Social America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever... Why?

[hillelslovak87]

Youll have take it up with them

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184/

And at no point did they speak of a single piece of data on the sexual intercourse explanation, nor did they speak of proteins or spermatozoa surviving in the oviduct, or anything of the kind.

Classic dipshittery, fail to know anything about the body of data, seize upon conclusion, play the Eddie Bravo game.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/women-retain-dna/

 

[TheComebackKid]

And BOOM here is the quote that PROVES you lie

...other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.

Sure I can say that just like i can say 2+2 is 4. Scientists have come up with four possible explanations three of which they themselves admit are extremely unlikely. The obvious answer is sex.

Where am i lying again? Youre lying about me lying and starting to lose track of reality.

 

[MikeMcMann]

And at no point did they speak of a single piece of data on the sexual intercourse explanation, nor did they speak of proteins or spermatozoa surviving in the oviduct, or anything of the kind.

Classic dipshittery, fail to know anything about the body of data, seize upon conclusion, play the Eddie Bravo game.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/women-retain-dna/

yup. I said as much and I linked that Snopes for him prior. He will reply Snopes is not science journal but I told him I quoted it as it has a link to the original study on this and in that study no such correlation was made.

I am not sure about the study he cites. It does not say if they ran their own study and collected their own data or if they are using that prior study and just adding their own conclusions on top?

But regardless his study does not say those cause it or are proven to in any instance. It basically just cites things not ruled out by them.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Where am i lying again? Youre lying about me lying and starting to lose track of reality.

This ...

...other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.

Does not say all other factors are ruled out and therefore sexual intercourse is the only answer left, as you are lying and saying.

 

[TheComebackKid]

And at no point did they speak of a single piece of data on the sexual intercourse explanation, nor did they speak of proteins or spermatozoa surviving in the oviduct, or anything of the kind.

Classic dipshittery, fail to know anything about the body of data, seize upon conclusion, play the Eddie Bravo game.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/women-retain-dna/

Lmao. Another person quoting snopes like that means something.

FYI: Snopes isnt talking about the same study i am. Ask @MikeMcMann to explain it to you. He made the same mistake last week.

 

[hillelslovak87]

yup. I said as much and I linked that Snopes for him prior. He will reply Snopes is not science journal but I told him I quoted it as it has a link to the original study on this and in that study no such correlation was made.

I am not sure about the study he cites. It does not say if they ran their own study and collected their own data or if they are using that prior study and just adding their own conclusions on top?

But regardless his study does not say those cause it or are proven to in any instance. It basically just cites things not ruled out by them.

And at no point did the study even speak to anything related to the nonsense he was speaking about. Protein and thangs!! It's his biological equivalent of using an umbrella to escape the moonlight's devastation.

 

[TheComebackKid]

This ...

...other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.

Does not say all other factors are ruled out and therefore sexual intercourse is the only answer left, as you are lying and saying.

When did I claim the study said that? I, and every other logical person, ruled them out due to how rare those other things are.

And ive explained this to you yet youre still confused.

 

[MikeMcMann]

When did I claim the study said that? I, and every other logical person, ruled them out due to how rare those other things are.

And ive explained this to you yet youre still confused.

Read upthread.

I mentioned the study you quoted suggests MANY possible causes. I then said you cannot keep citing your one cause then as the cause as if fact.

You replied you can say that as the other causes have been dismissed and not likely by the scientists leaving only yours as likely.

That is a LIE. You are lying. No such thing is said in the study you cite.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Read upthread.

I mentioned the study you quoted suggests MANY possible causes. I then said you cannot keep citing your one cause then as the cause as if fact.

You replied you can say that as the other causes have been dismissed and not likely by the scientists leaving only yours as likely.

That is a LIE. You are lying. No such thing is said in the study you cite.

I did not claim that they have been dismissed only that scientist acknowledge, because statistics back it up, that they are rare and unlikely scenarios for a person to encounter. Thus logically i can deduce that those are unlikely explanations and that sex is the cause. I can do that the same way I can logically deduce that 2+2 is 4.

My point was that once I have the information I don't need a scientist to confirm logical conclusions for me. I hope were clear now.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I did not claim that they have been dismissed only that scientist acknowledge, because statistics back it up, that they are rare and unlikely scenarios for a person to encounter. Thus logically i can deduce that those are unlikely explanations and that sex is the cause. I can do that the same way I can logically deduce that 2+2 is 4.

My point was that once I have the information I don't need a scientist to confirm logical conclusions for me. I hope were clear now.

No you are lying. You have not cited anything showing scientist have acknowledged that all the other potential causes are the ones that are unlikely and therefore with the powers of your deduction the only one remaining that they do not cite as unlikely, is the one.

If you have a study showing them saying those other causes are unlikely cite it, and until you do stop lying about it.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No you are lying. You have not cited anything showing scientist have acknowledged that all the other potential causes are the ones that are unlikely and therefore with the powers of your deduction the only one remaining that they do not cite as unlikely, is the one.

If you have a study showing them saying those other causes are unlikely cite it, and until you do stop lying about it.

Lol. Im not saying that the scientists are claiming those causes are unlikely only that situations are rare. I'm saying those causes are unlikely because those situations are rare.

Not all of us need scientific studies to tell us the grass is green.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Lol. Im not saying that the scientists are claiming those causes are unlikely only that situations are rare. I'm saying those causes are unlikely because those situations are rare.

Not all of us need scientific studies to tell us the grass is green.

Right so you, in your scientific capacity have considered all the potential causes the scientists cite and you have determined that the other ones are not a likely cause but sexual intercourse is. That is your math.

BUt that then leads you into thread after thread to say it is proven, and you have a study showing that it is sexual intercourse that causes it.

THAT IS A LIE.

You are the one who made that conclusion. YOU and not the study. The study just had it in a list of possible. You do not get to then say the study says it IS the cause. That is a lie.

You sir, are a liar. Not shocking though, as I said, religious folk lie the most in my experience.

 

[BEER]

You aren't out banging skeezoids if you don't know the cause of this.

Plan B is fucking awesome. Been raw dogging playing STD roulette for years now.

I haven't worn a condom in years.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Tell me, how do haploid sperm cells multiply in a woman's reproductive system without fertilizing an egg? Also, the protein is part of what comprises the sperm cells. You're not ejaculating sperm AND protein.

You are. Your load is made up of sperm cells and semen. There's "proteins and thangs" in your semen, and when some of your sperm cells inevitably break apart, their cytoplasm content also has protein.
The sperm doesn't have to divide, it just has to somehow leave its trace in the woman. Here's a possible evolutionary explanation - if it fails to fertilize or implant, the chances would be better on the next round. It could "prime" the woman's immune system to increase the chances of your sperm succeeding and competitor sperm failing. Natural selection at the level of fertilization/implantation.
Not sure why you're attacking TCK, he's actually making a fair amount of sense, even if he doesn't express it in biology jargon. I expect this from a dummy like mikemcman, but you're more intellectually flexible that than.

 

[nac386]

You are. Your load is made up of sperm cells and semen. There's "proteins and thangs" in your semen, and when some of your sperm cells inevitably break apart, their cytoplasm content also has protein.
The sperm doesn't have to divide, it just has to somehow leave its trace in the woman. Here's a possible evolutionary explanation - if it fails to fertilize or implant, the chances would be better on the next round. It could "prime" the woman's immune system to increase the chances of your sperm succeeding and competitor sperm failing. Natural selection at the level of fertilization/implantation.
Not sure why you're attacking TCK, he's actually making a fair amount of sense, even if he doesn't express it in biology jargon. I expect this from a dummy like mikemcman, but you're more intellectually flexible that than.

I don't care about this conversation one way or the other from a scientific perspective, and I'm not going to sit around googling about sperm in order to take a stance. But I do get the distinct impression that the motivation behind pushing the, "Impure women carry their ex lovers DNA" line of thought in this thread is that it helps some posters to feel better about being rejected by "impure" women throughout their lives.

It's sort of a reoccurring theme. A guy gets rejected by women, so he comes up with reasons why those women are actually unworthy of him. That weird kid who committed mass murder in California several years ago seemed to popularize that line of reasoning. Somebody like that will obviously then seek a reason to claim that the less desirable women (by the most common standards) are actually the most desirable women. "Any smart man would choose the more-pure 23 year old Starbucks worker over the less-pure 28 year old executive." That kind of thing.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You are. Your load is made up of sperm cells and semen. There's "proteins and thangs" in your semen, and when some of your sperm cells inevitably break apart, their cytoplasm content also has protein.
The sperm doesn't have to divide, it just has to somehow leave its trace in the woman. Here's a possible evolutionary explanation - if it fails to fertilize or implant, the chances would be better on the next round. It could "prime" the woman's immune system to increase the chances of your sperm succeeding and competitor sperm failing. Natural selection at the level of fertilization/implantation.
Not sure why you're attacking TCK, he's actually making a fair amount of sense, even if he doesn't express it in biology jargon. I expect this from a dummy like mikemcman, but you're more intellectually flexible that than.

TCK deserves to be attacked because he deliberately lies about the science at every chance.

It is not ok to find one aspect that is feasible, and use that so you can wrap around it 10 mistruths while always pointing at the one that was feasible as your defense. That is a problem as people on this forum are typically not going to dig in and find the truth (and that he is lying) as I have. So over and over and over he keeps repeating the lie knowing many will not dig in and eventually they will just remember hearing something about this, over and over and therefore it must be true.

This is a Trumpian tactic which dumb people like you applaud. Just keep repeating lies and you will get the dumb and gullible like you to believe it. Smarter people call it out.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't care about this conversation one way or the other from a scientific perspective, and I'm not going to sit around googling about sperm in order to take a stance. But I do get the distinct impression that the motivation behind pushing the, "Impure women carry their ex lovers DNA" line of thought in this thread is that it helps some posters to feel better about being rejected by "impure" women throughout their lives.

It's sort of a reoccurring theme. A guy gets rejected by women, so he comes up with reasons why those women are actually unworthy of him. That weird kid who committed mass murder in California several years ago seemed to popularize that line of reasoning. Somebody like that will obviously then seek a reason to claim that the less desirable women (by the most common standards) are actually the most desirable women. "Any smart man would choose the more-pure 23 year old Starbucks worker over the less-pure 28 year old executive." That kind of thing.

Yes.

And by default, of course the one who did 'choose' them has to have been pure. I got the pure and good one, ...you did not.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It could be down because a lot of women are buying plan B. I remember living in Vancouver, Canada and going to the London Drugs on a Sunday morning and the Pharmacy was lined up with women buying plan B also known as the morning after pill. Why would you need to go to an abortion clinic when you can simply go to the pharmacy and get a pill after a night of recklessly fooling around?

 

[Teppodama]

I was told that liberals get abortions for fun, so this doesn’t make sense.

Working on that Frequent Aborter coupon...

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I have noticed most of the articles give percentages but will not give specific numbers. One source I found wrote that there was 862,000 abortions in 2017 so that must mean the numbers are still in the 800,000 range. That is over 800,000 unborn children killed every year.