That's a statement, not a link.

Who is the Guttmacher Institute?

(07-01-2015 11:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That's a statement, not a link.

Who is the Guttmacher Institute?

Let's face it soybean, the only reason why you refuse to accept that is because it goes against what you want the reality to be. There are plenty of sources that confirmed this and I gave you a snippet of one. If you were being fair towards me you wouldn't be pulling this crap with me. I know you far to well which is why I am done with this. It doesn't matter if I provide one or a hundred links. You will never change your opinion on this.

Oh wait....I found out who the The Guttmacher Institute is.

Quote:The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Funny....they don't claim that heritage on their own site.




Like I said JohnnyZero......an UNBIASED source.

Oh and who was the The Guttmacher Institute named for? Dr. Alan Guttmacher. What else was he known for? Founding The Association for the Study of Abortions.


I am shocked....SHOCKED I TELL YOU....that a group that names itself after a baby killer comes out with a study that says "abortions are good".

If it's true JohnnyZero you should be able to provide what was asked for originally.....an unbiased source. Abortions have been the law of the land since Roe_v_Wade.....go ahead and provide us with a government study.

(07-02-2015 12:03 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Oh wait....I found out who the The Guttmacher Institute is.

Quote:The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Funny....they don't claim that heritage on their own site.




Like I said JohnnyZero......an UNBIASED source.

You couldn't even answer my question. What is cheaper, raising a kid or providing contraception to a single person? YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE THAT ALONE KILLS YOUR POINT.

And just to show how small of a man you are, you instantly discredit that link simply because of who said it rather than what it says. I picked it because it is very specific about the situation at hand, and no other link explains it as good as that one does. It is also one of the most cited references when you search for this question in google including the .gov and neutral factchecking websites.

That's the difference between you and myself. You discredit things based on political ideology, I take things for what they are.


Oh and here's your non-biased link and it's kinda pathetic that you will only allow this to sway your opinion over 1) basic logic & 2) the best research institute in the field.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots...yers-money

(07-02-2015 12:15 AM)john01992 Wrote:  You couldn't even answer my question. What is cheaper, raising a kid or providing contraception to a single person? YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE THAT ALONE KILLS YOUR POINT.

So are we also allowed to abort those who need government assistance because it would be cheaper? Or do you only have the stomach to kill babies?

Kap... just an FYI:

I see EXACTLY what you are doing with those edits. That is as unethical as it gets. If that's not an AUP violation then it should become one and named "the Kapony rule."

(07-02-2015 12:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:15 AM)john01992 Wrote:  You couldn't even answer my question. What is cheaper, raising a kid or providing contraception to a single person? YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE THAT ALONE KILLS YOUR POINT.

So are we also allowed to abort those who need government assistance because it would be cheaper? Or do you only have the stomach to kill babies?

You mean the same babies the GOP wants to force to be carried to term only to cut off welfare for said baby? Don't play the moral high card with me. Only difference between us is that you prefer to see a human suffer, I prefer common sense to prevail.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots...yers-money

Quote:an analysis from the left-leaning Brookings Institution adds an economic twist to the debate over coverage of contraception.

Again...unbiased please.

(07-02-2015 12:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Kap... just an FYI:

I see EXACTLY what you are doing with those edits. That is as unethical as it gets. If that's not an AUP violation then it should become one and named "the Kapony rule."

What edits?

(06-30-2015 12:47 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:42 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Sounds like a racist plot to deny reproductive care to minority women and keep the cycle of poverty and unplanned parenthood going in perpetuity.

Good point.

Personally, I think it should be easier to kill

I don't believe you, shiftyeagle. To prove you are sincere, simply take a gun and start with yourself--if you simply re-label what you are doing as a "late-term post-birth abortion" and you will avoid any legal penalties or jail. Then I might believe you.

I.rhink retroactive abortion is the term you are looking for

(07-02-2015 01:10 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:47 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:42 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 12:39 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Sounds like a racist plot to deny reproductive care to minority women and keep the cycle of poverty and unplanned parenthood going in perpetuity.

Good point.

Personally, I think it should be easier to kill

I don't believe you, shiftyeagle. To prove you are sincere, simply take a gun and start with yourself--if you simply re-label what you are doing as a "late-term post-birth abortion" and you will avoid any legal penalties or jail. Then I might believe you.

I.rhink retroactive abortion is the term you are looking for

Kind of like our friends at izis are doing--just helping their fellow brothers make a choice-by throwing them off buildings and beheadings, cut and dialate, suck out the brains with a vacuum, coat-hangers, it's all really the same! whoopie!

I think the abortion tax should be a woman's fertility. They should have their tubes tied while they receive the abortion. They are basically admitting that they have not been responsible with their bodies, and that they are so heartless that they would kill a helpless baby to cover for their irresponsibility. This will protect the freedom of these women to continue their irresponsible, selfish lifestyle, while reducing the number of taxpayer funded abortions that are performed, which helps assuage those who are offended by abortion, and also helps the financial bottom line.

This only solves half the problem. It takes two people to procreate, so we must go after both of the irresponsible parties. Once the fetus has been aborted, do a genetic test on it to verify the father, and subject him to chemical castration so that he cannot irresponsibly impregnate anyone else. This would have a huge effect on men being more responsible with the procreative equipment and result in fewer abortions and less unprotected sex out of wedlock.

(07-01-2015 03:33 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  How about we tax abortions and subsidize the cost of contraception?

Our tax money already pays for the miracle pill my man.

It pays for your Viagra?

(07-02-2015 12:03 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Oh wait....I found out who the The Guttmacher Institute is.

Quote:The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Funny....they don't claim that heritage on their own site.




Like I said JohnnyZero......an UNBIASED source.

Let me guess. Brookings Institute has a left wing bias too.

(07-04-2015 05:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:03 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Oh wait....I found out who the The Guttmacher Institute is.

Quote:The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Funny....they don't claim that heritage on their own site.




Like I said JohnnyZero......an UNBIASED source.

Let me guess. Brookings Institute has a left wing bias too.

Dunno......but it probably speaks volumes when an entity like NPR (who itself is just barely to the right of Friedrich Engels) says this about them:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots...yers-money

Quote:an analysis from the left-leaning Brookings Institution adds an economic twist to the debate over coverage of contraception.

I highlighted it for you since you were obviously too dense to read it when I posted the exact same thing earlier in the thread. Maybe you'll get it this time around.

(07-03-2015 05:11 PM)PlainTiger Wrote:  I think the abortion tax should be a woman's fertility. They should have their tubes tied while they receive the abortion. They are basically admitting that they have not been responsible with their bodies, and that they are so heartless that they would kill a helpless baby to cover for their irresponsibility. This will protect the freedom of these women to continue their irresponsible, selfish lifestyle, while reducing the number of taxpayer funded abortions that are performed, which helps assuage those who are offended by abortion, and also helps the financial bottom line.

It takes 2. What do we do to you should you accidentally get a woman pregnant? Castration?

Btw, as predicted, the war on women is heating up as 2016 gets closer.

(07-04-2015 03:04 PM)Pellet Wrote:  This only solves half the problem. It takes two people to procreate, so we must go after both of the irresponsible parties. Once the fetus has been aborted, do a genetic test on it to verify the father, and subject him to chemical castration so that he cannot irresponsibly impregnate anyone else. This would have a huge effect on men being more responsible with the procreative equipment and result in fewer abortions and less unprotected sex out of wedlock.

Beat me to it. Problem is many of the same people who are so devoted to ending abortions are also want to take away any form of protection(for themselves and people they don't even know) based on their religion. Their whole answer is abstinence which goes against nature. People have sex in or out of marriage- especially in a day and age where people don't marry until much later in life.

(07-04-2015 11:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 03:04 PM)Pellet Wrote:  This only solves half the problem. It takes two people to procreate, so we must go after both of the irresponsible parties. Once the fetus has been aborted, do a genetic test on it to verify the father, and subject him to chemical castration so that he cannot irresponsibly impregnate anyone else. This would have a huge effect on men being more responsible with the procreative equipment and result in fewer abortions and less unprotected sex out of wedlock.

Beat me to it. Problem is many of the same people who are so devoted to ending abortions are also want to take away any form of protection(for themselves and people they don't even know) based on their religion. Their whole answer is abstinence which goes against nature. People have sex in or out of marriage- especially in a day and age where people don't marry until much later in life.

My whole message isn't abstinence, but RESPONSIBILITY. Take some responsibility for your own actions! If you don't want a baby, take some precautions. I do support the use of contraceptives. My wife and I used them at times when we were not ready to have children. And, in the event that the contraceptive failed, we were both ready and willing to have the baby and accept our parental responsibility to that child.

As far as the man's involvement, well you have a point there. Both parties share responsibility, it's not all on the woman. I realize my proposal was extreme. I just feel that abortion is a horrific crime, and there needs to be some form of deterrent in place.

As far as going against nature, I would submit that an abortion goes against nature. Wouldn't the fetus develop into a baby and be born, if it was allowed to?