freeman3 wrote:Facts on sex education in US:

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

Facts on access to contraception:

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


Facts on family leave:

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

State and federal laws against pregnancy discrimination:

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

A bit of a dated study on child-care subsidies:

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

And of course the biggest thing is a woman not having the money to support the child. This is an impossible conflict to resolve. If you give woman money for having children you're providing an incentive for a poor woman to have children. But otherwise a poor woman is making a rational choice to have an abortion when they cannot support the child.

As Owen points out there are many things that could otherwise be done to relieve the economic pressures that are the biggest factor in abortions. The above links show that Owen's proposals are not being adequately addressed and of course conservatives are not interested in dealing with that. Women without the resources are just supposed to figure it out...somehow.

Thanks for the links. However, if you can't be bothered to supply the supporting quotes, I can't be bothered to wade through them.

danivon wrote:How about some evidence rather than hyperbole, DF?

Wait. So, just to be clear:

1. You post a list of things of things you'd like to see.
2. I respond that some/many of these things exist.
3. You want me to prove it.

Is that right?

So, again, it's my job to google-search for you? And, if I do, and I provide all the quotes, will you then change your position on abortion?

No?

Oh, then . . . no thanks.

See, that's the thing: no matter what is said, no matter what is shown, you will not change your position on abortion. There is nothing that can change your mind. Well, there is nothing that can naturally change your mind.

Sometimes, the point is not to argue but to convey reliable information. If you don't want to look at it that's fine by me.

What factors help women's standard of living and avoidance of poverty?

So, what, we are going to blame women for not being married so that they could avoid poverty? If men in the inner-city had access to decent jobs then, yes, getting married would help things. But a lot of those manufacturing jobs went down to Mexico and Asia because they have cheaper labor. But I guess the men can be blamed for that too, somehow. Cutting taxes and letting companies ship their jobs out of the country had nothing to do with it...Let's cut more taxes, and get rid of more regulations, cut more labor costs, and see what a happy society we can make with gated communities guarded by security guards protecting the chosen few....

Or you could promote a less stratified society, with a much higher minimum wage, strengthen workers' bargaining power and you will get a lot fewer abortions as a side benefit. By contrast, Social Darwinism is not a pretty thing to see...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:How about some evidence rather than hyperbole, DF?

Wait. So, just to be clear:

1. You post a list of things of things you'd like to see.
2. I respond that some/many of these things exist.
3. You want me to prove it.

Is that right?

You missed the part where Ricky and Freeman did produce evidence that your assertions were not quite as definitive as you seem to want me to believe.

I don't think you can prove it. It's up to you if you want to try, but as you can't even be bothered to read Freeman's links, clearly it is asking too much for you to substantiate your responses.

So, again, it's my job to google-search for you? And, if I do, and I provide all the quotes, will you then change your position on abortion?

No?

Oh, then . . . no thanks.

Because of course your mind is so open.

See, that's the thing: no matter what is said, no matter what is shown, you will not change your position on abortion. There is nothing that can change your mind. Well, there is nothing that can naturally change your mind.

And this excuses your hyperbole because...?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:How about some evidence rather than hyperbole, DF?

Wait. So, just to be clear:

1. You post a list of things of things you'd like to see.
2. I respond that some/many of these things exist.
3. You want me to prove it.

Is that right?

You missed the part where Ricky and Freeman did produce evidence that your assertions were not quite as definitive as you seem to want me to believe.

I don't think you can prove it. It's up to you if you want to try, but as you can't even be bothered to read Freeman's links, clearly it is asking too much for you to substantiate your responses.

Hey bro, if you want to spend the time to read all of his links, feel free. If you want me to do it, then, I'll tell you what: you and freeman3 swear that you've read them all from beginning to end and I will too. But, what I will not do is go on a trek launched by freeman3 "just because."

So, again, it's my job to google-search for you? And, if I do, and I provide all the quotes, will you then change your position on abortion?

No?

Oh, then . . . no thanks.

Because of course your mind is so open.

It's open on public support. It's not open on the morality of ending an innocent life.

See, that's the thing: no matter what is said, no matter what is shown, you will not change your position on abortion. There is nothing that can change your mind. Well, there is nothing that can naturally change your mind.

And this excuses your hyperbole because...?

I'm not making excuses and if my hyperbole offends you . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g

freeman3 wrote:So, what, we are going to blame women for not being married so that they could avoid poverty?

Pretty cheesy. Who is "blaming" anyone?

If men in the inner-city had access to decent jobs then, yes, getting married would help things.

How many inner-cities are run by Republicans? You want to affix "blame?" Why not look at high tax rates that drive out "decent jobs?"

But a lot of those manufacturing jobs went down to Mexico and Asia because they have cheaper labor. But I guess the men can be blamed for that too, somehow. Cutting taxes and letting companies ship their jobs out of the country had nothing to do with it.

You'd like to blame NAFTA, but then Hillary would be tarnished.

Let's cut more taxes, and get rid of more regulations, cut more labor costs, and see what a happy society we can make with gated communities guarded by security guards protecting the chosen few....

Strange, before there was an income tax or a safety net, out of wedlock births were far less prevalent. So, I guess we should blame the welfare state for poverty, right?

Or you could promote a less stratified society, with a much higher minimum wage, strengthen workers' bargaining power and you will get a lot fewer abortions as a side benefit. By contrast, Social Darwinism is not a pretty thing to see...

Because raising the minimum wage works . . . not.

SF Eater reports that owner AJ Gilbert is closing thanks to projected rising labor costs caused by a minimum wage increase on the San Francisco ballot next week.

San Francisco's minimum wage could rise to $15 over the next few years if voters approve an initiative at the ballot. It's no sure thing -- except Gilbert thinks it is, Eater reported, and is planning accordingly. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/To ... 31932.html

San Francisco’s Borderlands Books will be forced to close as the city increases its minimum wage, and its owner Alan Beatts is tired of being criticized for talking about it.

“Most critics say ‘how dare you blame the minimum wage increase for you closing,'” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “It’s bullshit.”

“They’re either calling me a liar or chastising me for telling the truth.”

Borderlands is a specialty bookstore that has been able to carve out a niche in San Francisco for the past 18 years. It has been able to support a staff of five, most of whom have been working together for more than a decade.

Beatts said he made a mere $28,000 in gross salary last year.

With the added labor costs the city’s new minimum wage will eventually impose on the business, and the fact that books come pre-priced leaving no room for price increases, Mr. Beatts sees no way it can survive.

“At this point the business is doing fine but I look down the road and the business is losing $25,000 a year,” he said. “It’s going to put me out of work.” http://freebeacon.com/issues/san-franci ... -increase/

One of San Francisco's most-buzzed-about new Mission restaurants is closing its doors at the end of the month, citing the impending minimum-wage hike as its death knell.

Abbot's Cellar opened on Valencia Street in 2012 as a sequel to nearby Monk's Kettle. The upscale beer and food hall quickly won critical acclaim, including three Bauer stars and snagged a semifinalist nomination in the James Bear Award Outstanding Bar Program contest.

But the restaurant will close Jan. 31.

"It's unfortunate. It's frustrating. But it is what it is," partner Nat Cutler told the San Francisco Chronicle's Inside Scoop. "Ultimately it was just the economic environment. The business already was not really sustainable and then looking ahead at 2015, we had a 3 percent bump in wages [coming]." http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... -wage.html

A Chipotle spokesman confirmed to Slate that San Francisco's minimum wage increase is the culprit behind higher burrito prices:

In San Francisco, for example, our occupancy costs are about double the Chipotle average as a percentage of sales, and our menu prices there are right around the average for Chipotle restaurants around the country, so increases to wages can have a greater impact than they might elsewhere.

San Francisco burrito eaters are paying more for their carnitas fix.

After a double-digit increase in the city's minimum wage, Chipotle raised its prices by double-digits. A William Blair & Company stock analyst doesn't think this is a coincidence:

San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).

While paying more for made-to-order meals may not have been what supporters of the minimum wage hike intended, this effect was predictable. Restaurants operate on thin profit margins. They can't simply eat higher labor costs. As David French, a senior vice president at the National Retail Federation, put it in the context of a proposed change in federal overtime rules, "There simply isn't any magic pot of money that lets employers pay more just because the government says so." https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fol ... -expensive

Any more red herrings you care to raise?

(footnote: if you want to list many links, this is how it is done--highlighting what you want people to know, so they don't have to repeat the process you went through, but including the link in case they want to. You're welcome!)

fate

2. I respond that some/many of these things exist.
3. You want me to prove it.

Is that right?

Yes.
Since the evidence offered refutes your claims its obvious you have no idea whay you are pronouncing upon.
Again.
And by the way, Oliver researches his pieces very thoroughly to be sure any claims are supportable.
A concept with which you seem to struggle

rickyp wrote:fate

2. I respond that some/many of these things exist.
3. You want me to prove it.

Is that right?

Yes.
Since the evidence offered refutes your claims its obvious you have no idea whay you are pronouncing upon.
Again.
And by the way, Oliver researches his pieces very thoroughly to be sure any claims are supportable.
A concept with which you seem to struggle

Oliver is a patronizing, facts be damned, comedian. He's no less partisan than Stewart and no more accurate than you.

The evidence offered refuted what claim, exactly? Be precise--like I was when I showed you saying I quoted you incorrectly when actually I quoted you 100% accurately.

Note well: "evidence" is not a list of links. That's crap. Anyone can do a google search, posted a dozen links, throw their arms in the air, and proclaim victory. "Evidence" would be going through those links, posting the pertinent parts, and demonstrating one's position. So, until you've done that, stop the babble about "evidence."

Pretty cheesy? What do you think the comment about Brad was in reference to? In the past he has argued that not going married is the big problem for single, poor women. I was responding to that.

Personally, I don't like the large quotes in the middle of a post--I prefer that people make their own arguments and then cite to a link. I think it is distracting and cumbersome, but people can post however they like. You don't want have to wade through the links to find what I referenced--probably takes 30 seconds for a review of each link. I am doing the research --all you have to briefly skim the links and satisfy yourself that your claims are wrong that essentially everything Owen suggested was being done. I don't have time to go through a detailed break-down at this moment, but the info is there plainly to see.

As for the minimum wage argument, there is your argument by anecdote. How about a detailed statistical analysis of how jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised? You are arguing by anecdote because the studies don't support your position.

And a lot of things have changed since there was no income tax or a safety net...try proving those were the factors that caused out-of-wedlock births.

Anything else?

Every person is different. Far be it from me to say that all have my standards or vice versa. However, everyone should be making the determination on whether they can raise a child BEFORE engaging in an act that may produce children that need raising. Examples of those acts:

Sexual intercourse
Adoption
Commitment to Godparent

I am sure there are others...

However, responsibility can dictate that the odds of becoming a parent are reduced, albeit not to zero, the chances. It is my belief that if someone wants to engage in acts that may produce children they should be willing to take the responsibility.

And yes, there are statistics that show that a married woman has less of a chance at poverty than a single woman. Also, a married woman with child/children has more odds of poverty than a single woman w/o. I can show the studies, but you would just disregard them anyway.

Pearls before swine...

freeman3 wrote:Pretty cheesy? What do you think the comment about Brad was in reference to? In the past he has argued that not going married is the big problem for single, poor women. I was responding to that.

Personally, I don't like the large quotes in the middle of a post--I prefer that people make their own arguments and then cite to a link. I think it is distracting and cumbersome, but people can post however they like. You don't want have to wade through the links to find what I referenced--probably takes 30 seconds for a review of each link. I am doing the research --all you have to briefly skim the links and satisfy yourself that your claims are wrong that essentially everything Owen suggested was being done. I don't have time to go through a detailed break-down at this moment, but the info is there plainly to see.

Uh-huh. It's easy, but you "don't have time to go through a detailed break-down at this moment" even though it "probably takes 30 seconds for a review of each link."

I don't think that comports to my definition of cogent, but . . .

As for the minimum wage argument, there is your argument by anecdote. How about a detailed statistical analysis of how jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised? You are arguing by anecdote because the studies don't support your position.

Because the studies are done by left-wing think-tanks and are not based on real-life results. People who sit in ivory towers and produce studies funded by liberal groups and government entities that will cut off funding if the results aren't what they want. "Anecdote?" I posted four separate instances in one city. Would you like say 20 in every city that does this? What is the threshold? Do higher costs influence the behavior of businesses? That's not "anecdotal;" it's common sense.

And, if raising the minimum wage solves poverty, why stop at $15? What is the "perfect" wage? Why not $25 an hour? $100/hr? Should everyone make the same wage, without regard to skill or qualification? Why or why not?

And a lot of things have changed since there was no income tax or a safety net...try proving those were the factors that caused out-of-wedlock births.

Try proving they weren't.

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!

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.