Ohio Legislature Working on a very Restrictive Abortion Law

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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]

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.

[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.