Ohio Legislature Working on a very Restrictive Abortion Law

[guywithashovel]

http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/5071306
The "heartbeat bill" apparently is still under consideration. However, Governor Kasich has signed another bill that outlaws abortion after 20 weeks.

[Hyena Dandy]

By this argument, I should be consulting the stopped clock for the time just in case it might be right.

I didn't say that you should read the Mail consistently, though. God knows I don't. I said if someone links it, you shouldn't just say, "Oh, its the Daily Mail, ignore it."

Especially because, once again, they provided where they got the data. You can easily check to see if that's right or wrong.

Generally, like Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and anything like that, I trust them to tell me something that's happened, I don't trust them to tell me why it happened.

And I trust the Daily Mail to tell me "1500 of 19000 18 year olds who got abortions had had them before," especially I don't trust them to tell me "This is because they're using it as birth control."

I know one of the people who would have been counted as one of the 1500. And she would be on that list because her brothers friends repeatedly raped her.




We're not writing papers here. We're discussing from our perspective. The goal is not to get a degree, its just to talk, hopefully respectfully.

[FArchivist]

As you pointed out, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So no, you can't dismiss them because they've said a lot of other stupid shit.

By this argument, I should be consulting the stopped clock for the time just in case it might be right.

I think their conclusions are wrong. But I don't think you can say "It appeared in The Daily Mail, therefore its wrong."

Yeah, I can. They're not a credible source. They are so frequently wrongo-mcwrongerson that you can't trust what they say without significant background check. They don't work as a source. I certainly wouldn't use them in a paper or an argument.

[Hyena Dandy]

So yes, I CAN dismiss the Daily Mail completely. Did you know there are whole websites out there devoted to keeping track of the gobshite they spew? I get better and more accurate information from Fox News and they're the damn Devil.

As you pointed out, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. So no, you can't dismiss them because they've said a lot of other stupid shit.

And as I pointed out, I wasn't arguing against you. I have pretty much no reason to think that people using abortions as birth control is a major problem, in the US or anywhere else. The only data they had said that less than 10 percent of people 18 and younger have had multiple abortions. Even if EVERY 18 or younger abortion-getter did it for birth control, that's STILL not a major problem.

I think their conclusions are wrong. But I don't think you can say "It appeared in The Daily Mail, therefore its wrong."

[Ghel]

This question of whether abortion is used as birth control is irrelevant to this legislation. The proposed legislation is unfairly restrictive. It would effectively end all abortions, whether they are "used as birth control" or not. And I'm sure that's what the legislators who proposed it want.

Just to show how crazy things are in Ohio right now, here's an editorial piece on five pieces of legislation that were proposed there recently. I couldn't find whether any of these have been quashed yet, but here's hoping.

[Boozy]

And aren't you a former scientist? And, with your scientific knowledge, you use a TABLOID to back you up?

It doesn't really matter what kind of academic or career background someone has had. It's best to just focus on their arguments, lest things get too personal.

Obviously, questioning someone's sources is fair, and to be expected.

[Nyoibo]

It's a myth. The extreme majority of women have not and will not use abortion as a form of birth control. Using myths for an argument has no place in a serious debate.

If something exists it's not a myth, it may not be common, but it's not a myth, unicorns, father christmas, the tooth fairy, they're myths, if something has been documented and observed it's not a myth.

[Greenday]

To be fair, there actually are studies linking oral sex to cancer. Claims of HPV transferring from genetalia to the mouth.

But yea, for the most part, it's a God awful news source.

[FArchivist]

The Daily Mail is hardly like the Weekly World News. Its more like, say, The Boston Herald, or whatever the tea party equivalent of the Huffington Post is.

The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid journalism for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly reactionary editorial stance. The Mail's writers are often known for being stubbornly vitriolic conservatives, all of whom can turn a fly taking a shit on a scrapheap into a national outrage that threatens the very fabric of society itself.

Their news articles make Ann Coulter look fair and balanced. Their science articles rival HuffPo for sheer stupidity. They are consistently misogynist. They are constantly having to print retractions. There are three news items that should immediately make you discard the source: HuffPo, World Net Daily, and the Daily Mail. If it comes from those three, it's plain no good.

It has an agenda, but for the most part, it tries not to post outright LIES.

I'd differ on that.

Also, the most recent of your sources is from 2003. A lot of cultural changes can happen in 8 years. Or in the 5 years between the most recent of your sources and the 2008 Department of Health data referenced in the Daily Mail.

The data has not changed. I can give you more current sources if you like, but you'll need to have access to medical journals and a university library.

You can't just mark everything they say as untrue because you don't like them. I don't like The Daily Mail either, but I don't dismiss everything they say just because they're the Daily Mail.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. However, that doesn't make them a good source. The Mail is known for obsessing over dangers, from health scares (such as with MMR vaccine) to paedophiles. Examples:

- With cancer, the Mail have found possibly their greatest asset in attempting to scare their readers into doing a lot of crazy shit. Among the items claimed by the paper to cause cancer (based on "scientific" research) are mouth wash, oral sex, Pringles, and Facebook. No, really, I'm not kidding.

- Yes, scientists do much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth "The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it relies solely on empirical facts", which says enough.

- Teachers leave boy, 5, stranded in tree because of health and safety (then report passer-by who helped him down to police) - an interesting story involving teachers who, due to "health and safety" regulations, didn't rescue a kid from a tree. Shame it's total bullshit.

So yes, I CAN dismiss the Daily Mail completely. Did you know there are whole websites out there devoted to keeping track of the gobshite they spew? I get better and more accurate information from Fox News and they're the damn Devil.

[Hyena Dandy]

I completely agree with you. The majority do not, and never will. There's still far too much stigma on abortion for that to be even CLOSE to being the case.

I was simply pointing out that you can't just deny something on the basis that it comes from a source you don't like.

[Greenday]

It's a myth. The extreme majority of women have not and will not use abortion as a form of birth control. Using myths for an argument has no place in a serious debate.

[Hyena Dandy]

The Daily Mail is hardly like the Weekly World News. Its more like, say, The Boston Herald, or whatever the tea party equivalent of the Huffington Post is.

It has an agenda, but for the most part, it tries not to post outright LIES.

Also, the most recent of your sources is from 2003. A lot of cultural changes can happen in 8 years. Or in the 5 years between the most recent of your sources and the 2008 Department of Health data referenced in the Daily Mail.

Which is a source.

That they reference.

So its not unsourced.

Look, FA, I'm on your side on this one. I don't think using abortions as birth control is a serious problem. After all, as the Mail article said 'nearly 1,500 of the 19,000'...

That's less than ten percent. Its a pretty small figure, and as they pointed out, there are probably mitigating factors.

You can't just mark everything they say as untrue because you don't like them. I don't like The Daily Mail either, but I don't dismiss everything they say just because they're the Daily Mail.

[FArchivist]

are you sure about that?

Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY SURE about that. See the following:

- Guttmacher Institute. Facts in Brief - Induced Abortion. 2003. www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

- Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2003; 35: 6-15.

- Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion. 2003. www.agi-usa.org/pubs/sfaa.html

- Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2002; 34: 226-235.

- Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ. Abortion surveillance-United States, 1999. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 2002; 51 (SS09): 1-28. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm

- Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1998; 30(1): 24-29 & 46.

- Personal communication, Archdiocese of Washington (based on statistics in the 2003 edition of The Kennedy Directory: The Official Catholic Directory).

- Henshaw SK, Kost K. Abortion patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and contraceptive use. Family Planning Perspectives 1996; 28(4): 140-147 &158.

- Torres A, Forrest JD. Why do women have abortions? Family Planning Perspectives 1988; 20(4): 169-176.

- Psychological Responses Following Abortion. Reproductive Choice and Abortion: A Resource Packet. Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association, 1990.

I think my list of scholarly sources based on reputable organizations kind of outweighs an unsourced article in the British version of the Weekly World News tabloid. And aren't you a former scientist? And, with your scientific knowledge, you use a TABLOID to back you up?

[tropicsgoddess]

Ugh. More right to life nut jobs trying to force their ways on women. They really want women to go back to the days of using knitting needles or coat hangers or any other desperate and dangerous means of abortion just to force women to keep babies they can't have or don't want! It's bad enough there are so many unloved and unwanted children suffering in this world, do we need anymore?!!

[Greenday]

are you sure about that?

"These girls are not the majority of under-18s. Women undergoing abortion do not find it pleasant and most make sure it does not happen again."

Did you read your own article?