Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
In the animal kingdom animals murder each other all the time as well. So should murder be legal?

For example, a male lion will kill another male lion taking his “property”. If the dead lion had cubs he will also murder them.

So, I guess since we are just animals, I can walk into my next door neighbor’s house and murder him and his family, correct? After all, we are just animals.
[/quote]

As the other male lion would you at least try to stop him from killing you? Laws against murder are just another line of defense.[/quote]

Yes, I would defend myself.

How are words on a piece of paper another line of defense?

Me, “Oh God stop stabbing me, murder is agains the law!”

Murderer, “Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that, sorry…”

[/quote]

If there was another group of lions around the lion being considered for attack, do you think the attacker would reconsider his options? Sure he could probably make the kill if he acted fast but whats the point if his life would end shortly after?[/quote]

I’m not understanding your point as it relates to what I wrote to Angry? Angry, said we are just animals. Animals murder each other and take their property all the time. So we too should be able to murder each other and take each other’s properties as well if we are the same, correct?

To answer your question, yes, I think fight or flight applies to the animal kingdom. [/quote]

I don’t think he said they “should be able to murder”, just that they do murder, the same as humans and nothing will change that fact.[/quote]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Humans not special snowflakes, they are animals. And, as in the animal kingdom, there is no guarantee nor “right” to life. [/quote]

This:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Says otehrwise.

Also if you use the above (Liberty) as you argument against abortion. That is, by taking away a woman right to an abortion. How can you ignore all three when it comes to an unborn baby? Isn’t that inconsistent at best?

If we are “just animals,” than the “law of the jungle,” should apply and Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness mean nothing.[/quote]

And why don’t all three of those apply to animals?[/quote]

I don’t know, because they’re animals?[/quote]

Well that doesn’t seem fair, I suppose drawing the line somewhere does make it more convenient though.[/quote]

I don’t really know what to tell you. Do you agree with Angry, that we are just animals?

62

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Whereas we are what? Vegetables or minerals?

All social animals operate within their own rules of behavior. An individual who transgresses the rules of interaction will either be an outcast, shunned by the tribe, or else killed. A lion may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only because he is ready to enforce it through his own personal prowess against anyone who would presume to deprive him of it. He can’t appeal to a lion legislature to enact laws to protect his rights, or a lion Supreme Court to interpret the lion constitution in a manner favorable to his situation. In the animal kingdom, the strong do what they will, and the weak endure what they must. This is no different from human society, only we like to tell ourselves that it is not so. [/quote]

Follow the conversation Varqanir. I am not say we are vegetables…

63

[quote]pat wrote:

Your graph shows the trend of planned parenthood shutting down clinics. As the number of clinics drop, correlationally, aside from a minor bump around 2005, the numbers of teen pregnancies also dropped.
[/quote]

No no. The first graph plotted the teen pregnancy rate over a span from 1988 to 2006. Aside from the first and last years shown, the rate fell through the entirety of the timespan. During that precise span of time, per the PP Clinic graph, the number of PP clinics rises considerably and then falls back down to just about exactly the same y-axis location that it began with. It shows, on other words, just about a zero net change from 1988 to 2006.

So: PP clinics rise and then fall (with some smaller rises and falls tucked in between) and yet teen pregnancy falls the whole way through. On this evidence, there is exactly no way to argue a correlation between PP Clinics and teen pregnancy rates. None whatsoever.

Every peak and every drop in the PP clinic graph has exactly no analogue in the teen pregnancy rate graph. I’m not saying that there isn’t a 1:1 correlation, I’m saying that there is absolutely no correlation to speak of whatsoever. If PP clinics had, by virtue of their existing, an inflationary effect on teen pregnancy rates, the teen pregnancy rate would have to reflect this in some or another way. It does not, at all. It falls and falls with no care vis-a-vis the trend or absolute position of the PP clinic graph.

64

So this is BS than, correct?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And since this is BS, the argument that abortion shouddl be legal otherwise it infringes on the Liberty of woman is also BS, correct?

65

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your graph shows the trend of planned parenthood shutting down clinics. As the number of clinics drop, correlationally, aside from a minor bump around 2005, the numbers of teen pregnancies also dropped.
[/quote]

No no. The first graph plotted the teen pregnancy rate over a span from 1988 to 2006. Aside from the first and last years shown, the rate fell through the entirety of the timespan. During that precise span of time, in the PP Clinic graph, the number of PP clinics rises considerably and then falls back down to just about exactly the same y-axis location that it began with. It shows, on other words, just about a zero net change from 1988 to 2006. So: PP clinics rise and then fall (with some smaller rises and falls tucked in between) and yet teen pregnancy falls the whole way through. On this evidence, there is exactly no way to argue a correlation between PP Clinics and teen pregnancy rates. None whatsoever.

Every peak and every drop in the PP clinic graph has exactly no analogue in the teen pregnancy rate graph. I’m not saying that there isn’t a 1:1 correlation, I’m saying that there is absolutely no correlation to speak of whatsoever. If PP clinics had, by virtue of their existing, an inflationary effect on teen pregnancy rates, the teen pregnancy rate would have to reflect this in some or another way. It does not, at all. It falls and falls with no care vis-a-vis the trend or absolute position of the PP clinic graph.[/quote]

But I thought if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist teen pregnancy wouldn’t exist. Isn’t Planned Parenthood running around and fucking all of our children in the backseat of cars at prom? Isn’t Planned Parenthood the reason why two special ed kids have sex? Don’t we know if a teen is raped and impregnated today that Planned Parenthood got it cornered?

66

I don’t venture into this section much, but as a neutral 3rd party to this argument over graph reading, I’d like to share my interpretation, as it’s pretty clear Pat didn’t read the graph correctly. The left side of the graph says ‘total PP clinics in US’. It does NOT say total closed in a given year. Pat, according to your interpretation of the graph, it would indicate that hundreds of PP clinics close every year. This makes absolutely no sense.

The current number of clinics is about 650 total (the graph only goes through 2011). By your interpretation, 938 clinics close one year, and we’re losing 700ish every year. Just think about it man, you read the graph wrong because you paid more attention to the title than you should have. Although really, the title should have been a good indicator, since it referenced the peak year of total clinics. Anyway. Carry on, but at least get the facts right when they’re readily available.

67

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Karado, smh_23, Varqanir and angry chicken ALL want to allow innocent people to die for doing nothing other than existing.
[/quote]

Seeing as how I have never typed a single word in support of abortion on this board, I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.

My concern is first and foremost with the truth, and the truth expressed in the study you cited is actually a big hot load of bullshit. Do you agree? Or would you like to address the substance of my rebuttal, rather than calling me a baby killer?[/quote]

The trend or regression line for the past 20 years shows a slow decrease in the amount of PP closing down. Maybe because it is a supply and demand, or funding issues? I believe it is a combination of the two. If unwanted pregnancies are going down then PP’s revenue from abortions will drop meaning not a lot of profit to do the other things. Several State governments are starting to curb funding to organizations that do abortions so PP’s government cheese is going down. Not a lot of money to keep open the clinics. It is not one thing but a lot of things that are attributed to the closing of PP’s.

I agree with you smh teen pregnancies are not the sole causation, but one of many causations.
[/quote]

It’s also possible that closing all of them made the numbers slightly worse than the national average, they handle contraception not just abortions. If you take away abortions its hard to make a case against PP aside from funding.[/quote]

The number of clinics dropped as do the number of teen pregnancies, that’s all the charts show. Both show a drop.[/quote]

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%

68

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Whereas we are what? Vegetables or minerals?

All social animals operate within their own rules of behavior. An individual who transgresses the rules of interaction will either be an outcast, shunned by the tribe, or else killed. A lion may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only because he is ready to enforce it through his own personal prowess against anyone who would presume to deprive him of it. He can’t appeal to a lion legislature to enact laws to protect his rights, or a lion Supreme Court to interpret the lion constitution in a manner favorable to his situation. In the animal kingdom, the strong do what they will, and the weak endure what they must. This is no different from human society, only we like to tell ourselves that it is not so. [/quote]

Follow the conversation Varqanir. I am not say we are vegetables…

[/quote]

I am following the conversation.

We are, in fact, “just” animals. We are just animals who have evolved a social and moral framework of interaction that protects the weak among our species from the predations of the strong and unjust, but unfortunately in practice this means that the strong and unjust are often the ones doing the protection, at the implicit sanction of the weak.

We have elected wolves to safeguard the rights of sheep, and foxes to protect the rights of chickens, and congratulate ourselves that it doesn’t always fail in resulting in genocide, slavery and oppression.

But we are just animals: just another species of social primate with better tools, better weapons, and a more sophisticated moral and legal code than the other social primate on the planet, along with a more finely-tuned sense of self-consciousness and individuality that lets us see ourselves as semi-divine beings, much as the Chinese believed themselves as intermediate between heaven and earth.

We all operate on a continuum between complete self-interest on one side and complete altruism on the other. On one side we have someone who believes that only his own rights are worth protecting. On the other, someone who believes that all life is sacred, and views the killing of an ant or a worm or a tree with the same disgust as one might view the murder of a man or a child or an unborn baby.

I doubt if anyone on this thread falls into either of these extremes, but certainly even one of the most adamant antiabortionists here cares far less about abortion in, say, Brazil or the Netherlands as they do about abortion in America, the implicit interpretation being that an American fetus is worth more than one in another country. This is no different from someone being against abortion in his own family, but silent on the issue as it applies to other people’s families.

I haven’t heard anyone beside kamui agree with me that the right to life of an unborn fetus is equivalent to that right in other nonhuman primates, even those who display more signs of sentience (intelligence, consciousness and self-awareness) than do many of our own species. One chooses one’s own level of chauvinism.

69

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So this is BS than, correct?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And since this is BS, the argument that abortion shouddl be legal otherwise it infringes on the Liberty of woman is also BS, correct? [/quote]

are you calling a fetus a man ?

70

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.

71

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Karado, smh_23, Varqanir and angry chicken ALL want to allow innocent people to die for doing nothing other than existing.
[/quote]

Seeing as how I have never typed a single word in support of abortion on this board, I would like to kindly invite you to go fuck yourself.

My concern is first and foremost with the truth, and the truth expressed in the study you cited is actually a big hot load of bullshit. Do you agree? Or would you like to address the substance of my rebuttal, rather than calling me a baby killer?[/quote]

The trend or regression line for the past 20 years shows a slow decrease in the amount of PP closing down. Maybe because it is a supply and demand, or funding issues? I believe it is a combination of the two. If unwanted pregnancies are going down then PP’s revenue from abortions will drop meaning not a lot of profit to do the other things. Several State governments are starting to curb funding to organizations that do abortions so PP’s government cheese is going down. Not a lot of money to keep open the clinics. It is not one thing but a lot of things that are attributed to the closing of PP’s.

I agree with you smh teen pregnancies are not the sole causation, but one of many causations.
[/quote]

It’s also possible that closing all of them made the numbers slightly worse than the national average, they handle contraception not just abortions. If you take away abortions its hard to make a case against PP aside from funding.[/quote]

The number of clinics dropped as do the number of teen pregnancies, that’s all the charts show. Both show a drop.[/quote]

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

But if we moved both graphs to 1996-current the graphs would be highly correlated. It is all how the graphs are framed.

There is a reason for the rise and fall of clinics. I am not on the side that teen pregnancies are the sole reason. There are combinations of other reasons that bring us to one end. PP clinics are closing.

72

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.

73

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.[/quote]

From 1988-1990 teen pregnancies rose.

Also we are comparing 650-950 PP clinics to tens if not hundreds of thousands of teen pregnancies. If populations rise and the number of teen pregnancies stay the same the number per 1000 will drop.

You have to admit we do not have all the information to really make an informed decision. I am not on either side of this debate and in reality I am in the middle.

74

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Whereas we are what? Vegetables or minerals?

All social animals operate within their own rules of behavior. An individual who transgresses the rules of interaction will either be an outcast, shunned by the tribe, or else killed. A lion may have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only because he is ready to enforce it through his own personal prowess against anyone who would presume to deprive him of it. He can’t appeal to a lion legislature to enact laws to protect his rights, or a lion Supreme Court to interpret the lion constitution in a manner favorable to his situation. In the animal kingdom, the strong do what they will, and the weak endure what they must. This is no different from human society, only we like to tell ourselves that it is not so. [/quote]

Follow the conversation Varqanir. I am not say we are vegetables…

[/quote]

I am following the conversation.

We are, in fact, “just” animals. We are just animals who have evolved a social and moral framework of interaction that protects the weak among our species from the predations of the strong and unjust, but unfortunately in practice this means that the strong and unjust are often the ones doing the protection, at the implicit sanction of the weak.

We have elected wolves to safeguard the rights of sheep, and foxes to protect the rights of chickens, and congratulate ourselves that it doesn’t always fail in resulting in genocide, slavery and oppression.

But we are just animals: just another species of social primate with better tools, better weapons, and a more sophisticated moral and legal code than the other social primate on the planet, along with a more finely-tuned sense of self-consciousness and individuality that lets us see ourselves as semi-divine beings, much as the Chinese believed themselves as intermediate between heaven and earth.

We all operate on a continuum between complete self-interest on one side and complete altruism on the other. On one side we have someone who believes that only his own rights are worth protecting. On the other, someone who believes that all life is sacred, and views the killing of an ant or a worm or a tree with the same disgust as one might view the murder of a man or a child or an unborn baby.

I doubt if anyone on this thread falls into either of these extremes, but certainly even one of the most adamant antiabortionists here cares far less about abortion in, say, Brazil or the Netherlands as they do about abortion in America, the implicit interpretation being that an American fetus is worth more than one in another country. This is no different from someone being against abortion in his own family, but silent on the issue as it applies to other people’s families.

I haven’t heard anyone beside kamui agree with me that the right to life of an unborn fetus is equivalent to that right in other nonhuman primates, even those who display more signs of sentience (intelligence, consciousness and self-awareness) than do many of our own species. One chooses one’s own level of chauvinism. [/quote]

I have no problem with what you wrote with a few exceptions:

1.) I never implied we are anything other than animal.

2.) Our social structure is what sets us apart.

3.) I asked how on one hand “Liberty” is used as a defense (By Angry) for womwn while “Life” is ignored when it come to an unborn baby.

4.) We are the only “animals” that abort our unborn, that I know of. This is a uniquely human issue. I would agrue the mother being eaten in the wild is not abortion, so we don’t need to go there.

5.) I personally think this is a “Human” issue not specific to America.

Perhaps you’ll give me straight answer.

Does this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Hold true or not?

75

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So this is BS than, correct?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And since this is BS, the argument that abortion shouddl be legal otherwise it infringes on the Liberty of woman is also BS, correct? [/quote]

are you calling a fetus a man ?
[/quote]

I’m calling an unborn baby a person…

76

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.[/quote]

And we should know that coorelation does not equal causation anyways. Unless we would like to argue that Democratic Presidents lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy considering the lower rates under Obama vs. Bush.

77

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

78

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.[/quote]

And we should know that coorelation does not equal causation anyways. Unless we would like to argue that Democratic Presidents lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy considering the lower rates under Obama vs. Bush. [/quote]

good point. Even if the graphs HAD shown close correlation, one could have just as easily made the argument that fewer teen pregnancies were what led to PP clinics closing (lower demand).

79

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.[/quote]

And we should know that coorelation does not equal causation anyways. Unless we would like to argue that Democratic Presidents lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy considering the lower rates under Obama vs. Bush. [/quote]

good point. Even if the graphs HAD shown close correlation, one could have just as easily made the argument that fewer teen pregnancies were what led to PP clinics closing (lower demand).
[/quote]

You’re both absolutely right, correlation/causation fallacy would come into play.

In this case though, there isn’t even correlation. Just two lines doing their thing with no regard for each other.

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So this is BS than, correct?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And since this is BS, the argument that abortion shouddl be legal otherwise it infringes on the Liberty of woman is also BS, correct? [/quote]

are you calling a fetus a man ?
[/quote]

I’m calling an unborn baby a person…[/quote]

if that is your point then we are in disagreement of the period before viability