Contraception Question

[JimmyBT]

Imagine thinking a President has near to no impact on your life.  

Edited May 29 by JimmyBT

[WrestlingRasta]

8 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Neither of the two have near enough impact on my life to hate them, just think they’re both worthless, dangerous in their own way, and neither should be anywhere near the presidency.  

When your lack of ability to comprehend what you are reading, brings out your complete obsession with someone in its most ugliest of forms, and you just can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself.

#RentFree

[JimmyBT]

Again.  Imagine thinking a President has zero to no impact on your life. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, mspart said:

Why are you asking?   Do you think it will get outlawed any time soon?  Millions of women depend on it.   Millions of men also depend on it.  

mspart

I do believe it will come up. 

Yes. If conservatives gain control of three branches. They will vote to drop the filibuster and pass that law. They have before with judges. They're not against changing the rules if it benefits their objectives. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Question for the thread creator.  Is abortion being used as contraception?   

In the situation of abortion what does 'contraception' mean to you? 

Can you give me a scenario?  

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Question for the thread creator.  Is abortion being used as contraception?   

In several states now, its not even an option. Because most, if not all, pregnant people find out they are pregnant beyond the point where they can have an abortion. So in those states, no. 

I'll address the question more thoroughly after I get more info about your question from my previous response. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

11 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Neither of the two have near enough impact on my life to hate them, just think they’re both worthless, dangerous in their own way, and neither should be anywhere near the presidency.  

Not wrong but I feel the current President will allow for the experiment to continue. Where as the other guy just wants to stay out of prison and pay off his debts with campaign money and will do anything to make those happen. 

[JimmyBT]

53 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

In several states now, its not even an option. Because most, if not all, pregnant people find out they are pregnant beyond the point where they can have an abortion. So in those states, no. 

I'll address the question more thoroughly after I get more info about your question from my previous response. 

It’s pretty simple actually.  Almost half of all abortions are repeat abortions.  

[JimmyBT]

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/05/repeat-abortion-repeat-unintended-pregnancy-repeated-and-misguided-government-policies

[Bigbrog]

What is funny is for people to actually think, as a country, we would ever ban contraception.  SMH 

But then again they are the same people that somehow played mental gymnastics in their brains to try and convince themselves that Trump said he would ban them.  Wow

[ThreePointTakedown]

29 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

It’s pretty simple actually.  Almost half of all abortions are repeat abortions.  

It might seem simple to you. But your next sentence doesn't break anything down. 

Firstly, is this true? And how do we know it's true? Are the facts that you were given and passing along, reliable? How did you determine that? 

Let's say that they are: does this mean that these people are using abortion as contraception? I don't know. Each situation is different. Each person is different and you seem to be painting nuanced situations with a broad brush.

Let's take a step back. You still did not define what you mean by 'contraception'. If you can do that before trying to have the conversation without me then we can have a conversation. Other wise we're always going to be going backward trying to correct things and never getting to the meat. 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I do believe it will come up. 

Yes. If conservatives gain control of three branches. They will vote to drop the filibuster and pass that law. They have before with judges. They're not against changing the rules if it benefits their objectives. 

Projection.   D's have already done this.   So what's your point?

mspart

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

It might seem simple to you. But your next sentence doesn't break anything down. 

Firstly, is this true? And how do we know it's true? Are the facts that you were given and passing along, reliable? How did you determine that? 

Let's say that they are: does this mean that these people are using abortion as contraception? I don't know. Each situation is different. Each person is different and you seem to be painting nuanced situations with a broad brush.

Let's take a step back. You still did not define what you mean by 'contraception'. If you can do that before trying to have the conversation without me then we can have a conversation. Other wise we're always going to be going backward trying to correct things and never getting to the meat. 

Says the guy that just took it backwards as usual.  We’ll just leave it as yes it is 

[ThreePointTakedown]

20 minutes ago, mspart said:

Projection.   D's have already done this.   So what's your point?

mspart

Please elaborate? Done what? Break cloture to seat judges(except SCOTUS judges)? Yes. What did reps do after that THIS. Then stole two SCOTUS seats from Dem Presidents. 

So one side took a shot, the other took theirs and made it way bigger. Then took two more HUGE shots. So as far as dishonesty, Reps are up 3-1. Tell me how it ends? If your answer doesn't start with, letting dems even things up and then calling a truce, you're wrong or dishonest or both. Or I'd like to know where I'm wrong. 

If that is your response, how does it not come off as you saying, 'yes they will, because Dems will(or have) do something if they get the chance, so we will when we get the chance, first'?

Which is a strikingly similar answer that 45 gave when asked directly. Previously said no, but decided to hedge instead of repeating an answer they had already given before. You should ask more of your representatives, is all. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Just now, JimmyBT said:

Says the guy that just took it backwards as usual.  We’ll just leave it as yes it is 

Why do we have to do this every time?

Can you just give me more details of your opinion so I can answer the question?

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

Says the guy that just took it backwards as usual.  We’ll just leave it as yes it is 

Yes. I need more info of what you are referring to make an honest answer. Why is that controversial?

[JimmyBT]

Just now, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why do we have to do this every time?

Can you just give me more details of your opinion so I can answer the question?

Yes. There are lazy and/or stupid people that know they can get impregnated (without using protection) and terminate it.  

[JimmyBT]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Why do we have to do this every time?

Can you just give me more details of your opinion so I can answer the question?

It’s what you just did.  Babble away without answering a question while asking 106 questions back. It gets old. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

No, people do not use abortion as 'contraception'. If you disagree, show me evidence. 

While we're at it, lets make a threshold. If you find some instances, which you feel it is being used as 'contraception' (which you still haven't defined, so you are free to use it however you like to support your position, which is dishonest, shocking) then we need to determine how many need to have happened before it is a phenomenon that 'happens' in your mind. 

Because 'happens' seems to me to mean its prevalent, more than the norm, or too much for comfort. How much is too much and why is it that number? 

But if you mean, it 'happens' one time and so therefore the whole practice needs to be taken off the table. I'm sorry, you and I don't seem to live in the same reality because that's not how things work. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

3 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Yes. There are lazy and/or stupid people that know they can get impregnated (without using protection) and terminate it.  

I'm sure there is. Refer to most recent post: do we have accurate numbers or any numbers that represent that fact? 

Please don't say, 'its common sense' because it isn't. I can think of that scenario but know of no one who has done it. Unless it is actually happening then it is just a story in your head. If it is, then how much is too much in your opinion?

[ThreePointTakedown]

5 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

It’s what you just did.  Babble away without answering a question while asking 106 questions back. It gets old. 

Argh. Why would I want to answer a question then need to go back and correct 106 things before we're even speaking about the same issue?

I'm sorry but some of your questions are incredibly broad. If you want a legit answer, sometimes you need to distill them down a bit. 

[mspart]

You constantly ask for examples and they are never good enough for you.   So why play your game?

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

You constantly ask for examples and they are never good enough for you.   So why play your game?

mspart

That is incredibly telling. Having been away, I haven't asked 'constantly' for anything. But if I have issue with the examples you or anyone offers then why not address those issues. If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny. If I am dishonest in critiquing them, I'm sure you'll be first to jump in and say so. 

But if you or anyone is going to say that a thing is 'happening' and you fail to offer up any examples of that thing or explain in more detail, when requested, the phenomenon you are siting, how are we to believe that it happens at all?

What was the point of your comment if not a bad faith attempt to end a conversation? 

Was that your point? If so, just change the channel. 

What is your take on this situation(abortion as contraception)? Care to weigh in? Or chuck comments from the peanut gallery? 

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That is incredibly telling. Having been away, I haven't asked 'constantly' for anything. But if I have issue with the examples you or anyone offers then why not address those issues. If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny. If I am dishonest in critiquing them, I'm sure you'll be first to jump in and say so.    This is not incredibly telling.   You were here doing the same thing long before you took a few weeks  away.   So you have, insofar as you have been posting here, been doing this.   Don't be obtuse. 

But if you or anyone is going to say that a thing is 'happening' and you fail to offer up any examples of that thing or explain in more detail, when requested, the phenomenon you are siting, how are we to believe that it happens at all?  Again, you are given plenty of examples and evidence and you pivot and go to something else or simply disregard.   It is a tactic as old as time and it does not do anything for a discussion.   So why bother?  

What was the point of your comment if not a bad faith attempt to end a conversation?    You are the pot calling the kettle black with that statement.   Look in in the mirror buddy. 

Was that your point? If so, just change the channel.  It was meant to advise you you will get no more examples from me.   You show bad faith each time you are given examples and evidence.   This is simply projection.  You disregard or want to talk about something else.   Done acquiescing to your demand for examples and evidence and was just letting you know that without any way to misunderstand. 

What is your take on this situation(abortion as contraception)? Care to weigh in? Or chuck comments from the peanut gallery?   I have weighed in and you have chosen to disregard.   Not going to regurgitate for you on command. 

Any point you make above is pure projection and is an example of what you constantly do.   You just want to play games and in doing so try to sound reasonable in your unreasonbleness.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

21 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 But if I have issue with the examples you or anyone offers then why not address those issues. If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny. to weigh in? Or chuck comments from the peanut gallery? 

Because by determining the only question worth answering is one that is 'worth their salt by standing up to my scrutiny', makes it real easy to not have to look internal and answer questions yourself simply by dismissing something you're not comfortable answering......all the while accusing the same of others.   

It's another one of those things interesting in human behavior.