who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

Interestingly, this just arrived in my inbox:

Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held an extremely one-sided hearing to assess the effectiveness of authentic abstinence education. It took just one look at the witness list to see how Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had stacked the deck against abstinence proponents. When asked by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) if they would support abstinence education, three of the four "health experts" who testified against it said they would oppose abstinence even if scientific evaluation showed it to be as or more effective than so-called comprehensive sex ed. Dr. Harvey Fineberg of the Institute of Medicine was the only one in this anti-abstinence group to maintain a sense of scientific integrity by quietly answering yes. On the positive side, Dr. Stan Weed, the lone pro-abstinence health expert at the hearing, testified solidly on behalf of the positive impact of abstinence-centered education. He presented research that demonstrates the effectiveness of abstinence programs across the country, including two of his own studies that showed decreases in rates of sexual initiation by 45 and 50 percent in youth when compared to non-program groups. Missing from the discussion was the fact that the Chairman's own state has never accepted federally allocated Title V money for abstinence education--and its teens are suffering greatly for it. California is a tragic example of what can happen in today's culture in the absence of strong abstinence-centered education. Since rejecting the abstinence funds in the first year they were offered to states, the rates of STIs in California youth exploded at an estimated 1.1 million new cases per year in 2005. Congressman Waxman should recognize the dire need of young people in his own state and stop protecting entities that promote high-risk behavior to youth.

Again, statistics can prove anything you want them to prove. But the fact that 3 out of the 4 "experts" on the panel would oppose abstinence education even if it proved effective should tell us something about their motivation.The reason I don't want anyone other than me teaching my kids about sex is because I don't know their motives, their philosophy, their background, or their goals.

[TommyO 5]

Here is a test question.

Statement 1

Some people who live in Bigtown like icecream

Statement 2

Some People in Smallville like fish.

Statement 3

All people in Smalville would be willing to live in Bigtown.

Which of the following statements are true.

All people who would like to live in Bigtown like ice cream.

Some people who like fish would live in Big town.

All people like ice cream.

It would appear that Gadget would choose the third statement especially if it made her argument appear stronger

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, now you are the one making uncalled-for, personal remarks. People are not necessarily referring to you when they make remarks about religion, religious people, etc., etc., etc. Now, last time I stood up for you because I thought it was necessary, but this time you ARE putting words in people's mouths and reading things into their statements that aren't actually there.

I beg to differ. She has a pattern of addressing something I said within the past 3-10 posts, but making it a generalized comment and then attacking the nebulous people who hold to the belief that I just addressed. Be that as it may, I think I explained it well above and will drop the issue now, hoping that in the future when BJean has issue with a comment I make, she directly addresses the comment rather than the nebulous group of people who have those types of beliefs.

[TommyO 5]

That hardly seems like an unbiased article as a matter of fact it is painfully biased and amounts to nothing but hear-say. It makes the whole article invalid you probably don't even notice the obvious bias becuase of your own right wing perspective.

[Jennie1976 1]

Okay Snuffy, I'll try to explain it a bit more simply this time.

YOU SAID: "There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions."

MY QUOTE SAID: "Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies."

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU: Married people and people who wait for marriage to have sex are not the ones getting a majority of abortions.

Let's try the next one:

YOU SAID: "There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions." (remember)

MY QUOTE SAID: ""Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6"

AND

"Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1"

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (FIRST QUOTE): 83% of women who get abortions are not married.

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (SECOND QUOTE): 13% + 27% = 40%. 40% is NOT a majority.

YOU SAID: "3rd, this doesn't prove me wrong becuase what you would be telling me is tat most black, Hispanic, and teenagers, don't have any religious affiliations. Thats dumb assertions."

I'M SAYING: Huh? Actually, I'm not saying anything because I don't think you'd understand it even if I tried. Moving on...

YOU SAID: "This also proves my point that unmarried woman are shunned and so talk down to about not getting pregnant they feel that the need to get an abortion."

I'M SAYING: If you want to have a discussion about married people raising children versus unmarried people having and raising children and the results thereof, we can, but this is about abortion.

YOU SAID: "Heres a picking from a more extensive poll, from no other then an prolife site( Abortion Statistics )."

IF YOU READ YOUR ENTIRE SITE, YOU WOULD READ AT THE TOP: "The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives."

And finally,

YOU SAID: "Please read your stuff before cutting pasting from Prolife sites and just assume it backs you up."

I'M SAYING: Do you really think that the Washington Post and PROCHOICE.org are pro-life? I'm not seeing where you got that.

A FINAL THOUGHT: Statistics lie. You can change statistics to say whatever you want. I deliberately chose statistics from a pro-choice website so that it might be harder to disprove them. However, statistics don't mean anything in the fight to end/keep abortion. It just shows what has happened already. That is why my pro-life arguments had nothing to do with statistics, religion, or feelings.

[gadgetlady 4]

three of the four "health experts" who testified against it said they would oppose abstinence even if scientific evaluation showed it to be as or more effective than so-called comprehensive sex ed. Dr. Harvey Fineberg of the Institute of Medicine was the only one in this anti-abstinence group to maintain a sense of scientific integrity by quietly answering yes.

is hearsay?

Edited April 24, 2008 by gadgetlady
spelling error

[TommyO 5]

Jennie, you are so far off the mark it's amazing, I doubt anyone could simplify what snuffy was saying but safe to say it's obvious you are not getting it and your last post makes your inability to grasp her point seem almost humourous!!!

[luluc 6]

:crying: No one's forcing or trying to force anyone to create babies. The babies are already created, or there'd be no reason for abortion!

This right here is why I backed away from the discussion for a bit. I've always respected your view Gadget - though the same could not be said of you in my opinion. This is "snarkyness 101" - and your attempts to engage the last wk of 2 news media items, they weren't for discussion...it was for agenda seeking .... your view is right - others wrong. That's is plain and simple .

Either way - BJean / Tommy / Snuffy can keep up with you plenty, your actually no longer enjoyable to read. But they more than have the pulse of the Avg person....Keep your values to your and your girls, that's where they belong, certainly not thrusted onto me.

Reply away with more snarkyness....I'll not respond, cause deep down that IS what you want & I don't play that way w/my friends of the same opinion as yours in real life - I won't go there online.

BJean -....your SO not passive aggressive, more like a breath of fresh air:)

[gadgetlady 4]

your attempts to engage the last wk of 2 news media items, they weren't for discussion...it was for agenda seeking .... your view is right - others wrong. That's is plain and simple .

As if those who are in favor of abortion on this thread don't think they're right and I'm wrong?

[Jennie1976 1]

Jennie, you are so far off the mark it's amazing, I doubt anyone could simplify what snuffy was saying but safe to say it's obvious you are not getting it and your last post makes your inability to grasp her point seem almost humourous!!!

If she says something that makes sense, it would be easier to grasp! Trying to read past spelling/grammatical errors sometimes makes it more difficult. If she would like to try again, that's fine, but, as I said earlier, it seems more appropriate to discuss the issue of abortion rather than statistics. My only reason for bringing them up was to prove that married people and people who wait to have sex until marriage are not the ones having the majority of abortions. If you disagree, great. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

If you want to discuss abortion, give me your argument and I'll give you mine. But, I don't think statistics should have anything to do with it.

Just my opinion.

[TommyO 5]

As a matter of fact someone telling someone else what another person told them is exactly that hearsay. I hear someone speak then I say it to someone else. Any person who tells you what someone else says is providing hearsay evidence. The reason it is suspect because you can't account for the bias of the interpreter and it is quite obvious that the person who wrote that article is extremely biased.

I try to avoid correcting spelling but in this case it is important to point out that the word hearsay becomes self-explanatory when spelled correctly and less so when spelled heresay as you have chosen.

[TommyO 5]

Gadget, thats just it I don't know who's right, I only know what I believe. I may be wrong and you may be wrong (Although as I have said in the past I am certain you are afraid to admit it) so what it comes down to is that I refuse to live by your rules. That's what the issue is your need to force your rule onto the world. Actually I am wrong because you only ever talk about the USA so I must assume that you are only concerned about the abortion issue in the U.S.

[BJean 16]

gadget I have been called down and "reported" for supposedly attacking you. I have done my level best never to attack you, but to only address your statements.

I believe that when two people debate, you do not expect them to become personal and throw barbs and accusations at each other. You expect them to address the issues, and you expect them to address what their opponent is claiming when it relates to the issues. When things become personal, the value of the debate is lost and the meaning of the accusatory words are useless to the debate.

I only want to discuss the issues and that is all I'm attempting to do when I do not address you by name when I am addressing your comments. I also am not always only responding to your comments. Most often I am basing my response on posts made by several different people if their posts relate to the current discussion. For you to jump on me personally and accuse me of being passive aggressive because of my posting technique, and accuse me of things that I have not said, you have become very personal and that is uncalled for. I do not have time to sit at my computer and respond to your comments every time you make them. I have the time to read several posts from time to time and it is then that I post a comment.

Btw, I am glad that the subject of religion came up on this thread in an honest way. Often it has been denied that religion has any bearing on the discussion. I have begged to differ. I think it has every bearing on the issue and is at its' very core.

I do not believe that if one is not a fundamentalist Christian that they are inferior or bad Christians or even worse, that they are not actually Christian at all. Finally... we are at the core of the issue.

You believe that you are right and that you are good and that others are wrong and others are bad. No wonder you wish to control others and tell them what they can and cannot do. You think you're someone who has the corner on goodness and light.

Has anyone noticed that for a while we were able to discuss this issue with no animosity, no rancor? Like the lovely and loving human beings that we are, right? Wonder what happened? :confused2:

[gadgetlady 4]

As a matter of fact someone telling someone else what another person told them is exactly that hearsay. I hear someone speak then I say it to someone else. Any person who tells you what someone else says is providing hearsay evidence. The reason it is suspect because you can't account for the bias of the interpreter and it is quite obvious that the person who wrote that article is extremely biased.

I try to avoid correcting spelling but in this case it is important to point out that the word hearsay becomes self-explanatory when spelled correctly and less so when spelled heresay as you have chosen.

Thank you for correcting my spelling. I try to proof everything I write but I missed that one. Heresay is definitely different then hearsay, both of which are different from heresy! I will edit my post above.

That being said, given that this was House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting, I'm sure what was said was documented in writing, making it not hearsay. The government does things like that specifically to counteract hearsay.

[gadgetlady 4]

You believe that you are right and that you are good and that others are wrong and others are bad. No wonder you wish to control others and tell them what they can and cannot do. You think you're someone who has the corner on goodness and light.

I'm out of time now but I do want to say you are patently wrong. I do not believe I am good and others are wrong and bad (I believe people are wrong on this issue -- just like you believe I am wrong on this issue -- but that doesn't make them bad people). I don't wish to control others. I don't wish to tell others what they can and cannot do unless they are interfering with the life of another person. And I do not think I have the corner on goodness and light. I am a sinner and a sinful person and I try to do my best; I am certainly in no position to judge others who are sinners and sinful people as well.