I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

and.. now we know , the kid is a troll , His dad is an activist and probably controlled the kid, or the kid is just a good learner (no one said he isn't smart) and trolled on his own.
Obama is inviting the Muslim troll to the white house, maybe Barrack wants another Nobel prize .
"fool me once .. can't get fooled again"

What a monster. Both guys are so deserving. Both in their 30's!!

On a less joyous note, I take pretty serious issue with the way ANW runs the competition. Once I found out about the original Sasuke, I went back and watched every single season. Because it's awesome. But I feel like the Japanese organizers of Sasuke clearly understood that the competition was "competitors versus course", not "competitor versus competitor". In that vein, any set of competitors who complete the course should be equally rewarded.

Can you imagine dedicating your life to completing that course, succeeding (as one of only two people in the world, over nearly a decade of competition), then walking away with nothing because the other guy was an insignificant amount faster than you?

Props to Isaac for at least mentioning "share the money" in the post-interview (not included in this sift).

Another way I massively disagree with ANW is that they significantly redesigned the courses for every year of competition. Some variation is essential to testing the competitors' adaptability, but with so much new stuff each year they excluded lots of top talent due to bad luck or running order. Cynically, maybe to avoid paying the prize money. Last year was particularly bad with only two guys making it to stage 3. I feel like this year the pendulum swung back a little too far (or maybe "farther than intended") which is why they actually had two winners. That said, that new cliffhanger is ridiculous, but at least it's a variation on existing obstacles instead of something totally unique.

Lastly, let's not forget ANW's "USA versus The World". Really? That's so stereotypically American it's sick, especially for an adopted competition.

Description is technically correct, but misleading.
He was the SECOND person to finish the 4th course, but the first person to win ANW. He was 3.5 seconds faster than the Frist American Ninja Warrior, making him the winner of the $1million prize, but not the title of First ANW.

Your video, The Worst Nobel Prize Ever Awarded, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

they should invent a claw machine that has guaranteed winner after the same person has put it enough money to double the average value of the prize. (it would need to be in one of the member-card-swipe arcades like Dave&Busters, to track the user)

This way the owners still profit, and the player feels good for winning (at least a brief moment until they realize how much they paid for that stuffed animal)

Shocking that one of the leading mouthpieces and corporate apologists for the diseased form of capitalism that is capsizing the former republic of the United States of America would be predicting that 'market forces' will maintain an environment where CEOs such as Dan Price, who are confused as to which side of the class war they are on, will be strongly discouraged from closing the historical chasm of income disparity with their workers via a complex and myriad assortment of carefully implemented internal structures, that have been embedded over several decades starting with Reagan, and will serve to doom any business to failure for not prizing profit, and the unequal distribution of profit, over all other considerations such as income parity.

The most interesting aspect of this experiment isn't whether it succeeds or fails in the long run but rather that it will someday be used as a prime example by people like Chris Hedges who argue that the form of crony capitalism plaguing the West cannot and should not be reformed but rather destroyed and replaced with a system that doesn't have as its main aim the impoverishment of workers for the sole benefit of an oligarchical aristocratic elite.

Not quite, he (Donald L. Unger) won an Ig Nobel prize, a satirical version of the Nobel prize, given to "honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think". Basically anything that sounds way too silly but can still yield useful knowledge.

While silly, it's still (usually) all based on proper scientific method, and there's even an example of a man who first won the Ig Nobel prize in physics in 2000 (for levitating a frog with magnets), and then later went to win the Nobel prize in physics together with Konstantin Novoselov for their work on graphene. =)

I believe someone won a Nobel prize for spending several decades of his life cracking the knuckles of one hand and just that one hand every day to see if there are really any negative effects from knuckle-cracking.

In his case there weren't.

Fuck you, Philip. In the future you are DONE. I'm going rogue and joining the raiders. While you're checking your email to see if there's an ineffective faggot that'll blow you while your wife is auto-driving in her black cock mobile, I'll be riding alongside of you on a jet propelled tricycle with a carboard cut out of a society car, just like yours.

Except it's not, Philip. It's NOT just like yours, Philip. It's really a cyberpunk barbarian motorized tricycle with a series of harpoons and tazers that I send flying at your smart car, connected to barbed wire and chains, that I use to ensnare my prize. And you, Philip. You're my bitch. My little Tatum.

Show the people what happens to future idiots who forget how to drive. That's right, their wife doesn't care because she's already taken care of and your ass is probably used on a constant basis by dirty disease ridden scavs. After the raiders have had the ol ultra violence on ya, real savage like.

There is NOTHING more cyberpunk than the poolcleaner. I defeated the lawnmower man. I hack portals supported with transdimensional resonators EVERY FREAKIN DAY, man. It should be MINE. There could be no more fitting a prize than a step closer to my next badge in a nihilistic world where I am born and reborn, slowly breaking down the sequences of my cyber existence with each... copy.

Uh, Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for discovering the photoelectic effect, and was not the first to propose the idea of wave-particle duality nature of light...

"Chinhyakkei" is a great show. Literally translated it means "Rare Scenes." Every week they invite people from around Japan to submit stories or scenery that is unusual or outright bizarre. A TV crew goes out to confirm and record it and then a panel of guest celebrities vote on which is the strangest submission. I think you get some prize money if the one you submit is voted most unusual. Some things I've seen on the show:
- A bicycle vending machine
- A parking lot where you pay the parking fee using one of those old-school vacuum tube conveyor systems
- The man with the longest mole whisker in Japan
- A house shaped like a soccer ball

Frankly I'm kind of surprised more clips from the show haven't ended up here in the wtf channel.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

At this point, you would have to either monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant to believe in it.