Discussion
  • Read More
    김치전!Ken Layne
    2/03/14 12:41pm

    Because abortion clinics have been outlawed in the poorest states and because birth control is more widely available and more effective today, women are now more likely to prevent pregnancy rather than risk trying to end it later.

    That, uh, actually sounds like a fairly solid argument in favor of the tactic of eroding abortion rights by inches as is happening in America's shittiest states.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Left Handshake김치전!
      2/03/14 12:46pm

      Yet simultaneously not at all a solid argument for the fact that those same people do their damnedest to keep whore pills from being a public burden!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Russianist김치전!
      2/03/14 12:48pm

      It is an odd way of putting it. Abortion clinics are also usually involved in pregnancy prevention by conducting reality-based educational programmes (as opposed to Jeebus-based abstinence-only ones) and by providing women and men with birth-control meds and devices.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LadyologyKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:44pm

    Is it "good news for fetuses" to commence development when they are unplanned, unwanted, cannot be supported, and serve to devastate the financial and professional lives of their mothers? Questionable.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sean BrodyLadyology
      2/03/14 12:45pm

      I think it's in a "First, the good news.." sense

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sam sneedLadyology
      2/03/14 12:50pm

      I think the point here is that abortions are down and births are down as well. Meaning that the number of unwanted children is not increasing. Rather pregnancies are down, and as a greater percentage of pregnancies are planned and wanted abortions are down.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KarenDelaneyWalkerKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:51pm

    Hey Ken - Are you trying to sound pro-life and anti-choice in this article, or was that done by accident?

    You make several statements: "Good news for fetuses", "appalling high abortion rate", and "sky-high abortion rates" that show some anti-choice bias. There was also this little gem, "Because abortion clinics have been outlawed in the poorest states and because birth control is more widely available and more effective today, women are now more likely to prevent pregnancy rather than risk trying to end it later," which is not supported by the study at all. In fact, there is a paragraph devoted to how the restrictions on abortion don't really come into play here. Here is the paragraph from the original article...

    "While the study did not specifically investigate reasons for the decline, the authors note that the study period (2008–2011) predates the major surge in state-level abortion restrictions that started during the 2011 legislative session, and that many provisions did not go into effect until late 2011 or even later. The study also found that the total number of abortion providers declined by only 4% between 2008 and 2011, and the number of clinics (which provide the large majority of abortion services) declined by just 1%."

    So what's your motive here, Ken? Did you mean to write an article that isn't supported by the Guttmacher Institute's study and shows some clear bias?

    ETA: Here is the actual conclusion from the study and not Ken's conclusion, which isn't supported by the science. "Rather, the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing."

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken LayneKarenDelaneyWalker
      2/03/14 12:59pm

      Yes, this post was specifically written to baffle you.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KarenDelaneyWalkerKen Layne
      2/03/14 1:00pm

      The post doesn't baffle me. It was an honest question.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PomoHomoKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:46pm

    "The study of American abortion trends was done by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization based in New York and Washington."

    Who the fuck is "pro-abortion?!" Its pro-choice.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken LaynePomoHomo
      2/03/14 12:59pm

      I knew the Abortionist Death-Culturers would be in here pretty quick.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CallMeGracieKen Layne
      2/03/14 1:22pm

      Hey Ken, your bias is showing and it's not pretty.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PredatrixKen Layne
    2/03/14 1:05pm

    This is appalling. Women who aren't considering an abortion need to reflect upon the fact that they could be carrying the next Marco Rubio or Justin Bieber.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken LaynePredatrix
      2/03/14 1:08pm

      I think a lot of the abortion argument would go away if we just made it legal to kill schoolchildren for various offenses, the way it was in Medieval England.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    kristinbytesKen Layne
    2/03/14 1:09pm

    In fact, the U.S. population has swollen to 317 million today from just 212 million in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. Nothing less than a powerful plague or massive meteor strike is likely to reduce the nation's population to the sustainable levels of a century ago.

    Actually, the U.S birth rate is below the replacement rate and has been for some time. Most of our population increase is the result of immigration.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken Laynekristinbytes
      2/03/14 1:11pm

      I don't think a plague really cares much about this stuff. The job of the plague is to cut the human population by 60%.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      김치전!Ken Layne
      2/03/14 1:13pm

      It has never been more obvious that you're a shill for the Illuminati and/or lizard people.

      LOOK UP! WHAT ARE THEY SPRAYING?!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PeroxyacidKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:47pm

    They said it wasn't because of lack of availability of providers: "With abortion rates falling in almost all states, our study did not find evidence that the national decline in abortions during this period was the result of new state abortion restrictions. We also found no evidence that the decline was linked to a drop in the number of abortion providers during this period."

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Peroxyacid
      2/03/14 12:51pm

      This really ought to have been in the article. Good catch.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      s3rp3ntsPeroxyacid
      2/03/14 1:22pm

      Considering the number of new regulations in the past year, I also don't think a lot of those new-ish restrictions (2012-13) have had time to take effect, being that a lot of 'em are caught up in injunctions and court and all.

      Just throwing it out there, although yes, this relevant info should have been included.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    apeshapedmanKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:49pm

    Plague won't do it. Unless it is a plague of meteor strikes.

    That would be nice.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken Layneapeshapedman
      2/03/14 1:00pm

      Whatever it takes, whatever it takes.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Lipstick Mysticapeshapedman
      2/03/14 1:20pm

      I'm holding out for a plague of frogs. It would confuse the hell out of people for a while, and maybe they'd stop fornicatin' without using sufficient protection and considering the $200,000+ after tax costs of raising a child to adulthood in this economy.

      Plus, frogs are cute.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    bernie-madoffKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:56pm

    This piece is a marvel of mealy-mouthed opinion journalism. When abortion is characterized as a "good," it's labeled as health care for women. When the same critic wants to make hay out of declining abortion rates, all of a sudden there are "appallingly high" rates of this health care being delivered—and the fetuses miraculously become babies. Someone please help Layne untie the knots in his brain right now...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ken Laynebernie-madoff
      2/03/14 1:00pm

      Keep working at it, you'll get it soon. (Not really.)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ryan ConnorKen Layne
    2/03/14 12:44pm

    Is the Plan B pill factored in. That can nip unwanted pregnancies in the bud before they are even known.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ThePriceisWrongRyan Connor
      2/03/14 1:31pm

      Technically when a Plan B pill is taken you aren't pregnant. It takes 72 hours for the embryo to implant, and you're not considered pregnant until the embryo implants and you start developing hormonal changes.

      Reply
      <