Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But yet HIV runs rampant in US black neighborhoods." Oh, is it ever. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/pdf/aa.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/...f/aa.pdf</a> "The rate of new HIV infection for black men was 6 times as high as that of white men, nearly 3 times that of Hispanic/Latino men, and twice that of black women. ... In 2006, the rate of new HIV infection for black women was nearly 15 times as high as that of white women and nearly 4 times that of Hispanic/Latina women." The CDC comes right out and says it. "Stigma, fear, discrimination, homophobia, and negative perceptions about HIV testing can also place too many African Americans at higher risk." Discrimination from being HIV positive by other blacks. Homophobia by other blacks (the cases are in fact MSM, men who have sex with men). But only whites are bigots.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No one ever said only whites are bigots. You are once again assigning things to people (here) that are unwarranted. That would be called... pre-judging. <Some war on women.> Boy, you have a talent for non-sequitur, don't you? The recent war on women currently being waged mostly in state legislatures all over is centered mostly around reproductive rights, not EITC and the like. Nice attempt at misdirection, though.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox What's the failure rate for condom-only contraception, barboy? Hormonal contraception, birth control pills, is the most effective means available to prevent pregnancy outside of abstinence, when taken as directed. Relying only on condoms is a sure-fire guarantee of eventually getting pregnant.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Slight correction: I didn't mean birth control 'pills' for hormonal contraception. I meant injections like Depo-Provera. They are the most effective with the lowest failure rate, at less than 1%. Condoms, OTOH, have a failure rate of 14%.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Nice attempt at misdirection, though.<< It's becoming something of a pattern.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Yeah, I don't get what the heck this topic has to do with welfare at all. It's completely unrelated...
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Spokker, what are you on about? Why do you keep shifting the topic?" What topic? The original post offers an emotional plea about some war on woman and makes zero arguments. The emotionally charged language implies that to be against this idea of a war on woman makes you a sexist that is a soldier waging this figurative war. Framing the debate as a "war on woman" is as devious and downright lame as conservatives who have framed the so-called "war on religion" or "war on Christmas" and other such nonsense. There are ongoing debates on how to best handle things such as birth control, abortion, etc. However, demanding that your ideological opponent cease their "war on women" complete with a photograph of a crying woman and fighting words is an appeal to emotion and has very little to do with the actual debate and policy implications. These tactics are as bad, if not more so, than any "misdirection" that I have been accused of. That being said, if you want to talk about the war on women, I have brought up other facets of society in which women enjoy privileges. In addition to those I mentioned, despite the complete failure of single motherhood in society based on the statistical outcomes, little is being done to now encourage fatherhood. I point again to the Brooking Institute article on men, women and public assistance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "There are ongoing debates on how to best handle things such as birth control, abortion, etc." That's just the thing though. Abortion of course remains controversial, but birth control is something everybody thought was decided 50 years ago. Yet now we have a presidential contender proclaiming that it is "not okay" and legislatures introducing measures that would allow a woman's boss to demand to know why she is on the pill, and make a "wrong" answer a fireable offense, among other things.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Reality check...Bosses are generally not upset if a female employee is using birth control, in fact, it helps insure that the person that they have trained and is doing a vital function is not going to be absent for 6 or more weeks on maternity leave. It was only weeks ago that the question would be asked if they intended to have children and THAT made a difference in whether she was hired or not. So either things have changed and all employers have now become highly moral and only concerned about righteousness or the previously stated reasoning is a total crock. Your pick!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not about "all employers." Most employers are indeed fine with women using birth control, for whatever reason. The problem is this new law which allows an employer who DOES have a problem with birth control to be able to question an employee about it and possibly use that against her, when it's really none of his business.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think the law could stand the slightest scrutiny if it were passed; the point is that it was proposed at all.
Originally Posted By Labuda Ok...I can see that for sure, especially since the tiniest bit of scrutiny destroys it. War on women indeed.
