Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
921

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]

And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”

Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[/quote]

I’m with you. I don’t include Social Security in my retirement projections or planning.

It’ll be like a “bonus” if it still exists in 40 years. [/quote]

It is my Pizza Money when I retire. I do not understand why people want to live that way. I am saving and investing, saving and investing. When I am older I am going to live off the earnings and do stuff that people will envy. I might even pay for a trip for my buddies that are on Soc Sec.
[/quote]

Lol, that is my goal as well.

922

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]

And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”

Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[/quote]

I’m with you. I don’t include Social Security in my retirement projections or planning.

It’ll be like a “bonus” if it still exists in 40 years. [/quote]

It is my Pizza Money when I retire. I do not understand why people want to live that way. I am saving and investing, saving and investing. When I am older I am going to live off the earnings and do stuff that people will envy. I might even pay for a trip for my buddies that are on Soc Sec.
[/quote]

Lol, that is my goal as well. [/quote]

Keep going you will get there. I am not that much older than you. Mid 30’s and still have a ways to go, but the Net Worth is starting to go up quickly now.

923

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.

I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.

[/quote]

If the egg is not fertilized then it is not a Zygote, and the egg will never grow inside of the woman.
[/quote]

Yes, I know. Please see bolded line above. [/quote]

I was emphasizing that what you said applied here.
[/quote]

No, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that it should not apply.

The equivalent expression to “don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched” would be “don’t count your babies until they’re born.”

And I know that’s not what you think.

924

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]

And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”

Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[/quote]

Did you know that a pound of ALPO contains 94 grams of protein and costs only 68 cents if you buy it in a 40-pound bag?

Could be the ultimate bulking food.

Never mind that a lot of that protein comes from diseased, euthanized pets and farm animals, slaughterhouse carcasses and roadkill scooped up off our nation’s roadways. And it also has corn, which is really gross.

925

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]

If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.

Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]

What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”

They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.

If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]

The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]

I personally am tired of picking up the slack for lazy 30 year olds living off welfare because a job at McDonalds is “beneath” them. I would rather that money go to under privileged kids. Ideally through charity, but I’ll take via the gov.[/quote]

What pisses me off is that a 30 year old makes more money on welfare than that fucking micky d’s job . Even if he was stupid enough to work that job , we would have to subsidize his income . Because people do not feel a job should pay a livable wage

926

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]

If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.

Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]

What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”

They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.

If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]

The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]

I personally am tired of picking up the slack for lazy 30 year olds living off welfare because a job at McDonalds is “beneath” them. I would rather that money go to under privileged kids. Ideally through charity, but I’ll take via the gov.[/quote]

What pisses me off is that a 30 year old makes more money on welfare than that fucking micky d’s job . Even if he was stupid enough to work that job , we would have to subsidize his income . Because people do not feel a job should pay a livable wage [/quote]
Or he could take that job, work his ass off, and eventually make way more than welfare pays.

927

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]

If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.

Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]

What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”

They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.

If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]

The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]

I personally am tired of picking up the slack for lazy 30 year olds living off welfare because a job at McDonalds is “beneath” them. I would rather that money go to under privileged kids. Ideally through charity, but I’ll take via the gov.[/quote]

What pisses me off is that a 30 year old makes more money on welfare than that fucking micky d’s job . Even if he was stupid enough to work that job , we would have to subsidize his income . Because people do not feel a job should pay a livable wage [/quote]
Or he could take that job, work his ass off, and eventually make way more than welfare pays.[/quote]

I might have agreed with yo 30 years ago

928

[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]

I am going to keep repeating this until it is understood. A zygote is a stage of development. Dogs have a zygote stage too, that doesn’t mean it’s a zygote, it’s a dog in the zygote stage. A dog zygote is not the same as a human zygote. One is a dog, the other is human.

929

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If a zygote is a person, and it dies, do we need a death certificate? [/quote]

It doesn’t matter, that doesn’t change what it is. A zygote can be a dog, and elephant, a whale, a rabbit. A zygote is a stage of development, not an entity unto itself.

930

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?
[/quote]

Why read what isn’t there? Did I say it was right? This is what I meant as an attempt at being clever. It’s obvious you wanted me to fall into some “trap” to show that I agree with slavery or something. I simply stated that if you want the law changed then the burden of proof falls upon you whether you are right or wrong.

[/quote]

I wish I was that clever.

This “it is the law you have to prove otherwise” is the equivalent of burying you head in the sand. It’s exactly what many people did during slavery and during the holocaust.

What is your stance than, is abortion right or wrong? [/quote]
Anti-abortionists have two choices then: they can try to change the law through civil means or, as was the case with slavery, go to war. If abortion were illegal then it would be up to those who wanted it legal to prove their case. It goes both ways.

I have already stated that I am not in favor of abortion. I am pro-choice because I am not arrogant enough to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed upon others. I know some will call that hypocrisy but as another poster pointed out, there are children being killed all over the world. If life is so precious then why don’t they go save them as well? [/quote]

It’s hypocrisy to think that some laws are to be an imposition but others are not whether or not they are the same action.
And you are imposing you personal beliefs if you are arguing for abortion. Your position is weak. Abortion is either the taking of a human life, or it’s not. It’s either ok to take a human life or it is not. That’s the bottom line. It’s not ok to say ‘I wounldn’t do it, but I am not going to tell others not to do it’. I am not going rob a liquor store and I am not ok with others robbing a liquor store.

931

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A sperm is also a beginning stage in human life. Life does not begin at conception as both the sperm and egg are already alive. So when does human life really begin? When does being a person begin?

A hole in the ground is the start of a foundation but it isn’t a house. [/quote]

No, it’s not. It’s not difficult if you look at the facts. It’s only difficult if you try to justify the unjustifiable.

932

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
but when does personhood start? [/quote]

Well that would be the basis for the entire argument. I happen to believe it starts at conception. Others tend to poo-poo the child until it is born as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite”, “tumor” even.

However, it is a unique and individual life, this we all know. It doesn’t matter what names you label that life in order to rationalize the ending of that life, it is still the life of an individual and unique person.

(The irony of someone who calls an unborn child a parasite or tumor and has the nerve to say that “americans are fucked up people” is astounding.)

I’m not playing semantics. I refuse to entertain this irrelevant rationalization. It is a human in the womb, it is alive, period. It may not be fully developed, but that doesn’t change what it is.

Shit you aren’t fully developed either, you grow, at least mentally, every day. [/quote]
That’s the problem with anti-abortionists; they bring up science and facts but science and facts do not, probably cannot, tell us when something is a person. The better argument would be to avoid whether or not a zygote is a human being (a person) and simply state why a zygote should be treated as a person. In other words, instead of trying to prove that a zygote is a human being by some scientific standard, just argue why it’s a human being from a conceptual standpoint. [/quote]

It’s in the science. It’s not our job to educate you, that’s your job. You need to support your position with facts, not suppositions.

933

[quote]pat wrote:

No, it’s not. It’s not difficult if you look at the facts. [/quote]

What facts are those ?

934

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
but when does personhood start? [/quote]

Well that would be the basis for the entire argument. I happen to believe it starts at conception. Others tend to poo-poo the child until it is born as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite”, “tumor” even.

However, it is a unique and individual life, this we all know. It doesn’t matter what names you label that life in order to rationalize the ending of that life, it is still the life of an individual and unique person.

(The irony of someone who calls an unborn child a parasite or tumor and has the nerve to say that “americans are fucked up people” is astounding.)

I’m not playing semantics. I refuse to entertain this irrelevant rationalization. It is a human in the womb, it is alive, period. It may not be fully developed, but that doesn’t change what it is.

Shit you aren’t fully developed either, you grow, at least mentally, every day. [/quote]
That’s the problem with anti-abortionists; they bring up science and facts but science and facts do not, probably cannot, tell us when something is a person. The better argument would be to avoid whether or not a zygote is a human being (a person) and simply state why a zygote should be treated as a person. In other words, instead of trying to prove that a zygote is a human being by some scientific standard, just argue why it’s a human being from a conceptual standpoint. [/quote]

It’s in the science. It’s not our job to educate you, that’s your job. You need to support your position with facts, not suppositions.[/quote]
Personhood, whether or not someone or something is a person (human being) is not a scientific term. Science cannot and does not define the concept of being a person. So when you say it’s in the science you might want to actually do more than say it is. Show us the science.

935

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?
[/quote]

Why read what isn’t there? Did I say it was right? This is what I meant as an attempt at being clever. It’s obvious you wanted me to fall into some “trap” to show that I agree with slavery or something. I simply stated that if you want the law changed then the burden of proof falls upon you whether you are right or wrong.

[/quote]

I wish I was that clever.

This “it is the law you have to prove otherwise” is the equivalent of burying you head in the sand. It’s exactly what many people did during slavery and during the holocaust.

What is your stance than, is abortion right or wrong? [/quote]
Anti-abortionists have two choices then: they can try to change the law through civil means or, as was the case with slavery, go to war. If abortion were illegal then it would be up to those who wanted it legal to prove their case. It goes both ways.

I have already stated that I am not in favor of abortion. I am pro-choice because I am not arrogant enough to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed upon others. I know some will call that hypocrisy but as another poster pointed out, there are children being killed all over the world. If life is so precious then why don’t they go save them as well? [/quote]

It’s hypocrisy to think that some laws are to be an imposition but others are not whether or not they are the same action.
And you are imposing you personal beliefs if you are arguing for abortion. Your position is weak. Abortion is either the taking of a human life, or it’s not. It’s either ok to take a human life or it is not. That’s the bottom line. It’s not ok to say ‘I wounldn’t do it, but I am not going to tell others not to do it’. I am not going rob a liquor store and I am not ok with others robbing a liquor store.[/quote]
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of?

936

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of? [/quote]

Come on zecarlo, I don’t park my car in downtown Baltimore City just waiting for some thug to brandish a 9mm so I can stop a murder from happening. Even if I did, it would be pretty hard to stop the approx 40 murders a day in America… So why oh why does someone anti-abortion have to abduct (a crime) a pregnant woman and force them to give birth, otherwise they are a hypocrite?

937

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of? [/quote]

Come on zecarlo, I don’t park my car in downtown Baltimore City just waiting for some thug to brandish a 9mm so I can stop a murder from happening. Even if I did, it would be pretty hard to stop the approx 40 murders a day in America… So why oh why does someone anti-abortion have to abduct (a crime) a pregnant woman and force them to give birth, otherwise they are a hypocrite?[/quote]
How am I a hypocrite for not believing we should legislate based on religion? By me saying a woman should have a choice I am guilty because I am doing nothing to stop abortion. Pat, by not physically stopping what he believes to be murder is no different. He may go further by using his vote to stop abortion but he could go further and chooses not to.

938

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of? [/quote]

Come on zecarlo, I don’t park my car in downtown Baltimore City just waiting for some thug to brandish a 9mm so I can stop a murder from happening. Even if I did, it would be pretty hard to stop the approx 40 murders a day in America… So why oh why does someone anti-abortion have to abduct (a crime) a pregnant woman and force them to give birth, otherwise they are a hypocrite?[/quote]

How am I a hypocrite for not believing we should legislate based on religion? By me saying a woman should have a choice I am guilty because I am doing nothing to stop abortion. Pat, by not physically stopping what he believes to be murder is no different. He may go further by using his vote to stop abortion but he could go further and chooses not to. [/quote]

I didn’t call you a hypocrite.

It’s absurd to call someone a hypocrite because they aren’t going to the extreme for something they disagree with.

939

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of? [/quote]

Come on zecarlo, I don’t park my car in downtown Baltimore City just waiting for some thug to brandish a 9mm so I can stop a murder from happening. Even if I did, it would be pretty hard to stop the approx 40 murders a day in America… So why oh why does someone anti-abortion have to abduct (a crime) a pregnant woman and force them to give birth, otherwise they are a hypocrite?[/quote]

How am I a hypocrite for not believing we should legislate based on religion? By me saying a woman should have a choice I am guilty because I am doing nothing to stop abortion. Pat, by not physically stopping what he believes to be murder is no different. He may go further by using his vote to stop abortion but he could go further and chooses not to. [/quote]

I didn’t call you a hypocrite.

It’s absurd to call someone a hypocrite because they aren’t going to the extreme for something they disagree with.

[/quote]
Pat did. The way I look at it, if someone is going to throw out the word hypocrite when talking about abortion, then it has to be an all or nothing stance. You either go the extreme or you are a hypocrite. Pat cannot take a limited approach to stopping abortion then call someone else who does the same thing a hypocrite.

940

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If you actually believe it is murder and you should stop it then why aren’t you in prison for trying to stop it? If I saw a child in danger I would do whatever I could to save it. Are you kidnapping pregnant women outside of abortion clinics and holding them captive until they give birth? So you have your own hypocrisy that prevents you from taking that ultimate step. What are you afraid of? [/quote]

Come on zecarlo, I don’t park my car in downtown Baltimore City just waiting for some thug to brandish a 9mm so I can stop a murder from happening. Even if I did, it would be pretty hard to stop the approx 40 murders a day in America… So why oh why does someone anti-abortion have to abduct (a crime) a pregnant woman and force them to give birth, otherwise they are a hypocrite?[/quote]

How am I a hypocrite for not believing we should legislate based on religion? By me saying a woman should have a choice I am guilty because I am doing nothing to stop abortion. Pat, by not physically stopping what he believes to be murder is no different. He may go further by using his vote to stop abortion but he could go further and chooses not to. [/quote]

I didn’t call you a hypocrite.

It’s absurd to call someone a hypocrite because they aren’t going to the extreme for something they disagree with.

[/quote]
Pat did. The way I look at it, if someone is going to throw out the word hypocrite when talking about abortion, then it has to be an all or nothing stance. You either go the extreme or you are a hypocrite. Pat cannot take a limited approach to stopping abortion then call someone else who does the same thing a hypocrite. [/quote]

Again, I’m not calling you a hypocrite, but…

You say you are against abortion in one breath, but okay with it in the next.

Pat says he’s against abortion and (according to him) he does everything legally within his power to end abortion.

That’s all I’m saying.

For the record I understand your argument. The issue is we aren’t talking about, I don’t know, pancakes here. “I don’t persoanlly like pancakes, but I would never force others to not eat pancakes if they want them.” We are talking about a third life being ended here. Again, I get it. There is a fundamental question that isn’t agreed upond. When is it a human life/person? We obviously (and Pat) disagree here.

I’m also not getting on your case. You seem like a level headed poster.