Contraception Question

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

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

mspart

This  

[ThreePointTakedown]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

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

A

sking for examples and receiving none(from someone who isn't you, btw) is an example of me being too critical? That you've elected to step in to be a shield for a like minded poster is also telling. Having to read me dismantle someone with similar opinions and emotional defense mechanisms must bother you so. Rent free is the way to be. 

Your inferiority complex is getting the better of you here. If you would just step up with solid examples and evidence. Instead appealing to emotion. The thing you project on to your opponents. We wouldn't be in this mess. 

I'm sorry you are piss poor at critical thinking or holding to high standards. Biting the hand that tries to point that out will just leave you wallowing in the cesspool that you have made for yourself. You can't name call or phantom project your insecurities out of it. If you're embarrassed by the simple questions that I ask, that seem to rile you up so much. Have better answers or change your position. 

Or are you projecting that you don't think your examples(for which I've not asked you for any) are good enough to prove a point? 

19 hours ago, mspart said:

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

mspart

^You're telling on yourself. What this says is that you either have a horrible memory(possible, can't knock you for that), don't actually read my comments(also possible) which makes you a dishonest interlocutor(person who takes part in conversation or discussion), read them and agree but can't bring yourself to admit it(cognitive dissonance, likely), or just don't understand the nature of my objections(also possible). 

So, your whining that I'm too harsh. Then whine that I call you out for whining. Then whine about how I'm unfair in being as or more critical of your sources as you are. You sound like a sniveling toddler crying because no one lets them win. 

All because I asked someone else a question that triggered you so much you had to start this charade. 

Your side loves saying this, 'stay in your lane' Adults(at least I am) are talking. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

18 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

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.

Not getting what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate? 

[WrestlingRasta]

16 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not getting what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate? 

While having full expectation that people answer your questions whether they are comfortable with them or not, you are at the same time making the following statement:  "If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny."   Indicating yourself as the ultimate authority on whether or not a question/example in a dialogue is worthy.

By doing this, you make it very easy to dodge questions/examples you may not be comfortable answering, all while expecting others to do just that, by simply claiming it is not worthy of your salt, which is very easy and self fulfilling to do if you don't want to put yourself in the discomfort of a particular question or example.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

22 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

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

Can you give me a breakdown of how this article supports your suggestion? Just to make sure we're on the same page. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

While having full expectation that people answer your questions whether they are comfortable with them or not, you are at the same time making the following statement:  "If the examples are worth their salt they should stand up to my scrutiny."   Indicating yourself as the ultimate authority on whether or not a question/example in a dialogue is worthy.

By doing this, you make it very easy to dodge questions/examples you may not be comfortable answering, all while expecting others to do just that, by simply claiming it is not worthy of your salt, which is very easy and self fulfilling to do if you don't want to put yourself in the discomfort of a particular question or example.  

That could be a way of looking at it.

But I'd like to see an instance where I dismiss an example without reason. I don't claim it. I point out why and how they are not or that the sources of info/data are bias or outright lies. 

Also, I do answer questions. Several threads have responses filled with dozens of questions that I answer thoroughly. Granted I might miss a few in the thread maze that some of these discussions turn into. With multiple posters posting multiple posts. One fish, two fish. 

In this thread I have asked for examples of a phenomenon and how we can tell it is happening enough to be concerned. In your opinion, was it too much for me to ask, instead of giving a misinformed answer to an incredibly vague question?

[ThreePointTakedown]

23 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

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

 

23 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

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

If half of all abortions are repeat. 

What is your point? 

It also says that most repeat abortions happen when the person is over 30 years old, has at least one other child and had used one or more means of contraception in the month they became pregnant. 

If your question is, 'are people using abortion as their only form of contraception?' The answer is no. 

But again, what is your point? 

Makes me think you skimmed a head line and didn't read the article that contradicts you position. Am I wrong? 

"Almost half of black women and about 40% of poor and low-income women have had at least one unintended birth." 

Not sure this is good. Maybe we should help people avoid having children if they don't intend to. How do we do this? Give them education and contraceptive care? 

Or is it morality issue? 

"Indeed, unintended births are as common among U.S. women as is abortion: Almost one-third of all women aged 15–44 report having had at least one unintended birth."

What might be a common thread? Not sure. But we should find out, right? 

How pregnancy changes a body: https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/changes-in-your-body/body-changes-during-pregnancy/

We should read this to see what happens when a person goes through a pregnancy. 

I'm just going to keep copying and pasting bits from this article because its gold. Thanks JBT!

Possible solutions: 

Clearly, more effective contraceptive use would help women reduce their risk of unintended pregnancy, which in turn would lead to fewer abortions (including fewer repeat abortions) and fewer unintended births. To improve contraceptive use, a woman first needs good counseling, which will increase her chances of selecting the contraceptive method that is right for her at that particular time in her life. Then she needs easy and affordable access to her chosen method and to the necessary services to support her choice over time. Although having good access to contraceptive services is important for all sexually active women, it seems especially important for women having abortions and women giving birth (whether intended or unintended), who constitute a self-selected group—perhaps a high-risk one at that.

What people have done to make the problem worse. Lets read: 

From the time that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, antiabortion activists inside and outside government turned their attention to making abortion services harder to obtain, rather than on making the unintended pregnancies that precede almost all abortions less likely. A central component of that effort, based on the notion that family planning clinics serve as funnels for abortion clinics, has been a doggedly pursued campaign to erect "walls of separation" between the two. At both the state and federal levels with varying degrees of success, antiabortion activists have sought to block organizations that receive public funds for family planning from providing problem pregnancy counseling that includes any discussion of the option of abortion, making abortion referrals even upon direct request, engaging in abortion rights advocacy and providing abortion services at all.

Now lets read how Republican Presidents have tried their best to screw(pun intended) over the international community with their dumb ass policies: 

A spate of such separation requirements were enacted at the state level in the late 1970s but were blocked by the courts. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, activists turned to the federal government and set their sights first on U.S. foreign policy, over which the president is given significant discretion. In 1984, the Reagan administration unveiled the "Mexico City" policy (named for the location of the international population conference at which it was first announced), which did not require congressional approval or even authority. The policy disqualifies indigenous organizations in developing countries from eligibility for U.S. family planning aid if they use other, non–U.S. government funds to provide abortions or abortion-related counseling, referrals or advocacy. In 1993, President Clinton rescinded the policy, which has come to be widely known as the global gag rule, but President Bush reimposed it in 2001.

Thanks again JBT. If you would have read this before posting I never would have found this. 

Clinton wasn't great but had their moments: 

Having successfully restricted international family planning programs, the Reagan administration in 1987 issued a similar gag rule for the Title X domestic family planning program. That regulation banned the "nondirective" problem pregnancy counseling that had been required in Title X programs, as well as abortion referrals for women who request them; it also called for physical and financial separation between a federally funded contraceptive services program and any privately funded abortion service. The courts blocked the domestic gag rule from going into effect until the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1991. The policy, however, was never fully implemented, and on his first day in office in January 1993, Clinton cancelled it (along with its international counterpart).

Reason some have repeat abortions, if you were curious: 

Basically, free-standing clinics are not comprehensive reproductive health care providers because of the lack of demand from their clients and because the existing providers, for better or worse, are doing all they can to keep up with the demand for abortion services. According to Rachel Falls, who directs NAF's abortion hotline, "a woman may be very pleased with the care she receives at the abortion clinic, but she is not there to build a relationship." Certainly, the stigma many women feel about having an abortion—emanating from family, friends, church, society at large or even themselves—can be a significant impediment to their wanting to return more than necessary.

I wonder how much farther some people have to travel now?: 

Compounding the problem is the fact that the declining number of abortion providers has meant increasing numbers of women must travel longer distances to find one. For example, in the case of the free-standing Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, more than half of the clients travel over 50 miles for abortion services, according to executive director Sally Burgess. The further a woman must travel (or for confidentiality reasons chooses to travel) to reach an abortion provider, the less practical it would be for her to consider that clinic for her regular source of reproductive health care.

Reagan-era regulation put a wall between abortion care and contraceptive care. Making it hard for people who need an abortion from getting help to get contraceptive care. Increasing the likelihood of a repeat abortion:

Like the many Planned Parenthoods that both offer abortion services and operate Title X family planning programs, Boulder Valley has a strong commitment to overcoming political obstacles to make the system work for women as much as possible. Participating in the Title X program, however, does carry a cost. Levy notes, for example, that women who obtain an abortion at her agency must have a separate chart if they later return for ongoing, Title X–funded contraceptive services. The agency must scrupulously segregate the funds it uses for its abortion services and its Title X program.

I look forward to any an all opinions on the subject. Enjoy. 

[Scouts Honor]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:50 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Should contraception remain available and legal for all persons? Why or why not?

of course.

you would be surprised to know that the GOP has tried to make the pill over the counter many times, ALWAYS rejected by democrats