danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Pearls before swine...

Uh.

And, I didn't get one "thank you" for the list I found to reduce birth control pill costs! C'mon people!

Not much use to me, as the pill is free on the NHS.

Isn't that neat-o! No one pays for it!

bbauska

I can show the studies, but you would just disregard them anyway

Neither you nor Fate are real big on substantiating claims...
Since the audience that is debating you is real big on offering evidence, and carefully evaulating the evidence offered.... its a good indication that perhaps you are simply wrong not to offer your evidence.
To give you hope; some years ago you offered evidence that substantially changed my views on home schooling...

Now, whats the evidence?

Fate, when you quote some, cut and paste the quote. What you do is paraphrase the way your alleged mind reads the actual words.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I can show the studies, but you would just disregard them anyway

Neither you nor Fate are real big on substantiating claims...
Since the audience that is debating you is real big on offering evidence, and carefully evaulating the evidence offered....

Oh, for the love of Mike. No, just no. You can't just post that garbage. When do you "carefully evaluate (sic) the evidence?"

Have you watched ANY of the CMP/PP videos?

To give you hope; some years ago you offered evidence that substantially changed my views on home schooling...

Well, there is a glimmer of hope. So, that's what, once in a decade?

Fate, when you quote some, cut and paste the quote. What you do is paraphrase the way your alleged mind reads the actual words.

I eagerly await Danivon pointing out that you crossed the line.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I can show the studies, but you would just disregard them anyway

Neither you nor Fate are real big on substantiating claims...
Since the audience that is debating you is real big on offering evidence, and carefully evaulating the evidence offered.... .

That's too funny ... Ricky is as careful evaluating evidence as he is careful spelling "evaluate".

ray

That's too funny ... Ricky is as careful evaluating evidence as he is careful spelling "evaluate"

Ha ha. You noticed a spelling mistake.
So tell me Ray. On this debate where have people made claims tha they haven't backed up with evidence.
Or have made claims with weak evidence?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Pearls before swine...

Uh.

And, I didn't get one "thank you" for the list I found to reduce birth control pill costs! C'mon people!

Not much use to me, as the pill is free on the NHS.

Isn't that neat-o! No one pays for it!

Of course someone pays for it. I do, as a taxpayer, in fact.

But it means that women (like my wife, my sister, my mother or my nieces) won't have to pay for it at the point of provision or through insurance.

But we digress. I suggested that there was more the US could do (and I could not give a fig whether it was the Federal level, State level or groups of traveling monks doing it).

You said it already was, for the most part, and threw in some gratis snark but precious little in the way of evidence. Ricky and then Freeman provided counter-assertions to yours which were backed up with evidence that you can't be bothered to read. Which is somehow everyone's fault but your own.

So, do you have any actual evidence that (for example) it is common or even universal that mothers get paid maternity leave in the USA? And that their jobs are protected even in "Right to Work" States?

Because this is about a key question - if you guys are so keen to value the lives of a fetus, do you want to follow through on the value of the life of the born child, and on ways to incentivise keeping a baby?

And would you work to reduce abortions over time through those methods, or rely on banning it and encouraging the good ol' "abstinence", which in principle work but in practice fail miserably?

And will you look at Ben Carson's clear lack of concern at the time that the body parts he used came from aborted fetuses, or is it OK for some reason?

I don't want to go through the argument on the minimum wage as it is another departure from the topic.

danivon wrote:Of course someone pays for it. I do, as a taxpayer, in fact.

But it means that women (like my wife, my sister, my mother or my nieces) won't have to pay for it at the point of provision or through insurance.

And, I showed how the cost could be as low as $4 a month. I suspect there are few people in the US who cannot afford that. Furthermore, for anyone, in the ENTIRE country, who cannot afford it, I make this offer: show me your budget. If I determine you cannot afford it, I'll pay for it myself--out of my own pocket.

People make choices. Go to any welfare office in the US. Many/most of the people there will have tattoos and will be smokers. Most of them will be drinkers. It's about priorities. They are free to do what they want, but . . . you can't complain "I have no money" and then spend it on non-necessities.

You said it already was, for the most part, and threw in some gratis snark but precious little in the way of evidence. Ricky and then Freeman provided counter-assertions to yours which were backed up with evidence that you can't be bothered to read. Which is somehow everyone's fault but your own.

Frankly, this is trash, garbage, swill.

A list of 6-10 links is not "evidence." Sorry, it's just not. Tell you what: you read the "evidence" and provide summaries.

So, do you have any actual evidence that (for example) it is common or even universal that mothers get paid maternity leave in the USA? And that their jobs are protected even in "Right to Work" States?

Per the FMLA:

The FMLA mandates unpaid, job-protected leave for up to 12 weeks a year:

to care for a new child, whether for the birth of a son or daughter, or for the adoption or placement of a child in foster care;
to care for a seriously ill family member (spouse, son, daughter, or parent) (Note: Son/daughter has been clarified by the Department of Labor to mean a child under the age of 18 or a child over the age of 18 with a mental or physical disability as defined by the American Disabilities Act, which excludes among other conditions, pregnancy and post-partum recovery from childbirth);[16]
to recover from a worker’s own serious illness;
to care for an injured service member in the family; or
to address qualifying exigencies arising out of a family member’s deployment.
twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).[17]

The FMLA further requires employers to provide for eligible workers:

the same group health insurance benefits, including employer contributions to premiums, that would exist if the employee were not on leave.
restoration to the same position upon return to work. If the same position is unavailable, the employer must provide the worker with a position that is substantially equal in pay, benefits, and responsibility.
protection of employee benefits while on leave. An employee is entitled to reinstatement of all benefits to which the employee was entitled before going on leave.
protection of the employee to not have their rights under the Act interfered with or denied by an employer.
protection of the employee from retaliation by an employer for exercising rights under the Act.
intermittent FMLA leave for his or her own serious health condition, or the serious health condition of a family member. This includes occasional leave for doctors’ appointments for a chronic condition, treatment (e.g., physical therapy, psychological counseling,chemotherapy), or temporary periods of incapacity (e.g., severe morning sickness, asthma attack).[

Now, it is "unpaid." However, most employers (all that I've ever heard of) permit employees to accrue time and then take it off as paid leave. My daughters did this. Every female I supervised did this when they had a baby.

Additionally, it varies by company--like many other benefits. For example:

Software company Adobe Systems Inc. said on Monday it is doubling the maternity leave it grants, making it the third company in the US technology industry in a week to give new parents more paid time off.

New mothers at the California-based firm will receive 26 weeks of paid leave, up from 12 weeks, and primary caregivers and new parents will get 16 weeks of paid parental leave.http://nypost.com/2015/08/10/adobe-doub ... w-parents/

A woman has several months, possibly years (if the pregnancy is planned), to save time. Frankly, if that's not good enough, please stay in your socialist haven.

Because this is about a key question - if you guys are so keen to value the lives of a fetus, do you want to follow through on the value of the life of the born child, and on ways to incentivise keeping a baby?

That's a unique position. What's the "incentive" to not kill your annoying neighbor? I mean what if it was legal to just kill him? Why wouldn't you?

"Oh, but that's different." Is it?

Again, any woman in America who is thinking of having an abortion--contact me. I will find you a family willing to adopt your child. Really. That's how much I care. I will personally do that.

And would you work to reduce abortions over time through those methods, or rely on banning it and encouraging the good ol' "abstinence", which in principle work but in practice fail miserably?

Get yourself a BIG pile of straw, soak it in kerosene, and put that puppy to the match why don't you?

I've said none of those things. And, this is the irrationality of "your" side. You SAY we're not serious, but you would not dream of actually letting us do what we say we'll do.

And will you look at Ben Carson's clear lack of concern at the time that the body parts he used came from aborted fetuses, or is it OK for some reason?

Prove it. He says it wasn't like has been cited--that it's a liberal meme. This is what he posted about abortion on his website:

“It’s a baby.” That sentence has been resonating in my mind ever since I watched this latest undercover video put out by the Center for Medical Progress about Planned Parenthood. As a medical assistant rummages through the mangled babies’ parts, we can apparently hear Dr. Savita Ginde acknowledge this as a human life, a baby, in her words “war-torn,” from the barbaric practice of harvesting body parts from abortions.

and

I am unabashedly and entirely pro-life. Human life begins at conception and innocent life must be protected.

As a pediatric neurosurgeon, I took the Hippocratic Oath to “First, Do No Harm.” My medical career was devoted to protecting and enhancing the lives of children and their families. Protecting innocent life is a duty consistent with that solemn oath.

As a surgeon, I have operated on infants pre-birth. I can assure you that they are very much alive.

My commitment to protect innocent life goes back decades. For years I have helped raise money for a wide spectrum of faith-based entities that assist expectant mothers with the birth of their child by providing a variety of valuable, pro-life services.

Here's what he said regarding the spurious charges:

"We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age -- from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons," Carson said. "To not use the tissue that is in a tissue bank, regardless of where it comes from, would be foolish. Why would anybody not do that?"

Carson also issued a statement, saying, "There is absolutely no contradiction between the research I worked on in 1992 and my pro-life views. The issue of fetal tissue has everything to do with how the tissue is acquired. My primary responsibility in that research was operating on people to obtain diseased tissue for comparison to banked tissue samples. Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in our research."

And later Thursday, Carson went on Facebook to further defend his work.

"I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing," he said in a post. "Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study."

Of course, what does he know? He's only a neurosurgeon. On the other hand, you are . . . ?

rickyp wrote:Fate, when you quote some, cut and paste the quote. What you do is paraphrase the way your alleged mind reads the actual words.

And, I'm still waiting for danivon to call you out for crossing the line.

I wonder if he'll be consistent in his outrage?

rickyp wrote:ray

That's too funny ... Ricky is as careful evaluating evidence as he is careful spelling "evaluate"

Ha ha. You noticed a spelling mistake.
So tell me Ray. On this debate where have people made claims tha they haven't backed up with evidence.
Or have made claims with weak evidence?

I'm staying out of this debate ... but don't fret, I'll continue to point out times when you make claims without evidence and when your thinking is not careful in other forums.

Alright, you asked for it, DF

(1) Owen suggested encouraging and subsidizing contraception.

(a) you argued that price competition led to cheap costs for contraception.
(b) My link indicated the following:

(i) half of pregnancies in the US are unintended.
(ii) of 36 million women who need contraception half need publicly-funded services to obtain it
(iii) More than one in five health care providers indicate that of most of their patients seeking contraception have difficulty paying for their visits
(iv) 1 out of 5 women 15-44 do not have have health care coverage. Uninsured women are more likely to not use contraception. Those with health care coverage may have difficulty with co-pays
(v) some women, particularly in rural areas, have difficulty getting to pharmacies. Some pharmacies will not fill prescriptions for contraception.
(vi) Research shows that for every $1 spent on publicly funded clinics $4 is saved in Medicaid birth costs that are avoided.

http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/publi ... tfinal.pdf


(c) Analysis: DF ignores the cost of going to the doctor to get the prescription. He also ignores the fact that poor have a hard time with any out-of-pocket costs. And of course pharmacists who oppose birth control (at least some of them) will not fill prescriptions. Condoms are not that cheap and their use is not entirely under a woman's control. DF's blithe assessment that contraception is already readily and cheaply available to everyone is wrong

(2) Owen suggested comprehensive sex education in schools.
(a) DF said this was already being done
(b) my link stated:

(i) We have the highest teen birth rate in the industrialized world.
(ii) only 22 states mandate sex education
(iii) Teens have a much higher rate of contracting STDs
(iv) 35 states allow parents to opt out of sex education

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/sta ... hools.aspx


Analysis: DF is, well, wrong again.

(3) Owen suggested mandatory paid maternity leave
(a) DF said " I believe this is the case in most or all states"
(b) my link:

(i) Federal law requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employers
(ii) three states require paid family leave

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and- ... -laws.aspx




Analysis: Unless 3 states means most then DF is wrong again.

(4) Employment protection for pregnant woman
(a) DF believes this exists already
(b) my link:

(i) there is federal protection but only with employers of 15 or more and there is a lot of litigation with over 250,000 women saying their requests for accommodation have been turned down. Some states (12) have additional protection

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... nt-workers

Analysis: Partially correct but given that companies that employ less than 15 employees are not covered and there are only 12 states that go beyond the federal protection...DF is incorrect again.

(5) Child-care subsidies for poor working women
(a) DF says these already exist
(b) My link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi ... bstudy.pdf

Analysis: This is a large study (and dated) but from I could it looks like child care subsidies are pretty decent. DF is right out on this

Yeah, I would not want to look at the links if I were you, DF.

The more anti-abortion groups are willing to look at alternate ways of controlling abortion other than talking about the immorality of women in having abortions ...the more pro-choice folks will be convinced that anti-abortion are actually concerned about preserving life as opposed to controlling women...Owen made some suggestions that might reduce abortions and if anti- abortion groups are indifferent to that type of thinking...then we pretty much know that their motivations ain't primarily concerned with the fetus...

freeman3 wrote:Alright, you asked for it, DF

(1) Owen suggested encouraging and subsidizing contraception.

(a) you argued that price competition led to cheap costs for contraception.
(b) My link indicated the following:

(i) half of pregnancies in the US are unintended.(bold added)

"Unintended" is rather nebulous.

I read the link. They don't define it.Is it "unwanted?" I doubt it.

From your link:

7% of women (ages 15-44) are not using contraception and are at risk for unintended pregnancy.

Weird. So, half of the pregnancies in the US come from the 7%?

(ii) of 36 million women who need contraception half need publicly-funded services to obtain it
(iii) More than one in five health care providers indicate that of most of their patients seeking contraception have difficulty paying for their visits

Sorry, I don't believe this. Birth control is cheap. Really cheap. Frankly, this all seems like propaganda. So, I go to the group's website and . . . it is. They are pro-abortion. They're not some neutral party. They're an advocacy group. So, what a shock that they think the government HAS to do everything!

(c) Analysis: DF ignores the cost of going to the doctor to get the prescription.

Sure, because people go to doctors in any event. You mean to tell me they have to make a special appointment for that alone? Nothing else can be combined with it?

That's my analysis.

He also ignores the fact that poor have a hard time with any out-of-pocket costs. And of course pharmacists who oppose birth control (at least some of them) will not fill prescriptions. Condoms are not that cheap and their use is not entirely under a woman's control. DF's blithe assessment that contraception is already readily and cheaply available to everyone is wrong

You've not proven that. You've got an advocacy group that would say anything to get the government to pay for more.

(2) Owen suggested comprehensive sex education in schools.
(a) DF said this was already being done
(b) my link stated:

(i) We have the highest teen birth rate in the industrialized world.
(ii) only 22 states mandate sex education
(iii) Teens have a much higher rate of contracting STDs
(iv) 35 states allow parents to opt out of sex education

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/sta ... hools.aspx

Thanks for doing this. I appreciate the effort. However, using groups that are one-sided. Look, if I cherry-pick studies from pro-life groups, which I can if you want, are you going to believe the work they do? No. And, I don't buy this nonsense. Furthermore, this is a state by state, even a district by district, situation. Your resource doesn't do that work. Frankly, I doubt anyone could--it would be massive.

Analysis: DF is, well, wrong again.

No, I'm not buying your crappy studies. Sorry.

(3) Owen suggested mandatory paid maternity leave
(a) DF said " I believe this is the case in most or all states"
(b) my link:

(i) Federal law requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employers
(ii) three states require paid family leave

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and- ... -laws.aspx

I already covered this. My experience is based on both public and private employers. They provide pay provided the employee has sick time, etc. on the books.

Analysis: Unless 3 states means most then DF is wrong again.

Analysis: you're partly right (it's not a Federal right to PAID time off); however, many/most employers do this in a different way. Again, anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to the socialist utopia of their choice--where abortions are as common as lattes.

(4) Employment protection for pregnant woman
(a) DF believes this exists already
(b) my link:

(i) there is federal protection but only with employers of 15 or more and there is a lot of litigation with over 250,000 women saying their requests for accommodation have been turned down. Some states (12) have additional protection

Analysis: Partially correct but given that companies that employ less than 15 employees are not covered and there are only 12 states that go beyond the federal protection...DF is incorrect again.

Actually, I am right. Companies with less than 15 employees . . . how many work in these kind of situations? Oh, and I've seen "requests for accommodation" and they are not necessarily reasonable, so you're playing pretty fast and loose here.

(5) Child-care subsidies for poor working women
(a) DF says these already exist
(b) My link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi ... bstudy.pdf

Analysis: This is a large study (and dated) but from I could it looks like child care subsidies are pretty decent. DF is right out on this

Actually, I'm right on most things here. Again, your links--some of them are more slanted than life-news. I mean really was NOW not an option?

If you want me to compile a similar "proof" from pro-life sites, please let me know. It will be very productive--I'll argue with my "propaganda" and you can use yours.

Yeah, I would not want to look at the links if I were you, DF.

You missed my point. When I see a series of links with zero explanation, I think, "Someone googled and posted a list." I have no idea how extensive every link is and I value my time more than plunging through all of the links to try and MAKE YOUR CASE. If you want to make a case, do what you did here. A posting of a series of links is NOT AN ARGUMENT, nor is it "proof."

The more anti-abortion groups are willing to look at alternate ways of controlling abortion other than talking about the immorality of women in having abortions ...the more pro-choice folks will be convinced that anti-abortion are actually concerned about preserving life as opposed to controlling women...Owen made some suggestions that might reduce abortions and if anti- abortion groups are indifferent to that type of thinking...then we pretty much know that their motivations ain't primarily concerned with the fetus...

Meh, all I know is the trend is the friend of the pro-life movement. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has to lie to reduce the blowback from those videos.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate, when you quote some, cut and paste the quote. What you do is paraphrase the way your alleged mind reads the actual words.

And, I'm still waiting for danivon to call you out for crossing the line.

I wonder if he'll be consistent in his outrage?

If this were equivalent to saying someone supports murder, I could well call it out. But it ain't, and you know full well it ain't.

Why aren't any of the republican candidates (or posters here) proposing that IVF clinics be shut down? IVF clinics create and destroy embryos for profit. Period.

Given all this, Republicans’ most recent efforts to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be no surprise. Conservatives are clearly not concerned about the process of tissue donation; they are targeting Planned Parenthood alone and ignoring the hundreds of fertility clinics that legally destroy and donate embryos that women do not want or are unable to carry to term. Cutting Planned Parenthood’s funding would have no effect on abortion, which isn’t funded by federal grants. It’s Planned Parenthood’s many other services, such as pap smears, STD testing and contraception, that would lose federal money if the GOP succeeded. Republican promises to “use any and every procedural means” to cut funding to Planned Parenthood amount to nothing more than conservative chest-thumping to prove who hates the organization the most. Too bad it’s the most vulnerable women who stand to be hurt by it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate, when you quote some, cut and paste the quote. What you do is paraphrase the way your alleged mind reads the actual words.

And, I'm still waiting for danivon to call you out for crossing the line.

I wonder if he'll be consistent in his outrage?

If this were equivalent to saying someone supports murder, I could well call it out. But it ain't, and you know full well it ain't.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.

rickyp wrote:Why aren't any of the republican candidates (or posters here) proposing that IVF clinics be shut down? IVF clinics create and destroy embryos for profit. Period.

Okay, but how would this justify what Planned Parenthood is doing? You can't justify criminal behavior by pointing to other bad behavior (even if we just accept your premise).