Slashdot Mirror

Democrats always trying to kill children. https://www.plannedparenthood....

Nothing's perfect. Birth control pills are only "up to" 99.9% effective:

Women take the pill by mouth to prevent pregnancy, and, when taken correctly, it is up to 99.9% effective.

Or, more realistically, 91% to 99% effective:

When used perfectly, the pill is 99% effective. But when it comes to real life, the pill is about 91% effective because it can be hard to be perfect. So in reality, 9 out of 100 pill users get pregnant each year.

PP doesnt provide healthcare.

Even Jon Kyl wouldn't believe that. He only lied about how much of what they do. He never made such an inane claim as that.

It's not a free general practicioner.

Which proves that they don't provide healthcare how? There are other manners of operating a healthcare facility.

I'm in favor of abortion and feel that it is underused everytime I drive in traffic, but be real about what PP means to the prochoice cause.

Be real about what it means to the anti-choice crowd. There's a reason why Jon Kyl LIED about what Planned Parenthood does. Now you are. For reasons that make no sense.

It is a paid outlet that supports abortion rights and actively advances that platform.

Yes, they do that. Which is why so many hate them, even if they can't admit to their reasons.

No one goes there if they have a sinus infection.

I also don't go to a knee surgeon if I have a sinus infection. I wold never say they don't provide healthcare.

But actually, you lie.

If you want to support healthcare, then support your local "doc in a box" and give money to groups that provide specialized care for free (some dentists, optometrists, GPs, and surgeons that provide care in poor and underserved areas).

You mean like at Planned Parenthood?

I get it, you want to lie. Why? What's the point? Why lie?

You have a rich fantasy life, you've been drinking so much pro-birth Koolaide.

A large number of people get birth control, std screening and pap smears from PP. This includes people who have never had or sought abortions.

They handle men's and women's health care, and yes, that includes prenatal care: https://www.plannedparenthood....

Not all PP locations provide abortion services, either.

The depth of your ignorance is astounding, actually. The fact remains, abortion is a legal health care service, regardless of what religious fanatics that want to enslave women to being hosts for the sacred fetus think.

If someonecan't force you to give blood, marrow or a kidney to save their life, then you can't force a woman to be a life support system for a fetus.

Check out Planned Parenthood - some of them also offer transgender hormone services. Those that don't yet do so can probably refer you to someone who can help. :-)

there is ZERO chance of the Vas reconnecting.

"Very rarely, tubes grow back together again and pregnancy may occur. This happens in about 1 out of 1,000 cases."

Of course, that's probably a much lower failure rate than the injections discussed in TFA.

>> Just as soon as we make condoms and the morning-after pill free, and abortions easy and readily-available nationwide.

I believe we already have that.
http://www.plannedparenthood.o...

The same ignorance you claimed was responsible for high birth rates in impoverished areas. How does a chip give them more knowledge? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is that it does not.

Of course it doesn't. Where are you getting this? Contraceptives are what people get educated *about*. Nowhere in the article or my comments did anything say otherwise.

The "evil that are already happening" gains more power with this type of technology.

You... don't actually know anything about the problems women face in the world, do you? You might want to do some reading, or better yet, talk to some actual women.

Straw man, it has nothing to do with the points, which is that this technology puts the option for birth control in the hands of a person other than the recipient of the birth control.

You haven't made any points because you haven't given any way in which subdermal chips are different from other contraceptive methods, or what revolutionary new methods of force they allow. I don't think you understand how hormonal contraceptives work at all, otherwise you would recognize that this technology is an incremental change from what is currently possible. Let me spell it out for you.

Hormonal contraceptives work by regulating the hormones involved in the menstrual cycle. The hormones vary naturally over the length of the cycle, but you can boost them to a consistent level by providing more externally. This basically tricks a women's body into thinking it's pregnant, which prevents ovulation. (There are some variations; this is the simple version.) For our purposes, we're interested in how the hormones are delivered. There are many options, each with their own mix of benefits, challenges, and side effects. Below, I've listed the ones I see in the 19th edition of Contraceptive Technology by Hatcher et al. There are probably more.

* Pills taken once a day
* Patches worn on the body and replaced weekly
* A plastic ring inserted into the vagina and replaced monthly
* Shots given once every three months
* A thin plastic rod inserted under the skin and replaced every three years

Another major option is a T-shaped piece of plastic inserted into the uterus, known as an intra-uterine device (IUD). There are two types -- one that releases copper ions to prevent fertilization (replaced every ten years), and one that releases levonogestral to do several different things (replaced every five years). IUDs are the most popular contraceptive method worldwide, but are less popular in the U.S. for historical reasons.

All of these methods are reversible, though they take some time to wear off. Subdermal implants and IUDs need to be removed by a doctor.

Now, let's look at the article to see what's different about the contraceptive chip. The article tells us a few things:

* Releases levonorgestrel daily
* Lasts 16 years
* Size: 20mm x 20mm x 7mm (vs. 40mm long x 2mm diameter for Implanon, the subdermal implant I mentioned above)
* Can be activated and deactivated through the skin with a wireless signal.

We can also guess that no user intervention is required once the device is implanted. Medically speaking this is a good thing, because one of the big problems with many contraceptive methods is compliance. It's easy to forget to take a pill, buy more condoms, or schedule an appointment for your next shot. An IUD or subdermal implant works automatically.

Clearly, the biggest difference is the wireless control. However, in order to have that control the chip still has to be implanted, just like Implanon or an IUD. The key point here is that if you want to prevent pregnancy, the chip is *functionally identical* to those other options. Later, if you want to become pregnant again, the chip is *easier to turn off* since it doesn't require a doctor to remove it. So if it's no harder to disable pregna

Unfortunately in the States, reproduction has become a very hot political topic.

Stop paying people to have kids.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Anyway, there is a free clinic to help with reproduction and other health issues and contrary to what many folks believe, Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.. And contrary to what is heard in the media and on the pulpit, women are counseled - it's not spread your legs and suck it away.

But when you show up and see thick bullet proof glass, gated entries and threatening crowds, one may choose to do without their help. Many of these young women are scared (usually by overly strict "conservative Christian" parents). There was an abortion doc (it's been years and I can't remember his name nor google it because of all the propaganda out there) who would help these girls when he could and even put them up while they were pregnant so that they wouldn't feel they HAD to abort. He was murdered by a pro-lifer. Which is ironic since he saved quite a few babies.

There are not many places that offer those services for free and it is rare to get more from faith based charities than being preached about abstinence.

It disgusts me that here in the US, we have Third World - backward attitudes when it comes to sex and reproduction. Part of it is the misinformation that is constantly being spewed by people who are trying to get ratings on "conservative" media and folks with political agendas.

Never the less, we are reaping what we sow and I find myself being disgusted everyday by people - especially by people who claim to hold life "sacred".

Unfortunately in the States, reproduction has become a very hot political topic.

Stop paying people to have kids.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Anyway, there is a free clinic to help with reproduction and other health issues and contrary to what many folks believe, Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.. And contrary to what is heard in the media and on the pulpit, women are counseled - it's not spread your legs and suck it away.

But when you show up and see thick bullet proof glass, gated entries and threatening crowds, one may choose to do without their help. Many of these young women are scared (usually by overly strict "conservative Christian" parents). There was an abortion doc (it's been years and I can't remember his name nor google it because of all the propaganda out there) who would help these girls when he could and even put them up while they were pregnant so that they wouldn't feel they HAD to abort. He was murdered by a pro-lifer. Which is ironic since he saved quite a few babies.

There are not many places that offer those services for free and it is rare to get more from faith based charities than being preached about abstinence.

It disgusts me that here in the US, we have Third World - backward attitudes when it comes to sex and reproduction. Part of it is the misinformation that is constantly being spewed by people who are trying to get ratings on "conservative" media and folks with political agendas.

Never the less, we are reaping what we sow and I find myself being disgusted everyday by people - especially by people who claim to hold life "sacred".

The only way you get a 9% per annum failure rate for oral contraceptives is if you don't take them. If taken correctly, they are more than 99% effective over a year. (Don't believe me? Ask these people.)

But hey, if laws are okay just because they make good policy, let us continue. A well-regulated Militia, being essential to the security of a free State, every adult citizen should be required to buy a pistol, a long gun, and keep in practice with both; if they do not pass an annual marksmanship test, they owe a shared responsibility tax. You agree that this is well within the federal government's power, right?

A) This is supposedly about health *insurance*. Insurance is for contingent, unlikely, but potentially costly events. Contraception is none of those, being completely knowable, 100% predictable, and inexpensive.

While I agree that loose morals are behind most sex experiences, don't sweep it under a 100% when rape causes pregancies too. And it is unplanned.
$35 to $60 dollars a pop

Horny teenagers have been in existence for about as long as teenagers have existed. There also isn't any, to my knowledge, reversible sterilization where the initial sterilization has a reasonable certainty it will be successful and the reversal has an equal chance to be reversed.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-shot-depo-provera-4242.htm

99% effective when used as directed (one shot every 12 weeks), wears off and allows pregnancy after 6 - 10 months of no injections.

Seriously, what the hell do you think http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ is all about and the right wing are trying to shut it down. "For nearly 100 years, weâ(TM)ve worked to improve womenâ(TM)s health and safety, prevent unintended pregnancies, and advance the right and ability of individuals and families to make informed and responsible choices." Ain't no getting around your lie that the right doesn't want to end birth control, they are total whack jobs and have no idea what they want, except they want it all, they want it their way, and they want to bitch and complain about everything all of the time.

Sexual education and access to birth control helps prevent unwanted pregnancies, which can have a huge ripple effect. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

$510 was what it cost me to get the three injections (Gardisil is spread out via 3 injections over 6 months) at PPLM.

With the exception of the first injection, the only reason I went into the office for the other two was to receive the shot. No wellness check otherwise.

I got the first injection as part of a quarterly checkup -- I drop in every three months to have a full STI examination taken. Gives me a nice feeling when I can tell people I am d/d free and be sure of it :]

In any case, each injection was listed on the invoice as a $170 fee. I'm sure that is for the cost of the vaccine and the time it took the RN to inject me.

Now it's true with numbers released by planned parenthood itself that well over 90% of prenatal services at planned parenthood are abortions

[Citation needed]. These numbers released by Planned Parenthood itself say otherwise.

Emergency contraception is only 75-89% effective. That still leaves a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

Planned Parenthood says so. Citation provided.

Birth control is far more complicated statistically than people think.

Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG

All the benefits of a male birth control pill/shot, without the hormonal side effects, at a fraction of the price. And they're pretty sure it doesn't even cause cancer! :-)

Furthermore - Christian cultures hamper usage of birth control in Africa, too. Rather than preventing ways to decrease infant mortality, I think the ethical way to contribute to population control is to stop religious fundamentalism from interfering with development aid. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/newsroom/press-releases/bush-administration-withholds-africa-22494.htm

Huh, and I always thought the abortion issue was about the pro choicers trying to avoid birth control.

Then it looks like you were always wrong. Pro-choice is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. For example, if you check out the Planned Parenthood website, you'll see that the first link in their "Health Information" area is for birth control. Birth control is always preferable to abortion: cheaper, less emotional, less controversial, less invasive, and you can get it at any Wal-Mart as opposed to having to see a doctor. But it doesn't always work - I know a lady that had three kids. First kid with her boyfriend: condom failed (and not from ripping). Second kid: birth control pills failed. Third kid: condom *and* birth control pills failed. She's raising all three but has since got her tubes tied.

But I can not comfortably sanction abortion because I don't know at one point in the pregnancy it isn't just like killing a baby.

Ah, the old "magic line" chestnut. The thing to do is not to pick a single arbitrary line where a fetus goes from being a blob of cells to a full human being, because that is impossible. So you pick two arbitrary lines: third trimester abortion is off limits except in cases of severe birth defects or to save the health of the mother, and first trimester abortions should be ok for any woman to have at any time for any reason.

The problem that I have with abortion is that the father has no say in it. A woman can abort the fetus or keep the baby and the father has no say in it. The woman can even give the baby up for adoption without the father's knowledge or consent, or raise the baby without telling the father and then start collecting child support years later when the father has no chance of getting custody. When a man fathers a baby he doesn't want, he's told "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences", but the same does not hold true for women. As for the "her body, her choice" argument, why are those nine months of a mother's life sacrosanct but 18 years of a man's life irrelevant?

There has arisen this notion that sexual activity is a requirement for health. As /. can attest, nothing is further from the truth.
This part of the discussion would be improved by some citations. I'll start.

Planned Parenthood, not known as a religious promoter of abstinence, notes no negative medical effects of abstaining.

Others?

Actually, some of them do.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medica linfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml

As far as eugenics are concerned, My only argument against people trying to improve their lot in that way is that we can't know what genes we might need in the gene pool under changing circumstances. If people want to decide what characteristics their children will have, they will, regardless of how others feel about it. Who are you to tell them they can't? This will happen whether we extend our reach to other planets or not.

Margaret Sanger's work was designed to give women a choice, not take it away from them. I, personally, am very glad she did it.

Ditto

I donated to Planned Parenthood

The site has an explanation why condoms etc. is of some importance at this stage in the relief effort.

Jesus, even planned parenthood, national organization for women, marxists.org, infidels.org and the UN are still up. Bushitler is really dropping the ball for the reich-publi-fascists...

And a further 30 papers on the subject find the research inconclusive. And WRT your link: "...the study was relatively small, lacked objective measures for establishing pregnancy duration, and was susceptible to reporting bias..."

Perhaps the editorial was avoiding junk science?

Not only that, but there is a whole class of diseases named for her. Jupiter should be sure to wrap it up.

Sorry, sex is a part of life and adult relationships. Goodness, listen to yourself: "If the teenage girls would stop having sex". What were you thinking? Anyway, condoms alone have their issues, but my sources suggest that they are extremely reliable if used properly and much less reliable if not used properly, which is why education about proper birth control (condom + vaginal spermacide, handling) is key. It's worth pointing out that I am a senior in high school who was, due to abstinence-only sex education, unaware that these things were so damn complicated. Good thing my ex was allergic to latex, I guess.

• PP provided 101,000 educational programs to more than 1.4 million people.
  
• Reversible contraception clients: 2,208,483
  
• Emergency contraception clients: 633,756
  
• Abortions: 227,375
  
• HIV testing clients: 175,468
  
• Prenatal care: 15,860
  
• Breast exams: 1,062,727
  
• Adoption referrals: 1,963
  

Planned Parenthood is an organization that employs doctors who perform abortions. However, doctors who perform abortions are employed by institutions other than Planned Parenthood. Saying "family planning doctor" might actually be more accurate, as it encompasses a larger group of people.

I am not saying any of this as a racist. I don't think the problem is the "white man" but instead a problem within the black community, specifically the poor family structure. According to planned parenthood

Each year, approximately 19 percent of black women, 13 percent of Hispanic women, and eight percent of white women aged 15-19 become pregnant

The proportion of all births that occurred to unmarried women was 22.1 percent for white women, unchanged from 1999; it declined for black women from 69.1 to 68.7 percent. Among births to Hispanic women, the proportion increased from 42.2 to 42.7 percent

IMO, when the black community can fix these problems, they will experience the same success rate as anyone else. For example, according to the Census Bureau

Black households had the lowest median income. Their 2003 median money income was about $30,000, which was 62 percent of the median for White households (about $48,000).

Median money income for Hispanic households was about $33,000 in 2003, which was 69 percent of the median for White households.

Asian households had the highest median income among the race groups. Their 2003 median money income was about $55,500, 117 percent of the median for White households.

The above was not to start a flame or be racist. It is just MHO on what is causing the biggest issues in the black community; those being high crime percentage, high percentage of out of wedlock child births and poor family structure. Affirmative action won't fix these problems. No government social policy would fix these problems. Each Black American will need to make the change for themselves, and then they as a community can have unlimited success like any other American.

not exactly the most unbiased site about the movie, but still informative: The Facts Speak Louder Than "The Silent Scream"

You left out one little thing: Context..

This was the 1920s, when most of these ideas were pretty common.

Give this a read.

Though supposedly scientists now think men have biological clocks too...it's women who are 'famous' for have 'ticking' gotta-have-kids clocks. In both sexes, it's designed to get you to reproduce while you're healthy, but women face a rather finite deadline...with guys, it's not quite as....uh...firm...

Of course, you all seem to have forgotten that the Jolly Green Giant HAS a kid already- 'Sprout'. further proof you can find anything on Google :-).

What a good role model, though- I've never seen a Mrs. Giant around. Maybe the food companies are trying to brainwash the american public into a lack of family values! Quick, someone tell the religious right to boycott vegetables! :-)

Pornography tends to popularize hitherto rare, esoteric, or expensive bits of communications technology. It subsidizes the industry.

For example, the first prerecorded videotape was pornographic. 8mm film technology took off with the widespread availabilty of stag films

Maintaining your 1932 Pierce Arrow

Connecting cable to your Philco Predicta

Making ice last through the summer

Rolling your own condoms

Calling Margaret Sanger an advocate for eugenics shows your ignorance. Please stop indulging in pro-life propaganda and check your sources. A good place to start is the Planned Parenthood web site, but of course you'll want to do some extra reading from third party sources you can trust, now won't you? Here's the Planned Parenthood's site which you have no reason to believe.

Women who want an abortion generally choose abortion because they do not want to be pregnant. There is a difference.

In some cases, the women need an abortion because they have a medical condition which makes carrying a child to term potentially life threatening. In fact, pregnancy itself is a serious risk for any woman.

From http://www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/maternmo rt.html:

Abortion is far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Death occurs in 0.4 of 100,000 abortions performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy -- the time during which more than half of abortions occur.

Death occurs in 1 of 100,000 abortions performed during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, but 88 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Only 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks. So the risk of maternal mortality is at least seven times greater than the risk of death resulting from safe and legal abortion.

See also http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/facts.htm

Unfortunately, our current Congress and administration is not as fortunate as we are. Stuck in the 19th century, the successors of Newt have shown us that they are not interested in civil rights, advancements in medicine, or pretty much anything that doesn't involve increasing pork-barrel spending on defense. I would be surprised to find out that more than a handful of Republicans in Congress actually have college degrees. They don't need to think; everything is a matter of dollars and cents.

Although this should come as no surprise to a nation that voted Republican for the past few years, our leaders' refusal to act like they are living in the 21st century is going to have a very negative impact on science, as their core constituencies have no interest in keeping the USA's status as the most advanced nation in the world.

So, these nanotech lobbyists would be well advised to keep a low profile until Gore returns to the White House in 2004. Otherwise, they may be headed to Washington with their hands out and leaving Washington with their research banned. And that would not be good for science.

Unfortunately, our current Congress and administration is not as fortunate as we are. Stuck in the 19th century, the successors of Newt have shown us that they are not interested in civil rights, advancements in medicine, or pretty much anything that doesn't involve increasing pork-barrel spending on defense. I would be surprised to find out that more than a handful of Republicans in Congress actually have college degrees. They don't need to think; everything is a matter of dollars and cents.

Although this should come as no surprise to a nation that voted Republican for the past few years, our leaders' refusal to act like they are living in the 21st century is going to have a very negative impact on science, as their core constituencies have no interest in keeping the USA's status as the most advanced nation in the world.

So, these nanotech lobbyists would be well advised to keep a low profile until Gore returns to the White House in 2004. Otherwise, they may be headed to Washington with their hands out and leaving Washington with their research banned. And that would not be good for science.

df

No; it's about adult content. People think that certain extreme political viewpoints are not suitable for children. Or the information that contraception and abortion are both legal in the US - Planned Parenthood. Or any sex-oriented words even if the context is non-sexual - i.e. the pseudo-crimes of profanity, obscenity etc. This just fucking ridiculous! There. Slashdot has (and always has had) "adult content".

There are actually cretins, morons and imbeciles who believe that the views of organisations like the ACLU and Amnesty International are "adult content" and they don't want their kids exposed to it until they've completed their brainwashing sessions. If these morons can't control their own children they certainly shouldn't be allowed to control the whole nation.

Q. Will instituting some sort of access trail or ID verification for non-mainstream political web sites restrict their free speech rights? Will this kind of legislation harm minors because they were not allowed to get information about contraception without proof of ID?
A. You bet your ass it will.

>Oh please, that argument has been heard a million
>times and it wasn't that original to begin with.
Uh, since when does an argument have to be original to be valid?

>Porn is defined as such by a general consensus.
Community decency standards vary between communities and as a function of time. There was a time when it was illegal to mail information about contraception through the mail.

So, Porn isn't what's at issue here...

Any school (or public) librarian walking around the school (or public) library could easily notice big, glowing, 32-bpp, 1024x768 Naked People on a monitor... And if they don't want porn, that's what Acceptable Use Policies are for. Little Johnny gets caught downloading fake Britney Spears porn when he's supposed to be researching the French Alps, and Johnny gets detention, or a phone call home, or loses access privileges temporarily... Fine.

Censorware raises a different issue. Who decides which software is used? should a fundamentalist school librarian, or, for that matter, principal, be able to decide that the software that blocks plannedparenthood.org and pflag.org, but maybe misses some of the borderline sites that many would consider "hate speech" ?

If nothing else, censorware is unreliable. Websites come and go too quickly to maintain useful blocked-sites lists, and filtering is too stupid to block porn sites and still allow sites that detail the mating habits of the blue-footed booby.

The fact that Peacefire has released its one-click disabling software demonstrates the severity of the situation: for the entire time it has existed, (five years, I think) Peacefire has refused to distribute hacks/cracks/etc. to get past censorware, rather emphasizing grassroots efforts to prevent the use of blocking software.Until now.

This is just going to make things worse... what happens when a nosy librarian starts checking out the logs of failed attempts to access 'restricted sites?'
When 'Little Johnny's' user account shows up on 56 failed attempts to access sites that offer support to gay or questioning teens, who's there to protect his privacy from the school administrators in the small bible-belt town where he lives?

Many of the benefits of the internet may be jeopardized by censorware. When the net is free, everyone is connected. Building walls goes against the nature of the net. Many networks could be more secure if we didn't mind losing the level of connectivity unfettered internet access gives us. But that's something not many people are willing to give up. I'm not. And functionality demands that the net be allowed to exist without regulation or interference.