100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Defunding Planned Parenthood: A good move? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I must concur a lot with what Spidercmb is saying. When the system is designed to encourage people to stay on welfare means that they whole system is the problem. "Poor Mentality" is what is the REAL problem in America, not "poor People," per say. They are taught by the system to stay poor. the idea of Welfare is to help and temporarily supplement people. Not subsidize their existence. I can't count the number of times I would see a news story about some Poverty Stricken family with a 65" TV in their living room with a PS 2 or 3 sitting their FAT azzes, and I mean it, most of the time these poor people are FAT, griping about loosing benefits. And they all seem to have some BS medical condition. First of all if so many of these people are poor why is it they have Big Screen TVs, leather couches, Play Stations, and are obese? Because they have money to spend evidently. That and they are too well fed. Just like a bunch of fat LAZY swine! On top of that Welfare has been proven to inflame alcohol and drug abuse. There is no checks to prevent addicts from working the system. I don't have an issue with poverty stricken people. Most of the time they are hard working and in a bad way. Far too many people milk on the system and that has to end. What especially has to end is free hand outs to illegal immigrants. We need to send them and their children back to their country. It is not the obligation of this nation to support non-citizens! What you give to them takes away from our own needy! It is really sad to see that you can only pick on those you believe to be less than you.  Welfare recipients for the most part ask for help, take the help and move on to live more productive lives. Your misrepresentation shows badly on you, not them. My a personal interpretation of my view? Excuse me for wanting people to be personally responsible for themselves. Illegal Immigrants can get legalized if they put for the effort. Oh but asking for people to do the right thing is too much? And I have seen so many people ride excuse after excuse why they can't do for themselves. Why, they make more money on government hand outs according to them. Um, what is WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE? I said it before so let me say it again, I have sympathy for working class people on hard times who are looking for work and desperate for it. I have sympathy for a family that both parents lost their jobs and they need assistance whilst they try to regroup and get on their feet. I do not have ANY SYMPATHY AT ALL for stay at home mothers (unless they work and pull their weight!) DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS, Welfare Warriors, and people who think the world owes them a living. Is there another language I should be speaking in for you to get that? I hate worthless people! Am I being racist or opinionated? Maybe I am just a big dick? But I am done with listening to "Poor People." I however am not done listening to those who want out of poverty! If you cannot see the difference in that you need help! I could believe a person couldn't work if they say lost their arms in a freak accident. THAT IS SOMEONE I CAN HAVE SYMPATHY FOR! So is this where you begin to come up with a host of excuses as to why I am so wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 07/16/11 10:01 PM
|
|
Well lets see... I have a relative who is unmarried. Her occupation for many years was child care. She practically raised half the children in her neighborhood taking care of children while their parents worked. In addition to that, she took it upon herself to totally raise, on her own without aid or pay, two black children with no compensation who were unwanted and uncared for by their irresponsible parents.
People who don't know how to be responsible and don't want children should have access to abortion and free PROTECTION FROM PREGNANCY. THERE ARE TOO MANY unwanted, neglected, abused children in this world. Planned parenthood was wonderful when I was young and needed healthcare, pap smears, contraception and other health care specific for women. They understood and they cared. Most doctors I had tried to go to were rude and hateful when it came to women's issues. Planned Parenthood was a Godsend. What the hell is wrong with people? Other countries have free healthcare. What is wrong with this country? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well lets see... I have a relative who is unmarried. Her occupation for many years was child care. She practically raised half the children in her neighborhood taking care of children while their parents worked. In addition to that, she took it upon herself to totally raise, on her own without aid or pay, two black children with no compensation who were unwanted and uncared for by their irresponsible parents. People who don't know how to be responsible and don't want children should have access to abortion and free PROTECTION FROM PREGNANCY. THERE ARE TOO MANY unwanted, neglected, abused children in this world. Planned parenthood was wonderful when I was young and needed healthcare, pap smears, contraception and other health care specific for women. They understood and they cared. Most doctors I had tried to go to were rude and hateful when it came to women's issues. Planned Parenthood was a Godsend. What the hell is wrong with people? Other countries have free healthcare. What is wrong with this country? they are too fuqued up on morality and idealism to see the realities of life playing out before them! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are too fuqued up on morality and idealism to see the realities of life playing out before them! Why is it that you think that children shouldn't live, unless their lives could be perfect? The desire to end a child's life, because it might otherwise be rough, just doesn't make sense to me. Did you have a perfect childhood? How many of the children whose lives are cut so short could have gone on to be successful in life? Could we develop other alternatives to help the mothers and the children out? Why is there no interest in finding ways to preserve life? It's very troubling to me. As a libertarian, my first principle is to protect human life. I don't support abortion primarily on the basis that all humans are protected by the law, not just those humans who have already been born. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that those rights are conveyed with creation, instead of birth. But my arguments in support of law is waved off as "morality and idealism". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are too fuqued up on morality and idealism to see the realities of life playing out before them! Why is it that you think that children shouldn't live, unless their lives could be perfect? The desire to end a child's life, because it might otherwise be rough, just doesn't make sense to me. Did you have a perfect childhood? How many of the children whose lives are cut so short could have gone on to be successful in life? Could we develop other alternatives to help the mothers and the children out? Why is there no interest in finding ways to preserve life? It's very troubling to me. As a libertarian, my first principle is to protect human life. I don't support abortion primarily on the basis that all humans are protected by the law, not just those humans who have already been born. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that those rights are conveyed with creation, instead of birth. But my arguments in support of law is waved off as "morality and idealism". well, row v wade IS the law and in the decision the court did not find that a fetus was a human much less a citizen protected by law. i do agree that aborting a fetus deprives life and would think lowly of any woman who would choose such an option. indeed such an act goes against my moral and ethical compass i do find it enteresting that many 'right to lifers' feel that abortion is justified in cases of rape and incest. the fetus had no say in how it was concieved so why should it be deprived a life when those same living options are available as those to an inconvienienced teen mother? under my moral standard abortion is appropriate ONLY when the life of the mother is in danger. perhaps the court will revisit the citizenship issue of the fetus in years to come but that would mean deciding between the rights of a woman as guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment to those same rights guaranteed to the fetus. but as a woman or even the father who believes that a fetus IS human and should be afforded citizenship rights can choose not to abort the pregnancy, i cannot imagine who might be a petitioner that could bring such a case who's own rights are deprived. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, row v wade IS the law and in the decision the court did not find that a fetus was a human much less a citizen protected by law. No, Roe v Wade is not the law! It's a judicial fiat. There was no legal basis for the Roe v Wade. First, Roe v Wade noted that no child who was "viable" (viable being described as 24 weeks) should ever be aborted, but partial birth abortions are still performed. In some states (like Illinois), if an abortion causes mother to go into labor, the new-born child will be taken and placed in a cold room until it dies. The Roe v Wade ruling was based on "Due Process" and privacy, which the court ruled allowed all women to make this decision. The problem is that in favoring the 5th and 14th Amendments, the court rejected the babies rights in the 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Namely, the unborn child's right to due process and privacy. Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", which was interpreted to grant all women the right to an abortion. The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to grant a woman the "privilege" of having an abortion, that falls on the States because of the 10th Amendment. Now you can rip into me all you want, but you'll find that many judges and legal scholars agree with what I've said. Roe v Wade was bad law. Repeal Roe v Wade and have each state decide if they want legalized abortion or pass an Constitutional Amendment to give the Federal Government the authority over abortions, any other solution violates the sanctity of our Republic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are too fuqued up on morality and idealism to see the realities of life playing out before them! Why is it that you think that children shouldn't live, unless their lives could be perfect? The desire to end a child's life, because it might otherwise be rough, just doesn't make sense to me. Did you have a perfect childhood? How many of the children whose lives are cut so short could have gone on to be successful in life? Could we develop other alternatives to help the mothers and the children out? Why is there no interest in finding ways to preserve life? It's very troubling to me. As a libertarian, my first principle is to protect human life. I don't support abortion primarily on the basis that all humans are protected by the law, not just those humans who have already been born. Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that those rights are conveyed with creation, instead of birth. But my arguments in support of law is waved off as "morality and idealism". First and foremost again I do not put such a premium on human life over other life. Also it isn't a child until delivered. I do agree there is a point where unless the mother's life is threatened (as in don't wait too long to pull the plug) that an abortion should not be allowed (Third Trimester). There are WAY too many humans on this world and we need to but those numbers down! Arguing based on Speculations as to What Could be has a flip side too you know. What if the child you wanted to save was going to grow up to be the next Hitler or Stalin? What if that child were to grow up to be the next Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy? What Ifs are just that, Speculation and I don't like speculating. And falling back no the Declaration of Independence? There are NO legal arguments supporting your ideals. this is one point where you and I categorically will disagree and bang heads on. An Unwanted Pregnancy is just that. UNWANTED! At least we have a right to decide and taking that away from a woman based on religious dogma is unfair and likewise UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Also there is a quality of life issue. If I did finally meet a woman who wanted to have a child by me and we then made the jump into parenthood but found out the child would be retarded I would demand she pull the plug on that pregnancy and I would leave her if she refused! There is NO WAY IN HELL I AM GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING AS HEARTBREAKING, FRUSTRATING, AND HUMILIATING THRUST ON ME ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS VALUES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD! Raising retarded children is a mental drain and I have sen it in other parents forced to endure this because some man in a robe tells them all life is sacred. In the real world retards are BEAR FOOD! Autism can be dealt with. Retardation is genetic! Again I am draconian but I also am a firm believer in "quality of life" and unwanted children of unwanted pregnancies suffer and how fair is it to them to force them to come into an existence where they will perpetually suffer? We can so readily euthanize animals but when it comes to humans suddenly we all get squeamish? Humans suck and I do hate being one. Of all the species I had to be born into I had to be Human! At least I can try to rise above and be better than the rest and one way of doing that is not not get dragged into false morality! You hate religion but are stubbornly pro life. How contradictory is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO WAY IN HELL I AM GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING AS HEARTBREAKING, FRUSTRATING, AND HUMILIATING THRUST ON ME ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS VALUES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD! My mentally retarded, Autistic son is the best thing that has ever happened to me. It took the family awhile to adjust, but now everyone loves him. He's funny, clever and always full of surprises. Those who haven't gotten to know a child such as him will never know the pure joy of unconditional love from another human being. He can take care of himself, cook his own food, read, write and make many of his own decisions. I think the heartbreaking part is that the people you know have fought against and tried to make their special child into a normal child and that's not going to happen. When you accept them for what they are, having them is a blessing. In the real world retards are BEAR FOOD! That's a disgusting thing to say. I feel that the character of a nation (or person) is defined by how they treat those who can do nothing for them. You hate religion but are stubbornly pro life. How contradictory is that? I don't hate religion, I'm not even sure what that means, unless you mean dogmatic atheism. I'm a Christian and have been for a few years. But I was pro-life for at least 10 years before I became a Christian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO WAY IN HELL I AM GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING AS HEARTBREAKING, FRUSTRATING, AND HUMILIATING THRUST ON ME ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS VALUES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD! My mentally retarded, Autistic son is the best thing that has ever happened to me. It took the family awhile to adjust, but now everyone loves him. He's funny, clever and always full of surprises. Those who haven't gotten to know a child such as him will never know the pure joy of unconditional love from another human being. He can take care of himself, cook his own food, read, write and make many of his own decisions. I think the heartbreaking part is that the people you know have fought against and tried to make their special child into a normal child and that's not going to happen. When you accept them for what they are, having them is a blessing. That is your personal choice. But I know other parents who a retarded child has ruing their families and broke them up. A lot of people are not prepared for the financial and additional needs of dealing with a child that more often than not cannot ever hope to live a decent quality of life on their own. In the real world retards are BEAR FOOD! That's a disgusting thing to say. I feel that the character of a nation (or person) is defined by how they treat those who can do nothing for them. So that is supposed to make it less truthful? A normal child taught properly knows to run from bears. I also feel it is not a nation's responsibility to support those who cannot support themselves because they are genetically defective. Stop trying to compare them to people who have been traumatically injured. There is no comparison! Also on one other note, if a retarded child is going to be allowed to live they should be sterilized to not contaminate the gene pool. Sounds harsh but there is a "Greater Good" Issue here in that we should not be polluting our gene pool with defective offspring allowed to propagate into our gene pool. That is for the GREATER GOOD OF OUR SPECIES! You hate religion but are stubbornly pro life. How contradictory is that? I don't hate religion, I'm not even sure what that means, unless you mean dogmatic atheism. I'm a Christian and have been for a few years. But I was pro-life for at least 10 years before I became a Christian. I have seen you spill some very anti religious statements before. Now you are a Christian after converting? I grew up Christian and taught the bible as in SPOON FED IT INSIDE AND OUT as I grew up. I know the difference between social morality, religious morality, and false morality. This whole "every life is sacred" argument is FALSE MORALITY! Every life is not sacred including yours and Mine! We are all to some extent expendable. We die life goes on with and without us! Even maggots have a right to live but we try to exterminate insects at every turn. We are part of a biosphere and yet we chose which life to love and which to revile when all of it has a part and purpose in the greater whole. This is one place philosophically where you like many others need to do a little soul searching and evaluate mankind's place in this world as a Steward and Not a Dominator! Putting human life above all other life is Homo-centric and also small minded. I left Christianity because I will not accept the death of a man to absolve my actions! I could care less if he sacrificed himself altruistically for me. If I met Jesus in heaven I would spit in his eye. I stand up for myself and while the rest of Christianity will go to their knees before God I will be the one standing there in his face demanding answers! But back to the topic at hand. Humans think way too much of themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.I left Christianity because I will not accept the death of a man to absolve my actions! I could care less if he sacrificed himself altruistically for me. If I met Jesus in heaven I would spit in his eye. I stand up for myself and while the rest of Christianity will go to their knees before God I will be the one standing there in his face demanding answers! But back to the topic at hand. Humans think way too much of themselves.
2. We are all to some extent expendable. We die life goes on with and without us! Even maggots have a right to live but we try to exterminate insects at every turn 3. First and foremost again I do not put such a premium on human life over other life 4.if a retarded child is going to be allowed to live they should be sterilized to not contaminate the gene pool. Sounds harsh but there is a "Greater Good" Issue here in that we should not be polluting our gene pool with defective offspring allowed to propagate into our gene pool. That is for the GREATER GOOD OF OUR SPECIES so interesting, I Cant quite understand (nor do I need to , admittedly) the consistency between the above statements it seems like a. human life is no more significant than any other BUT b. Christianity is flawed because a humans life was sacrificed for absolution of others c.God is flawed for being willing to sacrifice his son for such an absolution BUT d. A man is not flawed to INSIST upon their offspring being terminated so that it wont diminish that MANS quality of life,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I was a total rat bastard hedonist with no moral redeeming qualities and had NO desire to "mend my ways" but along some some Martyr Complex riddled individual who says, "I am going to die to absolve you of your sins so you can go to heaven." A man of no conscious would say "WHATEVER?"
I would say "Are you out of your freaking mind?" I got a conscious. My actions are my own. If I sin I face up to that if I have to when the time comes. But I try hard to live sin free. I still have my failings though. I DON'T NEED SAVING! I DON'T NEED JESUS! None of us do! If you had a chance to make God explain his big plan before Jesus died would you even have the GUTS to question such twisted logic? No man can take the sins of another on to save others from themselves. What kind of sick demented God would send their own offspring to earth just to die in a slow painful and bloody manner to show that man was worth sparing? That makes no sense at all when you look at it past all the pageantry surrounding the death of Jesus! The god of Christians, Yahweh, Jehova, whatever the entity calls itself, is a sick demented and very twisted and evil creature. It may have powers I don't but God it is not. God is so beyond us you probably can't even begin to fathom how far apart from god we really are. And no, putting human life above all other life is homo-centric! Sorry! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen you spill some very anti religious statements before. Now you are a Christian after converting? That's untrue. You must have me confused with someone else. Since before I started posing in these forums, I have been a Christian. If I met Jesus in heaven I would spit in his eye. No you won't. You'll be bowed down in awe of your creator, just like the rest of us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is your personal choice. But I know other parents who a retarded child has ruing their families and broke them up. A lot of people are not prepared for the financial and additional needs of dealing with a child that more often than not cannot ever hope to live a decent quality of life on their own. Social Security is available for all mentally handicapped people, including children. If your friends didn't look into that, how is that their child's fault? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen you spill some very anti religious statements before. Now you are a Christian after converting? That's untrue. You must have me confused with someone else. Since before I started posing in these forums, I have been a Christian. If I met Jesus in heaven I would spit in his eye. No you won't. You'll be bowed down in awe of your creator, just like the rest of us.  too funny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must concur a lot with what Spidercmb is saying. When the system is designed to encourage people to stay on welfare means that they whole system is the problem. "Poor Mentality" is what is the REAL problem in America, not "poor People," per say. They are taught by the system to stay poor. the idea of Welfare is to help and temporarily supplement people. Not subsidize their existence. I can't count the number of times I would see a news story about some Poverty Stricken family with a 65" TV in their living room with a PS 2 or 3 sitting their FAT azzes, and I mean it, most of the time these poor people are FAT, griping about loosing benefits. And they all seem to have some BS medical condition. First of all if so many of these people are poor why is it they have Big Screen TVs, leather couches, Play Stations, and are obese? Because they have money to spend evidently. That and they are too well fed. Just like a bunch of fat LAZY swine! On top of that Welfare has been proven to inflame alcohol and drug abuse. There is no checks to prevent addicts from working the system. I don't have an issue with poverty stricken people. Most of the time they are hard working and in a bad way. Far too many people milk on the system and that has to end. What especially has to end is free hand outs to illegal immigrants. We need to send them and their children back to their country. It is not the obligation of this nation to support non-citizens! What you give to them takes away from our own needy! It is really sad to see that you can only pick on those you believe to be less than you. Welfare recipients for the most part ask for help, take the help and move on to live more productive lives. Your misrepresentation shows badly on you, not them. I hate worthless people! Am I being racist or opinionated? Maybe I am just a big dick? when and by whom did YOU get appointed the ****ing all mighty and powerful one who decides who is worthless?!?! jesus just when i think i've heard it all |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you believe me if I told you I was god????
 Let me see, lying, thieving drug addicts. I know some. Worthless pieces of shitte with no redeeming qualities. Career Criminals... ummmm, I know some too. Glad most of them are in prison. No desire to fly straight. So you tell me. And with me around you ain't heard it all! Some people are indeed worthless and they prove themselves. I don't have to judge them. they do all the hard work for me. I know people who spend more time trying to find ways out of work rather than spend the time trying to make something of themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here you are citing something that is not a fact, has no factual basis, and is begin twisted into a racial issue for bogus reasons! Way to go. Take the one social program that is trying to do something positive and make it into a horror show! Sorry but your comments lost all credibility when you and others dragged race into this issue! How about coming up with some real evil like ACORN perpetrated? Then you might have something. But this whole, "they kill black babies" argument is wasting breath! There is NO basis of fact for this. Just loaded statistics by Pro Lifers! Way to go, take a woman's choice away! http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf In NYC in 2009, there were 87,273 abortions. 40,798 were of black children. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/06abortion.html In 2006, 57.4 percent of the abortions in Georgia were performed on black women, even though blacks make up about 30 percent of the population, according to the most recent figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control. Of the 37 states that reported abortion data by race, Georgia was second only to New York and Texas in the number of abortions performed on black women. Only Mississippi and Maryland reported a higher percentage of abortions going to black women than Georgia. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Please keep in mind that while 36.5% of the total abortions are performed of black women, blacks only make up 12.6% of the population. I see your anti and raise you one CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007 Surveillance Summaries February 25, 2011 / 60(ss01);1-39 Results U.S. Totals Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2007,*** a total of 827,609 abortions were reported. For the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007,††† a total of 810,582 abortions (97.9% of the total) were reported for 2007; among these 45 consistently reporting areas, the abortion rate was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 231 abortions per 1,000 live births (Table 1). Compared with 2006, the total number and rate of reported abortions in 2007 was 2% lower and the abortion ratio was 3% lower. However, given the increase in the number and rate of abortions that occurred during 2005--2006, these measures still were higher in 2007 than they had been in 2005. Nonetheless, compared with 1998, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions in 2007 were 6%, 7%, and 14% lower, respectively (Figure 1). Race Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Race/Ethnicity Among women from the 25 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2007 (Table 14), non-Hispanic white women accounted for the largest percentage of abortions (37.1%), followed by non-Hispanic black women (34.4%), Hispanic women (22.1%), and non-Hispanic women of other races (6.4%). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (144 abortions per 1,000 live births); in contrast, non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (480 abortions per 1,000 live births). Hispanic women had intermediate abortion rates and ratios; however, although Hispanic women had abortion rates that were 125% higher than non-Hispanic white women, their abortion ratios were only 34% higher. Because 2007 is the first year for which cross-classified race/ethnicity data have been compiled, trends over time could not be evaluated. Ethnicity]/b] Among the 33 areas that reported ethnicity for 2007, Hispanic women accounted for 19.8% of all abortions and had an abortion rate of 20.5 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; they had an abortion ratio of 193 abortions per 1,000 live births to Hispanic women (Table 15). These results are similar to those for Hispanic women who obtained abortions in the 25 reporting areas that provided cross-classified race/ethnicity data (Table 14). Among the 18 reporting areas that provided ethnicity data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage of abortions accounted for by Hispanic women increased 18% (Table 16). In contrast, during 2006--2007, abortion rates and ratios among Hispanic women decreased, continuing the pattern observed during 1998--2007, when the decrease in abortion rates and ratios was greater for Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic women of white, black, and other racial groups combined (Table 16). quote] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sun 07/17/11 05:37 PM
|
|
And here you are citing something that is not a fact, has no factual basis, and is begin twisted into a racial issue for bogus reasons! Way to go. Take the one social program that is trying to do something positive and make it into a horror show! Sorry but your comments lost all credibility when you and others dragged race into this issue! How about coming up with some real evil like ACORN perpetrated? Then you might have something. But this whole, "they kill black babies" argument is wasting breath! There is NO basis of fact for this. Just loaded statistics by Pro Lifers! Way to go, take a woman's choice away! http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf In NYC in 2009, there were 87,273 abortions. 40,798 were of black children. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/06abortion.html In 2006, 57.4 percent of the abortions in Georgia were performed on black women, even though blacks make up about 30 percent of the population, according to the most recent figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control. Of the 37 states that reported abortion data by race, Georgia was second only to New York and Texas in the number of abortions performed on black women. Only Mississippi and Maryland reported a higher percentage of abortions going to black women than Georgia. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Please keep in mind that while 36.5% of the total abortions are performed of black women, blacks only make up 12.6% of the population. I see your anti and raise you one CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6001a1.htm?s_cid=ss6001a1_w Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2007 Surveillance Summaries February 25, 2011 / 60(ss01);1-39 Results U.S. Totals Among the 49 reporting areas that provided data for 2007,*** a total of 827,609 abortions were reported. For the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007,††† a total of 810,582 abortions (97.9% of the total) were reported for 2007; among these 45 consistently reporting areas, the abortion rate was 16.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and the abortion ratio was 231 abortions per 1,000 live births (Table 1). Compared with 2006, the total number and rate of reported abortions in 2007 was 2% lower and the abortion ratio was 3% lower. However, given the increase in the number and rate of abortions that occurred during 2005--2006, these measures still were higher in 2007 than they had been in 2005. Nonetheless, compared with 1998, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions in 2007 were 6%, 7%, and 14% lower, respectively (Figure 1). Race Among women from the 37 areas that reported race for 2007, white women (including Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.9%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.5% and women of other racial groups for 7.6% of abortions (Table 12). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 12). Among the 27 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage distribution of abortions by race changed little; although abortions among women in the other racial category increased, the percentage remained low (Table 13). Abortion rates decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, continuing the long-term decrease during 1998--2007 that had been interrupted by a 1-year increase during 2005--2006. However, because the increase in abortion rates during 2005--2006 had been much greater for white women (4%) than for black women (1%), the abortion rate was 2% higher for white women in 2007 than it had been in 2005 but 1% lower than it had been for black women. Abortion ratios also decreased during 2006--2007 among women from all racial groups, with a larger cumulative decrease during 2005--2007 among black women (7%) compared with white women (2%) (Table 13). Race/Ethnicity Among women from the 25 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2007 (Table 14), non-Hispanic white women accounted for the largest percentage of abortions (37.1%), followed by non-Hispanic black women (34.4%), Hispanic women (22.1%), and non-Hispanic women of other races (6.4%). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rates (8.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (144 abortions per 1,000 live births); in contrast, non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rates (32.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years) and ratios (480 abortions per 1,000 live births). Hispanic women had intermediate abortion rates and ratios; however, although Hispanic women had abortion rates that were 125% higher than non-Hispanic white women, their abortion ratios were only 34% higher. Because 2007 is the first year for which cross-classified race/ethnicity data have been compiled, trends over time could not be evaluated. Ethnicity]/b] Among the 33 areas that reported ethnicity for 2007, Hispanic women accounted for 19.8% of all abortions and had an abortion rate of 20.5 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women; they had an abortion ratio of 193 abortions per 1,000 live births to Hispanic women (Table 15). These results are similar to those for Hispanic women who obtained abortions in the 25 reporting areas that provided cross-classified race/ethnicity data (Table 14). Among the 18 reporting areas that provided ethnicity data every year during 1998--2007, the percentage of abortions accounted for by Hispanic women increased 18% (Table 16). In contrast, during 2006--2007, abortion rates and ratios among Hispanic women decreased, continuing the pattern observed during 1998--2007, when the decrease in abortion rates and ratios was greater for Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic women of white, black, and other racial groups combined (Table 16). <sarcasm> That's great news! I'm so happy to hear that Hispanics are murdering their children at a higher rate that any other ethnicity. </sarcasm> What does that have to do with what I posted? Look at the percent of blacks in this country and their abortion rates vs the total abortion rate and you find that about 50% of all black babies conceived are aborted. Maybe that number is higher for Hispanics. If it is, that doesn't make me wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 07/17/11 05:51 PM
|
|
Reform welfare, so that it's not a superior alternative to marriage and it's not desirable to have multiple children. ,,its been reformed,,,only unstable people or people who have no experience with welfare would consider it 'superior' to ANYTHING,,, Msharmony seems to have identified a misconception here. Who would consider formula and diarpers for their baby as something that should only be supplied if two are married? I only ask because I know MANY couples who get welfare of this nature. Obviously being married does not automatically mean have enough money to care for a baby or two or a third - does it? Any guess why so many urban areas have instituted breakfast programs in the schools? Lunch programs were not instituted becaue it was LESS EXPENSIVE to the schools - why do you suppose they were instituted? Single parents are not the only ones who get these benefits. Immunizations are free to the children of couples whether they make $6,000 a year or $50,000 a year - I think it's part of SCHIP. Of course not ALL parents receive certain tax breaks or the benefit of health insurance for their children through their work, mony such parents are not allowed to get married because of their gender. Anyway the point is welfare is not an easy way to live and it is no way to bringing up a new generation of children who were unplanned for and unwanted. I will discuss abstinence later after I read some more posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform welfare, so that it's not a superior alternative to marriage and it's not desirable to have multiple children. ,,its been reformed,,,only unstable people or people who have no experience with welfare would consider it 'superior' to ANYTHING,,, Msharmony seems to have identified a misconception here. Who would consider formula and diarpers for their baby as something that should only be supplied if two are married? I only ask because I know MANY couples who get welfare of this nature. Obviously being married does not automatically mean have enough money to care for a baby or two or a third - does it? Any guess why so many urban areas have instituted breakfast programs in the schools? Lunch programs were not instituted becaue it was LESS EXPENSIVE to the schools - why do you suppose they were instituted? Single parents are not the only ones who get these benefits. Immunizations are free to the children of couples whether they make $6,000 a year or $50,000 a year - I think it's part of SCHIP. Of course not ALL parents receive certain tax breaks or the benefit of health insurance for their children through their work, mony such parents are not allowed to get married because of their gender. Anyway the point is welfare is not an easy way to live and it is no way to bringing up a new generation of children who were unplanned for and unwanted. I will discuss abstinence later after I read some more posts. A simple reverse income tax or the implementation of the Fair Tax would ensure that every family had enough money to survive, regardless of their income. The objection I have is to the 69 programs, where one would suffice. One program, properly implemented, would ensure that everyone was cared for and it would cost less than the current system. |
|
|
|
|
