President Donald Trump: The Thread

[brett05]

If you want to decrease abortions, increase access to contraception. Being anti both is a ridiculous policy position.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ccess.html?_r=0

Teaching about birth control is helpful

[BigSqwert]

Source? Because I have some really good real world evidence that says the contrary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ng-success.html

 

Of course not. He never provides a source. He speaks from the gut.

[caulfield12]

Source? Because I have some really good real world evidence that says the contrary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ng-success.html

 

 

That's just fake news.

 

Only trust the Family Research Council on this matter.

[illinilaw08]

Teaching about birth control is helpful

 

You literally just said abstinence only education is effective. Abstinence only, by definition, means no birth control.

[Steve9347]

Why exactly are thousands of women dropping dead with less access to abortion? Do you believe that or are you just parroting Vox.com lol. Did thousands of women die in the 1800's because of lack of access to abortion? To be clear, I am totally for women's abortion rights and border on encouraging it. In essence, don't have kids you can't provide a good life to. That being said, this article is just fear-mongering from a bad source.

I wish I could be this blissfully ignorant.

[StrangeSox]

I think brett was referring specifically to the abortion side of that claim.

 

edit: lol guess not, shame on me for giving him the benefit of the doubt

 

Abstinence only is a form of birth control. Also the only one that is 100% full proof

 

edit2: still confused

Edited January 24, 2017 by StrangeSox

[brett05]

Source? Because I have some really good real world evidence that says the contrary.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/...ng-success.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/male-a...4b0e66ad4c812f6

Speaks of it, the issues with it as well.

[brett05]

You literally just said abstinence only education is effective. Abstinence only, by definition, means no birth control.

Abstinence only is a form of birth control. Also the only one that is 100% full proof

[Steve9347]

Do you consider the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health" a bad source?

#fakestats

 

Seriously. We live in a world where people like raBBit here and on Facebook will just deny hard truths and continue to only care about what happens in their own home. If others are affected, what's the big deal? raBBit's ok! Forget everyone else.

 

Ugh, the mentality makes me f***ing sick to my stomach.

[brett05]

I think brett was referring specifically to the abortion side of that claim.

 

edit: guess not?

Correct, we save millions of lives in this world by outlawing abortion.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion.

 

Millions saved.

 

The statistics demonstrated a significant increase in abortions after this funding was removed.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

[StrangeSox]

Correct, we save millions of lives in this world by outlawing abortion.

 

I'm legitimately confused at this point. I understand you're against abortion, but are you also against contraceptive education and supplies, and are you in favor of abstinence-only education?

[brett05]

The statistics demonstrated a significant increase in abortions after this funding was removed.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

I appreciate the information, however it does not address that we shouldn't be funding murders. If a government still allows the abortions, that's on them, right?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Lots of research done by the religious community says otherwise.

 

If there's anyone I trust for quality scientific research, it's "the religious community".

[Steve9347]

I just wasn't aware the US was a developing country.

More blissful ignorance. You realize that the US is was supporting women and young girls from other countries here? Women and young girls that will now die trying to find other means to abort children they cannot support?

 

What a selfish, ignorant post. Please, you've got like 6 posts in here s***ting on an article you clearly didn't read. You are providing nothing to this thread.

[brett05]

I'm legitimately confused at this point. I understand you're against abortion, but are you also against contraceptive education and supplies, and are you in favor of abstinence-only education?

I am in favor of sex within the bonds of marriage.

[BigSqwert]

If there's anyone I trust for quality scientific research, it's "the religious community".

 

I particularly enjoyed reading their "Earth is flat" papers from back in the day.

[StrangeSox]

I appreciate the information, however it does not address that we shouldn't be funding murders. If a government still allows the abortions, that's on them, right?

 

 

I am in favor of sex within the bonds of marriage.

 

Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy.

 

*should modify my own post to clarify that the end result is worse from their own stated goals of fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions

Edited January 24, 2017 by StrangeSox

[brett05]

I particularly enjoyed reading their "Earth is flat" papers from back in the day.

you are violating the rules....i know it does not apply to you.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I appreciate the information, however it does not address that we shouldn't be funding murders. If a government still allows the abortions, that's on them, right?

 

No one was funding murders. No one was funding abortions. Can you at least read some of the articles being posted so you have the first idea of what is being discussed?

 

Funding cut => less contraception => more unwanted pregnancies => more dangerous abortions

[illinilaw08]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/male-a...4b0e66ad4c812f6

Speaks of it, the issues with it as well.

 

That link, at no point, says that abstinence only education is effective. To the contrary, it discusses the impact of men who adhere to abstinence only pledges on future married life. So, try again.

 

For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that voluntary abstinence is a bad thing. As cited in your link, however, 85% of men have sex before marriage. Thus, abstinence before people are ready to have kids simply isn't happening. If people are going to have sex prior to being ready for kids, access to affordable contraception is the best policy to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Anything else is legislating based on an antiquated version of morality.

[brett05]

Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy.

It's not worse, you've ended millions of lives by allowing abortions.

[Steve9347]

I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion.

 

Millions saved.

When faced with statistics, brett05 placed upon his brow a red cap upon which read the strong words "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". Without avail, he simply replied with a rebuttal that would stop scholars and the knowledgeable dead in their tracks.

 

"I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion."

 

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, brett05 had stated words proudly so ignorant and incorrect that the very people with he was arguing threw their hands up. For on this day, brett05 has won the internet, as arguing with him is akin to arguing with a brick wall spray painted with the words "America First".

 

And thus, figurative laptops were closed.

[brett05]

That link, at no point, says that abstinence only education is effective. To the contrary, it discusses the impact of men who adhere to abstinence only pledges on future married life. So, try again.

 

For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that voluntary abstinence is a bad thing. As cited in your link, however, 85% of men have sex before marriage. Thus, abstinence before people are ready to have kids simply isn't happening. If people are going to have sex prior to being ready for kids, access to affordable contraception is the best policy to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Anything else is legislating based on an antiquated version of morality.

1) It speaks of waiting and the benefits there of. It also speaks of the issues that need to be addressed for some.

2) just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it shouldn't be happening.

3) What makes it antiquated? What determines morality?

[brett05]

When faced with statistics, brett05 placed upon his brow a red cap upon which read the strong words "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". Without avail, he simply replied with a rebuttal that would stop scholars and the knowledgeable dead in their tracks.

 

"I disagree. More lives will be saved. Those 20 million doing it legally aren't going to look for an illegal method in mass to account for the loss of life done by those women having an illegal abortion."

 

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, brett05 had stated words proudly so ignorant and incorrect that the very people with he was arguing threw their hands up. For on this day, brett05 has won the internet, as arguing with him is akin to arguing with a brick wall spray painted with the words "America First".

 

And thus, figurative laptops were closed.

Did you get that math issue solved on the increase of the deficit under President Obama fixed yet?