Religion?

[Draco_Argentum]

Looking at that link, why in the shit would you use condoms with numbing lube?

[Catharz]

1179376390[/unixtime]]Looking at that link, why in the shit would you use condoms with numbing lube?

The idea is to prevent premature ejaculation. I have no idea if it actually works. The numbing agent is an over-the-counter topical anaethetic.

[Draco_Argentum]

Forgive my poor knowledge of condoms but isn't the lube on the non dick side?

[Neeek]

1179388932[/unixtime]]Forgive my poor knowledge of condoms but isn't the lube on the non dick side?

From my experience, no. It's pretty much everywhere.

[Draco_Argentum]

Well there ya go.

[Crissa]

Depends on what the lube is supposed to do, but yeah, generally everywhere.

I prefer polyvinyl, myself. It crinkles, but at least it doesn't feel like a clown balloon.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1179376701[/unixtime]]

1179376390[/unixtime]]Looking at that link, why in the shit would you use condoms with numbing lube?

The idea is to prevent premature ejaculation. I have no idea if it actually works. The numbing agent is an over-the-counter topical anaethetic.

Considering the fact that condoms preventing me from ejaculating at all I fail to see the point.

[josephbt]

The idea is to prevent premature ejaculation. I have no idea if it actually works. The numbing agent is an over-the-counter topical anaethetic.

Yes, it works. My GF and I tried it once, took the damned thing off b/c it wasn't fun and ended with our lips anestetised.
The lesson is: anestetics and sex don't mix.

[tzor]

Note: Sorry for any delays in replying, I was having a fun time yesterday playing golf. I must be getting to be an extreme optimist. According to the rules of the tournament I had to pick up my ball after I got twice the par score. I am a very bad golfer, I only got one score that was below double the par score. But you should have seen those few shots I hit well!

Personally I generally don't like addressing issues from the status quo because there is an assmption that if you don't like X then you probably are proposing the exact opposite of X. So instead I would like to write about the happy medium where I would rather be, sitting on the fence being shot at by both sides.

First of all, I will admit I don't like Planned Parenthood. I will say that there are numerous exceptions at the local level. But even the official reports from Planned Parenthod don't make me happy or confident. (The latest annual report of Planned Parenthood is for 2005 and can be found here at Planned Parenthood's own site. The fact is that PP is a profit making organization making 63 million dollars in 2005. The fact is that PP 39% of its income from clinical procedures. The fact is that PP reported an increase in abortions in 2004 while a decline in a number of other procedures. (There is a 45% decline in one year under "other services - women.") Does this make PP evil? No, but it does make a case that PP has a vested interest in the promotion of abortions.

So my basic argument is that the OB/GYN that a woman should depend on should not be affiliated with an organization that supplies one specific (and controversial) solution to her problem as it presents an appearance of conflict of interest. Just as it would be an appearance of conflict of insterst if a drug manufacturer directly sponsored doctors.

You can't compare abortions to oral surgery. You might compare it to liposuction and in this case there are numerous examples where procedures must be performed in hospitals based on risk analysis criteria. Here is a PDF on practice advise on the procedures.

Abortion is far too complex to have a solution of either "always" or "never." There has to be a middle ground and there has to be some sort of advocate for the unborn. This "advocate" doesn't and probably shouldn't involve the courts but it should be written to provide proportional fairnes and reasonable conditions. People tend to practially "worship" Roe v Wade, but they forget it was not that decision that gave unlimited rights to all abortions at all stages of pregnancy. In fact RvW divided regulations based on trimesters and significantly used the notion of "viability" a condition which has significantly been brought eariler and eariler over the decades since the decision.

[Username17]

Abortion is far too complex to have a solution of either "always" or "never." There has to be a middle ground and there has to be some sort of advocate for the unborn.

No it isn't and no there doesn't.

We have a human being who is confronted with the opportunity to perform hard work for 40 weeks for no pay at the end of which another human will come into existence - essentially taking all of the profit.

Now that's fine if she wants to do that. I've done a lot of volunteer work myself, I know how rewarding it can be to take care of others. But requiring that of someone is barbaric. It's slavery, and it's evil.

If someone doesn't want to do it, they shouldn't have to do it. They shouldn't do it.

---

I'm a man. I destroy 500 million unborn every single day. Not because I masturbate like a fiend, but because that's just how many sperm I make and destroy every day whether I ejaculate or not.

Other people are women. They are born with 2 million unborn of which it is not even conceivable that more than 50 could be churned out as babies (and that only if we kept her as a continuous baby farm from the age of 12 until menopause claimed her at age 51).

Getting worked up because one potential child didn't happen is complete crazy talk because every single women represents millions of potential children that will never happen, and every man represents hundreds of billions of potential children that won't happen every single year.

That's right, through simple inaction I destroy the entire population of the world worth of Sperm in a little less than 2 weeks. Even if one of those sperm made a child in 40 weeks, I'd still have destroyed the entire population of the world 22 times over in the same period - it's statistically irrelvent to the magnitude of my "crime" if you think the unborn matter or have any say in anything.

That's how humanity works. The unborn are produced and discarded continuously by our bodies just in case we want to actually have children. And if we don't, we can and should simply discard them and move on with our lives.

If you were talking about scooping impregnated eggs out of people who didn't want them so they could be grown in a vat - that would be defensable (if insane), but you're not. You're talking about forcing children into hard labor for which they are not paid. I don't know under what circumstances you want to require this unpaid labor out of children, but I don't care. The UN declaration of human rights forbids that sort of thing, and anyone who suggests it under any circumstances is a monster.

-Username17

[Neeek]

1179503686[/unixtime]]
(The latest annual report of Planned Parenthood is for 2005 and can be found here at Planned Parenthood's own site. The fact is that PP is a profit making organization making 63 million dollars in 2005.

So what? No, really. That's chump change for an organization that size. That's less than 80,000 dollars per location. In fact, that's less than their expenses, according to your link. If you were running a business that only took in 80,000 dollars a year, that required you to pay a doctor's salary, you'd go bankrupt.

Seriously, either you have no idea about finance, or you are being deliberately obtuse. 63 million dollars isn't a lot of money when you have over 860 locations. In fact, it barely pays the rent and utilities.

No, but it does make a case that PP has a vested interest in the promotion of abortions.

It really makes a better case that PP has a vested interest is shutting down than it does anything else.

Abortion is far too complex to have a solution of either "always" or "never."

It's really not that complicated: Whenever the woman wants it, it should be allowed.

People tend to practially "worship" Roe v Wade, but they forget it was not that decision that gave unlimited rights to all abortions at all stages of pregnancy. In fact RvW divided regulations based on trimesters and significantly used the notion of "viability" a condition which has significantly been brought eariler and eariler over the decades since the decision.

Actually, RvW was decided pretty much exclusively on the grounds that doctors and patients have a right to confidentially that the government cannot infringe upon. Basically, the government doesn't have a right to know what a doctor does to his patients.

[tzor]

1179505363[/unixtime]]We have a human being who is confronted with the opportunity to perform hard work for 40 weeks for no pay at the end of which another human will come into existence - essentially taking all of the profit.

---

I'm a man. I destroy 500 million unborn every single day. Not because I masturbate like a fiend, but because that's just how many sperm I make and destroy every day whether I ejaculate or not.

As Ronand Regan would say "there you go again." You constantly bring up the "40 weeks" as though all abortions are done within the first week of pregnancy. (Never mind the "hard work" comment, as it's actually a sliding scale for the most part.) I'm not talking about 40 weeks, and for the most part I'm willing to concede 40 weeks on the grounds of necessity. I'd rather talk about 3 weeks or the third trimester of a pregnancy. That's when there is a nervous system, that's when you have real viability. So in other words I'm talking about 3 weeks.

(I mean 40 weeks ... it sounds like you are talking about the National Guard. Oh wait they just extended that to 52 weeks. In Bagdad! Now that's HARD WORK LABOR.)

And I should probably pull out my "Secular Franciscan" card now. Why not pay pregnant women? It's in the national interest. It's in the interest of health insurance providers because having a healthy - health care expense minimized dependant begins at conception and goes to the momet he/she becomes an adult and get's their own policy.



Last and least. Let's leave the "every sperm is sacred" argument for Monty Python. They are not. Moreover, not all sperm are equal and not all sperm are created for procreation. Some sperm, for example, are created to play defense against other sperm that they might encounter. In any event only one sperm is needed in the end.

And I'm going to ingore your argument about women for a moment because the "fixed egg" theory is fast falling by the wayside in terms of the "eolving stem cell" theory.

[tzor]

1179505997[/unixtime]]So what? No, really. That's chump change for an organization that size.

Nice try but not quite. Let's do the numbers

Gross Revenue: 882
R-E: 63
or 7%


Now let's really take this thread to the dogs, I'll compare it to VCA ANTECH INC COM providers of medical services to family pets. Now of course they want to make a profit so let's see their numbers.

Gross Revenue: 983
R-E: 193
or 20%

So PP is making a new revenue on the order of half that of a very agressive company in the health business. I'm afraid the finanial argument is as flimsy as their condoms.

Speaking of condoms, back in WWII my father was issued condoms as a part of the standard army equipment. Here he and others found the best use for them ... over the ends of their rifles. You see when carrying their rifles in the rain it kept the water from going down the barrel and should they be suddenly surprised by the enemy, they could rely on the condom not being proof against a lead bullet.

[Username17]

I'm not talking about 40 weeks, and for the most part I'm willing to concede 40 weeks on the grounds of necessity. I'd rather talk about 3 weeks or the third trimester of a pregnancy.

So you "only" want to force women you don't know into three weeks of uncontracted labor that is difficult, dangerous, painful, and around the clock. This work may force the women to drop out of school, quit jobs that they have contracted for and are being paid to complete.

Slavery for less time is still slavery. The fact that the only amount of time you demand as non-consensual enslavement is the most painful and life altering part does not absolve you from the fact that you are suggesting that we should enslave and torture women. Heck, in some cases these are little girls.

You know, in any other context where you seriously suggested that we enslave and torture little girls for 21 days straight, you'd just be lynched. However, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about as far as the medical questions involved, I'm willing to allow as to how you may simply be ignorant.

I'd rather talk about 3 weeks or the third trimester of a pregnancy.

Make up your mind, the third trimester is 11 weeks long.

-Username17

[Catharz]

If they're pregnant, hopefuly they're not "little girls." Hyperbole aside the 'forced labor' line of reasoning is certainly one of the best unlimited pro-choice arguments I've heard. Especially considering that the farther along the pregnancy, the more difficult it is.

[Neeek]

1179512604[/unixtime]]

1179505997[/unixtime]]So what? No, really. That's chump change for an organization that size.

Nice try but not quite. Let's do the numbers

Gross Revenue: 882
R-E: 63
or 7%

What the hell numbers are you looking at? They LOST money in 2005.

Gross Revenue was 65 million. Total expenses was 74 million
R-E was -9 million.

[Draco_Argentum]

This is why abortion debates are always shit. You can argue for abortion without having to argue that PP aren't making money from abortions. Of course instead of avoiding a point you obviously can't win you're acting as if PP's position is even relevant.

Hint, when Tzor says PP is bad that means nothing. Even assuming they are bad it still has no bearing on abortion. Depening on who is saying what about PP its one of a variety of logical fallacies.

Frank and Tzor are actually talking about something relevant. For example Tzor is just about to claim that at some point the fetus becomes human and therefore has rights. Frank will then either claim it isn't human or claim the mother's rights dominate.

The only thing I've never seen before is Frank sounding very capitalist in his description for pregnancy. Other than that, same old same old.

"The foundation of capitalism is free labor - that work is provided only as part of a mutually agreed upon contract and in no way forced by one party or another. If someone chooses to not perform labor that is their perogative, and at no time should that person be enslaved and forced to perform those labors without their consent."

[Username17]

Although having Tzor play shell games with Planned Parenthood's finances is pretty interesting. PP is of course a class 501(c)(4) non-profit organization which takes in over one hundred and seventy million dollars less in clinical fees than it pays out in medical services.

Basically, every 2 dollars the clinics generate costs Planned Parenthood 3 dollars. Which makes Tzor waving his arms around about how they have suspicious motives either:

• Tzor freaking out about something he obviously knows nothing about.
  
  or
  
  
• Tzor being deliberately deceptive in order to smoke screen actual issues.

Take your pick depending upon how charitable you want to be to Tzor. Planned Parenthood's financial report for 2004-2005 can be found here.

But of course, DA is completely correct. Abortion isn't Planned Parenthood. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation is a non-ptofit organization that does advocacy, educational outreach, and medical services, and Abortion is a human freedom and quality of life issue that is in fact extremely simple.

Lots of people exist on multiple sides of Abortion Issues, and plenty of those people are perfectly fine people and/or dastardly villains the rest of the time and that has no bearing on the issue at all. I mean I could stand here and talk about Eric Rudolph till I'm blue in the face - but it doesn't actually matter.

Yes, the Eric Rudolph story does show that the Operation Rescue organization is a vile and insane terrorist organization determined to destroy the prosperity and safety of the United States - but that's not actually relevent to the Abortion debate. The only thing that's relevent is the Emancipation Proclamation, and until the Pro-Life whack jobs have an answer for that, it's best that they sit down and shut up.

It's like the Christian Scientists - eventually we'll do away with blood transfusions altogether because we'll have artificial blood. But right now we can't really do that and refusing blood transfusions is not OK. Someday we'll have uterine replicators, and then if we as a people decide that it's important that we have more humans around we can pop those fetuses out and grow them without resorting to Khmer Rouge-style labor camps. But right now that's a futuristic pipe dream and getting rid of Abortion is crazy talk.

-Username17

[Ramnza]

[The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]
Let's move back to the religion debate.
[/The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

[PhoneLobster]

I think this IS the religion debate.

Its the age old question posed by the religious faithful to the unbelievers...

Why do Atheists eat babies?

The answer?

They don't eat babies, religious nutters just like saying that.

Because they hate atheists, and sex, and also women.

And especially combinations of those three things.

[tzor]

1179547343[/unixtime]][The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]
Let's move back to the religion debate.
[/The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

OK, I shall speak of abortion no more on this thread.

[Ramnza]

I think this IS the religion debate.

Its the age old question posed by the religious faithful to the unbelievers...

Why do Atheists eat babies?

The answer?

They don't eat babies, religious nutters just like saying that.

Because they hate atheists, and sex, and also women.

And especially combinations of those three things.

[The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]
I wasn't inviting a debate. Either speak about abortion as it relates to religous beliefs, and nothing further, or move on with the discussion.
[/The Associate Fence Builder Speaks]

[tzor]

Fine in any event I'll write no more about abortion in this thread. I've already given my religious opinion on the subject and there is not more that can be added to it. The current discussion point wasn't related to it and I'll drop it.

[Lago_AM3P]

Frank's capitalist argument earlier in this thread about abortion is probably one of the least-heard ones I have yet. But I don't know if it's necessarily sound..

How come when a child is given up for (even state-controlled) adoption there isn't any more financial obligation from the parents but in issues like divorce the separated parent has to pay child support?

[Crissa]

Adoption is special rule where you are getting someone else to promise to take over the obligation totally. In this case, you give up any rights, as well as obligations.

Much like selling a house or a car.

-Crissa