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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Then why are there abortions?




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra


Really? Show me, if you have more up to date numbers why not use those?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Of course there is, Just as much as there is an "anti-abortion" crowd.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra


Really? Show me, if you have more up to date numbers why not use those?


They are the numbers the CDC and the WHO currently use.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I never said people should be allowed to be irresponsible with no consequences. If someone has an unwanted child and they abuse and neglect that child, they should go to jail. But that still leaves an innocent child to deal with, who had no choice in the matter. Unlike you, I care about that child's well being. I would rather that parent not have the unwanted child in the first place - saves a lot of suffering on the child's part. Sure, it'd be ideal if everyone was sooooo responsible and never conceived an unwanted child. It would be ideal if everyone was able to get the right contraception for them, on their own, with no help from anyone else. But that just isn't the way it works in the real world.

The world and people in it are actually very complicated. It isn't always as simple as "keep yer legs closed or use a condom" and "make enough money to take care of your own child". Stuff happens. We can have the attitude that people who live in poverty deserve to suffer, and that unwanted children of people who live in poverty deserve to suffer OR... we could try to make the world a better place by helping those who have trouble helping themselves. Our choice. I choose the latter. Doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to be lazy or take advantage of my kindness. I believe a society should be judged on how it treats its weakest members. Do we leave them out in the cold and ignore them, or do we try to make the world a better place for us all?

I am all about education, and teaching a man to fish rather than just giving him fish. I'm all about programs which attempt to end multiple generations of poverty, and help give people the skills to take care of themselves. I am NOT about ignoring the sufferings of poverty with the attitude of "it's not my responsibility". I think it IS my responsibility to help my fellow humans when I see they need it.

I'll get off my soapbox now.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So weird that you relate care with death



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bennyzilla

and if you found that the reason was the fear of getting pregnant again, or maybe without you knowing, she was told by a doctor that the next pregnancy could possibly kill her, well, what then? no birth control is 100% effective, and I am certain that you wouldn't want to depend on condoms in that kind of situation. steriilations cost a pretty penny, and some families could possibly not afford it. iud's are cheap in the longrun but still have a pretty high initial cost. depo provera shots can cost up to around $150 per shot, the pill or patch could run as much as $50 a month....

you might have plenty of money to spend, but I spent most of my life with a husband who was a journeyman machinist, earning decent money, too much for gov't assistance, but well, things were tight. add to that the $100+ cost of my son's asthma medication along with the fact that many times he didn't work for companies that offered insurance, well....
let's just say we were struggling just to pay rent, and keep food on the table.

I can see where some families might not be able to eat that kind of cost, maybe you can't.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So where do you have your newer info you alluded to, or where did you get your knowledge that the "numbers haven't changed"



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It seems like your turning a hypothetical conversation into a very personal one that I no longer feel comfortable commenting on. I'm not here to judge you personal or attack you. My earlier post in regards to your question still stands after reading your newer post.

Once again though you've broken this wide argument down into a little specific example and then are trying to use the rationale for that minority and apply it to the majority.
edit on 5-2-2016 by Bennyzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: reldra

Of course there is, Just as much as there is an "anti-abortion" crowd.


Pro abortion would mean that you like abortions. That you want them to occur as opposed to not ocurring, in every and all situation. That would be pro- zero population growth.

Find one person who likes abortions and goes around telling people to never have children, that they should abort just because. That would be your pro abortion person. Alert us when you have them.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I used planned parenthood 25 years ago and it WASN'T free. the exams were not free and the bc was not free. it was cheaper, but not free.

it boggles my mind that people want to do away with it, AND oppose abortion.




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



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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.

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.


This is a question of simple math. In your PDF, it states that 18 out of 100 women experienced a pregnancy for condom usage. What is left out is was the condom used 100% of the time? Was is it used properly? Was it used with other forms of birth control?

Even if we take an 82% effective rate at face value, there is still practically little chance of getting pregnant with condom usage. This doesn't even take into account condoms with spermicide, if the guys still pulls out, if the woman is on the pill or any other additional scenario that would make it PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant.

For example, what is the failure rate if the guy is using a condom at 82% effective rate AND the girl is on the pill or whatever method you choose. IT IS LITERALLY ZERO!

What is really happening is that:

Guy only puts on condom only after he is ready to bust after he has been digging it out. This doesn't prevent pregnancy because there is precum.

The condom is put on incorrectly.

The condom is old and degraded as it has been in his wallet for 3 years

The condom was torn or punctured.

Again, there is practically no statistical possibility of chick getting pregnant with correct and consistent condom usage. does it happen? Yes. Nothing is impossible. But people also win the lotto.

So again, even if we accept that some number of pregnancies are in fact due to birth control failure, they in no mathematically possible way could ever add up to the millions of abortions and out of wedlock births that occur.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra

So where do you have your newer info you alluded to, or where did you get your knowledge that the "numbers haven't changed"


It is the current source on the CDC website. In do not know how to make this more clear to you.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

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.


I guess the big question is whether PP is the only place these women could go with no other avenue available to them? There are no other clinics in these areas? I do think the state should step up and provide this service if lost and that is fine with me. We are a Republic BTW.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: kaylaluv

So weird that you relate care with death


Preventing a life from ever experiencing suffering is kinder than the act of letting someone suffer without caring about its suffering.

But I thought we agreed to disagree?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

www.salon.com...

Just took googling "pro abortion people"



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You're right, my bad.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: reldra

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.

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.


This is a question of simple math. In your PDF, it states that 18 out of 100 women experienced a pregnancy for condom usage. What is left out is was the condom used 100% of the time? Was is it used properly? Was it used with other forms of birth control?

Even if we take an 82% effective rate at face value, there is still practically little chance of getting pregnant with condom usage. This doesn't even take into account condoms with spermicide, if the guys still pulls out, if the woman is on the pill or any other additional scenario that would make it PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant.

For example, what is the failure rate if the guy is using a condom at 82% effective rate AND the girl is on the pill or whatever method you choose. IT IS LITERALLY ZERO!

What is really happening is that:

Guy only puts on condom only after he is ready to bust after he has been digging it out. This doesn't prevent pregnancy because there is precum.

The condom is put on incorrectly.

The condom is old and degraded as it has been in his wallet for 3 years

The condom was torn or punctured.

Again, there is practically no statistical possibility of chick getting pregnant with correct and consistent condom usage. does it happen? Yes. Nothing is impossible. But people also win the lotto.

So again, even if we accept that some number of pregnancies are in fact due to birth control failure, they in no mathematically possible way could ever add up to the millions of abortions and out of wedlock births that occur.


You have to look up their definition of 'typical use'. That is what those numbers are.

A chick? What in the????????????



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

we aren't talking about abortion, we are talking about contraception! which since the methods have been improved and made more accessable has reduced the abortion rate, along with the rate of infantcide!

I suppose some would prefer we treat kids whose parents couldn't afford like this:

www.historyhome.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra

www.salon.com...

Just took googling "pro abortion people"


Ok, you found someone using the term, but it still matches pro choice. They were making a point.




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join