Ratio of births to abortion in NYC - 4:3

Here's the shocking opening line in this August 9 Crain's New York Business article:

In most of the United States, 24 abortions are carried out for every 100 live births. In New York, 72 abortions occur for every 100 live births.

nyc condom 4.jpgThis is the same New York that rejected federal abstinence funding last year as well as conducted a campaign to distribute 26 million condoms FREE. Workers even handed them out at subway stations.

This is the same New York that offers free taxpayer-funded abortions to poor women and boasts 56 taxpayer-funded programs to distribute contraceptives free or cheap, according to the Crain's piece.

NY touts everything liberals say must be done to curb abortion. The answer to the increasing problem, according to the article?...

"To me, the problem is access," says [Deborah] Kaplan [deputy commissioner of the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene]. "If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

She has got to be kidding. When will enough be enough? And where are the accusations against comprehensive sex ed for teaching adolescent ignorance of the consequences?

There are so many admissions in this article: that NYC sponsors black genocide, that abortion hurts women both physically and psychologically - although Crain's sure tip-toes on those landmines, that abortion is used as a method of birth control. and that abortion should be linked to STDs, since pregnancy is proof there is lack of protection.

NY accounts for ~ 10% of all abortions nationwide, the by-product of wanton sex in the city.

[HT: Josh Montez, Family News in Focus]


Comments:

" "If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

"Workers even handed them out at subway station"

....and the problem is STILL accessibility?

Dang...talk about deluded.. Africans recognized that condoms are NOT the primary solution...but not NYorkers, right?

Posted by: RSD at August 11, 2008 12:45 PM


The ratio of abortions to live births seems meaningless. If fewer women in NYC are having babies by choice through contraception, that would throw off the ratio even if the abortion rate was the same as everywhere else.

The rate of abortions per 1000 women might mean something.

NYC *might* have a higher abortion rate, but your statistic doesn't establish that at all.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 12:50 PM


And who is the most rabid Liberal in New York elected not by Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo but by New York City?

Yep.....Hillary Clinton.

And to think Obama is left of her. This is terrifying for our country.

Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 12:51 PM


Not just terrifying for the country, Hisman...the World.

The US president is also the recognized leader of the free world, too.

I guess, if Obama wins..that would also mean free from morals, consequences and responsibilities.

Posted by: RSD at August 11, 2008 12:58 PM


Hal, are you suggesting that the ratio is inconsistent -- to the lower end -- as the sample size is increased?

Posted by: Charles at August 11, 2008 12:58 PM


Charles, I'm not referring to sample size, but what they are comparing.

the article discusses the ratio of abortions to live births. That ratio will be effected by the number of abortions OR the number of live births. Two places with exactly the abortion rate (per x number of women) could have very different abortion/life birth ratios.

So, we don't know from the article if NY women are having more or less abortions than other places. So, who cares?

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 1:03 PM


So, we don't know from the article if NY women are having more or less abortions than other places. So, who cares?

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 1:03 PM

Well, It might not matter to a man and father who killed 2 of his own children, but it matters to those of us who would like to see less abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 1:19 PM


Excellent post, Jill! Just more proof that comprehensive sex education, free condoms, etc doesn't prevent abortion.

"To me, the problem is access,"

That is the most insane quote (especially in the light of these statistics!!) that we frequently hear from pro-abortionists.

Can any of them explain why 26 million free condoms, along with comprehensive sex ed, and other free types of birth control isn't enough???

How much does it take?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:20 PM


"If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

Oh, yeah, like the Bullwinkle Approach is really going to work this time.

Posted by: John Jansen at August 11, 2008 1:48 PM


Great article you linked to, John. Thank you! :)

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:51 PM


Common sense, I mourn your passing.

Posted by: Kel at August 11, 2008 2:07 PM


"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. "

Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

..in this case, just adding more and more of the same thing....

Posted by: RSD at August 11, 2008 2:09 PM


"Well, It might not matter to a man and father who killed 2 of his own children, but it matters to those of us who would like to see less abortions."

You never cease to dissapoint Patricia. You somehow took a conversation about statistics, and made it a personal attack. Pathetic.


As for the stats themselves, as Hal pointed out, comparing abortion rates to live births is statistically meaningless. However, as with the Gloucester HS problem, neither contraceptives OR abstinence ed will stop girls who WANT to be pregnant, which from my experience in NYC, is a significant number. Then the parents freak out, the boyfriend leaves, or she panics - and the result is an abortion. That, or some of them were so afraid of their parents finding out they were sexually active, they had abortions not because they wanted to, but because they feared their parents enough to lead them to believe it was that, or the streets. Also notable is the very high concentration of Russian immigrants in NYC (Brooklyn alone is something like 25% Russian - and growing). As has been pointed out here before, Russians tend to have a very different perspective on abortion than most Americans - even most pro choice Americans.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 2:10 PM


Well, It might not matter to a man and father who killed 2 of his own children, but it matters to those of us who would like to see less abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 1:19 PM
.......................................

Why don't you call the Mounties and report the murder of Hal's children Patricia? Or are there laws in Canada for making false accusations?

Posted by: Sally at August 11, 2008 2:41 PM


Well, It might not matter to a man and father who killed 2 of his own children, but it matters to those of us who would like to see less abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 1:19 PM

FOr all we know from this article, we might already be seeing less abortions. A lot less. We can't tell, all we know is the ratio of abortions to live births has changed. Either because of more abortions, or less live births, or both.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 2:47 PM


Charles, I'm not referring to sample size, but what they are comparing.

the article discusses the ratio of abortions to live births. That ratio will be effected by the number of abortions OR the number of live births. Two places with exactly the abortion rate (per x number of women) could have very different abortion/life birth ratios.

So, we don't know from the article if NY women are having more or less abortions than other places. So, who cares?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hal, so if I understand your argument correctly, itís based this fact: Has the population of NY women has increased or decreased during the sampling periods or if women are choosing to have more or less children.

So, if you agree on those stipulations, a simple view of the female population and the birth rate over the two years should suffice. Correct?

Posted by: Charles at August 11, 2008 3:01 PM


" In 2006, 125,506 babies were born in New York City, an increase of nearly 3,000 over the 2005 total. The 2.3% increase fell short of the 3% rise seen nationally, but it marked the biggest baby boom New York City has seen since 1988. The number of live births to teenagers increased by 1.3%. The Bronx had the highest number of teen births with 2,514 babies ? 11.8% of the borough-wide total was born to teenagers. "

y'all didnt look very hard.....

thats what google is for.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2008/pr002-08.shtml

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 3:06 PM


Do these statistics include selective reduction of pregnancies aided by fertility treatments? I believe that on the whole New York tends to have higher rates of fertility treatment use, due at least in part to waiting longer to have kids. Are those counted as part of the abortions in this statistic? I can't imagine they wouldn't be, right?

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 3:06 PM


Charles - Not quite. The female population in general is also meaningless. You'd need to be looking specifically at fertile females. The aging population means there are a LOT more women alive - in the population - but who are certainly not capable of reproducing.

Also, again - comparing live births to abortion rates says nothing. There could simply be a decreasing number of women who WANT children, or the rate of miscarriages and still births could be increasing, while the abortion rate could very well be unchanged.

Hal isn't saying these numbers are positive or negative, simply that by the standards of statistics, its meaningless.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 3:06 PM


Charles, all we need to know is the abortion rate per xx number of women. That will tell us if more or less women are having abortions.

The ratio from the article only tells us what pregnant women decide to do once they're pregnant. i.e., how many have live births compared to how many choose to temrinate. That's interesting, but the actually rate of abortions could be falling and we wouldn't see that in the ratio statistic.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:08 PM


Roger, again... no one said anything untrue was implied - just that the comparison was meaningless. The actual stats exist obviously, but the comparison was not valid.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 3:09 PM


im calculating 90,157 abortions to 125,506 live births in 2006 thus 71.83 abortions for every 100 births in 2006.

if we have solid numbers for live births and abortions we easily calculate the ratio.

125,506 live births appears to be a slight increase over the previous year in 2005.

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 3:14 PM


WHO CARES ABOUT THE RATIO???? The important number is very easy: How many abortions per woman?

The CDC keeps this information:

The national legal induced abortion rate increased from 14 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years in 1973 to 25 per 1,000 in 1980. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the rate remained stable at 23--24 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years, and during 1994--1997 it again stabilized at 20--21. The abortion rate remained unchanged at 17 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years from 1997 through 1999 in the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, the abortion rate declined to 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years (overall and in the same 48 reporting areas as 1999).


And we can see how many abortions NYC had:

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/2003/table21.htm

I do see anyone who has just reported on the number of abortions per 1000 women. I'm sure it's out thete.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:27 PM


well, well, well. Turns out I was right. There was something fishy about the way the statitics were reported. The birth rates AND abortion rates are falling in New York.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/new-york-city-birth-rate-plunges/45536/

City health officials say the birth rate, a tally of the number of births per 1,000 people, dropped nearly 8% in the last decade and mirrors the national trend toward smaller families started later in life.
* * *
The number of reported abortions in the city was down to a low in the past 10 years, to 88,891 in 2005 from 91,673 in 2004.

So, declining birth rates and abortion rates. NYC must be doing something right with the condom distrubution and sex ed in the schools.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:37 PM


ok , Hal..if the NYC official program is doing something "right" (yeah, right)...why was this quote stated:

"To me, the problem is access," says [Deborah] Kaplan [deputy commissioner of the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene]. "If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

They are ADMITTING the program is NOT working...

Posted by: RSD at August 11, 2008 3:46 PM


So, declining birth rates and abortion rates. NYC must be doing something right with the condom distrubution and sex ed in the schools.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:37 PM


===============================

Can you tell me the declining birth rates are not linked to the ill affects of modern birth control?

Posted by: Charles at August 11, 2008 3:53 PM


Good point, RSD, I don't get it. I don't have 2007 figures, but it appears that there IS a reduction in abortions in NYC. Maybe Ms. Kaplan doesn't understand the numbers either. (or, to be fair, maybe the recent numbers show a different trend. I wish the reporter would have simply stated the abortion rate, then we'd know.)

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:54 PM


the decrease from 2004 to 2005 is a decrease of 2,782 abortion or 3.03% decrease from 2004 numbers.

may we assume that the 3% decrease is statistically significant and related to condom distribution and sex education.


Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 4:01 PM


Roger, I have no idea. Not my field. And, as we know, abortion rates have been falling generally. It could be that they're falling slower in NYC than nationally.


Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 4:03 PM


"Can you tell me the declining birth rates are not linked to the ill affects of modern birth control?"


Where do you have any shred of evidence to support that thats anything more than an assumption or a guess? More likely, as studies Jill has alluded to on her blog have shown, more and more American women are 1. waiting longer to have children or 2. deciding not to have them at all. This is especially common in urban upper class populations and would clearly have an impact on birth rates. In order to prove a relation to birth control, you'd have to find stats showing an increase in women or couples complaining of infertility who also used hormonal birth control.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 4:07 PM


ROger, to follow up. According to that same article the NYC birthrate "plunges" although the drop seems pretty small to me:

"The city's newest release of vital statistics ó an annual compendium of deaths, births, disease, and accidents ó shows that 122,725 babies were born in New York City in 2005, or 1,374 fewer than in 2004."


So, maybe the 3.03% decrease in actual abortions (in light of the fact ofan increasing population) means a significant drop in the abortion RATE. In other words, if you have 2782 fewer abortions, and a milllion more women in the city, that would be a huge drop in the abortion rate.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 4:07 PM


"And, as we know, abortion rates have been falling generally. It could be that they're falling slower in NYC than nationally. "

Hal - from my experience, I'd say thats true. NYC is really its own little world - not comparable to any other city or state. The lifestyle is SO different.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 4:11 PM


In other words, if you have 2782 fewer abortions, and a milllion more women in the city, that would be a huge drop in the abortion rate.

And I'm pretty sure the population of NYC hasn't stopped growing over the last four years or so:

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/census-shows-citys-population-rising/73307/

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 4:17 PM


Amanda, agreed. I lived there for three years. Fun, but I was ready to move out at the end.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 4:18 PM


You guys are weak! WEAK!

Just kidding.

I will probably move away at some point, just because this isn't a city you can really buy your first home in anymore. Not like when my parents moved here and, after a couple years of work, bought a brownstone in Brooklyn. That's not going to happen anymore.

I love it here, though.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 4:25 PM


we do not have any indication that there was an increase of 1 million or any other number of persons, women or otherwise in the city. so from what we have we see what appears to be an insignificant decrease in abortions and a ratio (in light of an apparent insignificant decrease in the abortion rate we may now address the ratio) which shows an environment in new york city which is aborting a significantly higher percentage of its 100 live births than the rest of the US population in spite of a massive birth control effort. thus by all appearances women are aborting as a means of birth control.

the ratio is more than interesting. it is instructive.

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 4:26 PM


are there five boroughs and the city or is new york city included in the five. i live out west.

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 4:31 PM


There are five boroughs total: Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 4:39 PM


All of these collectively make up New York City.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 4:40 PM


Rorger, imagine a city made up of people who for whatever reason, who didn't really want children. There are a million child bearing age women who live there, but very very few get pregnant because of good education and birth control availability. 100 women get pregnant. 90 have abortions and 10 have live births. That would give you statistically 900 abortions for every 100 live births, a HUGE number.
but the actual abortion rate is only 90 per million (or 0.9 per 10,000) a very very low number by US standards.

The ratio of abortion to live births is meaningless. (if, however, the live birth rate is relatively constant, the ratio could be a shorthand way of referring to abortion rates. It seems more accuarate to just talk about abortion rates and leave birth rates out this particular discussion)


Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 5:02 PM


"You never cease to dissapoint Patricia. You somehow took a conversation about statistics, and made it a personal attack. Pathetic."

Why thank you AManda. I'm just pointing out that of course it doesn't matter to Hal. He could care less if there were more abortions. After all he killed two of his own children. Why would he be concerned>

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 8:45 PM


Rorger, imagine a city made up of people who for whatever reason, who didn't really want children. There are a million child bearing age women who live there, but very very few get pregnant because of good education and birth control availability. 100 women get pregnant. 90 have abortions and 10 have live births. That would give you statistically 900 abortions for every 100 live births, a HUGE number.
but the actual abortion rate is only 90 per million (or 0.9 per 10,000) a very very low number by US standards.

So what's your point? There's still 90 dead children per every million - and we are suppose to be happy about that and ACCEPT that 90 mothers killed their children.

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 8:54 PM


That 90 is still too many. That's 90 children that could have been loved by a childless (a couple UNable to have Children that is) couple who want a child and can't afford international adoption fees.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 11, 2008 8:58 PM


you'd have to find stats showing an increase in women or couples complaining of infertility who also used hormonal birth control.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 4:07 PM

This has already been done. There has been a significant rise in infertility rates throughout the Western world that is linked to oral contraceptive use and part of the reason is that OC make a woman more susceptible to STIs.

Posted by: Patricia at August 11, 2008 8:58 PM


Alexandra, I grew up in NYC and I can tell you NYC means Manhattan to me. The others are only technically parts of NYC--yes in writing, no in speech. If you can see the horizon you're not really in NYC.

I haven't looked it up but I'd bet (if I were a betting man) one of the main reasons the abortion ratio is higher in NYC is there are more teens and early-tweens there. Do you have any idea how many colleges there are in NYC?

Patricia, you hit one of my pet grammar peeves: you should say "FEWER abortions", not "less abortions". Remember: less stuff, fewer things.

Also, you wrote: "There has been a significant rise in infertility rates throughout the Western world that is linked to oral contraceptive use and part of the reason is that OC make a woman more susceptible to STIs."

More made up "facts"? Like when you posted before that Planned Parenthood denies that there are any risks to abortion. You really do live in your own fantasy world, don't you! You remind me of a small child I knew once (her mom was a co-worker) who refused to accept the word "penis" when her parents tried to teach it to her but called it a "penit" with a t. When her parents corrected her she closed her eyes tightly and shook her head back and forth and went on calling it a penit.

Speaking of PP, I'm still waiting for someone to document either 1. anything PP does TODAY that is motivated by racism or by eugenics, or 2. any medical lie in any recent or current publication by PP. Why no responses?

Posted by: SoMG at August 12, 2008 1:02 AM


SoMG, I grew up in NYC too! I definitely agree that NYC calls to mind Manhattan. Now that I live in Queens, the Manhattan-centricity gets me all fired up. The cab drivers get ticked off when I say I'm going to Queens and I always want to be like, "Hello, you're going to end up 10 minutes from LaGuardia, with a guaranteed fare no matter what time of night it is. Quit whining."

But I'm Manhattan-centric myself. Heck, my boyfriend and I say, "I'm going into the city now" when we mean Manhattan. "Where are you?" "Still in the city." etc.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 12, 2008 6:10 AM


Thank you somg. I won't state on this board what YOU remind me of.

It has been well documented that with the use of the tiny white pill, STI's have risen, many of which are incurable.

Prior to widespread use of OC's (circa 1960)there were only 2 common sexually transmitted diseases, syphillis and gonorrhea. There are more than 50 COMMON STI's now, with most incurable, including some strains of the above two diseases.
The majority of individuals with STI's have NO symptoms, thus causing them to spread their infection with each new partner.
STD's play a significant factor in ectopic pregnancies and infertility. They are THE main reason women attend their doctors. According to the CDC, between 100,000 and 150,000 American women become infertile EACH year as a result of STD's.
I would love to supply some more facts but Ihave to take my girls to piano lessons.

Posted by: Patricia at August 12, 2008 7:02 AM


So you'll be out at the next condom distribution, Patricia - handing out condoms to use with BC? That's if your concerns about STI's are real.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 12, 2008 8:04 AM


So you'll be out at the next condom distribution, Patricia - handing out condoms to use with BC? That's if your concerns about STI's are real.

Posted by: phylosopher at August 12, 2008 8:04 AM

NOPE. Condoms provide only minimal protection against STD's especially venereal warts and herpes.
Many studies have demonstrated that condoms provide NO protection against HPV.
The July 2001 Condom Report by NIH, CDC, FDA, and USAID found through the review of 138 published research studies that condoms are only effective against 2% of the eight major STDs which cause 15 MILLION STD cases each year in the U.S.A.
Condoms often have microscopic holes through which STD viruses can pass.
They also have cracks and other defects which allow the passage of other larger STD pathogens.

I can keep going if you like phylosopher, but it really gets tiresome.
You've bought the condom lie. I personally have a friend who caught an STD from a man who always used a condom. Worked for her, eh?

Posted by: Patricia at August 12, 2008 9:54 AM


Is fewer New Yorkers a bad thing? Still the end does not justify the means, and the killing is wrong.

The new planned parenthood clinic set for construction in urban Portland is under protest by groups who feel it is targeting Blacks again. Does there exist a planned parenthood abortion clinic which is not on the bus line? Margaret Sanger was after minority and low income people, and I see no real change in the placement of the abortion centers.

What is it about the morning after pill that Prevents Reductions in the demand for abortion?
All studies show ranges from no change to marked increases in the demand for abortion, where the morning after pill goes OTC.

Posted by: KB at August 12, 2008 3:42 PM


Is fewer New Yorkers a bad thing?

Charming.

Does there exist a planned parenthood abortion clinic which is not on the bus line?

Yes, in towns where public transportation is not all that great.

I don't know about Portland, but in NYC the public transportation is good enough that you're usually near something -- and it doesn't mean that you're targeting the poor, since most people use public transportation. It seems to me like any business would want to be accessible by public transportation, since this means that people can use a variety of methods to get to you. I have read about conflicts in towns where people don't want bus lines running to certain malls or whatever, because then people who don't have their own cars will be able to go, and I think THAT is pretty crummy.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 12, 2008 3:53 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "Prior to widespread use of OC's (circa 1960)there were only 2 common sexually transmitted diseases, syphillis and gonorrhea. "

Wrong. There were at least herpes and genital warts. It's true there are new STIs like HIV but the main cause of the change in the number of known STIs has been new technology for detecting pathogens. Nucleic acid chemistry, you know? PCR. Not to mention immunodetection, which emerged as a general approach to detection about the same time as hormonal bc. We can see a whole diverse universe of subtle pathogens we hadn't even imagined before the 1960s. We pay greater attention to minor symptoms like warts, and we have greater understanding of long-delayed symptoms.

And by the way HIV emerged because too many people FAILED to use condoms.

Posted by: SoMG at August 12, 2008 10:25 PM


Patricia, the medical consensus seems to be that condoms do protect against HPV but not well enough. On the other hand HPV is not very dangerous. The large majority are subclinical.

I was very suspicious of the rush to vaccinate everyone against it. But I was equally suspicious of the organized resistance to it.

Posted by: SoMG at August 12, 2008 10:40 PM


OK, can you (Alexandra) actually name a location which has a planned parenthood abortion clinic which isn't near a bus line.....? I'm betting the answer is no.

As a practical matter, it makes sense that a mall filled with high end merchandise might not want to attract a segment of the population which cannot afford to buy the items. Anyone who ever worked retail knows that maintaining stores with high foot traffic is labor intensive, and that drains from the profit side. Retail businesses exist to sell things, not to be tourist attractions.

Over all, in the U.S., most people don't use public transportation for regular commutes. But they probably use it when visiting New York.

Everyone, type a big ZERO, if you believe that the failure to use condoms caused the EMERGENCE of the HIV virus..

Hilarious stuff!

Posted by: KB at August 13, 2008 8:51 AM


Well, I am not intimately familiar with the vast majority of cities in the US, but off the top of my head, of the cities I have spent a decent amount of time in: Kingston, NY; Stony Brook, NY; Hudson, NY; New Windsor, NY; Hempstead, NY -- all of these Planned Parenthoods provide abortion services but have either no public transportation, or light public transportation that does not go very close to the clinic. Buses run through many of these towns but they are town-to-town transportation, not really within the town.

Anyone who ever worked retail knows that maintaining stores with high foot traffic is labor intensive, and that drains from the profit side. Retail businesses exist to sell things, not to be tourist attractions.

I managed a retail store for a couple years. It was a very high-volume store in a very high-end area. I know a thing or two about both foot traffic and loss prevention.

So you think that it is understandable for "high end" businesses to want to limit their customer base to people who have the will and the means to drive, but racist that businesses would want include as many people as possible in their customer base?

Posted by: Alexandra at August 13, 2008 9:12 AM


Sorry somg, but the science does NOT support your post. The research proves otherwise and the stats prove otherwise as well. If condoms work so well, why are so many infected. Including faithful condom users. Condoms are not perfect and the more sex, the more chances to be infected. The only way to not be infected is to remain a virgin until married and then faithful to your life partner.
Of course, HIV is largely a gay and bisexual disease. Even WHO has admitted it has not spread into the heterosexual population in the way they predicted. Bottom line - gay sex is not natural - we were not designed for this and it has biological consequences that are harmful.

Posted by: Patricia at August 13, 2008 9:01 PM


I think everybody in NYC should tape condoms AND bc-pills to themselves, maybe that would help? How about if they drop them from the sky, like in those airplanes, just dump it all out in the bucket-loads.

Would that be enough? You liberals don't get it, do you?

Posted by: Jasper at August 13, 2008 11:05 PM


I think everybody in NYC should tape condoms AND bc-pills to themselves, maybe that would help? How about if they drop them from the sky, like in those airplanes, just dump it all out in the bucket-loads.

LOL Jasper. Even if this was the case, we'd still have the media talking about how we need "more access to contraceptives".

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 6:22 AM


Hey Jasper! YES
Have bins of them in the supermarket. FOR FREE!
How about free condom bins in Central Park? At all the sports venues? At the tourist attractions? The Statue of Liberty, the MET, for FREE in libraries- yeah!!!
How far do these dumba$$ liberals want to take this?
Or maybe lets just use draconian measures and put BC into the NY water system? Would that do it?

Posted by: Patricia at August 14, 2008 9:39 AM


Patricia,
Planned Parenthood superhero figures, condoms in Happy meals! (Get 'em while they're young!) Ya think??

Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2008 1:37 PM