It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study measures impact of removing Planned Parenthood from Texas women's health program

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

There is little to no excuse for unwanted pregnancies.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.


So, a 1.5%-ish difference between a male condom and hormonal contraceptive relegates that to "least effective" in your mind, and you would rather not have sex at all?

That's statistical ridiculousness at its finest, and some real illogical bending of facts to try and make things align with your point. Furthermore, we all know that having sex isn't going to stop without hormonal contraception, so pretending like the male condom is a terrible alternative is irrational at best.


but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.


See above.



by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!


Then something tells me that you were either (a) exceptionally unlucky, or (b) the odds of the condom not working were increase by user error. It happens--that's not a sucker punch at you or your hubby.

But statistically speaking, you are in the uber-minority of accidents, and of course the ovulation-prediction method is the least effective of any, save for maybe just reckless disregard for the ovulation cycle altogether. My wife tried that for a while, and we had a few scares that weren't worth the risk (although she never became pregnant).

But please understand that my concern about STDs is meant for those people who aren't like you and me--in a committed relationship where both people are proven to be free of STD (or STIs, as they seem to be called now).

So, I understand that accidents happen with condoms--otherwise it'd be 100% effective--but that is such a statistical anomaly that trying to use it to argue against the efficacy and use of condoms is irresponsible.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: windword
According to your own chart, condoms, male or female are not the ideal option to avoid pregnancy. Condoms are more to protect against STDs than pregnancy.




A 98% efficacy rate is pretty ideal. If you had a 98% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you play? Sounds like a pretty ideal probability to me. Maybe I'm just a big dumb man, though...numbers hard. Mathing no easy.


But don't distort the percentages...when used properly, the female condom is 95% effective, according to what I posted. But quite honestly, I'd prefer the better protection from both pregnancy and STIs. Call me nuts.


Odd, the CDC is telling me male condoms are closer to 82% effective and female condoms are closer to 79% effective,
CDC- warning small PDF



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla
kind of like there is really no excuse for a man to divorce his wife if she decides she doesn't want to have sex after three kids. I mean after all, there is much more to married life than just sex, right? Not the least of which is the three kids that they are raising together!!!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: DJW001

Provide statistics for something that usually only exists as long as it is unreported (because the moment it is reported it is usually dealt with by the law.) and also solve the problem of coercive abusive relationships all in one post?


No, just admit that some women cannot be held solely responsible for their plight, and that the judgement free birth control that Planned Parenthood provides can be an important step in regaining control of their lives.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You seem convinced that you can't trust that women are telling the truth about being raped or abused. In your opinion, what percentage of women actually need to be raped or abused in order to justify spending government money to help them? Personally, I think that any woman in need of help deserves it, and as I have said, some spending on social services can be a wise investment.


Where in the hell did you come up with that first sentence? I'm specifically talking about scientific accuracy, and anyone who understands the scientific method understands that just taking someone's word for something during questioning does not a scientific study make. You can misconstrue that all you want, make you think it means I don't trust victimized women, or whatever you want to do, but that is neither what I was trying to say, nor is it the truth.

But keep in mind that I did work in the legal field for 3.5 years and saw a large number of rape accusations come through our office...the vast majority ended up either being recanted by the accuser or proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be fabricated stories--sometimes, yes, to hide infidelity or pregnancy. So, in my experience, it is a reality that some "victims" are not victims, and the reason that they play the victim can be for inappropriate reasons.

Your other questions and comments are exactly what I said before--they are appeals to emotion that do not deserve a response. A responsible person doesn't just arbitrarily make up percentages in their head, but takes everything on a case-by-case basis, as none are the same.

I don't disagree that some spending on social services is a wise investment--it's part of living in a society--but that doesn't mean that all spending is necessary, no matter how you try to spin the emotional appeal.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No if a man wants to have sex with someone he loved enough to marry and that partner later decides she's going to opt out from sex while the man still has a desire for it then that is grounds for divorce. A relationship is neither 100 emotional nor 100 physical, but a successful one is a bit of both.

You're situation forces a man into a 100% emotional relationship ad then puts the blame on him for wanting to leave. Even though it's the females decision to exclude herself from sexual desire that is causing the shift in the emotional/physical percentage of the relationship.

Women do not have to bend over whenever the man demands it so don't even go there, but personally I would be hurt and offended by a wife I had 3 children with and a life deciding she was going to remove my ability to have sex from my life because she no longer has any interest in it. As a man I would either get a divorce and try to seek counseling to see what is the root of my wife loss of sexual desire and if there is any way to mend the situation. If my wife was unwilling to admit that her decision was causing the problem in the relationship I would leave.

None of this would be easy.
edit on 5-2-2016 by Bennyzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey




No, and this comment was either derived from ignorance or ideological malice.

Please see my comment as to why both women and men should carry a male condom (it's quite a bit more effective than a female condom).


According to your own chart, condoms, male or female are not the ideal option to avoid pregnancy. Condoms are more to protect against STDs than pregnancy.

At any rate, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine what birth control options should be available to, or are "good enough" poor women?

Further, how available, cheap and easy to use are female condoms? Would you rely on them knowing that 21% of the time they don't prevent pregnancy?



Absolutely correct. And the very idea a man could know anything about the awkward design of the female condom and how it causes much trepidation in the user that it is not not on properly....a man can never know that.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra

There is little to no excuse for unwanted pregnancies.


Unless, of course, it is through rape or coercion. Sorry I can't provide exact statistics on that. The statistics I quoted in the OP suggest that, for whatever reason, unwanted pregnancies have gone up since Planned Parenthood was de-funded in Texas. Presumably the number of back alley abortions went up as well.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

awful lot of presumptions and assumptions you're asking people to take as fact because you want it to be true.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
actually, the funding they stripped wasn't just to planned parenthood, I don't think. It was to anyone associated with abortion. So, well, did they also strip funding from those ob/gyn private practice doctors who might have occasionally performed abortions? I know the doctor that delivered my kids wasn't connected to planned parenthood but did some abortions. So, while doing this, did they also limit the number of doctor available to medicaid patients who need prenatal care also? I am just asking here.... not really sure of what the answer it.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.


So, a 1.5%-ish difference between a male condom and hormonal contraceptive relegates that to "least effective" in your mind, and you would rather not have sex at all?

That's statistical ridiculousness at its finest, and some real illogical bending of facts to try and make things align with your point. Furthermore, we all know that having sex isn't going to stop without hormonal contraception, so pretending like the male condom is a terrible alternative is irrational at best.


but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.


See above.



by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!


Then something tells me that you were either (a) exceptionally unlucky, or (b) the odds of the condom not working were increase by user error. It happens--that's not a sucker punch at you or your hubby.

But statistically speaking, you are in the uber-minority of accidents, and of course the ovulation-prediction method is the least effective of any, save for maybe just reckless disregard for the ovulation cycle altogether. My wife tried that for a while, and we had a few scares that weren't worth the risk (although she never became pregnant).

But please understand that my concern about STDs is meant for those people who aren't like you and me--in a committed relationship where both people are proven to be free of STD (or STIs, as they seem to be called now).

So, I understand that accidents happen with condoms--otherwise it'd be 100% effective--but that is such a statistical anomaly that trying to use it to argue against the efficacy and use of condoms is irresponsible.


To summarize, there is practically zero chance of an accidental pregnancy. Yes, it happens, but the odds are basically nil if someone is using protection. Those that claim otherwise are ignorant of statistics. Even if you accept that a small number of pregnancies are accidental, they in now way would add up to the millions of abortions performed yearly nor the unwanted pregnancies.

When I hear someone say they go pregnant accidentally, it really means they didn't use protection.
edit on 5-2-2016 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

In cases of rape and coercion the woman is not solely responsible for their plight.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Thats not true at all.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.


So, a 1.5%-ish difference between a male condom and hormonal contraceptive relegates that to "least effective" in your mind, and you would rather not have sex at all?

That's statistical ridiculousness at its finest, and some real illogical bending of facts to try and make things align with your point. Furthermore, we all know that having sex isn't going to stop without hormonal contraception, so pretending like the male condom is a terrible alternative is irrational at best.


but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.


See above.



by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!


Then something tells me that you were either (a) exceptionally unlucky, or (b) the odds of the condom not working were increase by user error. It happens--that's not a sucker punch at you or your hubby.

But statistically speaking, you are in the uber-minority of accidents, and of course the ovulation-prediction method is the least effective of any, save for maybe just reckless disregard for the ovulation cycle altogether. My wife tried that for a while, and we had a few scares that weren't worth the risk (although she never became pregnant).

But please understand that my concern about STDs is meant for those people who aren't like you and me--in a committed relationship where both people are proven to be free of STD (or STIs, as they seem to be called now).

So, I understand that accidents happen with condoms--otherwise it'd be 100% effective--but that is such a statistical anomaly that trying to use it to argue against the efficacy and use of condoms is irresponsible.


To summarize, there is practically zero chance of an accidental pregnancy. Yes, it happens, but the odds are basically nil if someone is using protection. Those that claim otherwise are ignorant of statistics. Even if you accept that a small number of pregnancies are accidental, they in now way would add up to the millions of abortions performed yearly nor the unwanted pregnancies.

Accidental pregnancy really means you willfully didn't use protection.


Again, those numbers are wrong. CDC- small PDF

Condoms are mainly good for the prevention of STDs.
edit on 5-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


So, it is up to one or the other partner to get condoms, for the purpose of not spreading disease/ Then it is up to the woman to find another form of birth control she is comfortable with. The implant and the copper IUD are the most effective. There is a good range of choices in acceptable percent of failure rates, but each one carries side effects and a woman usually has to figure out which one works for her and the 'pill' becomes more dangerous as a woman ages. It is really becoming tiresome seeing males state how 'simple' all of this is. It is NOT.
edit on 5-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Does the pro abortion crowd believe in killing the parents that drain the economy? I mean if poor babies are destin to drain our countries resources and you believe in a " minority report" type pre-determination of this when they're babies, why not carry it into adulthood? What would be the negatives? We save money and you can have your legal killings.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Your numbers are from 2011

Are you going to break the story about the Japanese Tsunami next?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Also note that by rejecting Federal funding because of the "strings," more of the burden is shifted to the state taxpayers.


Where it should be.


BTW the increase in pregnancies went from 7% to 8.4% over the 18 month observation period counties that lost a Planned Parenthood, and we have no way to know what percentage was planned or not. Is that something to worry about, I do not know, but it looks rather insignificant to me.

Also, doesn't everyone have Obamacare now? So can't people just use that?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Does the pro abortion crowd believe in killing the parents that drain the economy? I mean if poor babies are destin to drain our countries resources and you believe in a " minority report" type pre-determination of this when they're babies, why not carry it into adulthood? What would be the negatives? We save money and you can have your legal killings.


There is no 'pro abortion' crowd.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra

Your numbers are from 2011

Are you going to break the story about the Japanese Tsunami next?


The numbers have not gotten better since 2011. These are the numbers the CDC and the WHO CURRENTLY use.
edit on 5-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join