|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 25 of 216:
| 
Oct 5 15:18 UTC 2000 |
#23> Has the government omitted young women from the equation? Will the
government fund abortions if the mother is 18?
|
jazz
|
|
response 26 of 216:
|
Oct 5 15:20 UTC 2000 |
I'd never thought of that angle before; if a woman is having an
unwanted child, odds are she may have more children in the future, and by
denying a abortion when her life is threatened, you could make a (probably
innacurate but rhetorically pwoerful) argument that the law is attempting to
prevent her from reproducing, and thereby implementing a crude form of
eugenics.
|
brighn
|
|
response 27 of 216:
|
Oct 5 15:25 UTC 2000 |
Well, not denying when her life is threatened, since most pro-lifers would
condemn her in that situation... more like, the doctor informs her that
bearing the child would destroy her reproductive system.
|
edina
|
|
response 28 of 216:
|
Oct 5 16:16 UTC 2000 |
Actually - I believe that if it is free for one, it should be free for all.
So therefore, Medicaid wouldn't enter into it - it would merely be a service
that one got.
And I am trying to figure out how someone got pregnant using the pill and a
condom. I think people fail to read the small type that says "If used
correctly". All that means to me is that they were incapable of using two
forms of contraception.
|
brighn
|
|
response 29 of 216:
|
Oct 5 16:35 UTC 2000 |
I think Edina fails to read the small type that says "Not 100% reliable even
when used correctly."
|
edina
|
|
response 30 of 216:
|
Oct 5 18:10 UTC 2000 |
But what are the chances when using the pill AND a condom correctly?
|
brighn
|
|
response 31 of 216:
|
Oct 5 18:37 UTC 2000 |
Assume a condom has a 0.5% annual percentage rate (an average woman having
an average amount of sex and using a fresh condom properly each time) of
failure.
Assume the same for the Pill.
that means, together, they have a 0.0025% failure rate. Sure.
But that isn't a 0% failure rate, and no combination of non-zero failure rates
will result in a 0% failure rate.
Truth is, you can use birth control methods as correctly as you want, there
is still a remote chance of failure.
And you never answered the question about whether the Government will fund
abortions for women under 20, since you accept that they might arguably be
ignorant to proper birth control.
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 216:
|
Oct 5 18:40 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 216:
|
Oct 5 19:00 UTC 2000 |
I'm pretty sure that a bulk of the condom and pill success rate
involves an inclusion for the part of a month a woman can't get pregnant
(under normal conditions, though there are exceptions and the rhythm method
ain't recommended no-how) and so they don't truly multiply together - maybe
75% of their effectiveness, perhaps more, is shared?
|
brighn
|
|
response 34 of 216:
|
Oct 5 19:26 UTC 2000 |
#32> Edina's argument was, in part, that she shouldn't have to pay for
irresponsibility. Mooncat responded that younger women can convincingly claim
ignorance, and so the lack of birth control use may be the result of
ignorance, not recklessness. Edina responded that, for that reason, she had
taken under 20s "out of the equation." Hence my question.
Apparently Edina sees nothing wrong with paying for everyone's
irresponsibility ("free" abortion for all, presumably funded by the
government, is ok), she just doesn't want to have to pay for poor people's
irresponsibility.
|
edina
|
|
response 35 of 216:
|
Oct 5 19:51 UTC 2000 |
That makes me sound like I am cold and unbending - which maybe on this I am.
It's hard for me to express how I feel about this without sounding like a
harpy - but first off - I am VERY pro-choice, but I hope I never have to make
the decision to terminate a pregnancy. But I support a woman's right to
choose.
Yes, contraception is not 100%. I think if you use multiple forms, it is 100%
- and don't throw numbers at me - I know people who have used multiple forms
and they aren't pregnant. I know women who don't take their pill correctly
and they got pregnant. Yes, anecdotal, but still.
Yes, I think abortion should be free for everyone - it is the rare socialist
in me. I resent people that are on medicaid (that my tax dollars help fund)
and have access to various forms of birth control that is free to them.
I konw I sound horrid - and if you met me and we talked about it in person,
you might understand more what I meant - but I have a pretty hard stance on
personal responsibility right now.
|
brighn
|
|
response 36 of 216:
|
Oct 5 20:16 UTC 2000 |
All make the question explicit, then:
Why is it all right for your tax dollars to go to making abortion free for
everyone, but it isn't all right for your tax dollars to go to making abortion
free for the poor? If it's about not wanting to pay for other people's
irresponsibility, then you're paying for more of that when it's fully
socialized.
(All => I'll, first line)
You may think all you like about 100% effectiveness. Math doesn't work that
way. Nobody in my life has ever died in a plane crash; that doesn't mean that
nobody's ever died in a plane crash.
My friend was not the sort of person to be irresponsible about either the pill
or condom use -- ESPECIALLY the latter, since she was more concerned about
AIDS than pregnancy. So what you're saying when you're saying that multiple
contraceptives are 100% effective is, you're calling me a liar or my friend
irresponsible. Why do you think I would get offended at such an implication?
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 216:
|
Oct 5 20:25 UTC 2000 |
I used to know a couple who had the unexpected pregnancy happen as well. Yes,
they were intelligent, well educated people being carefull.
But that 0.01% has to come from someone, you know.
|
jiffer
|
|
response 38 of 216:
|
Oct 5 20:45 UTC 2000 |
Not to throw numbers but there is NO true 100% effective birth control other
than abstanance.
IF a couple if on the pill and using a condom there is still that 0.01% that
conception will occur. People get sick, that undermines the effectiveness
of the pill, condoms break, there are super-sperm out there. There are
determined eggs!
|
brighn
|
|
response 39 of 216:
|
Oct 5 21:00 UTC 2000 |
Actually, I've heard that it's medically possible for a woman to get pregnant
if a man ejaculates near her in a body of non-chlorinated water. If so,
abstinance isn't even 100% safe. ;}
|
mary
|
|
response 40 of 216:
|
Oct 5 22:36 UTC 2000 |
Punishing someone for getting pregnant by making them have
the baby or jump though high hoops to get a safe abortion seems
pretty harsh to me.
Edina, so how do you expect this young woman would couldn't even get it
together enough to have safe sex to be a responsible parent? You must
have something in mind here.
In this particular decision money shouldn't be an issue.
|
mdw
|
|
response 41 of 216:
|
Oct 5 23:17 UTC 2000 |
If they're stupid enough to have kids, maybe the kids will either
require the services of our penal system (a profit center & vote
getter), or the kids may be keen on voting for anti-abortion
politicians. No church ever thrived by telling their constituents not
to have kids. Many, contrary-wise, have gone out of business doing so.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 42 of 216:
|
Oct 6 00:11 UTC 2000 |
I don't think I care much for either "it's cheaper to kill them now"
or "they'll dilute my franchise" as arguments in favor of public abortion
funding..
|
edina
|
|
response 43 of 216:
|
Oct 6 02:57 UTC 2000 |
Mary I don't know - I don't have the solution. I wish I did. I wish abortion
wasn't necessary at all - I wish we could put more money into teaching
contraception and abstinence . . .
I can't explain why I feel like I feel about Medicaid abortions. It makes
me sound wish-washy, but it still is how I think. I think it has to do with
Medicaid paying for so many forms of contraception.
|
brighn
|
|
response 44 of 216:
|
Oct 6 03:11 UTC 2000 |
I doubt there are many people who wouldn't prefer to live in a world where
abortion was unnecessary.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 45 of 216:
|
Oct 6 04:17 UTC 2000 |
re: 20 -- That's not nearly as good as "I did not have sexual relations with
that woman." Ok, ok...how about this one "Medical coverage for every American
man, woman, and child"? Strange...I don't have one of those blue and red cards
that you homeboy Bill was waving on TV, back in '92.
|
scg
|
|
response 46 of 216:
|
Oct 6 04:33 UTC 2000 |
Making a financial argument against Medicare funding of abortions doesn't make
too much sense. Even if we assume the kid is a perfect angel, a parent
needing Medicare may also need Welfare to raise the child. The financial
argument could perhaps be made in the other direction, but since it's
overpowered by some strong ethical arguments, it strikes me as wrong to do
so.
Clinton did indeed promise to institute universal health coverage. He tried
to do so. The President is not a dictator, and he wasn't able to get support
from Congress to make it happen. Whether a President with better political
and diplomatic skills would have been able to, I don't know.
A mechanism exists for punishing politicians who lie or don't keep promises.
The press and the opposition candidates both should be researching and
publicizing such statements, such that the voters can then make an informed
decision. If a candidate lies, the lie gets publicized, and the voters still
elect the candidate, the voters are presumably saying that despite what they
know about the candidate, they still want to elect him.
Determining whether a politician lied can be a bit difficult too. When Al
Gore told his story about the high school student who was having to stand up
the day he visited her classroom, when it turned out that was a temporary
problem due to the delivery of lots of new equipment, was he intentionally
lying, or had he just not found out the whole story? When Bill Clinton
promised universal health coverage and didn't deliver, did he lie, or was he
stopped by unanticipated forces beyond his control? When George Bush calls
himself compassionate, despite his having had a large number of people
executed and appearing to show no regret, is he lying or just stating a
(rather self serving) opinion? If you thought the Lewinsky investigation was
bad, just think would would happen if every campaign statement were prosecuted
to that extent.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 47 of 216:
|
Oct 6 05:30 UTC 2000 |
Re #35: it might make more sense (and explain your observation) that
0.5% is 5/1000, while 0.0025% is 0.025/1000 - a very noticeable ratio.
Re #31: that assumed that pregnancy with a condom and pregnancy with
the pill are statistically independent. That is not at all obvious.
|
senna
|
|
response 48 of 216:
|
Oct 6 05:49 UTC 2000 |
Personal responsibility is overrated. All behavior is inherently
society-caused. It is, quite literally, never my fault.
|
jazz
|
|
response 49 of 216:
|
Oct 6 13:45 UTC 2000 |
Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, Steve, I'm inclined to believe
that it's a case of being ill-informed (which is frightening enough in a
politician), the same way that I'd assume a friend was ill-informed before
they were lying.
|