1. What species is a "fetus" then? 2. All but one of the items you listed make up less than 10% of abortions. 3. Why are so many engaging in reckless sex when they are worried about "financial security"? Why does the "financial security" of one human trump the very life of another? Why are so many of those women choosing to destroy human life rather than take responsibility for their actions? You can try to convolude the issue but there is nothing voluntary or peaceful about abortion. Instead of accusing truth of being "opinion", can we not discuss why so many women (humans in general) engage in such reckless behavior? Is the fact that at least 25% of women are raped at some point in their (of course mostly when they are young and totally defenseless)? If so , why are so many men raping women? Bottom line: I see no solution to be had by 'arguing' about whether a human "fetus" is a homo sapian.
1. It has nothing to do with species and everything to do with when a clump of cells becomes human. Cells are living and we all shed more cells than the average cell clump that is expelled by abortions. Contrary to what most pro life people preach, the majority of abortions are done early. Licensed doctors rarely abort late term fetus's when they are actually capable of living outside the body of the woman...which could then be considered a human being. So, you see we are talking about when a fetus becomes a human and that is a matter of opinion. If you think expelling human cells from the body is murder than stop jerking off because that's basically genocide. 2. You have no proof that only 10% of abortions done are because the contraceptives failed, rape cases, health concerns for mother and/or child, and financial situations. That is preposterous. 3. Well if they aren't concerned with financial security and they become homeless because they can't afford the kid, then you and I get to pay for it. I'm glad they may be concerned with their financial security if they have a kid. I don't particularly want to pay for food stamps to feed the kid, pay for foster care for the kid, etc... You smoke cannabis I'd assume, which is actually quite reckless considering it is illegal and costly and yet I assume you are worried about your financial security. Just because someone engages in an irresponsible act, doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned with their financial security. Am I trying to convolute anything? Actually abortion in the form of the "morning after pill" is quite peaceful and voluntary. I didn't accuse any truth of being opinion because you shared no set truth. You shared opinions, which I have pointed out.
HUFFPOST News Entertainment Lifestyle Tech & Innovation All Sections Login Feedback View Desktop Terms Privacy Policy Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | "The Huffington Post" is a registered trademark of TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. All rights reserved. THE BLOG Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists Christina Hoff Sommers11/04/12 08:53 PM ET If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already. How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January. The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores. The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out." One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings. "In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors. Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most. Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage. Women's groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women's choices, those choices are not truly free. Women who major in sociology rather than economics, or who choose family-friendly jobs over those that pay better but offer less flexibility, may be compelled by cultural stereotypes. According to the National Organization for Women (NOW), powerful sexist stereotypes "steer" women and men "toward different education, training, and career paths" and family roles. But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren't women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women's choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones -- what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled. It will not be not easy for the AAUW and its allies to abandon the idea of systemic gender injustice. AAUW officials are trying mightily to sustain the bad-news-for-women narrative. According to "Graduating to a Pay Gap" publicity materials, "The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field." Many journalists seem to have read and reported on the AAUW's press releases rather than its research. That is the hype. Look at the numbers. Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and the War Against Boys. Her new book, Freedom Feminism -- Its Surprising History and Why It Matters, will be published in 2013 by AEI press. 122 Why Liz Cheney Couldn't Sell Neoconservatism To The Tea Party Juan Pablo Galavis, 'Bachelor' Star, Says Gays Should Not Be On Hit ABC Reality Show (AUDIO) Half Of Americans Favor New Regulations After West Virginia Chemical Spill Michelle Obama's Birthday Was Basically A National Holiday Aaron Paul On Sundance's 'Hellion,' 'The Price Is Right,' And Leaving Jesse Pinkman Behind The Eight Types Of A**holes In Washington GOP Govs. Paul LePage, Tom Corbett 'Too Clueless To Even Save Themselves,' Top Democrat Says Mayor Claims Christie Camp Held Hurricane Sandy Money Hostage Kate & William's Engagement Photo Was 'Spontaneous Emotion,' Says Photographer State Considers Execution By Firing Squad NY Times Hits Obama For 'Refusal' To Credit Edward Snowden Man Accused Of Threatening Seattle's Openly Gay Mayor, Socialist Council Member Kindergarten Teacher Thomas Washburn Under House Arrest After Allegedly Removing Girl's Shirt In Class Madonna And Beyonce Expected To Perform At Grammys Gladiators In London? Decapitated Skulls Spotlight Brutal Ways Of Ancient Romans Kordale And Kaleb, Gay Black Fathers, Respond To Twitter Outrage Over Instagram Photos The 10 Most Innovative Companies In The World: 24/7 Wall Street Did Beyonce Just Majorly Diss Kelly Rowland On Instagram?
1. Ok, it's not a child, not a homo sapian, not human, but just a clump of cells like skin an sperm. smh 2. I just posted the findings of a 2004 study that showed 80-90+ percent of abortions are due to "inconvenience". I should of been clear that the '10%' I posted didn't include your item of "financial security". I just said, 'All but one...'. 3. I'm not sure if I even want to touch your, "The morning after pill is abortion." argument...so I'll abstain.
It's precisely because of views like this that I'm not going to shut up about this issue. A fetus is a human.... living in someone else's body. The fetus has the right to self-ownership... what it doesn't have is the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Self-ownership doesn't mean you get to use someone else's organs if they don't want you to. Humans engage in all kinds of reckless behavior- and none of that takes away a person's right to self-owership. And having an abortion IS taking responsibility. It may not be how you would do it, but that's exactly what it is: acknowledging a problem, and taking care of it.
1. For a while, absolutely it is. Even when it begins to take on human characteristics, it does not mean it is a human yet. When a fetus becomes human is still a matter of opinion. For some, it is when the fetus can live outside its mother's body, for others it is when the fetus can feel pain and/or has consciousness, and for others (including you obviously) it is human upon conception when two cells merge to become one. 2. Sorry, I didn't see that post or those findings. If we want to discuss this seriously though, I'd imagine it would make more sense to find a study that isn't a decade old. 3. If you see it as a human from the very beginning, then the morning after pill is abortion since it terminates the living cells that would become a human child.
Women make less on the dollar than men? I'm tired of this argument lol, it doesn't even make any sense. Nobody would want to hire a male worker. He would be making more money than a woman for the same work
[quote name="RippedMonk" post="19364637" timestamp="1390078626"]Women making less on the dollar than men is equality? Something tells me you don't understand the term "equality." By the way, the comment about women getting away with whatever they want because of their tits was one of the most ignorant and childish things I've ever read on here. Congrats, I'm sure your momma is proud of you and her tits.[/quote]My point is that people are constantly looking for some excuse as to why they aren't successful such as racism, discrimination, and inequality. When are people going to man up and become successful on their own? The hard part is already taken care of for them, all they have to do now is get up off their fat fucking lazy asses and try.Sent from my LG-LS970 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
2. Seriously? Fine: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html "The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner." 3. Unless there is a type that destroys the fertilized egg (where the dna that makes us, us is formed) morning after pills prevent the sperm and egg from joining. Just in case you claim this is another one of my "opinions": http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception "Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)-sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"-are drugs intended to disrupt or delay ovulation or fertilization..." Perhaps you're thinking of these "abortion pills" that I've heard mentioned on occasion.
It's not an argument, it's fact. Do some research and find out for yourself, it's common knowledge. If companies only hired females because they could pay them less it would be a PR nightmare for all of them and would result in them having to pay women equal rates almost immediately. Running a business is far more complicated than just hiring the lowest wage earners you can. Yes I was thinking of the "abortion pill" which can be taken up to 7 weeks after conception. It is peaceful and voluntary and basically kills a gooey glob of cells. I was drinking heavy and toking up yesterday and got the term backwards. My bad.
Kind of funny how one single article you seem to find negates something that my sister just sued her employer for and won. Sorry, but it still exists in many parts of this country and if you think one article refutes that you are delusional.
I posted a similar study. If you think your anecdotal evidence refutes any of it, you're delusional. Sure it happens, and it's wrong, but when you adjust for relevant determinants, it's a five or six cent differential.
Anecdotal or not, my family situation disproves his claim it no longer happens. That's all I was saying. And her pay difference was 16 cents. She made 84 cents to the dollar compared to her male contemporaries. And my original response concerning this wasn't to either of you but to another blade who basically claimed it was a fallacious argument, which it is not since it still continues to happen.
She will try to get elected the same way Obama got elected. It's the only way to get people to vote for the shit spewing out of politicians mouths Women shout for equality, and comfy white collar jobs. But how many women would be a lumberjack, trash collector, sewage worker, etc.. all the dirty tough jobs? None of the ones I see.
Welcome to the unspoken little tidbit about history no one is talking about in the mainstream. Life on Earth was incredibly harsh up until only very recently ago. While women certainly worked their asses of, they could not and did not offer the sheer volume of labor a man could. This is still true everywhere where physical strength is essential. Yes yes, there are exceptions, but in general physical jobs are a man's world. When I worked part time at UPS in college (hardest labor I ever did, tougher than construction) the vast majority of the physical workforce were men. In a world where almost all work is about physical strength and endurance, men would have been favored by default. I am not denying that women were 2nd class citizens to men throughout history. I am pointing out that a lot of it was not because of the "Patriarchy" but simply because nature was out to fkn kill you at all times. If it wasn't beasts, it was hunger. If it wasn't the hunger it was the elements. If it wasn't the elements, it was the other tribe. Meanwhile, everyone is malnourished and really not very healthy compared to us today. Much shorter life expectancy overall. The only reason we GET to bitch about what triggers us and what microagression is going on where, is because life has become cushy enough for us to do so. For almost the entirety of human history, this has not been the case and the struggle for survival almost always depended on brute physical force. In many poorer nations it still does today. I can cook circles around my girlfriend and I take our meals very seriously. The kitchen is my domain. I got knives that put Dexter to shame.....................he said awkwardly. She also suffers from the very serious disease Vegetarianism, and everyone knows you don't let those people talk about food or let them into the kitchen.