Last week's Dakota Voice poll is now closed. The poll was actually a survey question to measure awareness of a public policy issue.
The question was:
What percentage of abortions in SD in 2007 were because "The mother did not desire to have the child"?
I gave a hint last week when the poll opened, stating the answer could be found at the website for the South Dakota Department of Health.
Some respondents may not have seen this hint, or simply didn't take the time to look up the stats, or (based on the perception fed to them by the "mainstream" media) thought the number was much lower than it actually is.
Still, the majority of respondents answered correctly:
1.7% (11%)
33.5% (6%)
83.2% (75%)
5.2% (6%)
The answer was an astonishing 83.2% of abortions in South Dakota in 2007 were performed because "the mother did not desire to have the child. In other words, essentially retroactive birth control.
Incidentally, I didn't pull those other answer choices out of thin air; I took them from the same DOH report. The percentage of abortions done for rape/incest was 1.7% (even though these children are just as human as the child conceived in love). The percentage of abortions performed because "The mother could not afford the child" was the second largest at 33.5% (even though poor women have been having children for thousands of years, and still do, and many agencies such as crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies exist to help women of limited financial means). Finally, 5.2% of the abortions were done because of the stated reason "The mother’s emotional health was at risk" (however, there is no specific requirement for documenting a compelling hazard exists, so we don't know how many of these were even remotely genuine...and what's more, would killing your 2-month old be permissible if "The mother’s emotional health was at risk"?)
Thanks to all who participated in the survey. When someone insists abortions are "necessary," I encourage you to remember these percentages.
Next week's survey question has just been posted:
According to the CDC, what is the largest source of AIDS transmission?
- Homosexual contact & injected drug use
- Injected drug use
- High-risk heterosexual contact
- Homosexual contact
- Other
Hint: you can find this information at the website of the Centers for Disease Control.
8 comments:
Well, obviously the answer isn't homosexual contact, because the CDC reports that "to date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm)
Oh, I'm sorry, when you say "homosexual contact," do you just mean men who have sex with men? Because "MSM" is the term the CDC uses, and I think it's much more accurate and specific. Maybe you should follow their example instead of using terminology that excludes part of the gay population and therefore misrepresents the facts. Or have you forgotten that women can be homosexuals too?
The last I checked, men who have sex with men constituted "homosexual contact." Certainly that didn't escape you.
Or perhaps obfuscation and word-games help you avoid an unpleasant truth--one we know is coming yet again when this poll closes in a few hours.
Why then do you refer only to men when you say "homosexual contact"? Is it because homosexual behavior among women is LEAST likely out of all types of sexual behavior to result in AIDS? Talk about an unpleasant truth!
Because most homosexuals are men, making them the dominate category.
It's also pretty obvious when you think about it why female-to-female sexual contact is less likely to transmit AIDS. There is much more fluid transfer male-to-male, and much greater potential for tissue damage which allows viruses to penetrate the body more easily.
Still trying to dodge the unpleasant truth, eh?
That's hardly a scientific approach, Bob. In terms of worldwide human population, women constitute the dominant category, but that doesn't mean it's accurate to use the word "woman" as a general term for "human," does it?
As far as the CDC is concerned, it doesn't matter that most gay people are men. They specifically use "men who have sex with men" and not "homosexual contact" because the former does not include lesbians, a demographic which would skew the data if included in the analysis. Unlike you, it's their job to give the least biased information as possible, so they use a term that refers only to the intended demographic.
Let's see you weasel your way out of another unpleasant truth that your own source presents: the majority of AIDS cases in the world today resulted from heterosexual behavior, not homosexual behavior. So judging by global statistics, you are more likely to get AIDS than I am. Sorry.
It's unfortunate that you can only interpret this as me trying to make you accept homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out a careless error that a more responsible and objective person would have avoided. I hope someday you'll learn how to correctly read the CDC website.
Yes, it is may be true that out of the 6+ billion world population (considering the large numbers of people in Africa which allegedly have AIDS), most of the AIDS cases could be heterosexual in nature. However, there are reputable reports which indicate that many illnesses among people in Africa are attributed to AIDS when they may not be.
However, I am an American and I speak primarily to Americans, so I deal primarily with American information. And the information on the American AIDS problem indicates that it is overwhelmingly due to homosexual activity.
Homosexual activists Matt Foreman and Lorri Jean had the intellectual honest to admit this. Why can't you accept reality as they have?
In any event, whether the genuine AIDS cases occur in America or overseas, except for small numbers attributed to children born with it because their mother had it, and a tiny number attributed to blood transfusions, the overwhelmingly vast number of AIDS cases--both here in the States and worldwide--come from immoral behavior. This includes homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sex outside of marriage (primarily with prostitutes).
If people would stop intoxicating themselves with IV drug use, and stop having sex outside of marriage as God intended, AIDS as a transmitted disease would be almost entirely wiped out.
And even if you ignored the AIDS cases, you'd still have the high rates of gonorrhea, herpes, Chlamydia, syphilis, HPV and other STDs prevalent in the homosexual community. You'd also have the high rates of hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.
And even if you ignored all these risks, it would still be immoral and placing one's soul in jeopardy.
So you see, there really is simply no way whatsoever for the reasonable person to excuse or justify homosexual behavior.
It would be rolling-in-the-aisles hilarious to observe your extreme attempts to justify the unjustifiable...if it were not so serious, both physically and spiritually.
You really should stop playing games with the obvious conclusions of the CDC data, deal with reality and change your advocacy of dangerous behavior. Like the chronic drunk or drug addict, you are most obviously in an advanced and pathetic state of denial.
Why don't you put aside your pride tonight, admit your sin and your need for God's grace, and reach out and accept the abundant life God wants for you? It offers so much more than you can ever have in your current condition, and it could be yours if you'd just surrender your will to his.
It's interesting that when I point out how most AIDS cases in the world are caused by heterosexual behavior, only then do you start to question the data. All of a sudden, AIDS cases in Africa become "alleged" AIDS cases in Africa which "could" be heterosexual in nature. And I'm the one denying reality?
And if your focus was America all along, maybe you should have specified that in your poll question. Now that I know this was what you were referring to, of course I agree that most AIDS cases in America are due to homosexual behavior. But I would qualify that with RISKY homosexual behavior, ie, having sex with someone who already has the disease. If gay people were more careful and responsible with their sexual partners, we would see a dramatic decrease in the number of AIDS cases in the U.S.
How do you account for someone like me, who has not encountered a single one of the risks or problems you cited?
Sorry, cinemaphile85, I don't have time to write legal-ese type questions, headlines and statements that put 800 qualifications in there to cover every possible objection and excuse someone in an advanced state of denial might make...only to have them come up with an 801st irrational objection.
Until the Holy Spirit does some serious work on you, you're beyond help.
Post a Comment