Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Would you say that the three “certain unalienable rights” listed as examples in the Declaration are in order of importance? In other words, Life trumps Liberty, Liberty trumps Pursuit of Happiness? Let’s say that it does.
[/quote]

I personally think Life should trump the other two and the other two should be equal, but for the sake of argument we can follow your thought.

I think absolutes are too well absolute. There are always exception. I don’t think Hitlers right to life trumps the libery of 10,000,000 jews.

No I think we should do everything in our power to avoid sacrificing anyone. Life’s not always fair though, didn’t you just point that out in a previous post?

Neither life should be deemed “more important.” Sure, it’s natural to care more about your own group. I’m not seeing the point? Our society needs work.

Like, I’ve said before there is no black & white answer to abortion. There will always (and there should be) exceptions.

No she should not be forced to die in birth, hence, one of the exceptions I understand and am okay with. Like 99% of the people against abortion I imagine. We aren’t all Christian fundamentalist hell bent on 100% abortion restrictions.

All that said, I don’t believe the liberty of a woman should trump the life of an unborn baby. I don’t even think a woman’s liberty is taken from her if abortion is made illegal. She still is at liberty to gangbang 15 guys every Friday night, not use protection, etc… However, I don’t think she should have the liberty to take a life she had a hand in creating by her own choices.

102

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.

103

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It is relevant. Is an animal’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness contingent upon that animal being self-aware, cognizant of the difference between freedom and captivity, and the ability to experience pleasure and pain?

Are we the only animals on this planet who are capable of these?

Is a fetus capable of any of them?[/quote]

I don’t know…

104

What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best.

105

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.

106

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know. [/quote]

So killing them is OK as long as you don’t know the answer to that question?[/quote]

I don’t have a problem killing non-humans for a number of reasons. Do I know if a pig can “Pursue Happiness,” no I don’t. I also don’t think it’s possible to know and I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerened these unalienable rights apply to humans.

We can keep talking about a cats right to Liberty if you’d like, it’s got nothing to do with abortion…

Again, this entire unalianable rights discussion in based on the use of “Liberty,” as a defense of abortion, but “Life,” being ignored when it comes to an unborn person. [/quote]

I never once cared to talk about liberty specifically or pursuit of happiness, just life. I just wanted to know why you think the right to life applies to humans only.

107

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know. [/quote]

So killing them is OK as long as you don’t know the answer to that question?[/quote]

I don’t have a problem killing non-humans for a number of reasons. Do I know if a pig can “Pursue Happiness,” no I don’t. I also don’t think it’s possible to know and I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerened these unalienable rights apply to humans.

We can keep talking about a cats right to Liberty if you’d like, it’s got nothing to do with abortion…

Again, this entire unalianable rights discussion in based on the use of “Liberty,” as a defense of abortion, but “Life,” being ignored when it comes to an unborn person. [/quote]

I never once cared to talk about liberty specifically or pursuit of happiness, just life. I just wanted to know why you think the right to life applies to humans only.[/quote]
I’ve never given it any real thought

108

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?

Edit: anyway, that graph means nothing to me. I can’t plot the points in a chart and there is an unmanageable number of them anyway. Beta is calculated retroactively, right? So what was it for those exact dates? That chart is hieroglyphs whereas the graphs on the first page is See Spot Run. Can correlation exist over the long term even when it appears not to in the short run? Yes, it can. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is inductive: do those two graphs imply a correlative relationship between the data they respectively represent? And the answer is absolutely not. This is not the same as saying that if you were to wait until the year 2400 and plot 450 years worth of this data, you would not see a correlative relationship. This is saying that none can be averred from what we’ve seen.

109

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?[/quote]

I did a search for stocks with Beta of 1.0 and it came up. I will say it was .97 and not 1.0.

110

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I did a search for stocks with Beta of 1.0 and it came up. I will say it was .97 and not 1.0.
[/quote]

Sorry, I got an edit in but before you posted.

Was that listed as Apple’s beta right now, and if so how is the beta calculated )i.e., over what span of time?).

I will say this: I honestly am in far over my head re: correlation in the the markets. I don’t know what kind of time span it’s calculated in. I do know what correlation is, though, and is absolutely isn’t implied at any point in the very simple graphs that were presented earlier.

Edited heavily because of personal confusion

111

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

[/quote]
I believe that you are more then capable of determining the correlation on that graph. It shows that the percent change of the price of Apple relative to the S&P 500 is inversely correlated (beta is a little less then negative one) for the past year, just as smh said.

The reason why that is almost the exact opposite of the given beta of nearly 1 (I think that the current value is a bit less then one but that does not really matter) comes from the convention of using 36 months worth of data to calculate the beta when available, which for Apple there is, so the graph you provided has insufficient data to calculate the beta. If you take a quick look at the graphs here:

We can get an eyeball estimation that in 2012, the percent change in Apple is nearly twice that of the S&P 500 (beta of approximately 2) and for 2011, it is a bit harder to tell what the beta is since the percent change in the S&P 500 is nearly zero and I don’t know the convention for calculating beta in that scenario. Overall, though, the average over 36 months comes out to 0.81.

So you see, correlation is very simple to figure out when looking at a graph which is why so many people use them. In the graphs posted at the beginning of this thread there is clearly no significant correlation between the data at all, again as smh has stated multiple times. It all just comes down to understanding what the data is and how it relates to whatever those data are being compared to.

112

^ I subordinate all of my arguments to the guy who actually understands math.

113

Comparing a single stock to the S&P 500 is a bad example of uncorrelated because by definition they are correlated to some degree.

114

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.

115

Anti-abortionists would argue however that the ‘‘inalienable rights’’ for the unborn is just as valid as the born because
those rights come from God, the giver of life, and it makes no difference whether that infant inside the womb or outside,'point is it’s alive and human because the fetus is a result of human reproduction.
The human fetus is just as helpless at the moment birth as it is in the womb, so why should ‘‘inalienable rights’’ apply to only humans that can help themselves?

I casually spoke with a Muslim who lives in my complex about this today, and she said in Islam Abortion at any stage because it is a LIFE no matter how big or small it was in the womb… he said Muslims don’t darken the doors of
Abortion Clinics, ‘‘God Forbid’’…he said they DO protest in accord Christians at clinics sometimes…I’ve never noticed them,
however seeing Catholics with their trinkets is fairly common…A cool dude, I learn a lot from him and his brothers, one of whom I saw pray in front of the Fed-Ex store last month…laying out his Carpet right there in the parking lot.

An abortion can occur on its own, AKA a ''miscarriage" but an abortion that’s deliberate or due to harm inflicted on the woman’s womb, is prohibited in Islam.

116

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Murder,” was poor word choice on my part. [/quote]

OK, you saved me from writing a paragraph about that. Now, about stealing other people’s property, ummm… Last time I checked, “propery” was a legal term as well…

We have a right to that which we can PROTECT. We have organized a “civilization” based upon laws under a trubute taking state that provides “protection” and legal recourse against certain actions. But not everyone chooses to follow the rules. Those who break the rules risk getting caught and punished. But that is not the same thing as you having “god given unalienable rights”. That’s just stupid.

How can you have “unalienable rights”? The words were written by some dude who owned slaves…

How can a “right” be “unalienable” if it can MOST CERTAINLY be taken away? By both individuals AND the government.

Regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness - all those things sound very noble and civilized. But they are NOT guaranteed. Who would guarantee them? God? LMFAO!!! He hasn’t done a very good job of guarnateeing those rights through out history, now has “he”?

It’s just a man made construct. That’s all it is. We humans just happened BY ACCIDENT to evolve into the top predador position on this planet. We evolved from being scavengers, to foragers to learning agriculture and once we stayed in place, our groups or tribes if you will, grew larger. In the past few thousand years that we’ve call ourselves “civilized”, we learned a few things about population control (religion being a primary componant of that, by the way). But we evolved to this point. We drove the Neanderthals to extinction along with MANY other species along the way. We are not some “chosen people”. Life is not a “miricle”. Life is SCIENCE.

If you take a few BASIC elements that are commonly found floating around in space and put them in water and provide some heat and electric shocks (you know, an environment VERY similar to the earth about 5 Billion years ago) Lipids and urea will begin to form. Spontaneously. Single celled eucariots and procariots will eventually evolve. IT’S SCIENCE. THAT’S ALL.

Just because we evolved a set of abilities that enabled us to dominate this planet does not make us “better” than anything else on this planet. It gives us the POWER to harness those resources. There is NO absolute morality there at all.

Two members of a species mate - for now, lets assume they are mammals. The male ejaculates MILLIONS of sperm and if it’s lucky, it fertilizes an egg. The fertilized egg matures over a variable gestation period. During this time it is connected to the womb of the female via the placenta and umbilical cord - IT IS A PARASITE. It is NOT SEPARATE from the mother, they share nutrients because they are CONNECTED. Since they are CONNECTED, it is a part of HER BODY. She has a right to do what is best for HER BODY. If life is good, she’ll choose to have the baby. That baby’s LIFE becomes it’s OWN when the umbilical cord is cut and it is separated from it’s HOST, the female. THEN it can be considered an idividual human.

But even then, it has no “rights”. If it is born in the United States of America it has LAWS that will protect it. But if it’s born in China and it’s female, no one would think twice if it got thrown off a mountain.

This concept of “inalienable rights” is just plain wrong. The only inalienable right you have is to respond to your circumstance to the best of your ability. If you haven’t evolved enough to defend yourself than you will, like TRILLIONS of other sentient beings before you, DIE.

Every day, the gazelle wakes up and knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or else it will die. Every day, the lion wakes up and knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle or else it will die. Which one is right or wrong? But in EACH CASE, when you wake up, you’d better be running!

117

[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 followed your line of reasoning about primates, retards and chromosomes in the other recent thread, and I must say, you’ve convinced me that they should be considered as persons. Probably along with a few other species as well.

Not saying they have an “inhereant right to life” any more than WE do. But I agree we should avoid needlessly killing them, or fucking with their habitat if we can help it.

118

[quote]Karado wrote:
Anti-abortionists would argue however that the ‘‘inalienable rights’’ for the unborn is just as valid as the born because
those rights come from God, the giver of life, and it makes no difference whether that infant inside the womb or outside,'point is it’s alive and human because the fetus is a result of human reproduction.
The human fetus is just as helpless at the moment birth as it is in the womb, so why should ‘‘inalienable rights’’ apply to only humans that can help themselves?

I casually spoke with a Muslim who lives in my complex about this today, and she said in Islam Abortion at any stage because it is a LIFE no matter how big or small it was in the womb… he said Muslims don’t darken the doors of
Abortion Clinics, ‘‘God Forbid’’…he said they DO protest in accord Christians at clinics sometimes…I’ve never noticed them,
however seeing Catholics with their trinkets is fairly common…A cool dude, I learn a lot from him and his brothers, one of whom I saw pray in front of the Fed-Ex store last month…laying out his Carpet right there in the parking lot.

An abortion can occur on its own, AKA a ''miscarriage" but an abortion that’s deliberate or due to harm inflicted on the woman’s womb, is prohibited in Islam.

[/quote]

All that is well and good. I 100% agree that Christans and Muslims SHOULD NOT, under ANY CIRCUMBSTANCE, get an abortion. Because that would violate THEIR beliefs. It would affect their quality of life and ruin their reputations in their religious community. Cool. Christians and Muslims - NO ABORTIONS!

Now, as for the rest of us who don’t believe in fairy tales, or “books” that have been used throughout history (and in the current times) as grounds to commit FAR GREATER atrocities than a single abortion, we HAVE THE RIGHT to get all the abortions we want.

Fair enough?

Who are THEY (Christians and Muslims) to FORCE thier beliefs on to ME?

119

[quote]H factor 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]

In my discussions with all 4 of these people I can tell you they want nothing more than having innocent people die. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they are killing people when they aren’t posting. They ALL want that bad.

I also assume you are for the immediate abolition of the Department of Defense which kills innocent people at times for doing nothing other than existing. Well existing in a country we happen to be at war with.

We will save a lot of money with that plan though. We should do something with the murderers Karado, smh_23, Varqanir, and angry chicken though. I can’t believe I even post on a forum with such barbarians! [/quote]

Feel free to stop posting ANY TIME you want! :slight_smile:

120

[quote]Varqanir 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]

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]

EXACTLY!