Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Why do you view it as an either/or proposition?[/quote]

It isn’t, you brought that fallacy into this with your quips about starving kids.

[quote]One could easily state the converse:

Some kids are aborted and it is tragic. So our response should be just to ignore the starvation of other kids.

Makes just as much (or little) sense. [/quote]

Correct, the two situations are completely different and unrelated in every way. Unless you are implying, or outright said, the kids would have been better off sucked from the womb via vacuum.

[quote]If all human life is equivalent, no matter how far developed it is and wherever on the planet it occurs, then the kid dying of starvation in Mogadishu is at least as worthy of agitation and outrage as the first-trimester aborted fetus in Minneapolis.

I just don’t see that equivalent outrage, though. Not on this board.

[/quote]

So… Because people don’t get all up in arms that people live in horrid conditions in Mogadishu, they suddenly don’t have valid opinions of the murder of babies in Minneapolis?

822

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What about prescription drugs, should employers be forced to pay for those? Should I, I have no prescriptions and haven’t for years? [/quote]

Employers don’t pay for prescriptions. Employers pay a certain amount of money towards health insurance as a fringe benefit. This has already been stated. If the employer didn’t directly pay for it and the employee paid 100% of the insurance premiums, market theory would suggest either a) insurance premiums would be less or b) employee pay checks would be larger.

823

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Why do you view it as an either/or proposition?[/quote]

It isn’t, you brought that fallacy into this with your quips about starving kids.

[quote]One could easily state the converse:

Some kids are aborted and it is tragic. So our response should be just to ignore the starvation of other kids.

Makes just as much (or little) sense. [/quote]

Correct, the two situations are completely different and unrelated in every way. Unless you are implying, or outright said, the kids would have been better off sucked from the womb via vacuum.

[quote]If all human life is equivalent, no matter how far developed it is and wherever on the planet it occurs, then the kid dying of starvation in Mogadishu is at least as worthy of agitation and outrage as the first-trimester aborted fetus in Minneapolis.

I just don’t see that equivalent outrage, though. Not on this board.

[/quote]

So… Because people don’t get all up in arms that people live in horrid conditions in Mogadishu, they suddenly don’t have valid opinions of the murder of babies in Minneapolis?

[/quote]

Beans, you’ve been around for a while.

How many threads on PWI have you seen pertaining to abortion?

How many have you personally participated in?

There are a lot.

And the same arguments just keep getting hashed and re-hashed.

I brought up starving kids in Asia and Africa not necessarily because I think they are more important than aborted fetuses in America, but rather to illustrate that neither problem will be solved by debate.

Don’t like abortion? Go to a planned parenthood clinic and, instead of carrying a sign, talk to a pregnant teenager and offer to adopt her baby.

Don’t like starving babies? Go to where they live and teach their parents how to feed themselves better…and how to stop having so many babies.

Nothing is going to get done by semi-literate argument over whether or not a single-celled organism is a “person”.

824

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nothing is going to get done by semi-literate argument over whether or not a single-celled organism is a “person”.[/quote]

Fair enough.

But talking about our shitty tyrannical government and arguing with progressives isn’t going to change anything either, lol.

825

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Employers don’t pay for prescriptions.
[/quote]

That doesn’t answer the question. If employers are forced to pay for birth control should they also be force to pay for prescriptions?

My employer subsidizes my prescriptions.

[quote]
Employers pay a certain amount of money towards health insurance as a fringe benefit. This has already been stated. [/quote]

Yes it has, many times :slight_smile:

[quote]
If the employer didn’t directly pay for it and the employee paid 100% of the insurance premiums, market theory would suggest either a) insurance premiums would be less or b) employee pay checks would be larger.[/quote]

Premiums might go down and some employers will likely increase pay. I don’t think it will be the case 100% of the time though.

You know, greedy owners and all.

Also, employees would still have to pay for birth control out of pocket if they paid 100% of their insurance cost.

826

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nothing is going to get done by semi-literate argument over whether or not a single-celled organism is a “person”.[/quote]

Fair enough.

But talking about our shitty tyrannical government and arguing with progressives isn’t going to change anything either, lol.

[/quote]

We might as well shut PWI down then. It serve no purpose other than to debate or argue.

827

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That doesn’t answer the question. If employers are forced to pay for birth control should they also be force to pay for prescriptions?

My employer subsidizes my prescriptions. [/quote]

I understand the question but it’s hard for me to answer b/c I don’t think employers should be forced to pay for anything. I think that it’s up to the employee/employer to come to an agreement.

[quote]
Premiums might go down and some employers will likely increase pay. I don’t think it will be the case 100% of the time though.

You know, greedy owners and all.

Also, employees would still have to pay for birth control out of pocket if they paid 100% of their insurance cost. [/quote]

Some won’t and most likely, those companies won’t survive due to the level of employees than can get. Hell, now that some employers are forced to offer health care, they are laying off people, reducing hours, going out of business, etc. It doesn’t change anything really.

The market speaks for itself.

828

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I understand the question but it’s hard for me to answer b/c I don’t think employers should be forced to pay for anything. I think that it’s up to the employee/employer to come to an agreement.
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]
Some won’t and most likely, those companies won’t survive due to the level of employees than can get. Hell, now that some employers are forced to offer health care, they are laying off people, reducing hours, going out of business, etc. It doesn’t change anything really.

The market speaks for itself. [/quote]

Ya, I tend to agree, but I still think it’s a big maybe. It will take time for wages to normalize. Most people have no understanding of the $ value of their benefits.

829

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
you’re an atheistic asslick who believes that something can come from nothing. [/quote]
What did God come from? [/quote]

By definition, God cannot come from anything. Something caused cannot be uncaused, therefore if ‘God’ came from something ‘He’ wouldn’t be God. Feel free to start a thread about the existence of God if you wish, this is not the place for it. It will be a massive hijack of the thread about abortion.[/quote]
But you brought up God. [/quote]

Well, to be fair, it was actually our Australian friend that brought God up. [/quote]
Every anti-abortion post has God present. [/quote]

No they don’t. Not a single one of my posts has anything to do with God. At all.

Edit: Sentence structure. [/quote]
Are you saying that your position is not influenced at all by your religious beliefs? [/quote]

Is yours?[/quote]
My position on the legality is not based on any religious belief however my position on abortion is. I don’t believe that in a pluralistic society my religious beliefs should be forced upon others. That’s why the US is better off than the ME. [/quote]

I don’t base my observation of the law based on religion at all. I believe in separation of church and state. My position is simply based on facts. The facts that laws should protect human beings from killing one another and that it should include all those who are human beings. And by definition and scientific fact, the unborn are human beings and are entitled to live. By blurring the lines of what a human being is, in order to make it acceptable to kill humans, a slippery slope is made where it’s not sufficient alone to be human, but you must be a human with certain properties not clearly defined in order to deserve your own life. That is an unacceptable inconsistency in the law.
We are making it ok to kill others, who are no threat to anybody else simply based on the fact that they are small and protected by another human being. That is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to a society where human life is said to be valued above all else. It’s clearly not here.

830

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They are offering to subsidize the employees healthcare not pay for it. The insurance company doesn’t pay for birth control. I know, I’ve picked the perception up in the past and buy condoms regularly. The pharmacy doesn’t give them to me for free when I flash my band card.

What if the employee embarrasses the employer after hours? [/quote]

This is how the discussion is led away from the original point . Most anti abortion people act as though they will do anything to avoid people from getting abortions . which is it ? This is a circular discussion .

If an employee brings unwanted attention to his employer even after hours I would think the employer would have grounds to terminate

You have a unique way to debate . It is called noncommittal . You really do not defend any assertion you make , you just make them . One could surmise you are advocating for the Devil :slight_smile:

831

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
They are offering to subsidize the employees healthcare not pay for it. The insurance company doesn’t pay for birth control. I know, I’ve picked the perception up in the past and buy condoms regularly. The pharmacy doesn’t give them to me for free when I flash my band card.

What if the employee embarrasses the employer after hours? [/quote]

This is how the discussion is led away from the original point . Most anti abortion people act as though they will do anything to avoid people from getting abortions . which is it ? This is a circular discussion .

If an employee brings unwanted attention to his employer even after hours I would think the employer would have grounds to terminate

You have a unique way to debate . It is called noncommittal . You really do not defend any assertion you make , you just make them . One could surmise you are advocating for the Devil :slight_smile:
[/quote]

What??

You’re off your fucking rocker Pitt…

Just wow.

832

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t base my observation of the law based on religion at all. I believe in separation of church and state. My position is simply based on facts. The facts that laws should protect human beings from killing one another and that it should include all those who are human beings. And by definition and scientific fact, the unborn are human beings and are entitled to live. By blurring the lines of what a human being is, in order to make it acceptable to kill humans, a slippery slope is made where it’s not sufficient alone to be human, but you must be a human with certain properties not clearly defined in order to deserve your own life. That is an unacceptable inconsistency in the law.
We are making it ok to kill others, who are no threat to anybody else simply based on the fact that they are small and protected by another human being. That is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to a society where human life is said to be valued above all else. It’s clearly not here.[/quote]
Your belief that an unborn “human” is a human is based on your religious beliefs whether you admit it or not. An embryo is not a human. A zygote is not a human. Calling something human life does not make it a human being. The dictionary definition of human, used as a noun, is a person. I don’t know where you came up with the scientific fact and definition that the unborn are human beings. Looking at a zygote and seeing a person is like looking at an egg and seeing a chicken. And if that’s the case when I crack an egg I should be guilty of animal cruelty.

833

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A zygote is not a human. [/quote]

What exactly is it then?

834

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Most anti abortion people act as though they will do anything to avoid people from getting abortions . which is it ?[/quote]

Most prolife people want the individuals in our society to take care of themselves and fulfill their responsibilities like everyone has too.

It isn’t anyone’s fault but their own the people who get abortions, in 97% of cases, are pregnant.

[quote]This is a circular discussion . [/quote] not even remotely close

835

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And if that’s the case when I crack an egg I should be guilty of animal cruelty. [/quote]

PETA says you are.

836

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A zygote is not a human. [/quote]

What exactly is it then?[/quote]

A tree, no a bird… Nope, how about a rock? Nope still not a rock…

837

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A zygote is not a human. [/quote]

What exactly is it then?[/quote]
A zygote.

838

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And if that’s the case when I crack an egg I should be guilty of animal cruelty. [/quote]

PETA says you are.
[/quote]

You can eat an egg and you can eat a chicken so, probably not the best analogy.

839

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
An embryo is not a human. A zygote is not a human. [/quote]

Substantiate this please. So far Pat is the only one who has backed up their position in this thread, and he has done it a couple times.

840

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A zygote is not a human. [/quote]

What exactly is it then?[/quote]
A zygote. [/quote]

And what is a zygote?
A pre-human species?
A sub-human species?
A parasite (that seems to be popular)?