|
|
On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right?
Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy.
The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education.
|
On October 23 2012 08:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? what's your point? I'm not sure. But either way, I'm killing time until King Charlie tells me more about the evils of sex.
i'm walking a fine line with a temp ban...i'm gonna lay low for a while
|
It's called pro life because that sounds a fuckload better than 'taking away freedom'.
|
On October 23 2012 08:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? what's your point? Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:41 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. It doesn't go to fund abortions. 3% of their services are performing abortions. The rest goes to std testing, contraceptive distribution, and cancer screenings. In an ideal world nobody would have sex except to make babies in marriage? I can't tell if your against contraceptives or not. I specifically said that federal funding doesn't go to abortions... I didn't say anything about sex, either in marriage or not. and who is against contraception? just because I don't want the feds providing it doesn't mean I don't want it existing...
Well, reality is messier than you would like. Planned parenthood is your best bet to distribute contraceptives and prevent abortions.
If it makes you feel any better, every dollar spent on contraceptives saves much, much more by any measure when compared to abortions, adoptions, foster care, or raising the kid in any way.
|
On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education.
one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 23 2012 08:45 Probe1 wrote:
It's called pro life because that sounds a fuckload better than 'taking away freedom'.
I believe the argument goes a little bit deeper than that. Both sides have an arguable interest, but a general trend is to prioritize the interest of the mother, or established life, over the potential life inside her. At which point life begins needs to be a scientific debate.
|
On October 23 2012 08:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though).
As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/ Someone can't take a joke. "Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference. American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell. Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cSQyY.png) Have you even been to Europe?
The guy (on the other forum) was posting about how the "men" in Europe are like women and how they're so emotional and have completely disregarded gender roles. It was mostly comical, even though I'm pretty sure he was dead serious. My saying "so basically modern Europe" was a homage of that discussion.
To answer your question, no, I have never been to Europe. I have been to two third-world socialist states before though:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me, like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house.
Welcome to the world, where people have sex. Would you prefer:
-Unwanted pregnancies
-Abortions
-Education and contraceptives
Most people would choose #3. If you want that, PP is by far the most effective and widespread way to do that. The majority of its funding does not come from the government. It is not mandated in any way. I don't see how you equate the govt. giving it a portion of its budget is an over-extension of its power.
EDIT: Which government action strikes you as more intrusive on an individual's life? Giving a small portion of its budget to PP, or making abortions illegal?
|
On October 23 2012 08:51 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 Probe1 wrote:
It's called pro life because that sounds a fuckload better than 'taking away freedom'. I believe the argument goes a little bit deeper than that. Both sides have an arguable interest, but a general trend is to prioritize the interest of the mother, or established life, over the potential life inside her. At which point life begins needs to be a scientific debate.
I don't think one side wants to hear what the science says about it.
|
United States10774 Posts
|
On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house.
Okay so you are afraid of the government taking away freedom....
So you want to take away freedom... by using the government.....
|
On October 23 2012 08:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me, like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house. Welcome to the world, where people have sex. Would you prefer: -Unwanted pregnancies -Abortions -Education and contraceptives Most people would choose #3. If you want that, PP is by far the most effective and widespread way to do that. The majority of its funding does not come from the government. It is not mandated in any way. I don't see how you equate the govt. giving it a portion of its budget is an over-extension of its power.
the implicit assertion in the majority of these posts has been that I should, as a pro-life person, support an expansion of government into the business of providing contraception. my response to that and my response to PP are different. I just said that I am fine with PP getting federal funding, as long as that money doesn't go to abortions. I am not fine with, say, increasing the funding we do give them by 100fold.
On October 23 2012 08:55 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house. Okay so you are afraid of the government taking away freedom.... So you want to take away freedom... by using the government.....
I don't believe that abortion is a freedom that the public should have. and as I said earlier, a debate about abortion is not really what I'm getting at here.
|
On October 23 2012 08:42 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though).
As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/ Someone can't take a joke. "Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference. American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell. Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe: Idk Swazi I took those comments at face value, I knew they were "humorous" but I took it that you actually are anti obama, view Europe as somewhat emasculated etc.
I am rather anti-Obama, but that comment was, like you said, clearly humorous. As for Europe being somewhat emasculated, I would go with "no," their cultures just hold different values than American culture does. If I called Europe "emasculated" then I would also have to call at least 20% of the American population "emasculated," since 20% of the American population identifies as left-wing.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-60f1jmap0mb6cyic5vrlq.gif)
|
On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house.
I don't agree with your view on the expansion of the federal government, but of course your opinion on that matter is valid. Your definition of abortion, however, isn't remotely supported by reason, not even remotely. You're of course allowed to believe whatever you like and can live your life according those beliefs, but you shouldn't be able to structure someone else's existence along the lines of a largely arbitrary definition not supported by reason that depends on your personal beliefs. I don't think abortion should be up for debate in the political arena for this reason. It encourages irrational voter expression and diminishes the importance of the real issues.
On October 23 2012 08:52 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 08:38 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152and that we live in the "golden age of American empire" http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119So, you know.... everything is possible :/ Someone can't take a joke. "Thousand Years of Darkness" was a Chuck Norris reference. American Empire is from Ghost in the Shell. Europe being run by women is something an anarcho-socialist on another forum I go to spouts on about. He also posted this picture in the politics forum, an accurate representation of modern Europe: Have you even been to Europe? The guy (on the other forum) was posting about how the "men" in Europe are like women and how they're so emotional and have completely disregarded gender roles. It was mostly comical, even though I'm pretty sure he was dead serious. My saying "so basically modern Europe" was a homage of that discussion. To answer your question, no, I have never been to Europe. I have been to two third-world socialist states before though: + Show Spoiler +
That's hilarious because Illinois would be my first choice were I to move to the U.S.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already.
|
On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education.
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
Alternatively we could just sterilize those that just want sex and no babies, but sadly most people won't agree to that.
|
On October 23 2012 08:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. one can hold opinions about two separate things. one of my opinions is that abortion is the intentional ending of a person's life. another opinion is that federal expansion will only lead to more problems. problems that rival abortion in the damage they can cause to society and to innocent lives. suggesting that I support a massive federal program to help solve the abortion issue, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion, sounds to me, like letting the fox guard the hen house rather than just put up a fence around the hen house. Welcome to the world, where people have sex. Would you prefer: -Unwanted pregnancies -Abortions -Education and contraceptives Most people would choose #3. If you want that, PP is by far the most effective and widespread way to do that. The majority of its funding does not come from the government. It is not mandated in any way. I don't see how you equate the govt. giving it a portion of its budget is an over-extension of its power. the implicit assertion in the majority of these posts has been that I should, as a pro-life person, support an expansion of government into the business of providing contraception. my response to that and my response to PP are different. I just said that I am fine with PP getting federal funding, as long as that money doesn't go to abortions. I am not fine with, say, increasing the funding we do give them by 100fold.
The more education and contraceptives are available, the less abortions will take place.
I don't think you are as sickened by abortions as you stated several times earlier. If you really thought an abortion was a murder, you'd be petitioning the government to pump as much money as it could into PP.
|
On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. + Show Spoiler +
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
This solution is worse than abortion in my opinion.
|
On October 23 2012 09:00 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. + Show Spoiler +
You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care.
Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies.
People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can.
For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex.
This solution is worse than abortion in my opinion.
Sterilizing people is worse than murdering helpless children?
|
On October 23 2012 08:59 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 08:45 BlueBird. wrote:On October 23 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 23 2012 08:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 23 2012 08:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and to add: I would support movements that try to make birth control more available to those who want it. this would help lessen abortions, and I think it is important to use everything possible.
now, supporting federal funding for contraception.... while I am sympathetic due to my pro-life beliefs, I am also wary of that route because of my fear of federal overreach. You fear federal overreach more than dead babies? Is the govt. funding a third of Planned Parenthood that threatening? federal overreach is what brought us Roe, so you'll forgive me if I'm wary of using it to solve the problem when it caused the problem in the first place. govt. funding for Planned Parenthood is... fine by me as long as it doesn't go to abortions. I don't like it, because it does free up some of their money to go to abortions, but it's a price I have to accept, I suppose. in an ideal world, there would be no federal funding for PP, but this isn't a perfect world. I'll take what I can get. You do know that the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is... plan parenthoods... right? Exactly... I don't understand this logic at all. Please someone explain to me. Planned parenthood and us pro choice people don't want tons and tons of unwanted pregnancies due to lack of education or lack of contraception, we actually want to prevent the need for abortion in most cases by providing people education, and ways to prevent pregnancy. The deal is scfan, if you think this issue is that important, than you should want the feds too provide some amount of support to women to educate them and provide contraception. If you can get the funding from some magic charity that's fine, but the money needs to come. Especially for sex education. You don't need sex ed, you need kids to actually understand that sex = babies. The general idea right now is sex = fun, babies = a hindrance/optional. They already know what condoms and other contraception are (for the most part), they just enjoy/want sex too much to care. Maybe if we stop saying that sex at any age is fine so long as they think they're "ready" (which makes no sense since the very basis of not being allowed to have sex with those under 18 is that they aren't mentally prepare to accept what can come with sex), we'll see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies. People today are too obsessed in this idea of complete freedom and seem to forget that freedom comes with responsibility for oneself. A responsibility most of those under 18 cannot handle, no matter how much they think they can. For those over the age of consent, they need to be taught the same thing, though they'd probably be far less willing to accept that. Honestly this issue would be best solved by parents actually being parents and teaching kids from a young age just what comes with having sex. Alternatively we could just sterilize those that just want sex and no babies, but sadly most people won't agree to that.
So you support sex education just not gov funding for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
