raped as a young teenager and became pregnant, would you really force her to have the baby after the trauma she already had endured? Answer like a father, honestly, would you? And if your answer is yes, then what? Force her to raise it? Raise it yourself? Give it away like the trouble it will be? A woman doesn't have to give a reason to have an abortion. I know a number of people that have had them. They didn't give a reason. I even called one up and asked her if she was ever asked for a reason and she said no. So how can you outlaw something that can't be found out? If you do then you open the door for asking. Then you open the door to saying, no, your reason isn't good enough for me. That's what makes this whole issue stupid.


You don't even need to answer Kelli's hypothetical question, because, really, that's not for us to know, and that's the way it should stay.
05/31/2012 09:00:11 PM · #1411
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is doc, most pro choice people are uncomfortable with abortion for any reason. But, we feel it's not OUR right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. If someone doesn't want a child, for any reason, medical, financial, or gender based, who really feels they have the right to force that person to have the child anyway? Do you? If your daughter was raped as a young teenager and became pregnant, would you really force her to have the baby after the trauma she already had endured? Answer like a father, honestly, would you? And if your answer is yes, then what? Force her to raise it? Raise it yourself? Give it away like the trouble it will be? A woman doesn't have to give a reason to have an abortion. I know a number of people that have had them. They didn't give a reason. I even called one up and asked her if she was ever asked for a reason and she said no. So how can you outlaw something that can't be found out? If you do then you open the door for asking. Then you open the door to saying, no, your reason isn't good enough for me. That's what makes this whole issue stupid.


You don't even need to answer Kelli's hypothetical question, because, really, that's not for us to know, and that's the way it should stay.


Oh, I didn't expect an actual answer. As long as he knows the answer, and gives it some honest thought, that's all that counts.
05/31/2012 09:16:32 PM · #1412
Sorry, I'll remove the insult as I've calmed down a bit.

I'll walk you through my response Shannon. I posted the quote about the 2005 test to get you to stop posting the incorrect idea that 95% of abortions occur before gender determination is possible. If this fact was ever true, it is not now. It is obsolete. It was probably the third or fourth time you posted it and I was tired of it.

The people who did the study obviously understand that one cannot use a 2005 test in a 2000 census. Their point was that the problem may get even worse as technology advances. Indeed, the gender bias among asians was more pronounced in the 2000 census than in the 1990 census. Still, other gender selection techniques were around in 2000 that could determine the baby's gender well within the legal time limits of obtaining an abortion.

Let us look at my statement: "Sex selective abortions clearly occur in this country."

We have statistics to suppor clear sex selection among third children in asian populations. We have two techniques suggested to explain this: abortion and IVF. We then have four possibilities to explain the population bias:

1) 100% of the bias is due to IVF.
2) Part is due to IVF, part is due to abortion.
3) 100% is due to abortion.
4) An unknown factor is responsible.

My statement is true if #2 or #3 are correct. Nobody has a suggestion for #4. Are you honestly telling me #1 is more likely to be the truth than #2 or #3? Unless you say yes, my statement stands as true.

This is why it is so frustrating to argue with you. You are staking your whole argument on the idea that the statistics are more likely to be exclusively explained by a $10,000+ procedure not covered by insurance than by abortions just because that scenario would make my case false. A reasoned man could see the unlikliness of your hypothesis yet you persist because you cannot ever, ever retreat an inch in these conversations.

Message edited by author 2012-05-31 21:47:07.
05/31/2012 09:52:47 PM · #1413
Kelli, your questions about how the law would be enforced are very good. I never said I supported the law, even once. I am just against gender selective abortions on moral grounds. The law, as I understand, would have punished the providers not the women. I'm guessing you would have had to enforce it via sting operations etc. It doesn't matter as it failed (oddly with a vote of 246 for and 148 against).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I care less about the actual laws as much as I care about the principles behind the laws. I do love how you always seem to say you aren't willing to tell someone else what to do, but, really, every law ever passed does exactly this.

Anyway, takehome was I never voiced support for the law. Frankly I didn't even know what it said or how it was going to be carried out. I am just against gender selective abortion and apparently we both agree on that. I think one of the representatives summed it up nicely, "âI donât support abortion for gender selection,â said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and an opponent of the legislation. âI donât know anyone who does."
05/31/2012 10:02:53 PM · #1414
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Kelli, your questions about how the law would be enforced are very good. I never said I supported the law, even once. I am just against gender selective abortions on moral grounds. The law, as I understand, would have punished the providers not the women. I'm guessing you would have had to enforce it via sting operations etc. It doesn't matter as it failed (oddly with a vote of 246 for and 148 against).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I care less about the actual laws as much as I care about the principles behind the laws. I do love how you always seem to say you aren't willing to tell someone else what to do, but, really, every law ever passed does exactly this.

Anyway, takehome was I never voiced support for the law. Frankly I didn't even know what it said or how it was going to be carried out. I am just against gender selective abortion and apparently we both agree on that. I think one of the representatives summed it up nicely, "âI donât support abortion for gender selection,â said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and an opponent of the legislation. âI donât know anyone who does."


LOL. And for the most part, I'm against most of them. Most laws are not put into place to make a better society (and I didn't say all). They are put into place to control people, and/or to provide a source of revenue. Seat belt laws for instance. Is it good to wear a seatbelt? Yes. Could it save your life? Yes. So, if I choose not to wear one and die in an accident is it anyone's fault but my own? No. So why the law? To provide a revenue stream to the townships that set up click it or ticket traps. That one is all about money. You can pick apart pretty much every law and it comes down to one of those two things (and sometimes both).
05/31/2012 10:15:59 PM · #1415
Originally posted by Kelli:

LOL. And for the most part, I'm against most of them. Most laws are not put into place to make a better society (and I didn't say all). They are put into place to control people, and/or to provide a source of revenue. Seat belt laws for instance. Is it good to wear a seatbelt? Yes. Could it save your life? Yes. So, if I choose not to wear one and die in an accident is it anyone's fault but my own? No. So why the law? To provide a revenue stream to the townships that set up click it or ticket traps. That one is all about money. You can pick apart pretty much every law and it comes down to one of those two things (and sometimes both).


Actually that law also reduces the times I have to pay your idiot ER bill when you get thrown from the car but don't manage to die and you didn't happen to have insurance. I pay that in my insurance premiums and in my taxes for Medicare etc. I'm happy to let you not wear your seatbelt if you agree to be 100% responsible for your bills and if you can't pay them they leave you on the side of the road. (HARSH!) If you don't want to enter that contract then click it up baby.
05/31/2012 10:27:52 PM · #1416
And we have universal seatbelt laws, on a state-by-state basis now, like we have low maximunm speed limits, because the Feds won't disburse funds to states that don't enact and enforce these laws. It's got squadoosh to do with being a revenue-generator at the local level, though I'll grant that, GIVEN the laws, municipalities do take advantage of them for that purpose.

That's not why the laws were made, though.

R.
05/31/2012 10:29:38 PM · #1417
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:

LOL. And for the most part, I'm against most of them. Most laws are not put into place to make a better society (and I didn't say all). They are put into place to control people, and/or to provide a source of revenue. Seat belt laws for instance. Is it good to wear a seatbelt? Yes. Could it save your life? Yes. So, if I choose not to wear one and die in an accident is it anyone's fault but my own? No. So why the law? To provide a revenue stream to the townships that set up click it or ticket traps. That one is all about money. You can pick apart pretty much every law and it comes down to one of those two things (and sometimes both).


Actually that law also reduces the times I have to pay your idiot ER bill when you get thrown from the car but don't manage to die and you didn't happen to have insurance. I pay that in my insurance premiums and in my taxes for Medicare etc. I'm happy to let you not wear your seatbelt if you agree to be 100% responsible for your bills and if you can't pay them they leave you on the side of the road. (HARSH!) If you don't want to enter that contract then click it up baby.


And if you have insurance? Then should I be able to opt out?

Officer: Show me proof of your insurance.
Driver: Right here, sir.
Officer: Carry on, no seatbelt required.

LOL! My point is I'm against the "it's for your own good" type of laws. And there are just too damn many. I think I'm smart enough to determine what's good for me and what isn't. In other words, if I was religious, and I was anti abortion, I wouldn't get one. If I wasn't religious and felt it was my only alternative, then I would. It's really not so difficult to have a "to each his own society". Yeah, I know, dream on.
05/31/2012 10:37:34 PM · #1418
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And we have universal seatbelt laws, on a state-by-state basis now, like we have low maximunm speed limits, because the Feds won't disburse funds to states that don't enact and enforce these laws. It's got squadoosh to do with being a revenue-generator at the local level, though I'll grant that, GIVEN the laws, municipalities do take advantage of them for that purpose.

That's not why the laws were made, though.

R.


So why were they made? I understand the laws requiring them to be put into cars. But to be forced to wear them to save your own life under threat of fine is ridiculous. I wear them because it makes me safe. I've been wearing them since they started installing them (that is once I got a car that actually had them). My children have always been in car seats, and strapped in. It's common sense to protect them. But for the government to say to me, wear it or else just bothers me.
05/31/2012 10:52:32 PM · #1419
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let us look at my statement: "Sex selective abortions clearly occur in this country."

So does smoking. Both are plainly legal, and targeting abortions for this "problem" is as ludicrous as targeting Indians for the "problem" of selling cigarettes that can be readily purchased elsewhere without issue.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My statement is true if #2 or #3 are correct.

Congrats, and your statement is totally irrelevant because you're attempting to use a study that does not speculate on a cause as support for a specific cause. You were apparently unable to figure out a "viable alternative explanation" for the statistic so I offered one, but it's hardly the only possibility. Third children could be selectively abandoned, given up for adoption, underreported, selected by "homeopathic" prenatal techniques, or even skewed by selection bias if the parents stop at the desired sex. Need I point out that you apparently dismiss out of hand the possibility of answered prayers?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are staking your whole argument on the idea that the statistics are more likely to be exclusively explained by a $10,000+ procedure not covered by insurance than by abortions just because that scenario would make my case false.

Hardly. I offered one viable alternative explanation out of many probable contributors, and the most common gender selection procedure costs less than $1000 (about the same as an abortion after 15 weeks, which isn't covered by insurance either). The conversations wouldn't be nearly as frustrating if you didn't post absurd declarations like this that are so easily disproven along with personal attacks that can only provoke a pointed response.

Message edited by author 2012-05-31 22:57:46.
05/31/2012 11:00:07 PM · #1420
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Actually that law also reduces the times I have to pay your idiot ER bill when you get thrown from the car but don't manage to die and you didn't happen to have insurance. I pay that in my insurance premiums and in my taxes for Medicare etc. I'm happy to let you not wear your seatbelt if you agree to be 100% responsible for your bills and if you can't pay them they leave you on the side of the road. (HARSH!) If you don't want to enter that contract then click it up baby.

Interesting that so many people argue against this very principle for healthcare coverage.
05/31/2012 11:01:58 PM · #1421
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And we have universal seatbelt laws, on a state-by-state basis now, like we have low maximunm speed limits, because the Feds won't disburse funds to states that don't enact and enforce these laws. It's got squadoosh to do with being a revenue-generator at the local level, though I'll grant that, GIVEN the laws, municipalities do take advantage of them for that purpose.

That's not why the laws were made, though.

R.


So why were they made? I understand the laws requiring them to be put into cars. But to be forced to wear them to save your own life under threat of fine is ridiculous. I wear them because it makes me safe. I've been wearing them since they started installing them (that is once I got a car that actually had them). My children have always been in car seats, and strapped in. It's common sense to protect them. But for the government to say to me, wear it or else just bothers me.


Bothers me too. Bothers a lot of people. Welcome to the Nanny state. New York is about to ban the selling of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, in order to "fight obesity". It's farcical!

R.
05/31/2012 11:03:47 PM · #1422
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's farcical!

Hmm... pretty sure I've never seen that word used in a sentence outside of classical literature.
05/31/2012 11:04:58 PM · #1423
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's farcical!

Hmm... pretty sure I've never seen that word used in a sentence outside of classical literature.


Just goes to show I'm a classy sort of guy... Or did I get that wrong...? And I'm being so EARNEST!

R.

ETA: A 2-word sentence, no less! Such economy of expression!

Message edited by author 2012-05-31 23:05:38.
05/31/2012 11:10:35 PM · #1424
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And we have universal seatbelt laws, on a state-by-state basis now, like we have low maximunm speed limits, because the Feds won't disburse funds to states that don't enact and enforce these laws. It's got squadoosh to do with being a revenue-generator at the local level, though I'll grant that, GIVEN the laws, municipalities do take advantage of them for that purpose.

That's not why the laws were made, though.

R.


So why were they made? I understand the laws requiring them to be put into cars. But to be forced to wear them to save your own life under threat of fine is ridiculous. I wear them because it makes me safe. I've been wearing them since they started installing them (that is once I got a car that actually had them). My children have always been in car seats, and strapped in. It's common sense to protect them. But for the government to say to me, wear it or else just bothers me.


Bothers me too. Bothers a lot of people. Welcome to the Nanny state. New York is about to ban the selling of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, in order to "fight obesity". It's farcical!

R.


So are they going to stand over your shoulder and make sure you don't buy two or three soft drinks at a time?
05/31/2012 11:15:48 PM · #1425
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

So are they going to stand over your shoulder and make sure you don't buy two or three soft drinks at a time?


That was my first reaction. The law's targeted at restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, etc. Bottom line; if you go to the movies with your kids you're gonna spend a whole LOT more on sodas since you can't just share out one big one anymore...

I mean, I'm reasonably supportive of efforts to try to get kids, especially, out of the habit of drinking sugar solution in 48-oz doses. But, c'mon... This is a grandstand play, it's not going to have any substantive effect, but it's one more serious step along the road towards Big Brother, isn't it?

R.
Pages:   ... [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:46:07 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:46:07 PM EDT.