Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama to nominate track guy for Supreme Court?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ranunculus
    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
    Wouldnt a black market be created in that scenario?
    Its business size would match that of marijuana.
    But its negative consequences might be much more severe.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TrackDaddy
      Great points all around friends.

      Halfmiler

      You dont believe there'd be chaos if Roe v Wade was overturned?

      Don't you believe that some states would repeal it (75% of Texans voted to amend their constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman)?

      Wouldnt a black market be created in that scenario?
      Not necessarily. What would likely happen is that individuals that strongly wanted an abortion would cross state lines to get one. But the total number of abortions would decrease significantly because it would be less easy to obtain one in some parts of the country.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Halfmiler2
        What would likely happen is that individuals that strongly wanted an abortion would cross state lines to get one.
        If they could afford to do that. Some people couldn't.

        Comment


        • #19
          Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Halfmiler2
            Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.
            the only thing that will lower the number of abortions is proper sex education which successive govt in both US and UK have refused do which is why we both have ridiculous levels of teen pregnancies compared to many other western countries
            i deserve extra credit

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mump boy
              Originally posted by Halfmiler2
              Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.
              the only thing that will lower the number of abortions is proper sex education which successive govt in both US and UK have refused do which is why we both have ridiculous levels of teen pregnancies compared to many other western countries

              But it's utter blasphemy to introduce sex education into high schools! Shame on these educators for trying to introduce these 14-18 year olds to such sundry things as sex and its consequences. Why, if they fill their minds with such images, these children might actually start having sex! Can you imagine that? High schoolers? Having sex? It'd be chaos!

              I really don't understand the argument against sex education in schools (although I can understand people's issues with introducing it extremely early, whatever that might mean). Some parents apparently argue that THEY want to be the ones to first educate their children (or choose the time at which it is done). Judging by the piss-poor job they've done so far, it seems like a bad idea to leave it solely in the hands of often misguided and miseducated parents.

              The idea that kids might start having more sex because of exposure to education ranks up there with the pope believing that if we stop giving out condoms in Africa, AIDS will just go away because no one will have sex anymore.

              I've gone to talk to teenagers here in Baltimore as part of an STD/STI education program, and you would not believe the absurd (and often hilarious) misconceptions they have about sex. One guy asked me what the name was of the special muscle was that women have to "push it all out" (pardon the imagery) after intercourse to totally avoid any possibility of pregnancy. Another kid asked me whether sperm were considered a viral or bacterial STD (but kudos to him for even knowing those two things exist, I guess).

              *I'm sure I've introduced a million slippery slopes and straw men here

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Halfmiler 2
                abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction
                This logic is the same as losing weight by cutting off your leg.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mump boy
                  Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                  Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.
                  the only thing that will lower the number of abortions is proper sex education which successive govt in both US and UK have refused do which is why we both have ridiculous levels of teen pregnancies compared to many other western countries
                  The empirical evidence is against you on that statement. There is far more sex education in the schools than there was generations ago and there are far more abortions and teen pregnanies. To say it is the only factor that would reduce abortions is not a statement that even many in the pro-abortion camp would try to support.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                    Originally posted by mump boy
                    Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                    Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.
                    the only thing that will lower the number of abortions is proper sex education which successive govt in both US and UK have refused do which is why we both have ridiculous levels of teen pregnancies compared to many other western countries
                    The empirical evidence is against you on that statement. There is far more sex education in the schools than there was generations ago and there are far more abortions and teen pregnanies. To say it is the only factor that would reduce abortions is not a statement that even many in the pro-abortion camp would try to support.
                    I think that the a major reason why there are more teenage pregnancies today than there were 60 years ago when my mother was a little girl, is because the attitude that teenage girls have about sex has changed so much over that time. Teenage girls no longer feel shame if their classmates and friends know they are sexually active and there's also no shame in getting pregnant. Contrast this to the attitude of teenage boys which is the same today as it was 100 years ago.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                      Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                      Originally posted by mump boy
                      Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                      Yes, but if we take our President's statement at face value that he wants abortion to be legal but reduce the number of them (even make them "rare"), then repealing Roe v.Wade would help in that direction. It would still be legal to have an abortion in many parts of the country but more expensive to get one, and therefore, there would be fewer of them. I can guarantee you one thing: government funding of abortions (or government mandates that hospitals and insuranse plans offer them) will not reduce the number of abortions.
                      the only thing that will lower the number of abortions is proper sex education which successive govt in both US and UK have refused do which is why we both have ridiculous levels of teen pregnancies compared to many other western countries
                      The empirical evidence is against you on that statement. There is far more sex education in the schools than there was generations ago and there are far more abortions and teen pregnanies. To say it is the only factor that would reduce abortions is not a statement that even many in the pro-abortion camp would try to support.
                      I think that the a major reason why there are more teenage pregnancies today than there were 60 years ago when my mother was a little girl, is because the attitude that teenage girls have about sex has changed so much over that time. Teenage girls no longer feel shame if their classmates and friends know they are sexually active and there's also no shame in getting pregnant. Contrast this to the attitude of teenage boys which is the same today as it was 100 years ago.
                      so it's girls fault !! the dirty slags :x

                      why don't we just stop people having sex all together or even better let's become like saudi arabia and not let women do anything at all !!!
                      i deserve extra credit

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It IS the girls' fault.

                        Women control the birth of children- men are only random participants.

                        Even if a woman tells you that she's tryin to get pregnant it may not be true.

                        How many couples are "trying to get pregnant and have been for years" thinking that somethings wrong, when in reality the woman is using protection unbeknownst to the man and just doesn't want a child...even though he does?

                        Tons.

                        Conversely(?) when a woman tells a man that she's using protection and doesn't want to get pregnant that also may not be true. The plan all along is to try and trap the man by getting pregnant. This happens often with athletes much more often in the general population.

                        No one today has to get pregnant on accident. That's rarer than having a winning lottery ticket.

                        All births are planned.

                        Just not by men.
                        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Since I'm feeling anecdotal today, one of the docs I used to work with (FP with OB/Gyn) recently told me that one of his nurses came to him asking why she hadn't gotten pregnant yet (she's 18) when her mother and older sister were both able to get pregnant by the age of 18.

                          Him: "Are you taking any medication?"
                          Her: "No, just birth control."
                          Him: "........................"

                          Apparently both her mother and older sister beat the odds and conceived while on an OCP, so she figured lightning might as well strike thrice.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Does anyone else remember when the the Maharaji established a free love commune in north central Oregon about twenty years ago, moved in hundreds of sympathetic souls from Seattle, Portland and SF and tried to take over county government?
                            As AIDS became an issue, he first instructed his followers to wear latex gloves and condoms when having sex. Eventually, he forbade everyone except himself, who had the run of the commune, from having sex at all.
                            His commune soon collapsed and his #1 mama absconded to Europe with the Treasury, leaving him with his huge collection of Rolls Royces and precious little else.

                            I think I may have related this personal experience previously but for the latecomers, he did succed in taking over a small town and installing his own police force. All his followers were required to dye all their clothing purple, creating a rainbow of purple depending on the original color of the clothing item and, incidentally, making it easy to spot outsiders.
                            I parked on the wide shoulder of the two lane "main street" and took pictures of the town in both directions before asking directions to Madras from an Oregon Hiway Patrolman who was parked about 100 meters north of City Hall/Police Station, apparently just watching the inactivity. Mine and the two Police SUVs parked randomly in front of City Hall. were the only other vehicles visible in the two block town. Following the HPs suggestion, I left town headed west on a gravel road 60 mile shortcut. As soon as I was out of sight of the HP, I was swarmed by six purple clad policemen in two police SUV s and harassed for several minutes for "obstructing traffic."
                            Maybe they were just out of sorts because that was the day a car transport delivering four new Rolls turned over in a ditch on the dirt road leading to the commune, dumping the Rolls into the sage brush.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                              All births are planned.
                              Nonsense!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [quote="TrackDaddy"]Conversely(?) when a woman tells a man that she's using protection and doesn't want to get pregnant that also may not be true. The plan all along is to try and trap the man by getting pregnant. This happens often with athletes much more often in the general population.

                                quote]

                                there's this new invention called condoms !!! maybe you weren't listening in sex ed class :shock: :shock:
                                i deserve extra credit

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X