Colorado GOP claims IUDs cause abortions, scrap program that reduced teen birthrate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Apr 30, 2015.

  1. iBlazed, Apr 30, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015

    iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    This program reduced the teen birthrate by 40% AND the abortion rate. But thanks to Republicans everlasting hatred for science combined with their need to control women, it no longer exists.. Next time you hear a Republican refer to themselves as pro-life, this is just more evidence that they're full of crap.

     
  2. td1439 macrumors 6502

    td1439

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Location:
    Boston-ish
    #2
    I don't think I'll ever understand this apparent need to limit the purpose of sex to procreation on the part of some politicians in this country.
     
  3. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #3
    That's what they call "family values". Hopefully these family values will fade away with time.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    you are responsible for what goes on in your bedroom, why should others pay for your entertainment?


    from the OP.
    so where are the new funds going to magically appear from? pot sales?:eek:
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5

    Any rational person would rather pay a few pennies towards a birth control program rather than many dollars for benefits for a teen mother who likely can't afford the child.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    a rational person would not have unprotected sex :eek:

    yes, an ounce of prevention is worth 6.6 lbs or whatever the birth average is of cure.

    we pay for things one way or another, today teen pregnancy is glorified by our jerry springer society http://www.mtv.com/shows/teen_mom/
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    An IUD is protection. :rolleyes:

    Jesus H. Christ.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    against pregnancy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    WTF do you think an IUD is?

    Clearly your post was about pregnancy, given that you talked about teen mom and a baby.
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    [​IMG]contraceptive device[​IMG]

    what did you think it was?
    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud

     
  11. ThisIsNotMe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #11
    From the original article
    Its nice to see an 'news' organization make assertions without citing sources.

    Looking at an actual quote form a Republican on their opposition to state funding.
    Shocking. Another liberal rag distorting the position of the GOP to fan the flames of division.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    ....I'm at a loss. You started by saying to practice safe sex, clearly in the context of preventing pregnancy. Then, I point out that's EXACTLY what an IUD does....and you think that I've somehow not stated that an IUD is a form of safe section terms of preventing pregnancy.

    :confused::confused:
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    Does it refer to this clip? He sounds confused. He refers to it as "IUD" rather than "an IUD".
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    practice safe sex on your own dime.
    is that better?
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    It's what i do......I go to the store and pay for my own measures. I don't expect people to pay for it for me
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    The "rational person" is the adult taxpayer.

    The (unstated) "irrational persons" are the teens.

    And, OT, IUDs are not abortifacients.

    Neither are morning after pills.

    But hey, let's not get confused by the science. The goal here is mandatory motherhood.
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    how DARE you :p

    no it's not, hard to say what the goal is any is. they had no problem with the program when it was privately funded.
     
  18. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #18



    Im seeing some conflictions here.
     
  19. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #19
    As a rational taxpayer, my goal is to pay less (contraceptives) rather than pay more (cost to taxpayers of teenage mothers).

    But, we weren't talking about rational responses, were we?
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #20
    I get both sides have of the issue. We should NOT be paying so that others can enjoy safe sex and we are stuck with the bill anyways if they do have unprotected sex and it results in a child .
    So it makes no difference what it "should be", we are stuck with the bill one way or the other

    ----------

    That is because we are stuck with the bill regardless of what we want , we don't have a real say on how our taxes are spent. We can't say no to war funding or welfare should we disagree with either
     
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #21
    I just don't buy it. Taxpayers spend on various things. A few of those things actually have huge returns for the taxpayer, such as delaying motherhood until age 21 at the earliest. But, for some reason, this particular expenditure is an issue, while funding to repair a road, say, is not. Can we compare ROI to the taxpayer for the road spending vs the contraceptives for teens? These anti-contraception crusaders don't know and don't care. They simply don't like contraceptives, and they don't mind invoking known-incorrect information about the science of reproduction to support their viewpoint.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    Totally with you on the ROI, but plenty follow the bible as it suits them and they will not support this even if they themselves had premarital unprotected sex
     
  23. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #23

    At least you can see the problem there, but from an economic POV, what's better potentially paying a few thousand or tens of thousands?
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    based on out CURRENT situation, where we eat it one way or another, the least amount of money of course.

    IDEALLY, people would be responsible on their own, pay for their own condoms etc etc etc. plenty of religious folk want YOU to be responsible for yourself, this free for all have sex as you please & flush it down if the condom/pill fails does not work for them, they DO have a point in regards that hey, if you screw up, you SHOULD pay the piper, not just shrug your shoulders & go flush things down as you see fit because it was nothing but a clump of cells & holy crap I wont be able to party anymore & get laid over & over & Over .

    there is a bit more than simply the religious aspect,
    here

    personally, ANY underage kid SHOULD have their parents permission IF they are to go through the procedure.
    I have no problems with abortion, but I sure as hell don't think that a kid should be having one w/o my knowledge, its MY kid, yet in plenty of states parental involvement is not requiered

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/parental-consent-notification-laws

    that is so wrong it is not even funny.
     
  25. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #25

    Ideally birth control wouldn't be an issue if people stayed out of other people's lives. Ideally abstinence would work it it actually worked. Ideally all insurance plans would cover everyone's personal needs. Anyone who's ever shopped for insurance knows that not all plans are the same or are affordable to their specific needs. Ideally BC should work 100% of the time but it doesn't. Ideally the world would be a better place if X was the case but that isnt the world we live in and you know this. We can play the "ideal" game but it's moot when the world never has and never will be ideal. Specially considering everyone's views and needs are different then the next.

    As for abortion, statistically speaking, women in the 20s and up are more likely to get abortions then teenagers. I understand the issue with needing permission for abortion but the simple fact is, limiting birth control types is a far greater issue that will cause the need for more abortions.
     

Share This Page