A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Off Topic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old August 9th 19, 05:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 07:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 08:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 04:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 466
Default Off Topic

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 4:11:00 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 5:06 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:20:42 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 1:42 PM, 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.

  #115  
Old August 9th 19, 05:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 05:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 05:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,591
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 05:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 761
Default 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  
Old August 9th 19, 06:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default 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  
Old August 10th 19, 01:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:40 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 05:28 PM
This is off topic some ... but on topic also... make up your mind Thomas Wentworth General 7 November 8th 05 09:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.