Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#52 Nov 20 2013 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Ah, there's nothing like an attempt to come off sounding intelligent, but instead expose yourself as an ignorant @#%^.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 5:21pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#53 Nov 20 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, there's nothing like an attempt to come off sounding intelligent, but instead exposure yourself as an ignorant @#%^.


Provide an example.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#54 Nov 20 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#55 Nov 20 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.


That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.
The problem isn't that people can't understand English, it's that you're making no sense whatsoever which is the case for both your favourite post and this new sentence you've thought of.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#56gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 5:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... You realize though that you just confirmed exactly the point I was making, right? It's not really just about the right to control ones own body (ie: not being forced to go through the physical trauma/risks of pregnancy). It's also about the right to not have to care for the child. Currently, abortion is the only means to avoid both circumstances.
#57 Nov 20 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,841 posts
Quote:
the earliest pushes for legalizing abortion had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with eugenics.


This is so ridiculously wrong, it's pathetic.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#58 Nov 20 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,417 posts
Don't you know that no woman ever died from a back alley abortion, idiggory?

Eugenics relied far more on forced sterilization of "undesireables" than it did abortions, which were still largely illegal around the world.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#59 Nov 20 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Planned Parenthood had some early ties into eugenics.

It's largely irrelevant though aside from an emotional appeal. The US space program came from **** rocketry. 20th century circumcision was tied into preventing ************* Should we stop exploring space or the medical benefits of circumcision?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I agree with your position, but not because rights are absolute, but because a right should never be infringed upon merely to provide a benefit to others. I don't see those benefits as a right in the first place (although others will call them "positive rights"). It's not analogous to the abortion issue at all because both rights in question are real (negative) rights. The right of the fetus to not have its life taken from it, and the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. So that is correctly identified as a conflict of rights, while your example is a conflict between rights and benefits.
#61 Nov 20 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.


Alma wrote:
Quote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality.


Besides for religious reasons, I don't know of any scenarios that justify discrimination against homosexuality that aren't bigoted. Do you?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#62gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.
#63 Nov 20 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control.

"Always"? Almost certainly not. You're allowed to ascribe whatever current motives you want to make up but I doubt you'll be able to support them beyond "You just know it's true!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Nov 20 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control.

"Always"? Almost certainly not. You're allowed to ascribe whatever current motives you want to make up but I doubt you'll be able to support them beyond "You just know it's true!!"


Pro-abortion is not the same as pro-choice. Pro-choice is a specific reason/argument for supporting legalized abortion. Pro-abortion is the broad position that abortion serves some social good and should be encouraged. It's the difference between why you think people should be allowed to do something, and why you think people should do that thing in the first place.

The two are often incorrectly assumed to be synonymous, but in this case my word choice was not accidental at all.


Oh. And yes, the reason someone would want people to have abortions (which is different than supporting their right to make that choice!) is for reasons of population control. Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption. Which is why the whole artificial womb thing is interesting precisely because it would break the current cozy arrangement where pro-abortion folks can hide within a more socially acceptable rights movement. Take the rights issue away and what happens?

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 4:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Nov 20 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, when you're done making up definitions and laying down your No True Scotsman foundation, were you going to provide evidence for the current movement being about population control? I'm looking for sweeping evidence here, not "Well, this one person once said something on this blog so that means EVERYONE is like this!"

Edit: And, frankly, your "Well Pro-Abortion means you think everyone should do it" argument is ludicrous anyway. Whatever number of people out there are actively agitating to make/convince people have abortions is vanishingly small.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 6:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Nov 20 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption.

You probably don't get around girls much so this might be news to you: there's nine relatively uncomfortable months between conception and when you can give a child away for adoption. A woman making the decision not to undergo those months does not necessarily mean she gives a wet shit about "population control".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /shrug
#68gbaji, Posted: Nov 20 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Except that the argument I mentioned isn't about the 9 uncomfortable months of gestation, but specifically about the 18 years of responsibility that would follow that. Given that this argument has already specifically been singled out as different than the "woman has a right to control her own body" argument, it would seem relevant to point out that the two are dealing with those two very different things. One is about the woman opting out of pregnancy. The other is about the woman opting out of child rearing.
#69 Nov 20 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think there are two movements though.

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, I guess. I'm already well aware that your mind is filled with all sorts of strange hobgoblins, bandersnatch and boogeymen so what's one more in the closet?

Quote:
I believe that there must be some people for whom this is a matter of population control and not really about rights

I believe there's people out there who sincerely believe that dinosaurs exist within a Hollow Earth. I don't give these people any special consideration or worry though. It's a big country; think of a viewpoint and someone has it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Nov 20 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even the whole "she should be free of the burden of raising a child" is a population control argument if it's in support of abortion and not adoption.

You probably don't get around girls much so this might be news to you: there's nine relatively uncomfortable months between conception and when you can give a child away for adoption. A woman making the decision not to undergo those months does not necessarily mean she gives a wet shit about "population control".
Except that the argument I mentioned isn't about the 9 uncomfortable months of gestation, but specifically about the 18 years of responsibility that would follow that.

I'm sorry. I thought you knew where babies came from Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Nov 20 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.


I don't know where in the history books this happened. I do know that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose what she does to her own body, which isn't equivalent to brainwashing folks into believing that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women.

Quote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control. We can debate to what degree racist/eugenics played a role, but if you think this just sprang up out of nowhere as a rights issue, you are terribly confused (or terribly well indoctrinated)


Or you've put on your tinfoil hat again. Smiley: tinfoilhat

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 8:02pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#72 Nov 20 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I believe that there must be some people for whom this is a matter of population control and not really about rights

I believe there's people out there who sincerely believe that dinosaurs exist within a Hollow Earth. I don't give these people any special consideration or worry though. It's a big country; think of a viewpoint and someone has it.


Sure, but there aren't a whole lot of political debates on whether to pass or oppose a law having to do with dinosaurs living in Hollow Earth. Meanwhile, there are political debates and conflicts over whether or not we encourage or discourage abortion within our society.

You asked for an example of this, so here's one: The debate over requiring women to view a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion. While I'm sure that there are many people who pick sides over the whole "right to choose" angle, we're not actually fighting over the right to make the choice, but whether we take or don't take some action which may influence the rate at which a choice is made. The argument for the sonogram requirement is because statistically fewer women will go through with having an abortion if they are shown a sonogram of the fetus. So by opposing it, you're not really fighting for the "right to have an abortion" but fighting to increase the number of abortions that occur.

That's a clear example of an action that is "pro-abortion" within the context of population control. And it also illustrates the point I made earlier about many people incorrectly conflating the positions of pro-choice versus pro-abortion. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of pro-choice folks who honestly believe that the sonogram issue is about the right to have an abortion itself rather than simply whether we take action to influence that choice. And I've personally been attacked for my position on the issue by people who clearly don't seem to grasp that one can be in favor of the right to make a choice, while opposing the choice itself (btw, this happens on all side of this issue).

So yes, I think there's ample evidence both of a true pro-abortion (population control) agenda *and* the use of the pro-choice argument as a means of concealing this less popular agenda from the public. I could probably find a whole list of examples of this sort of thing as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Nov 20 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure, but there aren't a whole lot of political debates on whether to pass or oppose a law having to do with dinosaurs living in Hollow Earth. Meanwhile, there are political debates and conflicts over whether or not we encourage or discourage abortion within our society.

I read a theory today that vaccines are ways for the government to implant tracking devices in us. NSA is a current debate, right? I still don't listen to the vaccine tracker folks.

Quote:
You asked for an example of this, so here's one: The debate over requiring women to view a sonogram of the fetus before having an abortion. While I'm sure that there are many people who pick sides over the whole "right to choose" angle, we're not actually fighting over the right to make the choice, but whether we take or don't take some action which may influence the rate at which a choice is made. The argument for the sonogram requirement is because statistically fewer women will go through with having an abortion if they are shown a sonogram of the fetus. So by opposing it, you're not really fighting for the "right to have an abortion" but fighting to increase the number of abortions that occur.

You're a nut Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Nov 20 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
**
584 posts
You could spin that BS of population control right around to the say that the Rep. don't want the Middle class and upper class to have abortions so that the pool of tax payers doesn't decrease since we all know the poor have babies so they can buy a Lexus.
____________________________
.
#75 Nov 20 2013 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,841 posts
I literally do not know a single pro-choice person who isn't highly interested in increasing access to birth control and sexual health education, specifically because it would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and by extension abortions) in the US. Major pro-choice organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, are generally strong, reliable sources of the information and products that help curb the number of unwanted pregnancies and, through that, reduce the demand for abortions.

In an ideal world, no one would be getting abortions, because no woman would be ending up with an unwanted pregnancy (be it by her "fault" or another's).

Very, VERY few abortions are performed because women change their mind about wanting to be pregnant, unless there's another medical reason the woman would want to terminate. Nearly all abortions occur because the woman never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#76 Nov 20 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
What's ridiculously wrong is the idea that we started out thinking that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women. Seriously. That doesn't even make sense. People had to be taught, convinced, cajoled, and otherwise brought kicking and screaming into adopting the idea that pregnancy violated the rights of women. That was a means to an end, not the end itself.


I don't know where in the history books this happened. I do know that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the right to choose what she does to her own body, which isn't equivalent to brainwashing folks into believing that pregnancy was some kind of terrible infringement of the rights of women.


I challenge you to find anyone arguing that abortion was a "right" prior to sometime in the early-mid 20th century. That argument appeared right about the same time that the eugenics movements began suffering from image problems (which kinda reached a peak with that Adolf chap in Germany). I suppose we could say that it was a complete coincidence that the same people who 20 years earlier were arguing for enforced sterilization and abortions as means of population control and eugenics started arguing that abortion was a right and encouraging women to fight for that right along with other things like voting and equal pay. It's pretty darn obvious to anyone who isn't blind as a bat that the eugenics folks realized that they needed a new method to get people to adopt abortion, and found it in the suffragist movement.


Quote:
Quote:
The end of the pro-abortion movement has always been about population control. We can debate to what degree racist/eugenics played a role, but if you think this just sprang up out of nowhere as a rights issue, you are terribly confused (or terribly well indoctrinated)


Or you've put on your tinfoil hat again. Smiley: tinfoilhat


And yet, planned parenthood, the primary organization associated with "fighting for the reproductive rights of women", just happened to have been founded by a prominent eugenicist. I mean, I suppose it's possible that Margaret Sanger started out fighting for women's rights and then stumbled into the idea that encouraging poor colored women to use birth control and abortions would have the additional benefit of reducing the undesirable/unfit population, but it's far more likely that the process worked the other way. People tend to start with a goal and then look for ways to accomplish that goal rather than the other way around.

Doubly unlikely when you realize that for the claim that she started out as some kind of moral champion of women's rights to be true, we'd have to believe that someone who fought for those rights would then later adopt the position that society would be better off if those women hadn't been born in the first place, but then even later (after Adolph ruined it for everyone) change her mind and decide that they really were worthy of living, but just by coincidence she would focus her organizations efforts to encourage women to embrace their rights to abort in inner city neighborhoods with high minority populations. You know... just a coincidence.

Eugenics found in the women's rights movement a means to push their agenda forward without it being as obvious. Why is this so hard to get? Like I said, there are clear examples of cases where the agenda isn't about the right to abort, but the desire to increase the likelihood that someone will choose to abort. At that point, it's not really about rights anymore, is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Nov 20 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, pointing to something from 50, 60, 80+ years ago isn't really relevant to today. If you wanted to show that the modern Planned Parenthood is about eugenics, then you should do that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Nov 20 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I literally do not know a single pro-choice person who isn't highly interested in increasing access to birth control and sexual health education, specifically because it would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (and by extension abortions) in the US. Major pro-choice organizations, like Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, are generally strong, reliable sources of the information and products that help curb the number of unwanted pregnancies and, through that, reduce the demand for abortions.


What a surprise that this just happens to also match up with the agenda of Eugenics. The point is to reduce the birth rate among "unfit" populations. Birth control and abortion both work to accomplish this.

Is it really about reducing the number of abortions? Or reducing the number of births? And what neighborhoods does PP focus most of their efforts in?

Quote:
In an ideal world, no one would be getting abortions, because no woman would be ending up with an unwanted pregnancy (be it by her "fault" or another's).

Very, VERY few abortions are performed because women change their mind about wanting to be pregnant, unless there's another medical reason the woman would want to terminate. Nearly all abortions occur because the woman never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.


Again, none of which changes the point I was making about the population control agenda having a significant influence on this issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Nov 20 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, pointing to something from 50, 60, 80+ years ago isn't really relevant to today. If you wanted to show that the modern Planned Parenthood is about eugenics, then you should do that.


Contrast the distribution of PP centers based on ethnicity Joph. African Americans make up what? 13% of the total population? Want to bet on whether PP has more or less than 13% of their nationwide resources located in predominantly black neighborhoods?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Nov 20 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Were you going to actually provide evidence of something or were you hoping ham-handed insinuation was going to be just as good?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Nov 20 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Let me put this another way: We're either left to accept the absurd idea that our otherwise racist/sexist society decided that poor minority women should be the primary recipients of the "right" to reproductive control *or* that these services are targeted to them as a means of decreasing the relative rate at which they reproduce. I mean, if we were to apply normal logic to this and assume that the whole thing really started as a pure rights argument, wouldn't we expect that wealth white women would be the first to enjoy that right, then have it gradually spread to the poor folks?

I mean, lets see. Right to vote. Male property owners. Then male white men. Then males. Then finally females. Hmm... So shouldn't abortion and birth control have been first available to wealthy white women, then wealthy non-white women, then the working class, then finally to the poorest minority groups? Strange that in this case it went in the opposite direction.

It's not strange at all if you drop the idea that this was really about rights and realize that it's about getting poor minority folks to breed less quickly relative to wealth white folks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Nov 20 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let me put this another way

Why don't you put it the way where you provide some actual evidence?

Hahaha... just kidding. We both know the answer to that. Wait: "It's just obvious", right?

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 8:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Nov 20 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And, by the way, your logic tonight is really, really bad. I mean, even for you this is terrible.

People oppose ultrasounds because it adds unnecessary additional barriers and steps to a legal procedure. There is zero medical need for a sonogram, much less for the pregnant woman to see the sonogram. However, she now has to schedule extra time and pay extra money for a wholly unnecessary procedure just to have a legal procedure done and for no reason other than people casting judgment on her morality. Wanting to "increase the number of abortions" doesn't factor into it.

And wealthy white women have always had... hang on, let me crunch the numbers... infinitely more access to abortions than poor minority women. A wealthy white woman in 1916 or whatever could actually, you know, pay for discreet medical services in an actual clean, medical environment and from an actual medical professional. Or have her husband/family/lover/whoever slip the doctor an extra $2 (hey, $2 was a lot of money back then) and say "It's your opinion that this is necessary to save her life, right?" and have her admitted into a hospital for it. Did you actually believe there was ever a time when poor minority women had more access to abortions than wealthy white women? Ever? A hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? Today?

Seriously? Are you just fucking retarded?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Nov 20 2013 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,247 posts
Quote:
Contrast the distribution of PP centers based on ethnicity Joph. African Americans make up what? 13% of the total population? Want to bet on whether PP has more or less than 13% of their nationwide resources located in predominantly black neighborhoods?


Yes, heaven forfend anyone offer low-cost birth control, checkups and mammograms to low-income women.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#85 Nov 20 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Low income women, eh? I wonder where one could find the densest populations of low income women in order to maximize the effectiveness of their clinic? Maybe some sort of urban area...?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Nov 20 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Were you going to actually provide evidence of something or were you hoping ham-handed insinuation was going to be just as good?


Sure. How about this surely legitimate and truthful source.

Ok. That was a bit of fresh meat, but regardless of how conspiratorial we think this is, the statistics they're using aren't wrong. Here's a somewhat less hysterical article.

Black and Hispanic women have abortions far out of proportion to their relative population. There's really no question about that. Now, is that occurring because of other socio-economic factors (higher rates of poverty meaning higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, resulting in higher abortion rate)? I'm sure there's some degree of that as well. It's hard to isolate this sort of thing. It would be interesting to find out if poor white neighborhoods are as likely to have a planned parenthood presence as poor black or latino ones. I can only speak anecdotally about PP locations in the town I live in and say there's a pretty clear pattern in terms of where they are focused.

In San Diego, poor minority neighborhoods are mostly right to the south and east of downtown (city heights and logan heights areas), and then more south down into Encanto and Chula Vista. Looking at a map of PP locations, they are clustered in pretty much those exact locations, with a couple outliers located in the Mira Mesa and Mission Beach areas (um, but both of those are better described as working class and mixed). While I'm not surprised to not see PP offices in locations well to do neighborhoods like Rancho Bernardo or Del Mar, it is interesting that there isn't one located in say El Cajon. A poor to working class neighborhood, but one in which you're more likely to see the local troublemakers riding Harley Davidson bikes and wearing chains and not so much driving caddy's and sporting gold teeth, if you know what I mean.

For the slow that means that the primary poor white neighborhood in my county doesn't have a PP anywhere near it, while 6 out of the 10 PP locations in the county are located smack dab in predominantly poor minority neighborhoods. That's just where I live though. Maybe you can go look at where PP locations are in Chicago and will find a totally different pattern.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Nov 20 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, having a clinic in or near a neighborhood isn't the same as "targeting" someone.

That said, the Chicago area Planned Parenthood locations seem fairly well distributed between different neighborhoods. Everything from Englewood to Wicker Park. They even have one in the Loop so those downtrodden wealthy white women don't feel left out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Nov 20 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Another abortion thread, huh?

If anyone needs me, I'll be dead. Having killed myself. Better start practicing necromancy now, you'll need to get good at it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#89 Nov 20 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
******
43,836 posts
gbaji wrote:
Simply declaring something a right, with the implication that this means that it can't be infringed in any way at all, is absurd.
Unless you call it a religion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Nov 20 2013 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
Better start practicing necromancy now, you'll need to get good at it.

I figured we'd practice on this barrel of fetus bits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Nov 20 2013 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

That's not example. Specifically provide me a quote where I pretended to come off as "intellectual" (key part) but came off ignorant. I usually admit to my own ignorance.

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's the new post #214 or whatever number it was.


That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.
The problem isn't that people can't understand English, it's that you're making no sense whatsoever which is the case for both your favourite post and this new sentence you've thought of.


This is a prime example of your own ignorance. No where in that statement did I allude that people couldn't understand English. I said the exact opposite. You're so caught up in your fairy-tale land that you speak from the stuff that you make up. Your allegations are so absurd, that they expose the fact that you really have no idea what you are talking about. So, in other words, every time you talk, you're admitting your own ignorance in a way that you think is benefiting yourself. I find that weird. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need further explanation?

Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.


Alma wrote:
Quote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality.


Besides for religious reasons, I don't know of any scenarios that justify discrimination against homosexuality that aren't bigoted. Do you?


Yes, we literally just discussed this in the post that you never replied to in the other thread. Why don't you reply to my post in that thread if you want to continue this conversation.

I find it hilariously hypocritical that you claim that I don't explain myself when you said that disagreeing with black lifestyle = racism. Yet you refuse to define "black lifestyle" and how disagreeing with it is racist as opposed to personal preference and/ or bigotry.

I've explained myself, you just disagree, which you admitted in the other thread. In your mind, you think if you continuously ask me, then one day my answer would change in hopes of saying something bigoted.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#92 Nov 20 2013 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
People oppose ultrasounds because it adds unnecessary additional barriers and steps to a legal procedure. There is zero medical need for a sonogram, much less for the pregnant woman to see the sonogram.


I never said there was a medical need for it. I said that if we required women considering an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus, fewer women would go forward with the decision to have an abortion. That this is a true statistic suggests strongly that some women are making the decision to have an abortion based on false or incomplete information about what exactly is involved. We can speculate about the degree to which pro-abortion literature may cause that gap in information, but given the consistency with which the whole "it's just like removing cancer cells" gets tossed around in here, is this really speculation? Point being that if showing a women a sonogram of the fetus reduces the odds she'll go through with an elective abortion, I kinda consider that a good thing. The women who would change their minds as a result of such a thing are presumably also the exact same women who will be most likely to suffer psychological harm later as a result of that decision.

Quote:
However, she now has to schedule extra time and pay extra money for a wholly unnecessary procedure just to have a legal procedure done and for no reason other than people casting judgment on her morality.


Seriously? "No other reason". How about "let's give her time to make a better and more informed decision". Again, the very fact that a statistically measurable percentage of women change their minds after seeing a sonogram more or less proves that these women are making the choice for the wrong reasons, or with the wrong information, or in haste, or whatever. If showing women a sonogram never changed their decision and someone pushed to require it anyway, you'd have a point. We would be doing it purely to make the whole process more expensive and time consuming and putting unnecessary obstacles in the way.

But that's not the case, is it? Women do change their minds after seeing a sonogram. To me, that's reason enough to require them.

Quote:
Wanting to "increase the number of abortions" doesn't factor into it.


It doesn't? Then why? If we were talking about used car salesmen fighting against a requirement that potential buyers be able to view an accident report of the car they're thinking about buying, no one would doubt that their opposition was because they want to maximize the number of cars they sell, even if the customer will later regret buying it. Why would you assume that abortion is any different?

Again, you'd have a point if no one ever changed their minds as a result of seeing those sonograms. But they do. Just as people might change their minds about buying a car after seeing the reports and that's why we require sellers to make them available to the buyer.

If that's not the motivation, then what is?


I'll also argue that the extra cost isn't as high as you might think. Given that a sonogram is very inexpensive relative to an abortion procedure, even if just a small percentage of women change their mind, we will have reduced the total cost. And honestly given the importance of a decision like abortion, I just don't see how one extra office visit is that much of a burden. Give people the time and information to make a good decision. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Did you actually believe there was ever a time when poor minority women had more access to abortions than wealthy white women? Ever? A hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? Today?


Access to? Or actual abortions? You get that you're making my point for me, right? In the absence of organizations like Planned parenthood pushing for abortion as a right (and providing funding and services to fulfill that right), wealthy white women would have much greater access to birth control and abortion than poor black women. So, the net effect of the "abortion is a right" movement and the creation and proliferation of organizations like planned parenthood serves the effect of reducing the relative population growth among poor minorities.

Shocking, isn't it? Wealthy white women did not need a "reproductive rights" movement for them to have access to birth control and abortions. However, eugenicists like Margaret Sanger needed to create a reproductive rights movement in order to legally operate the kinds of clinics and sexual education programs needed to get poor minority women to reduce their birth rates. Now we can imagine that she did this out of the goodness of her racist heart, but it seems much more likely that she did it because it was the only way to push the eugenics movement forward in a society that was growing increasingly suspicious of the traditional eugenics arguments.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 7:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Nov 20 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I never said there was a medical need for it

Great. Then there's your reason to oppose putting additional barriers in front of it.
Quote:
Access to? Or actual abortions? You get that you're making my point for me, right?

I dunno... was your point that you're an idiot? You just whined that "access to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. When it's pointed out that it DID, you think that was some sort of score for you.

Ok then. You sure know how to make a compelling argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Nov 20 2013 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... You realize though that you just confirmed exactly the point I was making, right? It's not really just about the right to control ones own body (ie: not being forced to go through the physical trauma/risks of pregnancy). It's also about the right to not have to care for the child. Currently, abortion is the only means to avoid both circumstances.

I also happen to agree with you on the whole "transfer the unwanted pregnancy to an artificial womb and put the resulting child up for adoption" bit. I think that would be an ideal solution. My musing is that I suspect that at least for some on the pro-choice side, that solution would still be opposed. You have to remember that while we today talk about women's rights with regard to abortion, the earliest pushes for legalizing abortion had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with eugenics. The concern was that if you didn't legalize abortion there would be too many children born and population growth would get out of control. And for some the issue was that there would be too many dark skinned children born.


It would be interesting to see what the response to that sort of artificial womb solution would be. The problem with it is that it does not solve the population control angle of abortion. I think it's relevant to recognize that the reason many people fight for the right to abort is not necessarily the same as the reason others created the issue and got people to feel strongly about that right in the first place.

I think you'll find the earliest pushes for legalizing abortions had to do with the number of girls and women dying from backyard abortions. There was already contraception in the form of gut condoms. The artificial womb scenario is interesting, and I suspect you'd get a sort of half/half take-up on that. Some women would be okay about giving a fetus away that they hadn't bonded with, if the operation for removal was safe and not damaging. Some women couldn't give their fetus away because, like me, it would tear them to bits and make them suicidal because they were incapable of looking after their own child. Still more would not give them away, because like me, they would be extremely concerned about passing on intolerable genes to the given away child, to parents who don't know what to look out for.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 10:39pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#95 Nov 20 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I'm gonna fill this thread with passive-aggressive rebukes, when I could easily just not open the thread in the first place.
-
This thread's still going? Really?

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 3:43am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#96 Nov 20 2013 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If your mother wasn't going to hold you as a baby, she could have at least aborted you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Nov 20 2013 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I never said there was a medical need for it

Great. Then there's your reason to oppose putting additional barriers in front of it.


And... you just ignored the rest of my point. There's no sales reason to require accident reports before selling a used car either, is there? We could make the exact same argument that requiring accident reports be made available to buyers only serves to create a barrier to the sale. Want to at least try to address the point I made?

The fact that a percentage of women do change their minds about having an abortion after viewing a sonogram of the fetus is why we should require it. Do I really have to continue to try to explain to you why?


Quote:
You just whined that "access to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. When it's pointed out that it DID, you think that was some sort of score for you.


Um... I said that the "right to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women. In the same way that the "right to vote" started with male property owners, then white men, then men, then finally women. The fact that wealthy white women had "access to abortion" without requiring any sort of assumption that there was a "right to abortion" involved supports my argument that the "right to abortion" was less about some realization that this should have been a right all along, as it was a means for those who wanted to lower the relative birth rates among poor colored populations to do so.

I mean, it's not like the history of Margaret Sanger is hidden or anything. While there's some questionable reports of her motivations (and often a complete downplaying of her eugenics beliefs), the pattern of the actual actions she took is quite clear. There is no doubt that her reasons for promoting the use of birth control and abortion grew from her eugenics position. I mean I suppose we could pretend they didn't, but that would be pretty dumb. You've got someone who believes in an ideology that strives to reduce the population growth among poor colored people, and that person then goes out and opens up clinics distributing birth control information and assistance in obtaining abortions for poor colored women in poor colored neighborhoods. What are the odds! I'm sure it was her humanitarianism that caused her to do this. Smiley: oyvey

And there's no doubt that this caused her to get into legal trouble because there were laws against publishing information about birth control, and laws against providing birth control, and laws against providing abortions. She fought against those laws purely because they were obstacles to her being able to operate her eugenics programs. That's it. Fast forward 90 years and we still have the same organization she created doing the same thing, and largely among the same populations. We can sit here and talk about how the motivations of those running it have totally changed so it's not really the same thing, but does that actually make a difference?

They're still doing the same thing. Does it matter if those who support (or even operate) PP honestly believe that everything they're doing is about protecting the reproductive rights of women? Does that mean that what they're doing suddenly becomes moral? Or does it just mean that Sanger was incredibly successful at wrapping her eugenics program in the mantle of women's rights that people continue to push her agenda forward 90 years later without even realizing what they're doing?

My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control. Or that they fight for the rights of women with regards to those things. My issue is that somewhere along the way the issue got turned into such a "for/against" thing that anyone advocating against choosing an abortion is labeled as being against the "right to choose". Somewhere along the line we forgot that the right to choose includes the right to choose *not* to have an abortion. So Planned Parenthood presents a skewed view of the choice to their customers, clearly acting in the advocate position *for* abortion. And it actively works to prevent any attempts to provide counter information to their potential customers, under the guise of claiming that this violates their right to choose (yeah, ironic).

It's ok for public money to be used to fund PPs health and education operations, which happen btw to include positive messages about abortion. Yet, heaven forbid we require a sonogram which might just change someone's mind. So yeah, to me it's incredibly obvious that PP cares less about a woman's right to choose as it does that women choose to have abortions. And that does bother me. It should bother a lot more people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Nov 20 2013 at 10:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,417 posts
My brain isn't going to be buying a used car from my uterus.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#99 Nov 20 2013 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And... you just ignored the rest of my point.

Wasn't necessary. The reason people oppose sonograms is because they create unnecessary barriers for receiving legal medical care at no benefit to the patient. They have zero medical benefit; they exist purely to appease people making a moral judgement upon the woman.

You can disagree with that if you want but it'll still be the reason, not some fever dreamed "anti-minority population" conspiracy theory you read about last week.
gbaji wrote:
Um... I said that the "right to abortion" should have started with wealthy white women.

Quote:
So shouldn't abortion and birth control have been first available to wealthy white women

Aside from being wrong, great point.

Look, it's fantastic that you just read a blog about Sanger and got super excited to share your new knowledge. Honest. It's good that you're trying to learn new things. But you should really try to cobble this into some cohesive and evidence-based argument instead of randomly trying to say "But what about THIS? Hrrmmmm...? That MUST prove it!"
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.

It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.

Edited, Nov 20th 2013 10:49pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Nov 21 2013 at 3:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,836 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.

It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.
Last year his argument was that all funding for PP should be taken away because somewhere, at some point that some of that money might have been used to pay for a light bulb in an office that could have had an abortion procedure done in it. Because there are soup kitchens in churches.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101 Nov 21 2013 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

That's not example. Specifically provide me a quote where I pretended to come off as "intellectual" (key part) but came off ignorant. I usually admit to my own ignorance.
Usually's a bit strong don't you think? Let's go with occasionally. Also, I really have nothing to gain in this, so I'm not sifting through your posts to find an example. Reading 1-2 of your posts is annoying enough. Ask Iddiggory again.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Anonymous Guests (27)