Übergeek 바둑이: I agree with you on waterboarding. No to waterboarding. Just assasinate them. Drone killing. Much cleaner and you don't have to pay for their lawyer.

But are you willing to say that in ANY and ALL circumstances that waterboarding or ANY enhanced interrogation technique is a no-no?

Übergeek 바둑이: Always back to Bush? Because Bush did it you're saying it's ok?

Abu Zubaydah vomiting? Poor baby. What did he do to deserve that?

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "suffered" when interrogated? Awww, that's just not right. So he killed a few thousand innocent people, sliced off a few head of people while they were alive, and plotted more killing and mayhem. That's no excuse to torture him!

I'd forget about all this torture stuff. It's bad policy. Obama's current practice is much better: Just kill them wherever you find them. Assassinate them. Send in the drones, drop a few bombs, kill a few bad guys (and some innocent people too - even kids) all in a day's work. Obama has even assassinated two American citizens with no due process and no trial. Just an "OK" and they were killed.

No mess. No press. Just some blood splatter and mangled bodies, mostly unrecognizable. That's the way to do it. Read them their rights first though:

"You have the right to be dead!" BOOM!

Bernice:

Bernice: I wouldn't put anything past Obama. He's a dishonest man.

Bernice: We probably do sadly

Didn't you know:

(V): If you want the last word just say so, but whether that word will be meaningful or just you playing a ribbing game....

(V): Oh yes you do. Otherwise why always the last word?

(V): YOu hate losing don't you?

(V): Sore loser?

Only you could think your cherry picked stats were better than my peer reviewed studies.

You're the one that always likes to have the last word. Just ask Rod or Vikes. You always pettifog an issue instead of addressing it in a way that can bring about healthy dialogue. You always have! No surprise here.

Please, go post another cherry picked stat for me to dismantle!

All the studies you cited were not only rigged, but they only addressed declining years and not the over all picture. Plus your studies were limited in scope and funded by advocates for increase availability of contraceptives to under age teens. Yeah, they're not biased.

Yer pettifogging again

Based on the newest teenage pregnancy statistics 2010, teen pregnancy is once again on the rise after decreasing substantially since the early 1990s. According to these new teenage pregnancy statistics for 2010, teen girls ages 15 to 19 are the most likely to get pregnant as a teen.

The overall teenage pregnancy statistics also include the total number of pregnancies that are carried to full term and delivered as well as the total number of abortions and miscarriages. However, the increase has only risen three percent since 2006, so researchers are unsure if the teenage pregnancy statistics will continue to rise. There are about 40 teenage girls getting pregnant each year out of ever 1,000, according to the teenage pregnancy statistics for 2010.

.[E]xperts have suspected for several years, based on trends in teens’ contraceptive use…that the overall teen pregnancy rate would increase in the mid-2000s….The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s

SPAIN, January 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Abortion advocates often promote contraception by claiming that as contraception use increases, the number of “unwanted” pregnancies and therefore abortions will decrease. But a new study out of Spain has found the exact opposite, suggesting that contraception actually increases abortion rates.

stop pettifogging

(V): You are so wrong...again.

4. Studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Increasing access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activity and more sexual partners, which counteracts any reduction in unintended pregnancies.
Researchers in Spain examined patterns of contraceptive use and abortions in Spain over a ten-year period from 1997-2007. Their findings, published in the journal Contraception in January
2
2011, were that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.10
In July 2009 results were published from an expensive three-year program at 54 sites, funded by England’s Department of Health, seeking to “reduce teenage pregnancy” through, among other things, sex education and advice on access to family planning beginning at ages 13-15. “No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies.” Young women who took part in the program were more likely than those in the control group to report that they had been pregnant (16% vs. 6%) and had early heterosexual experience (58% vs. 33%).
11
David Paton, author of four major studies in this area, has found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”
12 He sums up the U.K. experience: “It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase…. The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behavior. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.” 13
K. Edgardh found that despite free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-the-counter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose from 17 per thousand to 22.5 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.

Atheism? If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning... - C.S. Lewis

(V): Yes I can. I see you're cherry picked ones.

(V): You explain why there's a difference in what you posted and what I posted. I've read these sort of studies many times before and the results are always the same.

(V): Then why do you do that all the time? That's exactly what you are known for!!!

(V): You are so wrong...again.

4. Studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Increasing access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activity and more sexual partners, which counteracts any reduction in unintended pregnancies.
Researchers in Spain examined patterns of contraceptive use and abortions in Spain over a ten-year period from 1997-2007. Their findings, published in the journal Contraception in January
2
2011, were that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.10
In July 2009 results were published from an expensive three-year program at 54 sites, funded by England’s Department of Health, seeking to “reduce teenage pregnancy” through, among other things, sex education and advice on access to family planning beginning at ages 13-15. “No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies.” Young women who took part in the program were more likely than those in the control group to report that they had been pregnant (16% vs. 6%) and had early heterosexual experience (58% vs. 33%).
11
David Paton, author of four major studies in this area, has found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”
12 He sums up the U.K. experience: “It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase…. The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behavior. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.” 13
K. Edgardh found that despite free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-the-counter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose from 17 per thousand to 22.5 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.
14

(V):  Again, that was comparing a one time year to a previous year.  NOT A STEADY DECLINE.

The SHORT TERM LOSS  you cite was from 2008 to 2009.  It just so happens that the loss was lower than the high of 1980.   But what is needed to prove your thesis is a long term STEADY DECLINE. 

You didn't show that now did you?    And here I though you studied stats!

(V): You cite only short term losses.  I clearly said that over the long run:

Peter Arcidiacono found that among teens, “increasing access to
contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though
short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that
decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, may lower
pregnancy rates in the long run.”

You must have forgotten to read that part.  And just in case you need an extra clue, from 2008 to 2009 is a "short run pregnancy rate...."

Übergeek 바둑이:

>

"Here is a
good question: Has the teaching of Christianity reduced the number of
unintended pregnancies, transmission of STDs, or abortions?"

That's not the question being discussed.  The question is about the role of contraception availability in reducing pregnancies and abortions.  It's clear that availability doesn't curb unwanted pregnancies.  Just deal with that fact on the face of it.  In fact, explain why it's ok to make contraceptives available when in fact pregnancies and abortions have gone UP over the long haul. 

The
reason is that there is a lack of education in schools. Sex is seen as
a "bad" thing to teach children. The general thinking is that if
children learn about sex, they will become sexually active themselves.

No.  Lack of education isn't the problem.  And it's not seen as "bad."  It seen as the respoonsibility of the parents.  What's wrong with that?

"In
reality, becoming sexually active has nothing to do with sexual
education, religious education, or contraceptive use. It has to do with
human physiology."

Not entirely true.  But we'll move on.

If religious education and "abstinence"
worked,.....

Am I making the argument that it does????  If so, where?  (here's a clue, I'm not---you're inferring it)
I never said Christianity worked automatically.   If someone has told you that, tell them AD says they are full of crap. ;)


I don't know the answer to this problem.  I think we have a breakdown in society and a multitude of factors are at play when it comes to sexual activity.  As there is nothing new under the sun, promiscuity has been around since the beginning.   Can it be fixed?  NO.  Can the problem be lessened?  Yes but likely no one would agree on a solution.  Kids having kids isn't helping the situation.  And I know that many parents are simply incompetent.  Drugs and selfish ideas, poverty and desperation...on and on.  So many things contribute to the problem there is NO solution.  Best that can be hoped for is to bring the numbers down.  How that can be done will NEVER be agreed upon.  Oh well. 

Übergeek 바둑이:<b>Übergeek 바둑이</b>: Artful Dodger:

> Obeying the government is a Christian principle.

Where in the Bible does it say that? "To Caesar what is of caesar. To God what is of God."

Romans 13:1 says, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
Acts 5:29 says, <span>"We must obey God rather than men." Whenever a government violates biblical teaching----

> Being a good citizen is a Christian principle.
How so? What does a "good citizen" mean?

Rom. 13:6-7, <span>"For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

> It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

But here is the thing, the "Christian ethic" existed before Jesus was born.

I never made the claim otherwise.  But there is no doubt that the Judeo/Christian ethic is foundational to laws in the US (just read all the early writings...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  I'm not going to split hairs over the chicken or egg.

>> "Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

> I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

You are missing the point. It is an analogy. If people who did not pay "Defense Insurance" were not protected, they would be forced to go to war to defend themselves; just as those without healthcare are forced to fend for themselves when they have no money.

Nonsense.   (meaning you make no sense here).   The government is required by LAW to protect its citizens and they are allowed by LAW to collect taxes.   It's NOT insurance.  That's just so far wrong there's no point in discussing it further.  Your analogy fails here.  Better for you to show why the individual mandate in the ObamaCare bill is Constitutional.  Paying for defense IS. 

Ya been schooled again Jules!

Peter Arcidiacono found that among teens, “increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, may lower pregnancy rates in the long run.”
15
5. Emergency Contraception (EC) does not reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion.
Twenty-three studies published between 1998 and 2006, and analyzed by James Trussell’s team at Princeton University, measured the effect of increased EC access on EC use, unintended pregnancy, and abortion. Not a single study among the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions following increased access to emergency contraception.16www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/factsheetec21607.shtml For more information, including the conclusions of individual studies and researchers on this point, see “Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception Fails to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion,” at .

http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf



all studies, properly conducted, conclude basically the same thing. More access to contraception leads to more pregnancies in the long run.

(V):
You are so wrong...again.

4. Studies show that greater access to contraception does not reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Increasing access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activity and more sexual partners, which counteracts any reduction in unintended pregnancies.
Researchers in Spain examined patterns of contraceptive use and abortions in Spain over a ten-year period from 1997-2007. Their findings, published in the journal Contraception in January
2
2011, were that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.10
In July 2009 results were published from an expensive three-year program at 54 sites, funded by England’s Department of Health, seeking to “reduce teenage pregnancy” through, among other things, sex education and advice on access to family planning beginning at ages 13-15. “No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies.” Young women who took part in the program were more likely than those in the control group to report that they had been pregnant (16% vs. 6%) and had early heterosexual experience (58% vs. 33%).
11
David Paton, author of four major studies in this area, has found “no evidence” that “the provision of family planning reduces either underage conception or abortion rates.”
12 He sums up the U.K. experience: “It is clear that providing more family planning clinics, far from having the effect of reducing conception rates, has actually led to an increase…. The availability of the morning-after pill seems to be encouraging risky behavior. It appears that if people have access to family planning advice they think they automatically have a lower risk of pregnancy.” 13
K. Edgardh found that despite free contraceptive counseling, low cost condoms and oral contraceptives, and over-the-counter emergency contraception (EC), Swedish teen abortion rates rose from 17 per thousand to 22.5 per thousand between 1995 and 2001.
14

(V):

Bernice: And without parent permission. But if they need an asprin at school, they need a written permission slip and a not from the doc. AND the parents need to supply the meds.

Need a condom? Not a problem. Here, take two!

Liberals for ya.!

(V): didn't say it wasn't

Übergeek 바둑이: Many reasons.

Pandering

You can't completely divorce yourself from your convictions. Forcing your religion on others is one thing. Promoting certain principles (such as doing good) is not a bad thing.

Many "Christian" princples are followed by people like you. Obeying the government is a Christian principle. Being a good citizen is a Christian principle. So is honesty. And expecting others to be honest is a principle that we can agree is a good thing (certainly isn't a bad thing).

It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

"Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

Bwild: they operate by "codes" in the ER. A visit receives a particular code and the patient is charged accordingly. If the code is incorrect, a patient could be charged at a higher rate than they would otherwise had the code been determined correctly. This happened to me. I was sent to the ER as a precaution but I knew the problems stemmed from the medication I was given. But the symptoms were similar to a stroke. I immediately informed the doc about my meds and he agreed that the meds were the problem. But the admitting person coded it for stroke. I was charged double. I got it fixed but had I not called, I would have had to pay the full bill.

Changes are needed system wide but NOT Obama care. That doesn't fix anything. And for those in favor of the 2000+ page bill it's wise to remember that NO ONE in congress and NOT EVEN OBAMA read the stupid thing. Even today most congressmen haven't read the stupid bill!

rod03801: that's their game!

Bernice: At least 50% of the US population gets some kind of government assistance. That is nuts! No wonder we're heading off a cliff!

(V): Yeah Jules, let's change the entire health care system based on ONE example. And a tear jerker at that!

(V): "And end up bankrupt? But hang on.. why did people who helped out during the 9/11 terrorist attack have to travel to Cuba to get the help they needed?"

Free. I know many people that didn't have to pay a dime because they didn't have the money. But they still got the treatment.


"But we end up again here.. you do pay for it via taxes. Unless you want to say you are defrauding the government by not paying them."

You clearly don't know the law. YOu are REQUIRED to purchase your own insurance. If you can't afford it, you will go on the Govt plan. People will be required to buy insurance - that's the problem. If you don't, you pay a penalty (called a tax by Obama and then NOT a tax and then a tax again). lol


".. Samaritan up.. isn't that what Jesus said!!"

You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state.

(V): If you don't have insurance, and you're sick, you can go into any clinic and you have to be treated.

There's no question that the US system needs fixin. What the fix looks like is a different story.

National health care requirement would require, by law, that everyone purchase health insurance. It's a 2000+ page bill and contains many dubious requirements. Bottom line is that the government in the US can't force me to buy something. I can choose NOT to buy insurance. If I need a heart transplant, good luck on that. People live, they die. Sometimes you get so sick that you can't get fixed. Transplants are costly and risky. Someone has to die inorder for anyone to get a transplant. Then the transplanted organ has to be a match and you have to be in healthy enough shape to recieve a transplant.

If I'm an insurance company, I want to make money, not lose it on open season "everything is covered."

Currently, hearing aids are NOT covered under most US plans. So what? If I want hearing aids I either pay the 5000 out of my own pocket or I ask people to speak up. It is what it is.

Stop looking for a free lunch and man up.

(V): That's a different question. I didn't say health "coverage." I said health CARE. You can't be denied health care in the US. And if you have no insurance, that's not a problem. There are plenty of places to go and get the care you need.

As for insurance: What Obama is asking (demanding) is that I pay for your health care because you don't have a job or the motivation or whatever the reason - and there are plenty of lazy people in the US expecting a handout. I work hard for my money and have enough trouble providing for my own family. Why should I have to pay for others?

It's not up to the government to play church.

And about 50% of people don't pay federal income tax. Why is that? I know someone who is exempt. He lives in a 350,000 home. He owns a motor home and travels all over the US. But he's tax exempt. Dumb.

(V): BTW, I love it when you respond to a post of mine but pretend you're not responding to me. Did you learn that in 3rd grade or something?

(V): As was already pointed out, those "studies" were peer reviewed and didn't pass the test for a number of reasons. You need to keep current Jules.

No one in the USA is denied health care as it's against CURRENT law. Get educated.

(V):  if you think this won't happen with obama care you're nuts.  It occurs in Canada and the UK as well under your current system.  In the UK, two patients died while waiting in an ambulance!  The hospital was over stretched to the limit and while waiting for critical care, they BOTH DIED.