Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions; Romney wants to cut access.

[koshergrl]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're not confused, you're a liar. You've had your nose rubbed in the fact that crime, ignorance, child abuse, abortion numbers and out of wedlock births have increased exponentially since the advent of legalized abortion.

Yet you continue to trot out the lie that abortion reduces these things.

Why is this?

Oh, I know. Because you're an abortion acolyte, committed to a culture of death.

Which means we as a society have work to do to address those issues; and the solution to those problems is not banning abortion.

There seems to be a link between abortion and an increased crime rate. Given that, if you goal is to reduce crime, wouldn't banning abortion make sense?

 

[koshergrl]

So we can deduct that widespread availability of contraception and legalized abortion results in more unplanned pregnancy, more abortion, more child abuse, and higher crime rates.

Hmmmm...

 

[JoeB131]

No, guy, it means you're being stupid.

The Rich aren't your friends, and they don't have the best interest of the country at heart.

Oh, but Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have you and "the best interest of the country at heart"?!?!

Holy shit are you the dumbest mother fucker ever

Hey everybody - JoeB. here thinks that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are his "friends"

Nope, don't think that at all. A politician is no friend of anyone but his own.

I do realize that in the struggle between working people and the wealthy, the Democrats are more on teh right side than the GOP is.

The GOP is actually starting to believe its own bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Big font alert--he's losing he argument.

Really? So you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid care about you? Seriously?

The big font is just to ensure nobody misses JoeB.'s ultra ignorant comment. It's imperative everyone see what a stupid fuck he is

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

I don't think any politician anywhere cares jack squat about anyone but themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was hired by Dean Witter. Dean witter took a chance on him; I believe that was Joe's point.

Actually, they didn't take a "chance" on him. He proved to them BEFORE they hired him that he was worthy through an unpaid intern position which he EARNED through a very rigorous screening process against other very worthy candidates.

Furthermore, every time I prove JoeB. wrong he "moves the goalposts" and/or changes the subject. The entire point is - Gardner did it without government.

If someone in his life helped him or a private company "helped" him, who gives a fuck? That just further proves my point that the private sector and charity can handle all of society's issues. He defeats his own arguments every time he posts something

Yes but Joe's point (I think) was that the internship was provided by another entity. All of us are warmed by the fires started by others. You, me, everyone.

The ones that start those fires warm themselves.

 

[candycorn]

So we can deduct that widespread availability of contraception and legalized abortion results in more unplanned pregnancy, more abortion, more child abuse, and higher crime rates.

Hmmmm...

No; no more than you can deduct that the Internet and ease of information has lead to reduced test scores.

For the 3rd time (at least) these things do not happen in a vacuum.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, they didn't take a "chance" on him. He proved to them BEFORE they hired him that he was worthy through an unpaid intern position which he EARNED through a very rigorous screening process against other very worthy candidates.

Furthermore, every time I prove JoeB. wrong he "moves the goalposts" and/or changes the subject. The entire point is - Gardner did it without government.

If someone in his life helped him or a private company "helped" him, who gives a fuck? That just further proves my point that the private sector and charity can handle all of society's issues. He defeats his own arguments every time he posts something

Yes but Joe's point (I think) was that the internship was provided by another entity. All of us are warmed by the fires started by others. You, me, everyone.

The ones that start those fires warm themselves.

This is true but since the fire warms 360 degrees, Mr. Gardner now employs others who are just as fortunate as he was.

 

[JoeB131]

I think when people work hard their whole lives, they shouldn't spend their golden years eating Alpo because we need to give the rich yet another tax cut that never seems to "trickle down" to the rest of us.

So instead we should "trickle up" the poverty so that nobody has any wealth, uh? Great thinking stupid...

No, I think we should have what we had when I was growing up.

My dad only had a HS education, but after coming back from WWII, he got into a good union job that let him have a good lifestyle, support a family (My mom didn't have to work until we were all big enough to go to school).

The union made sure he was getting his fair share of the profits... which is all you really should be doing.

The idea that we are working well when the top 10% have more wealth than the bottom 80% is just fucking insane. That's a third world country, not a functioning democracy.

 

[candycorn]

Really? So you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid care about you? Seriously?

The big font is just to ensure nobody misses JoeB.'s ultra ignorant comment. It's imperative everyone see what a stupid fuck he is

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

I don't think any politician anywhere cares jack squat about anyone but themselves.

I don't think that is true. I think there are concentric circles that explain a professional politician's order of concern. People like you and I are on the outer circle. Donors are further in. Party used to be somewhere in the middle but it is probably even closer than some donors. But there are some who re-order these often competing interests and you're closer with some than others.

 

[rightwinger]

So we can deduct that widespread availability of contraception and legalized abortion results in more unplanned pregnancy, more abortion, more child abuse, and higher crime rates.

Hmmmm...

Abstinence fails in 100% of unwanted pregnancies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.

Does Romney have a plan to make contraception illegal that I haven't heard of?

 

[candycorn]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.

Gee, then why do women take contraceptives? Dumbass.

 

[koshergrl]

Because they want to have sex with people they don't want to have babies with.

 

[candycorn]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

 

[koshergrl]

Is your retarded comment some sort of argument? Because I don't think the argument "women have fewer unwanted pregnancies if they take contraception" is supported by the statement "we know because women take contraceptives".

fucking loon.

 

[candycorn]

The link between unwanted pregnancy and crime is the same, a lack of personal responsibility. It's the idea that human beings are incapable of making rational decisions. They are impelled by something beyond their control. I MUST steal. I MUST have sex. To suggest otherwise is to say that dogs are smarter and more trainable than human beings are.

So you deny there is a link between crime and poverty?

Yes.

Ahh...hilarious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As much as Mitt Romney does. Or Rick Perry; John Kerry, Tom Foley, John McCain, etc... or any federal level politician. Thats for sure. My congressman and I correspond intermittently and he recognized me at a town hall once. I was floored by that.

If you think Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner or Mitt Romney care one shit about you, you're delusional in the extreme.

I don't think any politician anywhere cares jack squat about anyone but themselves.

I don't think that is true. I think there are concentric circles that explain a professional politician's order of concern. People like you and I are on the outer circle. Donors are further in. Party used to be somewhere in the middle but it is probably even closer than some donors. But there are some who re-order these often competing interests and you're closer with some than others.

Let me repeat, no politician anywhere in the universe cares about anything or anyone other than himself.

 

[koshergrl]

Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

A point that anyone with a scintilla of reading comprehension has already come to.

You've been sold a crap bill of goods because they count on you being retarded. And their faith in you is absolutely reasonable.

 

[candycorn]

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.

Does Romney have a plan to make contraception illegal that I haven't heard of?

No; he wants to eliminate Title X funding which will save (according to his website) $300M or the equivalent of about $1 per year per citizen. The stated reason on his website is that it will starve funding for abortion groups.

It's a mystery why he thinks more pregnancies (what you get when you don't use contraception) will lead to less abortions but then again, he's your candidate.