• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge says Texas can't ban Planned Parenthood

mac said:
Maybe...but a chat about using them is a "medical service".
Click to expand...

A service yes. A medical service prolly not. However PP said that that 11 million number is "services"...not "medical services". Remember, part of PP's services is about education...not just medical services.

And a chat as to how to correctly use a condom, what a condom can and cannot protect from is something that should be, and needs to be taught. There are actually people out there that thinks that a condom is 100% protection against STI/STD's and pregnancy and they also think that you cannot put it on wrong.
 
mac said:
Uh-huh. How do you prove you helped prevent an unintended pregnancy?


In 23 years in the Navy, I couldn't tell you how many times I told a young sailor to wrap the weasel. How many unintended pregnancies can I claim I prevented?
Click to expand...

One way I know of is through contracpetives. Another way is through education. But I am not an expert so I don't know all the ways.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One way I know of is through contracpetives. Another way is through education. But I am not an expert so I don't know all the ways.
Click to expand...

So if you give someone a contraceptive and tell them how to use it.....you prevented at least one unintended pregnancy? If you give them 10...did you prevent 10 unintended pregnancies? Come on, Kal.....
 
mac said:
So if you give someone a contraceptive and tell them how to use it.....you prevented at least one unintended pregnancy? If you give them 10...did you prevent 10 unintended pregnancies? Come on, Kal.....
Click to expand...

If they did it the way that you suggest then thier prevention of unintended pregnancies would number in the millions instead of just 500k some odd. So obviously they figure it out another way. Like I said, I'm not an expert.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If they did it the way that you suggest then thier prevention of unintended pregnancies would number in the millions instead of just 500k some odd. So obviously they figure it out another way. Like I said, I'm not an expert.
Click to expand...

Ok...guess...how do you qualify the number of unintended pregnancies you helped prevent?
 
ALways laugh when people attack PP because of abortions LOL its nonsense its not even close to the majority of their business and the fact of the matter is PP does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any other group on the planet. :shrug:

Oh well bias people will always find a witch to burn.
 
mac said:
Ok...guess...how do you qualify the number of unintended pregnancies you helped prevent?
Click to expand...


Statistical analysis. Compare groups of similar ethnic and economic status to determine the rates of pregnancies and how that rate is affected by access to pregnancy prevention services.
 
Somerville said:
Statistical analysis. Compare groups of similar ethnic and economic status to determine the rates of pregnancies and how that rate is affected by access to pregnancy prevention services.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll wait for you to show me the statistical analysis that PP used...
 
mac said:
Ok...guess...how do you qualify the number of unintended pregnancies you helped prevent?
Click to expand...

I already gave my guess. But like I said, I'm not an expert so no matter what guess I provide it may or may not be accurate. I'd suggest that if you really want to know then you should ask PP or someone else that would know. I would imagine that more than just PP figures out that stuff for their own use at their own clinics.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
I already gave my guess. But like I said, I'm not an expert so no matter what guess I provide it may or may not be accurate. I'd suggest that if you really want to know then you should ask PP or someone else that would know. I would imagine that more than just PP figures out that stuff for their own use at their own clinics.
Click to expand...

PP doesn't explain how they justify that claim. They just make the claim...and you people buy it...because they're PP.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I already gave my guess. But like I said, I'm not an expert so no matter what guess I provide it may or may not be accurate. I'd suggest that if you really want to know then you should ask PP or someone else that would know. I would imagine that more than just PP figures out that stuff for their own use at their own clinics.
Click to expand...
I'd guess it's some recognized standard based on past research. It's not like birth control is something specific to PP or even the US. For example, the Chinese probably know more about birth rates and population control than anyone. The answer probably lies somewhere in applied sociology.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'd guess it's some recognized standard based on past research. It's not like birth control is something specific to PP or even the US. For example, the Chinese probably know more about birth rates and population control than anyone. The answer probably lies somewhere in applied sociology.
Click to expand...

Where is the past research and what is the recognized standard? If it's a standard, there should be evidence of it somewhere...
 
mac said:
Where is the past research and what is the recognized standard? If it's a standard, there should be evidence of it somewhere...
Click to expand...
I hate sociology. Go look for yourself, I'm sure it's there somewhere. Probably decades old, too, since birth control and it's effectiveness has been a topic for a long time.



Ed:
Do you know what the temperature correction for a 100' steel tape is or the proper force to apply when measuring 100' with an unsupported tape? When I was learning surveying that information was common knowledge. I doubt you could find it in much of the literature any more than you could find the accepted standard for cleaning test tubes or any number of other profession-specific procedures and corrections. I'm sure all of it is buried somewhere in the various standards we have but usually people learn it from other people in the profession or it's mentioned in-passing in a textbook.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I hate sociology. Go look for yourself, I'm sure it's there somewhere. Probably decades old, too, since birth control and it's effectiveness has been a topic for a long time.
Click to expand...

I don't, I majored in it. I have looked for myself. It's not there.
 
Did you look at literature from the 70's? That would be my offhand guess. It could be the 60's, too, since condoms were pretty popular by the 70's. IDK, like a said, I hate sociology. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
Did you look at literature from the 70's? That would be my offhand guess. It could be the 60's, too, since condoms were pretty popular by the 70's. IDK, like a said, I hate sociology. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I've looked at quite a lot of literature. PP's claim is nothing more than an assumption in this case.
 
mac said:
PP doesn't explain how they justify that claim. They just make the claim...and you people buy it...because they're PP.
Click to expand...

Did you ask them? Prolly not.

It isn't just condoms.


Reversible contraceptive methods,
women (percentage)
chosen by Planned Parenthood clients, 2010

Oral 39.5
Non-prescription Barrier 17.8
No Method 11.9
Progestin-only Injectables 9.4
Other/Unknown 8.4
Combined Hormone Ring 5.7
IUD 4.1
Combined Hormone Patch 2.3
Contraceptive Impant 0.7
Prescription Barrier 0.1
Fertility Awareness-based Methods 0.1


You aren't one of those that denies that contraception reduces abortions, are you?
 
mac said:
I've looked at quite a lot of literature. PP's claim is nothing more than an assumption in this case.
Click to expand...
If you studied this stuff and know the lingo then I suggest you contact them and ask your questions in a professional manner. I'm sure they'll tell you what you want to know as long as you keep it professional.
 
mac said:
PP doesn't explain how they justify that claim. They just make the claim...and you people buy it...because they're PP.
Click to expand...

You apparently don't know how they do it either. Yet you assume that they just claim some number and that no one else in the entire world figures that stuff out also. Perhaps you can explain how the Guttmacher Institute came up with their numbers in the following link?

USA Today

NEW YORK — Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.
Click to expand...
 
This whole issue is just more Federal interference in the States business. The Federal government should never, either through legislation or through court findings, tell a state how to budget it's money. There is absolutely no reason, other than differing political opinions, why the Federal Government interferes so much with Texas budgeting and how Texas chooses to do business.

If the voters in Texas are happy with the way that Austin does things, then the Fed should shut and color and leave us the hell alone. Apparently, because Texans won't become willing Liberal slaves, we now, as a state will have to budget for court fights everytime the state wants to accomplish something. But with someone like Obama in control of the executive branch, I guess the fact that Texas remains for the most part sucessful while pursuing non-liberal policies, they are just too much of a threat to Liberals to allow them to stand. The Liberals especially don't want people to actually start noticing the differences between Texas, a large and largely conservative state and California, a large and largely Liberal state, since the comparison would highlight how poorly Liberalism does on a large scale.
 
DVSentinel said:
This whole issue is just more Federal interference in the States business. The Federal government should never, either through legislation or through court findings, tell a state how to budget it's money. There is absolutely no reason, other than differing political opinions, why the Federal Government interferes so much with Texas budgeting and how Texas chooses to do business.

If the voters in Texas are happy with the way that Austin does things, then the Fed should shut and color and leave us the hell alone. Apparently, because Texans won't become willing Liberal slaves, we now, as a state will have to budget for court fights everytime the state wants to accomplish something. But with someone like Obama in control of the executive branch, I guess the fact that Texas remains for the most part sucessful while pursuing non-liberal policies, they are just too much of a threat to Liberals to allow them to stand. The Liberals especially don't want people to actually start noticing the differences between Texas, a large and largely conservative state and California, a large and largely Liberal state, since the comparison would highlight how poorly Liberalism does on a large scale.
Click to expand...
The fed funds the Texas Women's Health Fund to the tune of $29.3M, Texas contributes $3.3M. Texas is wrong in how it is excluding those PP clinics from the funding since they do not provide abortion services.
 
I am not the one choosing to make it a Con/Lib argument, the Courts and the Fed are. Since the subject is part of the state budget, then economics come into play.

BTW, nice link, but do you have anything after that date. Comparing current status to 2005 is probably going to see huge changes as in 2005, we still had a Republican President and a Republican Congress and before the economic downturn. This data is just too old to apply to 2012.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Did you ask them? Prolly not.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have. Several different affiliates, as a matter of fact. None could substantiate the claim.

It isn't just condoms.

Reversible contraceptive methods,
women (percentage)
chosen by Planned Parenthood clients, 2010

Oral 39.5
Non-prescription Barrier 17.8
No Method 11.9
Progestin-only Injectables 9.4
Other/Unknown 8.4
Combined Hormone Ring 5.7
IUD 4.1
Combined Hormone Patch 2.3
Contraceptive Impant 0.7
Prescription Barrier 0.1
Fertility Awareness-based Methods 0.1
Click to expand...

Great, show the study or stats the prove the correlation.


You aren't one of those that denies that contraception reduces abortions, are you?
Click to expand...

Nope. I also know that there is no way to know if a pregnancy was specifically prevented by a contraceptive or if it simply did not occur to begin with.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If you studied this stuff and know the lingo then I suggest you contact them and ask your questions in a professional manner. I'm sure they'll tell you what you want to know as long as you keep it professional.
Click to expand...

I have done so, many times over several years. They've never substantiated that claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom