#111
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 03:33:37 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:20:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: What I am saying is that society should promote personal responsibility regarding sex. That includes but is not limited to taking effective measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy before it happens. Capitalism has capture sex as a marketing tool. good luck there. If the energy devoted to just allowing late term abortions were directed toward assuming that sort of personal responsibility, it would be a major change, and a major benefit for society. The planet is over populated and any method to prevent more is becoming worth consideration. Both Singapore and China have proven that population control is possible and does work. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:04:13 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" - IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the contraceptive. I see it as a lack of responsibility. Well it isn't. In "perfect use" there would be no deaths from motor accidents. I also totally discredit manufacturers claims and the NHS is a hightly vested business. I guess repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with an iron bar is also a 99% effective contraception. Which points out a major reason why people might use contraceptive. It's irresponsible to refuse any contraceptive, then abort the baby that results. It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears. Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use "contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her pregnancy. That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is coming through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow defending those men. I am just wondering about your verement focus on blaming other people a need for an abortion. You would have to be totaslly opposed to organ trasplatns as "people shoukd have taken better care of their bodies"; e oppossed to all treatment of accident victims as people should have driven absolutely safely, etc, etc. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 06:49:48 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote: On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:04:13 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote: Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" - IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the contraceptive. I see it as a lack of responsibility. Well it isn't. In "perfect use" there would be no deaths from motor accidents. I also totally discredit manufacturers claims and the NHS is a hightly vested business. I guess repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with an iron bar is also a 99% effective contraception. Which points out a major reason why people might use contraceptive. It's irresponsible to refuse any contraceptive, then abort the baby that results. It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears. Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use "contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her pregnancy. That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is coming through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow defending those men. I am just wondering about your verement focus on blaming other people a need for an abortion. You would have to be totaslly opposed to organ trasplatns as "people shoukd have taken better care of their bodies"; e oppossed to all treatment of accident victims as people should have driven absolutely safely, etc, etc. Since it "takes to tango", as it were, just who is the responsible party in the contraceptive category? -- Cheers, John B. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 10:12:05 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote: On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 13:36:30 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 01:56:25 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 01:11:50 +0000, Ralph Barone wrote: I think that Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and the majority of Old Testament writers) could have benefited by “just lightening the **** up”. As can all who quote their holy book to justify attrocities. Atrocities today, perhaps, but at the time of writing they were "truths". The law in other words. From my vague memory, just for a small and dying mob in the Levant I think, or one mob (that became two and later three)_ in the Middle East. I've always wondered just how many of the common folk were really affected by these various "codes" and WTF "life" in general was like where "the law" had to specifically state such matters. So what you're saying is that you do not believe in the freedom to live.. Re-read my comment. I make an comment and not a statement. I'll ignore the number of times you've given up 'freedom" for "safety" Perhaps you could point out to me when I've ever given up freedom for safety. This ought to be good watching you stretch your power of invention. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:52:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption.. But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting adoption? I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption. But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery, and it is not without risk. In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today. Err just abot all farming involving lifestock. But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner. Belief or supported by research? From a pro-abortion site: "The share of abortion patients relying on condoms decreased between 2000 and 2014 (from 28% to 24%), and there was a small but significant increase in the share of patients who relied on withdrawal (from 7% in 2000 to 9% in 2014). Use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods among abortion patients increased from 0.1% in 2000 to 1% in 2014. Jones notes that as more and more U.S. women rely on these methods, a larger number of individuals will experience method failure. It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods. "Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive use contributed to the abortion decline." -- - Frank Krygowski If there is one site you can absolutely depend upon to tell you the truth it is planned parenthood. You really are a whack job. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On 8/9/2019 2:49 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 21:04:13 -0700, Frank Krygowski wrote: Granted, the effectiveness is less if they are used only "typically" - IOW, sometimes not used. I don't see that as a fault of the contraceptive. I see it as a lack of responsibility. Well it isn't. In "perfect use" there would be no deaths from motor accidents. I also totally discredit manufacturers claims and the NHS is a hightly vested business. Then you should produce data for effectiveness from a source you consider valid. (BTW, one link I gave was from Planned Parenthood. Rather vested, I'd say, and on your team, so to speak.) It's irresponsible to refuse any contraceptive, then abort the baby that results. It is certainly unwise, but your point glosses over many of the reason why contraception is not used. Perhaps you should examine your fears. Throughout life i've encountered a few males who refused to use "contraception" and when she aborted "their" chld, then went over the top claiming 'she had no right". Shame they didn't make it clear they were prepared to act as a responsible father by supporting her during her pregnancy. That is another example of lack of responsibility. Your argument is coming through as a bit garbled, but I hope you're not somehow defending those men. I am just wondering about your verement focus on blaming other people a need for an abortion. You would have to be totaslly opposed to organ trasplatns as "people shoukd have taken better care of their bodies"; e oppossed to all treatment of accident victims as people should have driven absolutely safely, etc, etc. (Better type more slowly - or perhaps, post when sober. Your fingers are getting tangled.) Of course I'm not opposed to organ transplants. That's not even a realistic attempt at a "straw man" argument. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:42:55 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption. But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting adoption? I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption. But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery, and it is not without risk. In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today. Err just about all farming involving lifestock. But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner. Belief or supported by research? From a pro-abortion site: It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods. Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs. I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all. As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it. Nothing is 100% reliable. But there are common contraceptive measures that are much more than 95% reliable. It's irresponsible to refuse any contraceptive, then abort the baby that results. I believe your site states that in 2014, slightly over half of the abortions provided were to patients who reported using contraception the month they became pregnant. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-rele...th-they-became So, 49% were irresponsible harlots who should be denied an abortion and publicly stoned? Can the other 51% get an abortion -- or are they disqualified for some other reason, like for wanting an abortion? -- Jay Beattie. This is NOT a case of the ethics or morals of the woman and her partner. It is the HUMAN RIGHTS of the baby. Oregon ONLY allows capital punishment for aggravated murder but you don't seem to have the same respect for a baby. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:42:55 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption. But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting adoption? I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption. But why should a woman be compelled to be a brood mare? Requiring a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a form of slavery, and it is not without risk. In the time of slavery in the U.S., women slaves actually were compelled to be brood mares. A large part of the economic profit in owning slaves was breeding more of them for sale, not unlike puppy mills today. Err just about all farming involving lifestock. But modern women are not compelled to be brood mares. Most abortions happen because the women and their partners chose to have sex without use of contraceptives. That is a serious abandonment of personal responsibility, and it's not imposed by some slave owner. Belief or supported by research? From a pro-abortion site: It is also possible that some abortion patients became pregnant shortly after they stopped using LARCs or other contraceptive methods. Subjective opinion hidden in a pile of statistcs. I'll repeat: That was from a PRO-abortion site. Their "subjective opinion" seems to be it doesn't matter that most abortions are triggered by refusal to use contraception. They don't seem to care about that at all. As I've said in the past; contraception is not 100% reliable and that fact doesn't change no matter what anacronym they use to describe it. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Off Topic
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 4:15:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 3:08:35 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:54:34 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 10:06:09 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 10:42:55 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/8/2019 2:04 AM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:52:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 9:56 PM, news18 wrote: On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:13:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/7/2019 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 5:35:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: And it's too bad that so few of those mothers didn't choose adoption. But consider the vast amount of energy poured into making abortion available. What if that same energy were poured into promoting adoption? I suspect significantly more women would allow adoption. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off topic for UK, on topic for another good laugh at cyclists | Mr Pounder Esquire | UK | 1 | May 22nd 16 09:25 PM |
Three Greatest Inventions (2/3 On Topic, 1/3 Off Topic) | Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman | General | 21 | December 19th 06 05:40 AM |
Frank exchange of words with black cabbie New Topic Reply to Topic | spindrift | UK | 50 | August 7th 06 06:25 AM |
Sort of on topic/off topic: Rising toll of kids hurt on roads | wafflycat | UK | 4 | March 24th 06 06:28 PM |
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind | Thomas Wentworth | General | 7 | November 8th 05 10:46 PM |