You have what can only be described as a completely disingenuous way of arguing. You throw out that which you don’t like, and then proceed to claim that you’re right, even if what you assert flies directly in the fact of empirical evidence (evidence, mind you, you throw out on account of it being ‘biased’). I’ve a mind to ask how that works, but I already know it doesn’t.
Please, for all that’s good and holy, stop using words you don’t understand, as you clearly don’t know what it means to be biased. It should be telling that even though I’ve asked you to point out to me what’s biased about the sources I gave you, you’ve failed to do so. Apparently, it appears that you think that setting out to test a certain hypothesis makes one biased which, for the record, is downright laughable.
Yeah, I know. Apparently facts are super funny now.
I’m stupid for not knowing that a woman is obligated to have sex with a man? What… the… fuck? There really aren’t any adequate words to describe just how ridiculous, how asinine, how totally, utterly and completely ridiculous that is.
You said that a woman can only buy a condom and everything after that is out of their control. The only-- and I mean the only-- way this could possibly be true is if the woman is obligated to sleep with a man. But we all (well, most of us, sans you) know this to be false. No woman is obligated to sleep with a man, and she can say no to sexual intercourse at any point in time. No woman has to sleep with someone who refuses to wear a condom; she willingly chooses to do so.
She can say ‘no’ and leave or say ‘no’ and let him leave. Bam.
I really don’t think you understand anything you’re typing out. The only situation in which a woman has no control is the one in which she’s raped. Otherwise, she always has control, as a guy can’t stick it in unless she allows him to.
… … …Seriously? Did you, like, fail economics? I do hope you realize that “cost” doesn’t just mean money. It also means the lost benefit, for example, derived from a certain action or course of action relative to something else (i.e., opportunity costs). A woman who has an abortion because she’d rather hold a career than raise a child places a relative cost on raising that child. The same is to be said of a woman who wants an abortion because it would interfere with her education or something similar.
And, just for the record, (1) and (3) aren’t exactly oft cited reasons for having an abortion.
It would do you well to-- I don’t know-- look shit up once in a while. Cost, as in the amount of money needed to raise a child, is actually a top reason for why women abort. Page 113. But I’m sure you’ll be ignoring that.
You might want to go back and read what I wrote out again.
…But, yeah. Novel idea, I know.
(Of course, I won’t point out to you the fact that married women are underrepresented when it comes to abortion.)
No, you give conservatives a bad name because you’re a complete dumb ass who is so impervious to facts and are so prone to inane rambling it boggles the mind. And to think I was almost starting to feel bad for you in the birth control thread.
You wouldn’t know if my sources were biased even though you’ve been claiming that my sources are biased? Only in your mind would that make any amount of sense.
…Yeah. It took me all of ten minutes to find the requisite information I gave you. I guess ten minutes for you is ten minutes too long.
Well, that’s quite the exaggeration. What else are you exaggerating?
[/quote]
And yet, it is not. That’s the sad thing about it.
Given your track record in multiple threads (I’m looking at the one on free birth control, in particular), I’d have to say “Yup!”.
Women are considered to have unilateral decision making power once they become pregnant. If that’s the case, then the burden of preventing pregnancy should fall squarely on them. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too by claiming both parties are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy but only one party responsible for deciding what happens to and with that pregnancy.
What the hell? The authors are testing a certain hypothesis. They do this by controlling for other factors to test the significance of the factor they’ve hypothesized to be significant. I have a hard time believing someone could be this dumb.
I… don’t think you understand what the fuck you’re reading. I really don’t. I mean, it’s deathly apparent that not only did you not read the study in its entirety, but that you don’t even understand the little portions you’re trying to quote.
(1) Which is why, in some specifications, the authors controlled for state-specific time trends to check for robustness. Of course, you probably have no Earthly idea what that means.
(2) My God, you’re dumb. That is not what they’re saying at all. The authors didn’t assume the level of pill use. They had national data available to tell them that (and state data in certain years, though not all of them). All that quote says is that the authors cannot knowingly separate the effects of increased sexual activity away from the effects of increased risky behavior when they examine year fixed effects. I.e., they can’t say something like 80% of all new STD cases are because people are engaging in unsafe sex while 20% of all new STD cases are because people switched from the condom, which protects against STD’s, to the pill. They can simply say, as they did if you would have read the damn thing, that legalized abortion causes people to engage in riskier sex, which itself is a pooled effect.
(Of course, the effect of people switching from the condom to the pill is probably minimal, since when the authors controlled for states changing their laws to make the pill more accessible, the results did not change.)
Uh-huh is right.
You seem to be confusing pointing out the fact of a matter with advocating for some particular premise or whatever.
