Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Irresponsible Oklahoma anti-abortion bill

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4]. But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...
I don't have a signature. :-)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
I don't have a signature. :-)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:48:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
Examples?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws is not authoritarian; it protects the rights of others, and religious dogma has nothing to do with it.
I don't have a signature. :-)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 6:56:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:48:56 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
Examples?
See my OP. I linked to teen pregnancy rates.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws is not authoritarian; it protects the rights of others, and religious dogma has nothing to do with it.
Religious dogma has everything to do with it - because the cast vast, vast majority of those against abortion are because of religious reasons and engage in the spread of misinformation to stop abortions from happening. That's authoritarian.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I really don't think this material is appropriate to teach in schools, but I can see where they're coming from. From their perspective, they're basically trying to combat a form of genocide, something which should take precedence over most other issues were it to be taking place. Frankly, I find it odd that pro-lifers don't go to even greater lengths to outlaw abortion, considering that they regard it as essentially murder.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 7:19:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:56:16 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:48:56 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
Examples?
See my OP. I linked to teen pregnancy rates.
That has nothing to do with parents. Its just kids being stupid.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws is not authoritarian; it protects the rights of others, and religious dogma has nothing to do with it.
Religious dogma has everything to do with it - because the cast vast, vast majority of those against abortion are because of religious reasons and engage in the spread of misinformation to stop abortions from happening. That's authoritarian.
Evidence?
I don't have a signature. :-)
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 7:26:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 7:19:38 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:56:16 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:48:56 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
Examples?
See my OP. I linked to teen pregnancy rates.
That has nothing to do with parents. Its just kids being stupid.
I guess southern kids are mentally retarded then.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws is not authoritarian; it protects the rights of others, and religious dogma has nothing to do with it.
Religious dogma has everything to do with it - because the cast vast, vast majority of those against abortion are because of religious reasons and engage in the spread of misinformation to stop abortions from happening. That's authoritarian.
Evidence?
Of what?

Also, do some research yourself. Reality isn't spoon fed.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 7:38:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4]. But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...

No wonder that state voted for Cruz....
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 8:08:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.

Most people don't really have a problem with the government "enforcing a moral code" via the prohibition of murder, etc.

Really, for the pro-lifer, it's all the same.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 8:12:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 8:08:06 PM, someloser wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.

Most people don't really have a problem with the government "enforcing a moral code" via the prohibition of murder, etc.

Really, for the pro-lifer, it's all the same.

Fetuses and embryos are not citizens that have entered into a social contract with the government.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 8:22:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 8:12:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:08:06 PM, someloser wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.

Most people don't really have a problem with the government "enforcing a moral code" via the prohibition of murder, etc.

Really, for the pro-lifer, it's all the same.

Fetuses and embryos are not citizens that have entered into a social contract with the government.

Not that pro-lifers care.. it's about ethics, not legality. Operating by their premises, it's a bit difficult to draw a line in the sand saying "an abortion ban is an enforcement of morality, ergo bad, but murder laws are not"

Not impossible. But I don't see it.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 8:23:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4]. But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...

I hear pamphlets are much better at stopping pregnancy and abortions than condoms. Money well spent. One really can't make this stuff up. The lower right quadrant of the US is too Christian for their own good.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.

Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 8:12:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:08:06 PM, someloser wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.

Most people don't really have a problem with the government "enforcing a moral code" via the prohibition of murder, etc.

Really, for the pro-lifer, it's all the same.

Fetuses and embryos are not citizens that have entered into a social contract with the government.

Neither are visitors, babies, coma patients...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4]. But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...

I agree, its very immoral of them
Meh!
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 7:26:09 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 7:19:38 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:56:16 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:48:56 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:43:39 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
Mere facts. Reality.
Examples?
See my OP. I linked to teen pregnancy rates.
That has nothing to do with parents. Its just kids being stupid.
I guess southern kids are mentally retarded then.
Many of them are.
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.
Then you're a hypocrite. Enforcing a moral code - one based off of religious dogma - is authoritarian, at best.
Enforcing anti-abortion laws is not authoritarian; it protects the rights of others, and religious dogma has nothing to do with it.
Religious dogma has everything to do with it - because the cast vast, vast majority of those against abortion are because of religious reasons and engage in the spread of misinformation to stop abortions from happening. That's authoritarian.
Evidence?
Of what?
Do you have any statistics that show that the vast majority of pro-lifers oppose abortion for religious reasons? I know that I don't.

Also, do some research yourself. Reality isn't spoon fed.
If you Google "why are people against abortion" you won't see many religious arguments.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.
I don't have a signature. :-)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:52:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.

As noted, this is a bill that pushes abstinence, not sex-ed. Want to know what leads to more abortion? Pushing abstinence only programs without sex-ed.

You guys are fools, and doing less to reduce abortion than I AM!
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:54:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:52:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.

As noted, this is a bill that pushes abstinence, not sex-ed. Want to know what leads to more abortion? Pushing abstinence only programs without sex-ed.
How does that lead to more abortion?
You guys are fools, and doing less to reduce abortion than I AM!
I don't have a signature. :-)
Peepette
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:33:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Statistically abstinence only education has the same pregnancy rates as no sex ed at all. Full informative sex education including contraception reduces sexual activity as well as pregnancy rates, i.e. abortion rates.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org...
http://healthresearchfunding.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:05:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:54:36 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:52:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.

As noted, this is a bill that pushes abstinence, not sex-ed. Want to know what leads to more abortion? Pushing abstinence only programs without sex-ed.
How does that lead to more abortion?
You guys are fools, and doing less to reduce abortion than I AM!

It is demonstrable wrong-headed. Sex-ed reduces pregnancy. Ease of access to birth-control reduces pregnancy.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:12:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].

That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.

It is a problem, because whether or not parents "can" do it is irrelevant. They *do not* do it in many cases. Furthermore, there's no way of saying whether the parents will offer comprehensive and strong sex ed. Sex education requirements would be much better, IMO.

But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

How can you not? They are inflicting a subjective moral code and wasting a lot of their budget in the process. Note that I'm not saying "morality itself is subjective," but claiming "X is moral" often is. Imposing such a *personally held* moral code on children without the children's consent is wrong. Education should seek to be as objective as possible.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:09:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4]. But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

[1] http://m.newson6.com...
[2] http://www.usnews.com...
[3] https://thenationalcampaign.org...
[4] http://sexetc.org...

They should try to immulate California, Nevada, and Colorado...ahem
...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:41:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:05:48 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:54:36 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:52:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.

As noted, this is a bill that pushes abstinence, not sex-ed. Want to know what leads to more abortion? Pushing abstinence only programs without sex-ed.
How does that lead to more abortion?
You guys are fools, and doing less to reduce abortion than I AM!

It is demonstrable wrong-headed. Sex-ed reduces pregnancy. Ease of access to birth-control reduces pregnancy.
Abstinence is even more effective.
I don't have a signature. :-)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:44:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:41:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 4:05:48 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:54:36 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:52:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/29/2016 12:54:17 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 8:31:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:40:41 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:37:57 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].
That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.
And yet that obviously doesn't work out in the south too well, does it?
What makes you say that?
But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Are you for a limited government?
Yes.

How willfully blind can you be! This is what LEADS to more abortion, not less.
How?
Pro-life. Making the world a more crappy place one day at a time.

As noted, this is a bill that pushes abstinence, not sex-ed. Want to know what leads to more abortion? Pushing abstinence only programs without sex-ed.
How does that lead to more abortion?
You guys are fools, and doing less to reduce abortion than I AM!

It is demonstrable wrong-headed. Sex-ed reduces pregnancy. Ease of access to birth-control reduces pregnancy.
Abstinence is even more effective.

Bob. We are talking about abstinence education. Know what? You guys got your chance, and it is clearly a failure. You can just keep living the fantasy, or accept some reality and responsibility. Almost ALL pro-choice efforts have had the reverse effect of what you wanted. It is PRO-CHOICE who has made a dent in reducing abortion. Accept you have been on the wrong side and get on-board with the teem that is doing some good.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:46:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:12:57 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/28/2016 6:36:28 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 5:37:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Relevant: the state of Oklahoma is running a deficit of over $1.3 billion [1].

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed an anti-abortion measure (HB 2797) to require high schools (ranked 44th nationwide [2]) to provide "information for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society." Here's a problem: they can't afford it. With a $1.3 billion hole, this is estimated to cost about $4.8 million.

And here's a few more things: Oklahoma has the second worst teen pregnancy rate [3]. Oklahoma does not require high schools to provide sex ed [4].

That's not a problem. Parents can handle that themselves.

It is a problem, because whether or not parents "can" do it is irrelevant. They *do not* do it in many cases. Furthermore, there's no way of saying whether the parents will offer comprehensive and strong sex ed. Sex education requirements would be much better, IMO.
I don't understand how you can effectively teach abstinence without doing some sex ed. If parents don't handle it, kids will start asking about it.

But, they can spend ~$4.8 million to inflict a moral code on teenagers.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

How can you not? They are inflicting a subjective moral code and wasting a lot of their budget in the process. Note that I'm not saying "morality itself is subjective," but claiming "X is moral" often is. Imposing such a *personally held* moral code on children without the children's consent is wrong. Education should seek to be as objective as possible.

All they need to do is objectively prove that abortion is immoral, which is pretty easy.
I don't have a signature. :-)
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:49:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 1:46:55 PM, Bob13 wrote:
I don't understand how you can effectively teach abstinence without doing some sex ed. If parents don't handle it, kids will start asking about it.

I'm saying sex ed *should* exist and it should be done by the schools. The parents can do whatever they want, but a comprehensive sex education should be provided by the school. I presented the arguments for that above. All of them have been dropped.

All they need to do is objectively prove that abortion is immoral, which is pretty easy.

No, it isn't. I disagree that abortion is even immoral. And the fact that I disagree shows how subject to debate such an issue is, which means sex ed should be neutral on abortion.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass