“So what if abortion ends life?”

[red states rule]

It is amazing to see/read libs support the murder of helpless and defenseless children while screaming their tax and spend agenda is "for the children"
Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
As Roe v. Wade enters its fifth decade, we find ourselves at one of the most schizo moments in our national relationship with reproductive choice. In the past year we’ve endured the highest number of abortion restrictions ever (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2013/01/02/index.html). Yet support for abortion rights is at an all-time high (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/support_for_abortion_rights_at_an_all_time_high/), with seven in 10 Americans in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255831504582200.html), allowing for reproductive choice in all or “most” cases. That’s a stunning 10 percent increase from just a decade ago. And in the midst of this unique moment, Planned Parenthood has taken the bold step of reframing the vernacular – moving away from the easy and easily divisive words “life” and “choice.” Instead, as a new promotional film acknowledges, “It’s not a black and white issue.”
It’s a move whose time is long overdue. It’s important, because when we don’t look at the complexities of reproduction, we give far too much semantic power to those who’d try to control it. And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they’ve repeatedly appropriated the concept of “life.” http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10664820130123025000.jpg

[taft2012]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"

[mundame]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"


Why all the deliberate misquoting on this forum? I'm being misquoted, Hillary is being misquoted --- she never said "So what?" I looked it up, since it sounded very implausible.


Here is the actual quote from Secretary of State Clinton:

“With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton shouted during the hearing. “What difference at this point does it make?”


I would like to see more honest use of facts on the ground here.

Arguing from what never happened ---- I can't see the point of that.

[bingster]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"

I think "so what if abortion ends life?" is red states' words

[bingster]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, this was pretty much a "so what" comment by the author:


Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

Rephrased:

"I know that a fetus is a human life, and I still don't care about killing it, because my feminist ideals trump that life any day".

[mundame]

Actually, this was pretty much a "so what" comment by the author:

Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

Rephrased:

"I know that a fetus is a human life, and I still don't care about killing it, because my feminist ideals trump that life any day".


It can't mean that, can it? Because she didn't have abortions. She had pregnancies but she didn't choose to abort; presumably she has children now. So she DID care about killing her own pregnancies, which is what the quote is about, and indeed, she didn't.

Well, I don't want to get into an abortion argument -- gun control AND abortion is too much excitement for me -- but I was sort of interested in the interpretation of text and the misquoting problems going on in the forum. This isn't misquoting, but it may be misinterpretation, to a degree. I think she is talking about other women's right to choose; she herself did not choose abortion.

[gabosaurus]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

You've hit it on the nose right there. Though conservatives don't want to admit it.
ConReps are very hung up on the idea of what "Life" is, though they are quite adamant about their right to end it with guns ownership and the death penalty.
Men have been making laws since this country was founded. They have perennially blocked women's rights into a corner by denying them the right to sex education and birth control. More sex education and birth control = fewer abortions.

As another poster so eloquently pointed out in another thread, ConReps need to work on defining what constitutes "life" before they go on to regulating abortion.
"Life" does not begin at conception. "Life" is what is sustainable outside the body.
If you talk to the majority of pro-life supporters, they are agreeable that no procedures should be allowed after the first trimester.
The vast majority of men (outside the medical field) have little to no knowledge of the female body. And they don't care. They are the "fuck and run" types (as Liz Phair puts it) that want to regulate everything that doesn't involve their right to enjoy a good time.

Leave women's rights to women.

[tailfins]

Leave women's rights to women.

Since when have rights come to mean "free of charge"? Education and contraception are readily available, just present your debit/credit card.

Are you saying women's rights means access to men's paychecks?

[mundame]

Since when have rights come to mean "free of charge"? Education and contraception are readily available, just present your debit/credit card.

Are you saying women's rights means access to men's paychecks?


Not at all. Women have most of the money in America now, and more of the jobs, and more votes, and more population.

We just want men to stay out of women's rights. It's not about them. Men want so much attention!

We've won, anyway. A poll in the WSJ this week says fully 70% of the American population want to keep Roe v. Wade.

We won, they lost, works for me.

[Abbey Marie]

It can't mean that, can it? Because she didn't have abortions. She had pregnancies but she didn't choose to abort; presumably she has children now. So she DID care about killing her own pregnancies, which is what the quote is about, and indeed, she didn't.

Well, I don't want to get into an abortion argument -- gun control AND abortion is too much excitement for me -- but I was sort of interested in the interpretation of text and the misquoting problems going on in the forum. This isn't misquoting, but it may be misinterpretation, to a degree. I think she is talking about other women's right to choose; she herself did not choose abortion.

Certainly it can mean that- just because she chose to keep those children at that time, doesn't mean she has any problem with others killing their children. She made that abundantly clear. Perhaps it was a "convenient" time for her to have them. But if it wasn't, hey, no prob.

[Trigg]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.


Not at all. Women have most of the money in America now, and more of the jobs, and more votes, and more population.

We just want men to stay out of women's rights. It's not about them. Men want so much attention!

We've won, anyway. A poll in the WSJ this week says fully 70% of the American population want to keep Roe v. Wade.

We won, they lost, works for me.

How EXACTLY are republicans "blocking contraception to women"???

It's out there in EVERY drug store in America. Women simply need to go out and PURCHASE it. It is as easy and simple as that.

[Thunderknuckles]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.
Nonsense. There would be far less abortions if those who are sexually active were responsible in obtaining already widely available contraceptives that can be found at just about any local convenience/drug store. If they can't get off their asses now to do that, you think that some government mandate making then freely available is going to make a difference?

edit: Sorry Trigg, I didn't read your post before making mine.

[jimnyc]

Personal Responsibility - it's a shame that after so many years that liberals don't understand this, or willfully ignore it.

[gabosaurus]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription. Which means a visit to the doctor. Which, if you are under 18, requires parental consent.
The lone exception would be Planned Parenthood, which much dumbfuck Republicans have voted to restrict and/or defund because they are opposed to the idea of women have low cost access to health care.
One of the few exceptions is condoms, which require men to wear them. Many don't do it.

Personal responsibility is a big word among ConReps, since it usually refers to female personal responsibility. Men don't need it, since they can't get pregnant.

The solution: Allow any woman of child bearing age unrestricted access to birth control and the morning after pill. Abortions will greatly decrease.
Solution two: Bring fundamentalist Christian (especially Catholics) into the modern world and stop their total opposition to birth control. Stop being stupid.

[jimnyc]

Use a condom then - it's called personal responsibility. Abortion is not birth control. You are basically saying that since someone won't pay for their birth control, they have no alternative but to get pregnant and have abortions. F ING STU PID. And yes, I said it just like that.

[Thunderknuckles]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription.
Condoms, diaphrams, spermicides, etc are all easily available.As I said before, if people can't get off of their asses to cover even those basics, what makes you think unrestricted access to Birth Control Pills is gonna do it?

[Abbey Marie]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

Explain to us how Republicans are "blocking contraception".

ETA: Trigg, just saw your post, lol.

[ConHog]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription. Which means a visit to the doctor. Which, if you are under 18, requires parental consent.
The lone exception would be Planned Parenthood, which much dumbfuck Republicans have voted to restrict and/or defund because they are opposed to the idea of women have low cost access to health care.
One of the few exceptions is condoms, which require men to wear them. Many don't do it.

Personal responsibility is a big word among ConReps, since it usually refers to female personal responsibility. Men don't need it, since they can't get pregnant.

The solution: Allow any woman of child bearing age unrestricted access to birth control and the morning after pill. Abortions will greatly decrease.
Solution two: Bring fundamentalist Christian (especially Catholics) into the modern world and stop their total opposition to birth control. Stop being stupid.

I've had sex literally thousands of times that didn't result in an unplanned pregnancy. I've never been on any birth control prescription.

Post fail Gabby, sorry.

[red states rule]

Not at all. Women have most of the money in America now, and more of the jobs, and more votes, and more population.

We just want men to stay out of women's rights. It's not about them. Men want so much attention!

We've won, anyway. A poll in the WSJ this week says fully 70% of the American population want to keep Roe v. Wade.

We won, they lost, works for me.

Then why the hell do some on the left want other people to pay for their birth control pills?

[red states rule]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription. Which means a visit to the doctor. Which, if you are under 18, requires parental consent.
The lone exception would be Planned Parenthood, which much dumbfuck Republicans have voted to restrict and/or defund because they are opposed to the idea of women have low cost access to health care.
One of the few exceptions is condoms, which require men to wear them. Many don't do it.

Personal responsibility is a big word among ConReps, since it usually refers to female personal responsibility. Men don't need it, since they can't get pregnant.

The solution: Allow any woman of child bearing age unrestricted access to birth control and the morning after pill. Abortions will greatly decrease.
Solution two: Bring fundamentalist Christian (especially Catholics) into the modern world and stop their total opposition to birth control. Stop being stupid.

Gabby - $9/per month hardly takes a bite out of a welfare check. Any women can afford to pay for the pills on their own. The problem is when libs want to FORCE employers and ins companies to provide the pills at no cost

[ConHog]

Then why the hell do some on the left want other people to pay for their birth control pills?

why do so many on the left not want others to marry the adult of their choice?

[red states rule]

why do so many on the left not want others to marry the adult of their choice?

I know it may seem irrational to some to want to protect the sacrament of marriage - but that topic is for another thread

[red states rule]

You've hit it on the nose right there. Though conservatives don't want to admit it.
ConReps are very hung up on the idea of what "Life" is, though they are quite adamant about their right to end it with guns ownership and the death penalty.
Men have been making laws since this country was founded. They have perennially blocked women's rights into a corner by denying them the right to sex education and birth control. More sex education and birth control = fewer abortions.

As another poster so eloquently pointed out in another thread, ConReps need to work on defining what constitutes "life" before they go on to regulating abortion.
"Life" does not begin at conception. "Life" is what is sustainable outside the body.
If you talk to the majority of pro-life supporters, they are agreeable that no procedures should be allowed after the first trimester.
The vast majority of men (outside the medical field) have little to no knowledge of the female body. And they don't care. They are the "fuck and run" types (as Liz Phair puts it) that want to regulate everything that doesn't involve their right to enjoy a good time.

Leave women's rights to women.

Tell me Gabby how can you (or anyone) say with a straight face there is no life when you can see the heart beating, the lungs breathing, the baby smiling, and see the face of pure innocence? Now I am sure you will run away like you normally do - but I thought as one of the "smart people" you would see this is a BABY http://www.whcg.org/Portals/0/image.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription. Which means a visit to the doctor. Which, if you are under 18, requires parental consent.
The lone exception would be Planned Parenthood, which much dumbfuck Republicans have voted to restrict and/or defund because they are opposed to the idea of women have low cost access to health care.
One of the few exceptions is condoms, which require men to wear them. Many don't do it.

Personal responsibility is a big word among ConReps, since it usually refers to female personal responsibility. Men don't need it, since they can't get pregnant.

The solution: Allow any woman of child bearing age unrestricted access to birth control and the morning after pill. Abortions will greatly decrease.
Solution two: Bring fundamentalist Christian (especially Catholics) into the modern world and stop their total opposition to birth control. Stop being stupid.

Yes, your best way to persuade us all is to keep calling us names. :rolleyes:

I personally am so sorry you can't afford to visit the doctor. I am sorry to read you claim to be in need of planned parenthood. If not you, then whom?

What we want you to understand is that the child in the womb must be protected. Some women are as bad as cannibals. They show no sign of respect for the life of the absolutely innocents who get slaughtered in the millions per year. That ripping to shreds as if the baby is pulled pork is abhonable. It is ruthless. She kills her own child.

But you defend that.

Simply amazing. How can women be so ruthless is what I want to know.

[Robert A Whit]

Not at all. Women have most of the money in America now, and more of the jobs, and more votes, and more population.

We just want men to stay out of women's rights. It's not about them. Men want so much attention!

We've won, anyway. A poll in the WSJ this week says fully 70% of the American population want to keep Roe v. Wade.

We won, they lost, works for me.

Would you agree to use the dead fetus as dog or cat food should some company wish to do so?

I want to examine your low regard for the life of the most innocent and the least able to obtain any rights at all.

[bingster]

As many of your numbnuts obviously don't understand, birth control is only available by prescription. Which means a visit to the doctor. Which, if you are under 18, requires parental consent.
The lone exception would be Planned Parenthood, which much dumbfuck Republicans have voted to restrict and/or defund because they are opposed to the idea of women have low cost access to health care.
One of the few exceptions is condoms, which require men to wear them. Many don't do it.

Personal responsibility is a big word among ConReps, since it usually refers to female personal responsibility. Men don't need it, since they can't get pregnant.

The solution: Allow any woman of child bearing age unrestricted access to birth control and the morning after pill. Abortions will greatly decrease.
Solution two: Bring fundamentalist Christian (especially Catholics) into the modern world and stop their total opposition to birth control. Stop being stupid.

I saw a poll that 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

[bingster]

Explain to us how Republicans are "blocking contraception".

ETA: Trigg, just saw your post, lol.

Defunding planned parenthood and the big fake outcry regarding Obamacare ensuring contraceptives are provided via employer-provided health insurance.

[bingster]

I've had sex literally thousands of times that didn't result in an unplanned pregnancy. I've never been on any birth control prescription.

Post fail Gabby, sorry.

I think Gabby was referring to "with a partner".

[jimnyc]

Defunding planned parenthood and the big fake outcry regarding Obamacare ensuring contraceptives are provided via employer-provided health insurance.

Why should others be forced to foot the bill for someones sexual exploits? As a younger man, I was taught personal responsibility, and on this subject, to always be prepared. It was never taught to me to put out my hand for freebies. If people want these things, let them pay for them. THAT is personal responsibility - NOT saying that "well, I guess I'll have to have an abortion then". WHAT? If someone employs personal responsibility, then they wouldn't be pregnant. It's that simple - EVERY TIME too!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then why the hell do some on the left want other people to pay for their birth control pills?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again.


The leftists,dems/libs are ever so generous with other people's money!
Check out some time what little they give to charities to get a good concept of what damn hypocrites they truly are.-Tyr

[bingster]

How EXACTLY are republicans "blocking contraception to women"???

It's out there in EVERY drug store in America. Women simply need to go out and PURCHASE it. It is as easy and simple as that.

Why is it OK for my tax money to pay for your heart pills because you can't lay off the bear claws, but contraception can't be covered on an employer-provided health care system? Some women, my ex-wife included, needs contraception to regulate their periods.

Why is sex so stigmatized in our country that conservatives refuse to include it in our health care system? Would you just rather have more single women on welfare with their kids? Like i said before, more contraception, less abortions. If you're really pro-life you should be pro-contraception.

[bingster]

Why should others be forced to foot the bill for someones sexual exploits? As a younger man, I was taught personal responsibility, and on this subject, to always be prepared. It was never taught to me to put out my hand for freebies. If people want these things, let them pay for them. THAT is personal responsibility - NOT saying that "well, I guess I'll have to have an abortion then". WHAT? If someone employs personal responsibility, then they wouldn't be pregnant. It's that simple - EVERY TIME too!

Why should I pay for wars I don't believe in? Why do millionair evangelists who mis-read the bible to push "I'm OK, you're OK" doctrine live tax free? Why should my tax dollars pay for your heart disease because you're too fat?

It's not just sex, it's health care. Like Mundame said, women make a lot of money these days. Since they're a higher percentage of our population, they are catching up to men's payment of the taxes. They don't have a problem with this concept.

[jimnyc]

Why is it OK for my tax money to pay for your heart pills because you can't lay off the bear claws, but contraception can't be covered on an employer-provided health care system? Some women, my ex-wife included, needs contraception to regulate their periods.

Why is sex so stigmatized in our country that conservatives refuse to include it in our health care system? Would you just rather have more single women on welfare with their kids? Like i said before, more contraception, less abortions. If you're really pro-life you should be pro-contraception.

Why not prevent an abortion and just use condoms? Or is an abortion easier?

[cadet]

Why should I pay for wars I don't believe in? Why do millionair evangelists who mis-read the bible to push "I'm OK, you're OK" doctrine live tax free? Why should my tax dollars pay for your heart disease because you're too fat?

It's not just sex, it's health care.

Why is it OK that our tax should pay for someone else to mooch off of??????
My opinion, if you don't want insurance, don't buy it, and don't force us to pay for everyone else's.

[jimnyc]

Why should I pay for wars I don't believe in? Why do millionair evangelists who mis-read the bible to push "I'm OK, you're OK" doctrine live tax free? Why should my tax dollars pay for your heart disease because you're too fat?

It's not just sex, it's health care.

Color me confused - YOU said "contraception" - which is solely the prevention of impregnation. Healthcare should be the same as other healthcare packages, but helping someone avoid getting pregnant should be their own damn responsibility.

[cadet]

Why is it OK for my tax money to pay for your heart pills because you can't lay off the bear claws, but contraception can't be covered on an employer-provided health care system? Some women, my ex-wife included, needs contraception to regulate their periods.

Why is sex so stigmatized in our country that conservatives refuse to include it in our health care system? Would you just rather have more single women on welfare with their kids? Like i said before, more contraception, less abortions. If you're really pro-life you should be pro-contraception.

Buying two dollar condoms or birth control pills are not buying 10,000 dollar heart surgery.

And you know what, I need coffee to live. else i can't do my homework, you should pay for that.

Oh that's right, PEOPLE SURVIVED BEFORE THERE WAS SUCH THING AS COFFEE AND BIRTH CONTROL!!!!! IT AIN'T LIFE THREATENING!!!!

[bingster]

Not at all. Women have most of the money in America now, and more of the jobs, and more votes, and more population.

We just want men to stay out of women's rights. It's not about them. Men want so much attention!

We've won, anyway. A poll in the WSJ this week says fully 70% of the American population want to keep Roe v. Wade.

We won, they lost, works for me.

The problem with that is we didn't win. State by state cons are running Abortion clinics out of their states. They use these trap laws in which they case the establishment, then make laws that say the facility has to be 10' bigger, or the parking lots has to be 10' bigger, or they re-zone the partial for forbid a medical facility. It's a blatant and announced attempt to get rid of abortion clinics. There are 4 states now, with only 1 clinic in each state. I think in Kansas, the last one is due to close soon.

Cons are succeeding in undermining a woman's constitutional right to chose and will force them back to using coat hangars.

[bingster]

Buying two dollar condoms or birth control pills are not buying 10,000 dollar heart surgery.

And you know what, I need coffee to live. else i can't do my homework, you should pay for that.

Oh that's right, PEOPLE SURVIVED BEFORE THERE WAS SUCH THING AS COFFEE AND BIRTH CONTROL!!!!! IT AIN'T LIFE THREATENING!!!!

Maybe not, but it's life saving. Remember the fetus?

[jimnyc]

The problem with that is we didn't win. State by state cons are running Abortion clinics out of their states. They use these trap laws in which they case the establishment, then make laws that say the facility has to be 10' bigger, or the parking lots has to be 10' bigger, or they re-zone the partial for forbid a medical facility. It's a blatant and announced attempt to get rid of abortion clinics. There are 4 states now, with only 1 clinic in each state. I think in Kansas, the last one is due to close soon.

Cons are succeeding in undermining a woman's constitutional right to chose and will force them back to using coat hangars.

Which right is this in the constitution?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem with that is we didn't win. State by state cons are running Abortion clinics out of their states. They use these trap laws in which they case the establishment, then make laws that say the facility has to be 10' bigger, or the parking lots has to be 10' bigger, or they re-zone the partial for forbid a medical facility. It's a blatant and announced attempt to get rid of abortion clinics. There are 4 states now, with only 1 clinic in each state. I think in Kansas, the last one is due to close soon.

Cons are succeeding in undermining a woman's constitutional right to chose and will force them back to using coat hangars.

Really, convicts are doing that?:laugh:
Well, keep them in prisons with longer sentences.. ;)

[cadet]

Maybe not, but it's life saving. Remember the fetus?

If you're worried about having a baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. Simple as that.

And if you're dumb enough to, TAKE CARE OF THE HIM/HER! Or better yet, give it up to adoption.

Those 9 months of pregnancy should just drive it home with how dumb they were.

[Robert A Whit]

1. We republicans don't give a fat fruit fly turd if women have sex. We depend on them doing just that.
2. We republicans do care if they get knocked up. We prevent that in our lives. We do not depend only on the woman.
3. We work for our money. Time for women to work for their money since they have equal rights.
4. Government never paid for my condoms nor did it pay for my surgery to prevent me from getting a woman pregnant. Why pay a womans costs? My surgery was the result of my paying for insurance and they paid the doctor.
5. Why stop funding planned parenthood? They plan to de-parent those that they ruthlessly kill in the womb. I know that all planned parenthood is is some company that makes profits. They may tell you they don't profit, but they make many false claims.

Now our side has given first rate replies.

I am still waiting on Mundame to tell me since she supports the deaths of those children to tell me her view should planned parenthood sell off the ripped to shreds fetus to be used to make dog and cat food.

How long must I wait for her reply?

[cadet]

...
3. We work for our money. Time for women to work for their money since they have equal rights. ...


Hold up, hold up.
Just wanted to point out that even though we're "equal," women still can't be drafted into the military.
How many feminists do you think will fight for that right? :laugh:

[aboutime]

Hold up, hold up.
Just wanted to point out that even though we're "equal," women still can't be drafted into the military.
How many feminists do you think will fight for that right? :laugh:


cadet. Neither can Men be drafted into the military. There is NO DRAFT today.

[bingster]

It seems strange to me that cons argue on seemingly two opposite sides of this issue. No, you can't have the right to chose guaranteed to you by Roe v Wade because it's murder! And we're not going to pay for your $9/month contraception bill because it's not "life threatening". Maybe if you could chose the cheaper side, we could join you there.

Is preventing murder worth $9/month? (which I believe, is a gross understated price)

[cadet]

cadet. Neither can Men be drafted into the military. There is NO DRAFT today.

I'm sorry, we're required to sign up and register for drafting if it becomes necessary to resume one.
My bad.

[cadet]

It seems strange to me that cons argue on seemingly two opposite sides of this issue. No, you can't have the right to chose guaranteed to you by Roe v Wade because it's murder! And we're not going to pay for your $9/month contraception bill because it's not "life threatening". Maybe if you could chose the cheaper side, we could join you there.

Is preventing murder worth $9/month? (which I believe, is a gross understated price)

I pay more for my coffee a month. It's a want, not a need.

Even then, needs should not be paid for by other people. People should pay for their own dang needs.

[bingster]

Why not prevent an abortion and just use condoms? Or is an abortion easier?

That's actually a good point, but not. Despite what cons seem to imply. I think a vast majority, if not all, pro-choice women are to some degree traumatized with the concept of getting an abortion. Some studies have shown that the whole pro-life poll is squewed, because everyone is "pro-life", per se. I've also demonstrated with my response to Mundame that clinics are disappearing at an alarming rate. So, nobody feels like getting an abortion is "easy".

As I'm sure you know it is, though, much more easy to supply the contraception. You can argue the penny-pinching responsibility angle all that you want, but if you want to see less abortions, give up the contraception.

[bingster]

I pay more for my coffee a month. It's a want, not a need.

Even then, needs should not be paid for by other people. People should pay for their own dang needs.

That completely side-stepped my post

[bingster]

Color me confused - YOU said "contraception" - which is solely the prevention of impregnation. Healthcare should be the same as other healthcare packages, but helping someone avoid getting pregnant should be their own damn responsibility.

I'm being more pragmatic about this than you are. Health care costs keeps screaming out of control every year. Welfare costs are too high. It's cheaper and safer just to offer the contraception.

[Abbey Marie]

It seems strange to me that cons argue on seemingly two opposite sides of this issue. No, you can't have the right to chose guaranteed to you by Roe v Wade because it's murder! And we're not going to pay for your $9/month contraception bill because it's not "life threatening". Maybe if you could chose the cheaper side, we could join you there.

Is preventing murder worth $9/month? (which I believe, is a gross understated price)

Ok, if things line up that logically for you, how about a deal- we'll pay for everyone's birth control, and they can screw like bunnies all day, but abortion must be outlawed except life of mother/rape. K?

[bingster]

I'm being more pragmatic about this than you are. Health care costs keeps screaming out of control every year. Welfare costs are too high. It's cheaper and safer just to offer the contraception.

To put it a little less p/c, do you want that often maligned "welfare mom" at home making more babies, or not?

[bingster]

Ok, if things line up that logically for you, how about a deal- we'll pay for everyone's birth control, and they can screw like bunnies all day, but abortion must be outlawed except life of mother/rape. K?

Actually, I'm impressed that you're allowing an abortion for life of mother and rape. A New Mexico bill was put up today that outlaws abortion in case of rape because it would be destruction of evidence.

I wish I could make a deal on a forum for US Domestic policy, but it doesn't work that way. Pay the $9/month and save those babies!

[jimnyc]

Actually, I'm impressed that you're allowing an abortion for life of mother and rape. A New Mexico bill was put up today that outlaws abortion in case of rape because it would be destruction of evidence.

I wish I could make a deal on a forum for US Domestic policy, but it doesn't work that way. Pay the $9/month and save those babies!

You're proposing people spend $9 a month - for contraception - to avoid abortion. I'm a little blinded in seeing how this helps any babies?

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, I'm impressed that you're allowing an abortion for life of mother and rape. A New Mexico bill was put up today that outlaws abortion in case of rape because it would be destruction of evidence.

I wish I could make a deal on a forum for US Domestic policy, but it doesn't work that way. Pay the $9/month and save those babies!

The point is, would you make that deal if you could?

[Thunderknuckles]

To put it a little less p/c, do you want that often maligned "welfare mom" at home making more babies, or not?
For God's sake, they already have contraception. How many times does it need to be said?! No one is stepping on their Constitutional rights. Walk, or drive, your fat ass up to the nearest drug store and stock up to you hearts desire or what you finances can afford and have at it. The fact that a "welfare mom" can't even do that should be ample evidence that widely available contraception won't solve a thing. They still have to get off their ass and get it!!

[fj1200]

Why is it OK for my tax money to pay for your heart pills because you can't lay off the bear claws, but contraception can't be covered on an employer-provided health care system? Some women, my ex-wife included, needs contraception to regulate their periods.

Why is sex so stigmatized in our country that conservatives refuse to include it in our health care system? Would you just rather have more single women on welfare with their kids? Like i said before, more contraception, less abortions. If you're really pro-life you should be pro-contraception.

Do you understand the difference between private companies offering it as a matter of course and government mandates?


Cons are succeeding in undermining a woman's constitutional right to chose and will force them back to using coat hangars.

:laugh: Nothing like keeping the rhetoric down.

[fj1200]

I'm being more pragmatic about this than you are. Health care costs keeps screaming out of control every year. Welfare costs are too high. It's cheaper and safer just to offer the contraception.

Would you understand the cause and effect that you are advocating for? Ever increasing mandates leading to higher and higher health care costs? The mandate that regular charges be moved from an out of pocket expense to one that is covered by insurance which will add to higher overhead, markups, and ultimately higher premiums.

We need massive deregulation of health care in this country rather than more and more mandates.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm being more pragmatic about this than you are. Health care costs keeps screaming out of control every year. Welfare costs are too high. It's cheaper and safer just to offer the contraception.

It's way cheaper to euthanize those increasingly sick old folks. Shall we do that too, in the name of pragmatiasm?

[Voted4Reagan]

Leave women's rights to women.

Good....

Let WOMEN Doctors perform all Abortions

Let women pay for their own abortions... No Men...

Let Female Elected Officials legislate laws concerning Abortion

Let only women vote on Abortion Legislation

Let female Lawyers argue the cases

Let Women Judges decide these cases.

Leave men out of the process entirely.....

I bet that would be the fastest way to ending abortions.... if women alone decided the issue among themselves...

[taft2012]

That completely side-stepped my post

Well, boo hoo.

Somebody side-stepped your post, which was entirely premised on side-stepping the issue.

The issue is; should faith-based employers be compelled to provide health insurance policies that provide birth control, a violation of their religious doctrines? Should the government be permitted to compel religions to violate their own doctrines?

Is that intrusion into the separation of church and state worth a measly $9.95 a month to you?

What it is you now want? As an end-run against the clash between church and state you now want the government to assume all birth control related costs?

[jimnyc]

This still blows my mind - "Give us contraception or abortion is the result" - which is the same as - "I have no personal responsibility, and if someone doesn't help me I will make mistakes and use abortion to clean up after myself".

[jimnyc]

^^ When a $1 condom could preserve my personal responsibility and save me from having an abortion - but that's too much for me.

[taft2012]

This still blows my mind - "Give us contraception or abortion is the result" - which is the same as - "I have no personal responsibility, and if someone doesn't help me I will make mistakes and use abortion to clean up after myself".

We're already paying for a large chunk of the babies being born too.

[jimnyc]

We're already paying for a large chunk of the babies being born too.

Well of course - you don't really expect people to *gulp* get jobs and do what's necessary to raise their kids, do you? I mean, if we allowed them free abortions and contraception, then they wouldn't have these kids!

[bingster]

Well, boo hoo.

Somebody side-stepped your post, which was entirely premised on side-stepping the issue.

The issue is; should faith-based employers be compelled to provide health insurance policies that provide birth control, a violation of their religious doctrines? Should the government be permitted to compel religions to violate their own doctrines?

Is that intrusion into the separation of church and state worth a measly $9.95 a month to you?

What it is you now want? As an end-run against the clash between church and state you now want the government to assume all birth control related costs?

As usual, opponents of Obamacare disregard the religious establishment exemption for contraceptives. The government picks up the cost of those employees. The real issue is that faith-based employers want to deny this coverage for their employees even if they don't have to pay for it.

You shouldn't be able to deny your secular responsibility to employees because of your religion. Obamacare, though, does provide an exemption.

[jimnyc]

As usual, opponents of Obamacare disregard the religious establishment exemption for contraceptives. The government picks up the cost of those employees. The real issue is that faith-based employers want to deny this coverage for their employees even if they don't have to pay for it.

You shouldn't be able to deny your secular responsibility to employees because of your religion. Obamacare, though, does provide an exemption.

The government, or employer, shouldn't be in the business of bearing the "personal responsibility" of an individual to begin with.

[jimnyc]

As usual, opponents of Obamacare disregard the religious establishment exemption for contraceptives. The government picks up the cost of those employees. The real issue is that faith-based employers want to deny this coverage for their employees even if they don't have to pay for it.

You shouldn't be able to deny your secular responsibility to employees because of your religion. Obamacare, though, does provide an exemption.

And let's be honest - when we say the government picks up the cost, what you mean is WE pick up the cost - for another persons lack of responsibility.

[bingster]

Well of course - you don't really expect people to *gulp* get jobs and do what's necessary to raise their kids, do you? I mean, if we allowed them free abortions and contraception, then they wouldn't have these kids!

No, things are not that black and white. I do expect people to get a job.

The Department of Health and Human services put out an article in 2008 that said that 24 states already had laws requiring that all insurance that provide prescription coverage must cover contraceptives.

Here's the HHS making my point:
"Reducing unintended pregnancies is possible and necessary. Unintended pregnancy in the United States is serious and costly and occurs frequently. Socially, the costs can be measured in unintended births, reduced educational attainment and employment opportunity, greater welfare dependency, and increased potential for child abuse and neglect. Economically, health care costs are increased."

I'm not arguing against responsibility and other good morals. Of course, I wish we all were better citizens, but you can't legislate morals. Providing contraceptives is a very cheap price to pay for a better society in many different ways. Less Abortion is a large part of that.

[jimnyc]

No, things are not that black and white. I do expect people to get a job.

The Department of Health and Human services put out an article in 2008 that said that 24 states already had laws requiring that all insurance that provide prescription coverage must cover contraceptives.

Here's the HHS making my point:
"Reducing unintended pregnancies is possible and necessary. Unintended pregnancy in the United States is serious and costly and occurs frequently. Socially, the costs can be measured in unintended births, reduced educational attainment and employment opportunity, greater welfare dependency, and increased potential for child abuse and neglect. Economically, health care costs are increased."

I'm not arguing against responsibility and other good morals. Of course, I wish we all were better citizens, but you can't legislate morals. Providing contraceptives is a very cheap price to pay for a better society in many different ways. Less Abortion is a large part of that.

Again you are saying to avoid abortion that others must pay for someone's contraception. WHY can't they just use a condom, or abstinence? WHY must the result be an abortion, or pregnancy at all? WHY no personal responsibility?

[bingster]

The government, or employer, shouldn't be in the business of bearing the "personal responsibility" of an individual to begin with.

I didn't say it did. But if we have laws governing how employers act, this issue is not out of line.

[taft2012]

As usual, opponents of Obamacare disregard the religious establishment exemption for contraceptives. The government picks up the cost of those employees. The real issue is that faith-based employers want to deny this coverage for their employees even if they don't have to pay for it.

You shouldn't be able to deny your secular responsibility to employees because of your religion. Obamacare, though, does provide an exemption.

First of all, no employer, religious or secular, has ANY responsibility, religious or secular, to provide health care to employees.

Secondly, the exemptions are unclear if they apply to sub-units of the religious institutions, such as universities. Sandra Fluke?

Nor do they want to deny it to employees if "even if they don't have to pay for it." That's the whole issue. You think Georgetown University gives a rat's ass if Sandra Fluke goes out and buys her own birth control?

As usual, proponents of Obamacare throw around fallacies.

[bingster]

We're already paying for a large chunk of the babies being born too.

It's sad, but this post makes my pragmatic point.

[bingster]

Again you are saying to avoid abortion that others must pay for someone's contraception. WHY can't they just use a condom, or abstinence? WHY must the result be an abortion, or pregnancy at all? WHY no personal responsibility?

Why do people shoot each other. They just do, and we, as a society need to try to find ways to limit the damage.

Do you want a "Just say no to murder" campagne? I think the NRA would be happy to run that one.

[taft2012]

It's sad, but this post makes my pragmatic point.

So we have to pay so they aren't born.

But if they are born, then we got to pay for that too.

The meaning of "pragmatism" must have changed in my lifetime.

To me that sounds like we're screwed no matter what.

[cadet]

No, things are not that black and white. I do expect people to get a job.

The Department of Health and Human services put out an article in 2008 that said that 24 states already had laws requiring that all insurance that provide prescription coverage must cover contraceptives.

Here's the HHS making my point:
"Reducing unintended pregnancies is possible and necessary. Unintended pregnancy in the United States is serious and costly and occurs frequently. Socially, the costs can be measured in unintended births, reduced educational attainment and employment opportunity, greater welfare dependency, and increased potential for child abuse and neglect. Economically, health care costs are increased."

I'm not arguing against responsibility and other good morals. Of course, I wish we all were better citizens, but you can't legislate morals. Providing contraceptives is a very cheap price to pay for a better society in many different ways. Less Abortion is a large part of that.

Tooth picks have warning labels on them.
cigar's need them too.
People are given free phones by obama. And free food, and free money for not trying.
There was a time when people raised their kids to do the right thing. There was a time where there used to be common sense. If you keep babying the population and giving them things that they don't need, you're gonna end up with a country full of lazy good for nothing losers who do nothing but expect handouts.

The thing you don't get bingster, is that we believe in personal responsibility, and spoon feeding people doesn't help them gain that. Let them suffer a little in their lives. Everyone suffers, they may as well learn from it. Being a helicopter parent to the nation does not help.

We keep at the rate we're going, videogames will be given freely because they're needed to keep a stress free mind. We want to STOP giving free shit to people, and let them live their own lives. I work for my stuff, they should work for theirs as well.

[bingster]

The point is, would you make that deal if you could?

No, I'm not giving up my right guaranteed by the Supreme Court. What deal would you make to give up your guns?

[jimnyc]

Why do people shoot each other. They just do, and we, as a society need to try to find ways to limit the damage.

Do you want a "Just say no to murder campagne?" I think the NRA would be happy to run that one.

Why make excuses and terrible analogies instead of just facing the question and main issue I am asking?

Is it REALLY that hard to grab a condom if one is going to have sex? Or pay a few dollars ones self for the pill? Or abstain? Or hell, even pull out (I know, not foolproof)? It seems like what you are saying, and many, many others - is that unless someone provides these people with free contraception - they will have unwanted babies or an abortion. Nothing you have said explains why they can't do what every other responsible American does - which is buy condoms, pay for their pills, abstain or one of many other ways of grabbing personal responsibility for themselves and NOT having an abortion and NOT having an unwanted baby.

NOTHING you can say will change that. It REALLY IS that easy. Be responsible when having sex and this is 99.99% avoidable. And don't say it's not, because it is. I know TONS AND TONS AND TONS AND TONS AND TONS AND TONS of couples and married couples - none having abortions or unwanted babies - can you guess why that is?

[jimnyc]

No, I'm not giving up my right guaranteed by the Supreme Court. What deal would you make to give up your guns?

Interesting, yesterday you said it was a "constitutional right" for women to choose. But it's interesting that you bring up the guns. You think the government, aka US, should pay for contraception, and that abortion is a right guaranteed by the supreme court. Then why do you ever argue the 2nd amendment which, which has been upheld by the SC, and much more recently?

[taft2012]

Why do people shoot each other. They just do, and we, as a society need to try to find ways to limit the damage.

Do you want a "Just say no to murder" campagne? I think the NRA would be happy to run that one.

No, what we're saying is that murderers need to be held personally accountable, and those using/possessing illegal firearms and committing murders need to prosecuted, which does not happen nearly enough.

Applying your logic consistently, the government should be buying everyone guns to end gun violence.

[jimnyc]

Applying your logic consistently, the government should be buying everyone guns to end gun violence.

Exactly!!

And I'll take a scary looking AR15, please!!

[cadet]

No, I'm not giving up my right guaranteed by the Supreme Court. What deal would you make to give up your guns?

Who would make a deal to give up a right? What kind of shallow losers do you think we are???

[bingster]

Tooth picks have warning labels on them.
cigar's need them too.
People are given free phones by obama. And free food, and free money for not trying.
There was a time when people raised their kids to do the right thing. There was a time where there used to be common sense. If you keep babying the population and giving them things that they don't need, you're gonna end up with a country full of lazy good for nothing losers who do nothing but expect handouts.

The thing you don't get bingster, is that we believe in personal responsibility, and spoon feeding people doesn't help them gain that. Let them suffer a little in their lives. Everyone suffers, they may as well learn from it. Being a helicopter parent to the nation does not help.

We keep at the rate we're going, videogames will be given freely because they're needed to keep a stress free mind. We want to STOP giving free shit to people, and let them live their own lives. I work for my stuff, they should work for theirs as well.

Reagan is posthumously giving out the free phones. Please use facts in your arguments.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-putnam/putnam-obama-campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/

You won't believe this, but I can't argue with your intentions. It's the fundamental difference between our parties.

It's absolutely true that individual efforts has made our country great, but where would we be if government first didn't provide us with our Constitution and then subsidize virtually every great success we've had in this country?

Sometimes false, sometimes true characterizations of society has helped fuel your anger towards that welfare mom. It's probably burned something into your psychi that will permanently prevent you from ever seeing my side of the subject.

My answer to this issue is because "We Can".
Other countries have provided better safety nets and their top tax rate is only slightly higher than ours. It's not higher because it's so costly, it's higher because they, as a society has put this issue at a higher priority, as well as infrastructure, and other items. Canada is an outlier with a top tax rate of 28%.

I'm getting off of the subject. This solution (contraception) is a very cheap price to pay to prevent much more expensive problems.

[taft2012]

No, I'm not giving up my right guaranteed by the Supreme Court.

Back in my day, our rights were guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I'm sensing we're talking with a college sophomore who's never ever been challenged on anything in his life.

[bingster]

Interesting, yesterday you said it was a "constitutional right" for women to choose. But it's interesting that you bring up the guns. You think the government, aka US, should pay for contraception, and that abortion is a right guaranteed by the supreme court. Then why do you ever argue the 2nd amendment which, which has been upheld by the SC, and much more recently?

I didn't say there can't be reasonable limits. 90 such limits have been legislated against abortion in 2011 by state governments. I think they can all be struck down because they have nothing to do with safety. As I've said before, even Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment can be limited. All rights can be limited to some degree i.e. you can't say "fire" falsely in a crowded theater.

[cadet]

Back in my day, our rights were guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I'm sensing we're talking with a college sophomore who's never ever been challenged on anything in his life.

Nothing wrong with a college sophomore :laugh: (this guy)
But everything wrong with a college sophomore that's a history or English major (maybe even music)

[taft2012]

Nothing wrong with a college sophomore :laugh: (this guy)
But everything wrong with a college sophomore that's a history or English major (maybe even music)

Hey! I resemble that remark.

I was a college sophomore majoring in English with a minor in history.

I turned out OK.

Didn't I? :laugh:

[bingster]

Back in my day, our rights were guaranteed by the US Constitution.

I'm sensing we're talking with a college sophomore who's never ever been challenged on anything in his life.

Rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court are, therefore, guaranteed by the Constitution. What's your point? It's the same thing. Splitting hairs to call me young and educated-as if that's an insult? It isn't accurate, though, I'm actually 46 years old with some college, 20 years of top management experience, and a U.S. Army veteran. Is that food for criticism Grandpa?

[jimnyc]

That's true, we should clarify that. A SC ruling doesn't make something a "right". Would anyone like to tell bingster where our rights come from?

[bingster]

Who would make a deal to give up a right? What kind of shallow losers do you think we are???

I wasn't calling anyone losers. You're taking me out of context. I was responding to the other poster's post.

[jimnyc]

Reagan is posthumously giving out the free phones. Please use facts in your arguments.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-putnam/putnam-obama-campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/

Reagan isn't even mentioned in that article. I highly doubt any intent he had back when was to give out free cell phones to freeloaders.


You won't believe this, but I can't argue with your intentions. It's the fundamental difference between our parties.

One believes in personal responsibility - the other believes that it's the governments responsibility. That is scary, to think that our world has changed so much since I was a kid. You get out of life what you put into it - not what the government hands out to you.

[taft2012]

Rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court are, therefore, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rights guaranteed by the US Supreme Court quite often have nothing to do with the US Constitution. Roe vs. Wade being a perfect example.

Run that one by your professor, Sonny.

[bingster]

Reagan isn't even mentioned in that article. I highly doubt any intent he had back when was to give out free cell phones to freeloaders.



One believes in personal responsibility - the other believes that it's the governments responsibility. That is scary, to think that our world has changed so much since I was a kid. You get out of life what you put into it - not what the government hands out to you.

I was going off of the date 1985. Who would have signed the law?

[jimnyc]

I was going off of the date 1985. Who would have signed the law?

Maybe it was something passed in congress, dunno. I suppose he could have vetoed something, but these things are generally the work of congress. And I still doubt the intent was free cell phones for freeloaders, when the only cell phone out in '85 was probably about 8 feet long!

[cadet]

That's true, we should clarify that. A SC ruling doesn't make something a "right". Would anyone like to tell bingster where our rights come from?

God. Freedom of will anyway.

But rights, we were given those because the founders didn't like the idea that the gov't could turn into a communist like system. they were scared shitless that the gov't at some point in the future would outgrow itself.

That's why we've been given rights to freedom of speech, to speak up to them.
that's why we'e been given the freedom to bear arms, to fight them if they grow too powerful, or go power hungry.
They created them because they didn't trust the gov't, and that's the only way we know we can trust what they wrote.

[taft2012]

Maybe it was something passed in congress, dunno. I suppose he could have vetoed something, but these things are generally the work of congress. And I still doubt the intent was free cell phones for freeloaders, when the only cell phone out in '85 was probably about 8 feet long!

Yeah, really. Only someone who was a babbling infant in 1985 wouldn't know that. If they were a babbling idiot then, right now they'd be, oh, just about a college sophomore.


Lifeline was created in 1985 and expanded in 2008 during the Bush administration to include cell phone service. An FCC spokeswoman told PolitiFact in 2009 that the 1996 Telecommunications Act required the FCC to create the Universal Service Fund, a pool of money subsidized by small charges on phone bills and redistributed to low-income service programs, as well as programs that bring telecommunications services to rural areas and schools.

That means Reagan was the sweetheart of the Obama phone chick in 1985? :laugh:

[jimnyc]

God. Freedom of will anyway.

But rights, we were given those because the founders didn't like the idea that the gov't could turn into a communist like system. they were scared shitless that the gov't at some point in the future would outgrow itself.

That's why we've been given rights to freedom of speech, to speak up to them.
that's why we'e been given the freedom to bear arms, to fight them if they grow too powerful, or go power hungry.
They created them because they didn't trust the gov't, and that's the only way we know we can trust what they wrote.

I agree with God, but to appease the anti-religious, I second that with our Declaration of Independence. But enough about what "I" think, I want to quote someone else. I had this bookmarked and I'm glad it's still there:


1. Let us begin with what is True: Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

· Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;
· The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
· Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &
· Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

Because the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government; the right to worship God; etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:

· Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and

· We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else’s interpretations.

2. But many conservatives mistakenly believe that our rights come from the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. So they speak of “our constitutional rights”, “the bill of rights”, our “First Amendment right to free speech”; “our Second Amendment right to bear arms”, and so forth. But it is a dreadful mistake to think that our rights come from the Constitution. I’ll show you two reasons why this is such a pernicious error:

a) It is logically incoherent to say that our Rights come from the Constitution: Let us read the Preamble to the US Constitution:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature”. (Federalist No. 33 ( 6th para), A. Hamilton.)

So! The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.

Think carefully, for this is the hook: If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they “arise under the Constitution”; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of five judges on the supreme Court. But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the “bill of rights”, those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!

So! Federal judges claim the power to regulate our political speech and religious speech. They claim the power to determine & regulate our property rights in the fruits of our own labors. They claim the power to control our retirements by forcing us to participate in social security! They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies.

Thus, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases “arising under the Constitution.”

This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God , the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all!

c) You might well ask, “Why did our Founders add the first Ten Amendments if they were such a bad idea?”

There was controversy over this! Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (9th para) that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers. And he was right! The supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square: no prayers at football games, no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, and Judge Roy Moore is ordered to take down the Ten Commandments.

But some States refused to ratify the Constitution without them.

So, the proper way to look at the first Ten Amendments is this: They are not the source of our Rights since our Rights come from God, and thus TRANSCEND the Constitution. The first Ten Amendments is merely a partial list of things the federal government may not do (they can’t take away our guns), and some things they must do (give accused persons a fair trial).

3. Judges on the supreme Court have claimed, in recent decades, that the source of our “rights” is the Constitution, as such “rights” are defined and discovered, from time to time, . . . . . . BY THEM!

I’ll show you how they did it: The original intent of the 14th Amendment (one of the “civil war” amendments) was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called “rights” which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

The original intent of that clause was that States couldn’t go around lynching freed slaves and taking away their freedom and property.

But not so long ago, a handful of supreme court judges looked at the word, “liberty” in that clause, and claimed to have “discovered” underneath that word, a “constitutional right” to kill unborn babies ; and another “constitutional right” to engage in homosexual contact.

We will soon see whether the supreme Court also “discovers” underneath that word, a “constitutional right” to same-sex marriage.

When we substitute federal judges for God as the source of our rights, the entire concept of “rights” becomes perverted. Literally.

4. The “liberal/progressives” say our Rights come from “government”. They say a “right” is an entitlement to goods or services produced, or paid for, by somebody else: So, they speak of the “right” to medical care; the “right” to a free public school education; the “right” to housing; the “right” to food stamps; etc.

But it is a contradiction in terms to speak of “rights” to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the “right” to own the fruits of another man’s labors.

To sum this up:

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the “right” to live at other peoples’ expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

End notes:

1 “Natural Law” refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc. Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to “liberals/progressives” as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law. This is because they know no “law” but their own Wills.

2 Re the “tender mercies” of federal judges: During Senator Tom Coburn’s questioning of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings, she refused to acknowledge the fundamental Principle stated in Our Declaration of Independence that our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution. Kagan in effect claims to sit on God’s Throne and to decide what “rights” you have and what “rights” you don’t have.

The only Document The Hard Left hates as much as the Bible is Our Declaration of Independence.

http://www.organizingforfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=257:where-do-our-qrightsq-come-from&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

[taft2012]

Nice.

But where's the part where God says we have a natural right to pull a baby halfway out of the birth canal, poke a hole in the back of its head, and vacuum its brains out?

[Robert A Whit]

It seems strange to me that cons argue on seemingly two opposite sides of this issue. No, you can't have the right to chose guaranteed to you by Roe v Wade because it's murder! And we're not going to pay for your $9/month contraception bill because it's not "life threatening". Maybe if you could chose the cheaper side, we could join you there.

Is preventing murder worth $9/month? (which I believe, is a gross understated price)

How about you? Should planned parenthood be able to take the human that was aborted and use it to make it into dog and cat food?

[bingster]

Maybe it was something passed in congress, dunno. I suppose he could have vetoed something, but these things are generally the work of congress. And I still doubt the intent was free cell phones for freeloaders, when the only cell phone out in '85 was probably about 8 feet long!

I'll concede that it may not have anything to do with Reagan, if you'll concede it had nothing to do with Obama. It's a favorite false conservative talking point.

[bingster]

How about you? Should planned parenthood be able to take the human that was aborted and use it to make it into dog and cat food?

That's just gross, man.

[bingster]

I agree with God, but to appease the anti-religious, I second that with our Declaration of Independence. But enough about what "I" think, I want to quote someone else. I had this bookmarked and I'm glad it's still there:



http://www.organizingforfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=257:where-do-our-qrightsq-come-from&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

It's an amazing link and may explain much of our founder's thinking. However, our laws must emanate from the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence or the Bible, and our Judiciary System was put into place to strike down or justify the laws created by our legislatures.

[Trigg]

Why is it OK for my tax money to pay for your heart pills because you can't lay off the bear claws, but contraception can't be covered on an employer-provided health care system? Some women, my ex-wife included, needs contraception to regulate their periods.

Why is sex so stigmatized in our country that conservatives refuse to include it in our health care system? Would you just rather have more single women on welfare with their kids? Like i said before, more contraception, less abortions. If you're really pro-life you should be pro-contraception.


That's the analogy you're going to use lol. Many heart problems run in families, no matter how careful someone is about their health. The same can not be said about getting knocked up :laugh:.

Listen, Making religious companies/schools/hospitals pay for the morning after pill or birth control is insulting to their beliefs.

Birth control pills require a doctors visit because it is a medication which can cause complications.

Sex isn't stigmatized and there is no war of women. MOST companies already include the pill in their healthcare, so your argument is almost moot anyway.

[Abbey Marie]

No, I'm not giving up my right guaranteed by the Supreme Court. What deal would you make to give up your guns?

Ah, but I am not asking anyone to pay for my guns, ammo, or perhaps more analogous, to pay me for a safety, and if I shoot myself because I didn't put the safety on, pay me again.

You, on the other hand, want people to be paid to have sex, and to be allowed to kill their child if they get pregnant. Since you have made it clear that you think free contraception will all but end the need for abortions, why wouldn't you accept my deal of contraception dollars in exchange for no abortions? Seems that by your logic, you would get the better end of that deal. All that contraception funded, and no need to have abortions anyway. Woohoo! :rolleyes:

I swear you libs walk around in a dream world where sidewalks are lined with dollars that fell out of the trees.

[bingster]

Ah, but I am not asking anyone to pay for my guns, ammo, or perhaps more analogous, to pay me for a safety, and if I shoot myself because I didn't put the safety on, pay me again.

You, on the other hand, want people to be paid to have sex, and to be allowed to kill their child if they get pregnant. Since you have made it clear that you think free contraception will all but end the need for abortions, why wouldn't you accept my deal of contraception dollars in exchange for no abortions? Seems that by your logic, you would get the better end of that deal. All that contraception funded, and no need to have abortions anyway. Woohoo! :rolleyes:

I swear you libs walk around in a dream world where sidewalks are lined with dollars that fell out of the trees.

No, we walk around in the industrialized world where people are allowed to succeed and allowed to fail. Then, in your twilight years, if you've neglected to earn that golden parachute, you can live out your days in dignity.

All of which is expensive, and we have to find a way to make it cheaper. Some of it may just by being pragmatic, as I've been explaining. Some of it my be socializing health care; De-privatizing health care. When the number one priority is the mighty dollar, and not healthy people; there's something wrong with your health care system.

Rep's live back in the days of the wild wild west in which if you don't find a way to make a buck, fail in business affairs, or can't rob a buck, you can always pull up under a tree and live off of the land. There are a lot of third world countries like that, I just have higher expectations of America.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nice.

But where's the part where God says we have a natural right to pull a baby halfway out of the birth canal, poke a hole in the back of its head, and vacuum its brains out?

Too much truth, too real, too graphic and too pointed!
You will get no reply to that question. Libs/dems/socialist don't do hard questions, as it interferes with their fantasies too damn much!
They succeeded in getting abortion legalized and thus attained the honor of killing more humans than did Stalin, Hitler or Mao.
The Reaper shall not spare deliverance of the wrath for such evil...http://th08.deviantart.net/fs7/150/i/2005/234/a/f/The_Grim_Reaper_Tattoo_by_leadz_n_inkz.jpg---Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Many of you are missing the point of what I am saying.
You are opposed to abortion and want it done away it. Unfortunately, you can't make the whole issue just go away. You have to deal with the entire situation.

The best way to severely curtail abortion is to make birth control more readily available.
The people who have jobs and are covered by health insurance can readily afford birth control. But what about teens and the unemployed or low wage earners? They aren't going to stop having sex just because they can't afford health care.
What is cheaper, providing them birth control or paying for their pregnancies? You can't just wave a wand and make it go away.

Let's look at what conservatives and fundamentalists don't want. They don't sex education in schools, they don't want ready access to birth control and they don't want low cost health care for women.
You have to start by teaching kids about sex. The more they learn about the risks and ramifications of unprotected sex, the less likely they are to do it. Kids are going to have sex anyway. Might as well allow them to have protected sex.

It's the same principle as gun ownership. Conservatives say owning a lot of guns doesn't make them potential killers. It leads to safer and more protected owners.
But you are still going to have crazy gun owners who shoot people. Just as you are going to have stupid people getting knocked up and getting abortions.

[Robert A Whit]

Interesting, yesterday you said it was a "constitutional right" for women to choose. But it's interesting that you bring up the guns. You think the government, aka US, should pay for contraception, and that abortion is a right guaranteed by the supreme court. Then why do you ever argue the 2nd amendment which, which has been upheld by the SC, and much more recently?

That was to Bingster.

Say Bingster, you wanting the Feds to pay for a womans pills is like me wanting the Feds to buy me my weapons and ammo.

Can you approve that too?

[Robert A Whit]

Gabby claims:Let's look at what conservatives and fundamentalists don't want. They don't sex education in schools, they don't want ready access to birth control and they don't want low cost health care for women.


Really? First I knew this is what all of we conservatives fight for. What a bowl of crap.

You do understand that don't you. I am sure a few people think all of that is correct but you do not judge all of us by what they want.

So, are you ready for some shredded Fetus and buy it in your dog or cat foot? Don't you have guts to reply to me?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611681#post611681)
How about you? Should planned parenthood be able to take the human that was aborted and use it to make it into dog and cat food?






Bingster nods: That's just gross, man.

Not as gross as the willful taking of the life of her child!!!!!

[jimnyc]

Many of you are missing the point of what I am saying.

The best way to severely curtail abortion is to make birth control more readily available.

No, the best way is for people to be personally responsible for themselves. If they are seeking abortions, they obviously don't want children. If they don't want children, then ensure that a condom is worn, take other precautions or even abstain. But to blame others for pregnancy and abortions because they won't pay for it for them is idiotic.

I don't even think a lot of people in this thread are condemning abortion - but rather saying that people need to be responsible for their own actions, not depend on others. I'm saddened to think that you, and so many others, feel otherwise and feel it's too much effort, that the answer is for OTHERS to do something to prevent such unwanted results.

[Trigg]

Many of you are missing the point of what I am saying.
You are opposed to abortion and want it done away it. Unfortunately, you can't make the whole issue just go away. You have to deal with the entire situation.

The best way to severely curtail abortion is to make birth control more readily available.
The people who have jobs and are covered by health insurance can readily afford birth control. But what about teens and the unemployed or low wage earners? They aren't going to stop having sex just because they can't afford health care.
What is cheaper, providing them birth control or paying for their pregnancies? You can't just wave a wand and make it go away.

Let's look at what conservatives and fundamentalists don't want. They don't sex education in schools, they don't want ready access to birth control and they don't want low cost health care for women.
You have to start by teaching kids about sex. The more they learn about the risks and ramifications of unprotected sex, the less likely they are to do it. Kids are going to have sex anyway. Might as well allow them to have protected sex.



1. Birth control is ALREADY readily available. Planned Parenthood does FREE EXAMS and gives away condoms and the Pill
2. No one is asking poor people to stop having sex, it would be nice if they would be responsible for themselves.
3. As far as sex education in schools. They should teach the mechanics and about STD's. What more would you recommend?
4. Teen pregnancy is going down and has been going down for years. The problem is the baby mammas out their with 4 kids from different dads who just keep popping them out because they KNOW SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY FOR IT.

[bingster]

That was to Bingster.

Say Bingster, you wanting the Feds to pay for a womans pills is like me wanting the Feds to buy me my weapons and ammo.

Can you approve that too?

Go back into the Army and they'll cover your weapon and ammo bill.

[jimnyc]

Go back into the Army and they'll cover your weapon and ammo bill.

Then those who want free contraception from the government should also volunteer and do work, instead of just holding hands out, or forgetting what "responsibility" means.

[bingster]

1. Birth control is ALREADY readily available. Planned Parenthood does FREE EXAMS and gives away condoms and the Pill
2. No one is asking poor people to stop having sex, it would be nice if they would be responsible for themselves.
3. As far as sex education in schools. They should teach the mechanics and about STD's. What more would you recommend?
4. Teen pregnancy is going down and has been going down for years. The problem is the baby mammas out their with 4 kids from different dads who just keep popping them out because they KNOW SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY FOR IT.

1. Conservatives have been consistantly trying to defund Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming it's about Fed funds for abortion.
2. It would nice if they were responsible. Some are not.
3. Conservatives have consistantly battled against sex ed in schools. Yes, the mechanics and STD's. Wearing a "Just say 'no'" button is not effective.
4. I think it could easily be shown on census reports that welfare moms with 4 kids are an extremely rare exception, not a rule.

It doesn't look like we're all that far apart on this issue.

[jimnyc]

1. Conservatives have been consistantly trying to defund Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming it's about Fed funds for abortion.
2. It would nice if they were responsible. Some are not.
3. Conservatives have consistantly battled against sex ed in schools. Yes, the mechanics and STD's. Wearing a "Just say 'no'" is not effective.
4. I think it could easily be shown on census reports that welfare moms with 4 kids are an extremely rare exception, not a rule.

It doesn't look like we're all that far apart on this issue.

Why do you continually blame republicans or conservatives for this issue? Shouldn't EVERYONE be personally responsible for themselves, regardless of political affiliation? I could sit here and talk about the lies from Dems, all the way up to the president (who said it like 300 times), that they claimed Republicans wanted to stomp out mammograms at PP - when they NEVER did them there to begin with. But anyway - I think this is an individual issue. Abortion is THE most avoidable medical issue of all time, so long as people remain responsible.

[bingster]

Then those who want free contraception from the government should also volunteer and do work, instead of just holding hands out, or forgetting what "responsibility" means.

You may be forgetting my original point on this subject. I was arguing that contraception should be part of employer-provided insurance. But, to your point, if they are not working, do you want them having babies? Nobody is saying that we don't want anyone to be responsible. I want everyone to be responsible. But the world conservatives have lost the battle against safety nets. They are here to stay, so lets be pragmatic and make them cheaper. Contraception is much cheaper than pregnancy care and child care, and it prevents many other negative results of an unwanted pregnancy like abortion, child abuse, juvenile delinquency, crime, etc...

[bingster]

Why do you continually blame republicans or conservatives for this issue? Shouldn't EVERYONE be personally responsible for themselves, regardless of political affiliation? I could sit here and talk about the lies from Dems, all the way up to the president (who said it like 300 times), that they claimed Republicans wanted to stomp out mammograms at PP - when they NEVER did them there to begin with. But anyway - I think this is an individual issue. Abortion is THE most avoidable medical issue of all time, so long as people remain responsible.

If you're referring to my point about Planned Parenthood, you tell me why conservatives have been trying to de-fund it. It wouldn't sound good to say "I don't want poor mother's getting low cost health care". They don't. The other poster was embracing planned parenthood for providing inexpensive or free contraceptives without pointing out the fact that his own party would like to see it go away.

[jimnyc]

You may be forgetting my original point on this subject. I was arguing that contraception should be part of employer-provided insurance. But, to your point, if they are not working, do you want them having babies? Nobody is saying that we don't want anyone to be responsible. I want everyone to be responsible. But the world conservatives have lost the battle against safety nets. They are here to stay, so lets be pragmatic and make them cheaper. Contraception is much cheaper than pregnancy care and child care, and it prevents many other negative results of an unwanted pregnancy like abortion, child abuse, juvenile delinquency, crime, etc...

Again, why is it an end result of babies? If a couple can't even afford a $1 condom - maybe they should avoid activity that ends up in pregnancy? And again you point to conservatives. Are conservatives the only people expected to be responsible for their own actions?

[jimnyc]

If you're referring to my point about Planned Parenthood, you tell me why conservatives have been trying to de-fund it. It wouldn't sound good to say "I don't want poor mother's getting low cost health care". They don't. The other poster was embracing planned parenthood for providing inexpensive or free contraceptives without pointing out the fact that his own party would like to see it go away.

Because taxpayers shouldn't be paying for others personal responsibility aka abortions.

[Trigg]

You may be forgetting my original point on this subject. I was arguing that contraception should be part of employer-provided insurance. But, to your point, if they are not working, do you want them having babies? Nobody is saying that we don't want anyone to be responsible. I want everyone to be responsible. But the world conservatives have lost the battle against safety nets. They are here to stay, so lets be pragmatic and make them cheaper. Contraception is much cheaper than pregnancy care and child care, and it prevents many other negative results of an unwanted pregnancy like abortion, child abuse, juvenile delinquency, crime, etc...

Since most employers already provide for the pill and vasectomies your argument seems to be entirely based on forcing religious entities to provide birth control, even though it is against their beliefs.

The pill is already cheap, so I don't see your point there. Unless by cheap you mean free.

A doctors appointment is required because the pill is a drug.

Planned parenthood already offers FREE exams and FREE birth control to those who qualify not to mention FREE condoms to everyone. So that takes care of your poor and unemployed.

[bingster]

Because taxpayers shouldn't be paying for others personal responsibility aka abortions.

It's no use to keep banging your head against that wall. The world is growing up and the good countries provide safety nets (even some of the not-so-good nations). It would be nice to not just have a strong military to make us proud around the world. I love my country and am not saying we aren't leading in other areas, but we should lead in many more areas. It would be nicer if we led the world in health care,literacy rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc... Then there are our poor grades in math, science, reading, etc... Yes, it's a larger issue but it's going to take the community approach to compete, not the individual, sink or swim approach.


ps and I never said the government should pay for abortions.

[bingster]

Since most employers already provide for the pill and vasectomies your argument seems to be entirely based on forcing religious entities to provide birth control, even though it is against their beliefs.

The pill is already cheap, so I don't see your point there. Unless by cheap you mean free.

A doctors appointment is required because the pill is a drug.

Planned parenthood already offers FREE exams and FREE birth control to those who qualify not to mention FREE condoms to everyone. So that takes care of your poor and unemployed.

This debate is becoming frustratingly circular. The original argument was that employers should not supply birth control. I still find it strange that you can use Planned Parenthood to defend your argument when your side of the aisle wants to de-fund and if possible destroy it.

Remember Fox news regarding Planned Parenthood. The skinny tall blonde guy on Fox and Friends said something to the effect of "We don't need Planned Parenthood. Pap smears and mamograms are available at Walgreens" I was a store manager at Walgreens when he said that. It scared the hell out of our corporate head quarters!

[Abbey Marie]

This debate is becoming frustratingly circular. The original argument was that employers should not supply birth control. I still find it strange that you can use Planned Parenthood to defend your argument when your side of the aisle wants to de-fund and if possible destroy it.

Remember Fox news regarding Planned Parenthood. The skinny tall blonde guy on Fox and Friends said something to the effect of "We don't need Planned Parenthood. Pap smears and mamograms are available at Walgreens" I was a store manager at Walgreens when he said that. It scared the hell out of our corporate head quarters!

If Planned Parenthood got out of the business of killing babies, I wouldn't be against them. Again, are you willing to make that trade? Why isn't that a win/win for everyone, if funded birth control is the panacea you claim it to be?

[Trigg]

It's no use to keep banging your head against that wall. The world is growing up and the good countries provide safety nets (even some of the not-so-good nations). It would be nice to not just have a strong military to make us proud around the world. I love my country and am not saying we aren't leading in other areas, but we should lead in many more areas. It would be nicer if we led the world in health care,literacy rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc... Then there are our poor grades in math, science, reading, etc... Yes, it's a larger issue but it's going to take the community approach to compete, not the individual, sink or swim approach.


ps and I never said the government should pay for abortions.

If you are arguing that the government should give federal funds to planned parenthood than you ARE in affect saying that the government should pay for abortions.

De-funding planned parenthood would not close it. It would not prevent them from giving out free exams or free birth control. They would be forced to fund raise more, it's as simple as that.

[Trigg]

This debate is becoming frustratingly circular. The original argument was that employers should not supply birth control.
!

Who argued that???


The ONLY argument I've seen is YOU wanting to force religious entities to go against their teachings.

I am at a loss to figure out what employers don't already provide for birth control in their health coverage.

[jimnyc]

Who argued that???


The ONLY argument I've seen is YOU wanting to force religious entities to go against their teachings.

I am at a loss to figure out what employers don't already provide for birth control in their health coverage.

Agreed, because employers don't provide anyway, the insurance companies will. And it's not about them offering it as a covered entity (outside of religious agencies), because that already exists - they think it should be FREE. But even if... if one can't get free/reduced contraception from work - WHY can't the couple just use a condom or abstain then? No one ever wants to answer this very basic question - which IS a reasonable request to ask of those not wanting a child. There is NO reason for a person to EVER need an abortion - if they simply apply personal responsibility. Ok, maybe a few accidents, but I bet a lot less than 55 million of them.

[Abbey Marie]

Notice how people in this thread are diametrically opposed in viewpoint, yet are remaining on topic and civil to each other?

It makes for such a good read, and more importantly, shows that it is possible.
As it once was.


*Special credit goes to bingster for being in the minority, and yet never resorting to insults. :salute:

[Drummond]

It's no use to keep banging your head against that wall. The world is growing up and the good countries provide safety nets (even some of the not-so-good nations). It would be nice to not just have a strong military to make us proud around the world. I love my country and am not saying we aren't leading in other areas, but we should lead in many more areas. It would be nicer if we led the world in health care,literacy rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc... Then there are our poor grades in math, science, reading, etc... Yes, it's a larger issue but it's going to take the community approach to compete, not the individual, sink or swim approach.

ps and I never said the government should pay for abortions.

'The Community Approach'. In other words, collectivism ... A SOCIALIST APPROCH, eh ?

Tell me, what's the method you have in mind to lead the world in healthcare ?

I would argue that in terms of technology, expertise, excellence of facilities, YOU ALREADY DO.

But let me guess. You're one of those who wants Socialised Healthcare to predominate, yes ?

I'm from the UK. 1948 saw the first attempt at a State-run healthcare system anywhere in the world. Well, Socialists here would claim that our system is 'a wonderful thing', that the form it takes marks us out as a 'truly civilised country'. Those same Socialists would sneer at the current American model.

We've had over SIXTY years to perfect our system. Ample time .. right ? If its worth is provable, it's provable HERE .. right ?

Let's see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/heal-our-hospitals/8528038/Investigator-who-uncovered-Stafford-deaths-warns-the-next-NHS-scandal-will-be-missed.html


Dr Heather Wood, who led the probe into hundreds of excess deaths at Stafford Hospital, has been gagged from criticising the NHS health watchdog which she left last year.

But in evidence submitted to a public inquiry, she says changes to the way hospitals are regulated mean such a scandal would now be likely to go unchecked, accusing regulators of being both incapable of detecting hospital failings, and unwilling to “rock the boat” by exposing them.

Dr Wood’s investigation into Mid Staffordshire Foundation trust uncovered between 400 and 1,200 “excess deaths” in three years, amid unacceptable failings in basic care, with decisions about who to treat left to receptionists, and patients left in soiled bedding.

When the report was published in 2009, Sir Ian Kennedy, then head of the Healthcare Commission, said the “appalling failings” were the worst to have been uncovered in the regulator’s history, while bereaved relatives described how patients were forced to drink from vases.

Two weeks later, the organisation was abolished and merged into a larger body called the Care Quality Commission (CQC) led by Cynthia Bower - an appointment which provoked controversy, since Miss Bower had previously run the health authority covering Staffordshire.

Impressed, Bingster ?

The State, it is said, produces what image of the NHS's 'success' as it chooses to supply. This may have little in common with the truth, however ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8963119/Shamed-hospital-accused-of-leaving-dying-patients-to-starve.html


A hospital has been accused of leaving dying patients to starve in a catalogue of cases of alleged neglect.

Lawyers are planning a "class action" on behalf of 23 families who contacted them with "shocking" claims of indignities and the most basic failings in care.

They believe the families who have contacted them so far about care at Alexandra Hospital, in Redditch, West Midlands, may represent "the tip of the iceberg".

The number of potential claims make it the biggest group action of its type since hundreds died in appalling conditions at Stafford Hospital, leading to a public inquiry which is expected to criticise the wider failings of the NHS and of regulators' failures to protect patients, when it reports next year.

Don't imagine, Bingster, that I can't post other stories of this type.

But, were we discussing abortion on this thread ? OK, then ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9161735/One-in-five-abortion-clinics-breaks-law.html


Up to one in five abortion clinics is suspected of breaking the law and faces a police inquiry following an official investigation ordered by the Health Secretary, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The regulator conducted a series of unannounced raids on every clinic offering abortions this week and found that a “shocking” number may be breaking the law.

The Daily Telegraph understands that more than 250 private and NHS clinics were visited and more than 50 were “not in compliance” with the law or regulations. Doctors were regularly falsifying consent forms and patients were not receiving acceptable levels of advice and counselling in many clinics, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) discovered.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said he was “shocked” by the findings of the CQC’s audit and was preparing to report doctors and organisations to the police. Many clinics may be stripped of the licences that allow them to offer abortions.

Mr Lansley is understood to be preparing an urgent statement to Parliament on the scandal today.

So tell me, Bingster, of the 'superiority' of the 'collective' approach, as State-run systems provide ...

[fj1200]

No, we walk around in the industrialized world where people are allowed to succeed and allowed to fail. Then, in your twilight years, if you've neglected to earn that golden parachute, you can live out your days in dignity.

All of which is expensive, and we have to find a way to make it cheaper. Some of it may just by being pragmatic, as I've been explaining. Some of it my be socializing health care; De-privatizing health care. When the number one priority is the mighty dollar, and not healthy people; there's something wrong with your health care system.

Rep's live back in the days of the wild wild west in which if you don't find a way to make a buck, fail in business affairs, or can't rob a buck, you can always pull up under a tree and live off of the land. There are a lot of third world countries like that, I just have higher expectations of America.

How many strawmen can you get in one post?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Since most employers already provide for the pill and vasectomies your argument seems to be entirely based on forcing religious entities to provide birth control, even though it is against their beliefs.

The pill is already cheap, so I don't see your point there. Unless by cheap you mean free.

A doctors appointment is required because the pill is a drug.

Planned parenthood already offers FREE exams and FREE birth control to those who qualify not to mention FREE condoms to everyone. So that takes care of your poor and unemployed.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Trigg again.

Quite true and defeats many of the reasons given for abortion to be served up like a order of fries IMHO..-Tyr

[Trigg]

Great post Drummond.

I like to add that countries with "Free" healthcare also have private healthcare. The poor or people who otherwise can't afford private coverage are stuck with long waits and substandard care. People with money buy extra coverage and see REAL doctors instead of physicians assistants or nurse practitioners.


Watching what my sister goes through in Finland is disheartening.

[Drummond]

Great post Drummond.

I like to add that countries with "Free" healthcare also have private healthcare. The poor or people who otherwise can't afford private coverage are stuck with long waits and substandard care. People with money buy extra coverage and see REAL doctors instead of physicians assistants or nurse practitioners.


Watching what my sister goes through in Finland is disheartening.

Many thanks. Let me add, though, that in the case of the UK, the private sector isn't totally free to offer a full spectrum of treatments. Certain conditions they cannot treat, by law.

Conversely - and ludicrously - the NHS has been known, before now, to use private healthcare facilities for itself !

See ...

http://www.spirehealthcare.com/elland/welcome-to-spire-elland-hospital/


"Spire Elland Hospital offers comprehensive private hospital services to patients from Halifax, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Todmorden and surrounding areas in Yorkshire.

Our hospital has been established in the local community for over 25 years. We have 41 single ensuite rooms, WIFI available and tantalising menu options to cater for all tastes. We pride ourselves on our clinical excellence and over 96% of our patients said our staff went out of their way to make a difference in 2010.

Our services are available to everyone – whether or not you are insured with Bupa, AXA PPP, Aviva or another private health insurance company. If you are paying for your own treatment, we offer one-off private treatment at Spire Elland Hospital, with a fixed price agreed in advance. We also offer services to NHS patients on behalf of the NHS. "

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Great post Drummond.

I like to add that countries with "Free" healthcare also have private healthcare. The poor or people who otherwise can't afford private coverage are stuck with long waits and substandard care. People with money buy extra coverage and see REAL doctors instead of physicians assistants or nurse practitioners.


Watching what my sister goes through in Finland is disheartening.

Very sorry to hear of your sister's troubles. A very hard thing in life when one is powerless to actually help a person they love.
Have you thought of starting the immigration process to bring your sister here?-Tyr

[Drummond]

Very sorry to hear of your sister's troubles. A very hard thing in life when one is powerless to actually help a person they love.
Have you thought of starting the immigration process to bring your sister here?-Tyr

Well covered, Tyr, and I should've answered that part of Trigg's post myself - I'm sorry I didn't.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well covered, Tyr, and I should've answered that part of Trigg's post myself - I'm sorry I didn't.

I have had the advantage of doing that myself. Bringing somebody I love here by way of the legal immigration process. So it just came natural to me to ask. If at all possible I hope it could help Trigg and her sister!!-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611842#post611842)
That was to Bingster.

Say Bingster, you wanting the Feds to pay for a womans pills is like me wanting the Feds to buy me my weapons and ammo.

Can you approve that too?






Bingster advises: Go back into the Army and they'll cover your weapon and ammo bill.

Women in the Army also get such benefits. I presume your advice to me applies to any woman seeking for government to pay for her sexual services, such as pills, abortions and the like. Right?

[Robert A Whit]

Notice how people in this thread are diametrically opposed in viewpoint, yet are remaining on topic and civil to each other?

It makes for such a good read, and more importantly, shows that it is possible.
As it once was.


*Special credit goes to bingster for being in the minority, and yet never resorting to insults. :salute:

At times, I have the time to monitor each reply from top to bottem. However this takes a very long time. What I am saying is that I may miss that very outstanding reply somebody posted and ask my questions or make my statements.

I know that people also are busy and can't manage to see all posts either or don't want to see all of them.

While it makes good reading, and I approve good reading, I note that some of my comments appear to be lost beteen the cracks. Maybe there is some way to notify me by e mail so as to ensure if somebody replies to me, I am told.

Is there a solution that perhaps I am not aware of?

I know when Jim sends me a PM it also goes into my regular e mail account. I get notices of PM but I do not get notices when a person replies to me on the forum.

This causes misunderstandings at tmes on my part. If this happens to me, I bet it happens to all of you too.

[Robert A Whit]

Agreed, because employers don't provide anyway, the insurance companies will. And it's not about them offering it as a covered entity (outside of religious agencies), because that already exists - they think it should be FREE. But even if... if one can't get free/reduced contraception from work - WHY can't the couple just use a condom or abstain then? No one ever wants to answer this very basic question - which IS a reasonable request to ask of those not wanting a child. There is NO reason for a person to EVER need an abortion - if they simply apply personal responsibility. Ok, maybe a few accidents, but I bet a lot less than 55 million of them.

I have been out of the baby making business since perhaps 1993 and much that is claimed about what employers provide is unknown to me since I am self employeed and have constantly been self employeed since 1967. I was last employeed in the construction business till 1967 and at that point we had just got some deal via the union for some sort of health benefits. I never knew the full extent of said benefits.

In my current business, the RE Board I was in, where I served all the way up the line including being a director, both local and a director of the state association, what I know of them ended around 1992 or so. I am not a director now. I no longer hold elected office of any type in the local board or state board.

This topic can be very confusing to the self employeed since we do all of our own paying.

When I owned a machine shop in the late 1960s, I estimate that my business was not involved in workers health benefits for the first almost two years. I held a meeting with the employees and got their consent to some health program where I paid part and they paid part. I may have split it with them. I can't say for certain how it was split due to it being well over 42 years ago. But then, doctors bills were much cheaper relative to wages earned.

Now one more thing. I blame two elements mostly for the extreme cost of health care.

1. I blame government. I blame government since once they got involved, it was easy to overcharge compared to before. The Feds wanted to score brown nose points so they ran the show like they fun defense. Remember that defense has always had way too much in cost overruns. And Doctors had a changed role too. No lohger was the patient the consumer and payer. The Consumer could get the idea some fairy dust was poured out in DC and like magic he got relieved of paying the doctor. Who pays insurance premiums and worries the insurance company will have to pay out much more than it ought to?

2. I blame consumers for buying insurance.

Look what you buy with no insurance at all.
1. cars (insurance will not buy you a car if you have no losses. Eg, you buy a new car but the insurance did not buy it for you. Insurance only covered some loss after the purchase.
2. Food. The family food bill is pretty high. But you don't buy an insurance policy expecting the insurance company pays your food bills at the store.
3. Homes cost a lot no matter where you live. I sold hundreds of homes and never had a buyer use insurance to make his purchase.

Point being, those items do not go nearly as much as health care costs go up.

Darned few care what the insurance company pays.

This ends up hurting the consumer. The insurance company won't bite the dust and the doctors won't either and just like that the cost by the doctor goes sky high along with the insurance premium also going sky high.

Only if the consumer sees it paid from his bank account will he care. So long as he passes the buck to insurance or the Feds, he will use the service even more and only if his premiums go up does he act like he cares.

What democrats really want is something for nothing or very low cost to them. Only when it stings them do they suddenly turn on the light and of course since they were takers and not givers, they get angry. But not at Government. Though government bears the lions share of blame, they get angry at insurance companies.

That's it and I believe unless one of you persuades me different, my analysis stands.

Far too many of you live life never having to pay payroll. When you pay payroll, suddenly you learn much more than you dreamed existed.

[Robert A Whit]

Reagan is posthumously giving out the free phones. Please use facts in your arguments.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-putnam/putnam-obama-campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/

You won't believe this, but I can't argue with your intentions. It's the fundamental difference between our parties.

It's absolutely true that individual efforts has made our country great, but where would we be if government first didn't provide us with our Constitution and then subsidize virtually every great success we've had in this country?

Sometimes false, sometimes true characterizations of society has helped fuel your anger towards that welfare mom. It's probably burned something into your psychi that will permanently prevent you from ever seeing my side of the subject.

My answer to this issue is because "We Can".
Other countries have provided better safety nets and their top tax rate is only slightly higher than ours. It's not higher because it's so costly, it's higher because they, as a society has put this issue at a higher priority, as well as infrastructure, and other items. Canada is an outlier with a top tax rate of 28%.

I'm getting off of the subject. This solution (contraception) is a very cheap price to pay to prevent much more expensive problems.

Have you any idea at all of how many people have got filthy rich by dealing with goverment?

Government got in trouble the day it started making it easy for a few to get rich but the rest of the people were left in the cold, so to speak. Sure, those working for Goverment are it's biggest boosters. They take and take. What is not to like when you take from Government?

I ran across Henry Kaiser once when he showed up on a construction Job I worked on.

Here was this super rich man walking around proud as a peackock since he got rich, very rich indeed and all due to the government you love so much.

I feel Government should serve but today it seems to see it's duty more to rule us than serve us. Don't you care?

Oh if you never heard of Kaiser, he built huge dams. HE built ships during WWII. He had aluminum plants. I helped build one of his buildings. I believe he put Kaiser Engineers in that building. He owned a vast concrete company. And due to him, he had Kaiser HMO now called Kaiser Permanente. This operation started locally and I suspect it now has spread to other states.

[Robert A Whit]

I didn't say there can't be reasonable limits. 90 such limits have been legislated against abortion in 2011 by state governments. I think they can all be struck down because they have nothing to do with safety. As I've said before, even Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment can be limited. All rights can be limited to some degree i.e. you can't say "fire" falsely in a crowded theater.

You can say Fire but one may have to go to jail if there is no fire.

Today in modern theaters, the fire suppression systems would perhaps get you wet but I doubt you will be in a fire in any theater that is updated to current code standards.

But I assure you, were that theater to be on fire, I would definitely want somebody to announce it is on fire.

[Robert A Whit]

Reagan isn't even mentioned in that article. I highly doubt any intent he had back when was to give out free cell phones to freeloaders.



One believes in personal responsibility - the other believes that it's the governments responsibility. That is scary, to think that our world has changed so much since I was a kid. You get out of life what you put into it - not what the government hands out to you.

Jim, when Reagan was president, we had pagers.

I bought my first primitive mobile telephone in the late 1970s.

It was not like a telephone you use.

First, it was a radio. Today the modern cell phone actually also is a radio but you can dial them.

The mobile phone I used cost something like $3,000 and it was when a home in my area cost maybe ten times that much. Ergo they were not cheap.

I would have to pick it up and turn on the switch. I would have to call a service. They did the dialing. If they got the person, they connected me to them.

I got a much more modern cell phone for about $!,500 that I had mounted in my car. I could dial that one. But the Cells then were only local and I had to pay special charged if I got out of my calling area. Not only were the phones expensive, but my monthly charges often were over $1,000 per month. And the phone was analogue. Today said cell phones are digital.

I still own two analogue phones. But I got over cell phones by 1997 and don't use them today.

Have you ever noticed that cell phone owners think that they must be on the phone much of the time? I see them all over the place and it seems as if people no longer want to do phone calls when they are not busy with other matters.

Some woman in England on her cell phone walked right into a very cold canal since she was not paying attention. Cell phones cause many accidents.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Trigg http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=611898#post611898)
1. Birth control is ALREADY readily available. Planned Parenthood does FREE EXAMS and gives away condoms and the Pill
2. No one is asking poor people to stop having sex, it would be nice if they would be responsible for themselves.
3. As far as sex education in schools. They should teach the mechanics and about STD's. What more would you recommend?
4. Teen pregnancy is going down and has been going down for years. The problem is the baby mammas out their with 4 kids from different dads who just keep popping them out because they KNOW SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY FOR IT.



1. Conservatives have been consistantly trying to defund Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming it's about Fed funds for abortion.
2. It would nice if they were responsible. Some are not.
3. Conservatives have consistantly battled against sex ed in schools. Yes, the mechanics and STD's. Wearing a "Just say 'no'" button is not effective.
4. I think it could easily be shown on census reports that welfare moms with 4 kids are an extremely rare exception, not a rule.

It doesn't look like we're all that far apart on this issue.

What you remind me of is that father that kept talking sex to his son and of course wanted to get into the weeds so to speak. And he had this focus on sex. Naturally so did his son.

The son was a virgin. Jason Biggs played the part. That movie had one boy banging the daylights out of one of his pals mother.

I suggest some of you focus in on sex for children at way to early an age.

Black women appear to think that by the time they reach 18 they should have maybe 4 kids by that time.

And we wonder how there can be boys shooting up schools?

When you live to disorder society, please don't tell me you are trying to get an orderly society. I don't believe it.

Would you inform the forum if you approve useing American Pie in some school classes to show them graphically how so called liverals minds work?

Also, why not show kids deep throat in high school?

If you really want to teach teens about sex, show them the film called Wet Teens. You can look that film up on your computer.

[Trigg]

Very sorry to hear of your sister's troubles. A very hard thing in life when one is powerless to actually help a person they love.
Have you thought of starting the immigration process to bring your sister here?-Tyr

My sister is a US citizen who married a Finn and has lived there for 15 years now. She purchases private insurance for her and her family because of her health issues.

Thank you for the thought though .

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My sister is a US citizen who married a Finn and has lived there for 15 years now. She purchases private insurance for her and her family because of her health issues.

Thank you for the thought though .

Sorry about the my misunderstanding your post. I hope your sister gets well. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Robert, if you are over 70 years old, you are WAY out of touch with modern young people and shouldn't be giving advice at all.
Because of the proliferation of sex in all forms of media, kids are learning about it at a very young age. The basics of sex education should be taught at 10 or 11 years old.
If you think that is too young, why do you take your kids hunting, or to the firing range, at that age or younger? If you introduce your kids to guns at a young age, doesn't it make them want to go "out in the weeds" and shoot guns?

If you defund Planned Parenthood, where else are kids going to get low cost birth control? Where are poor women supposed to get health care?
And yes, it is YOUR problem because YOU keep bitching about it.
As long as Republicans continue to oppose sex education and access to birth control, there will continue to be abortions.
Just like there will continue to be gun deaths every day.

[jimnyc]

Robert, if you are over 70 years old, you are WAY out of touch with modern young people and shouldn't be giving advice at all.
Because of the proliferation of sex in all forms of media, kids are learning about it at a very young age. The basics of sex education should be taught at 10 or 11 years old.
If you think that is too young, why do you take your kids hunting, or to the firing range, at that age or younger? If you introduce your kids to guns at a young age, doesn't it make them want to go "out in the weeds" and shoot guns?

If you defund Planned Parenthood, where else are kids going to get low cost birth control? Where are poor women supposed to get health care?
And yes, it is YOUR problem because YOU keep bitching about it.
As long as Republicans continue to oppose sex education and access to birth control, there will continue to be abortions.
Just like there will continue to be gun deaths every day.

Will you teach your child about personal responsibility? Abstinence? Being responsible when it comes to sex and pregnancy? Or will you just teach her ways to get free contraception and perhaps a map to an abortion clinic?

[Trigg]

Robert, if you are over 70 years old, you are WAY out of touch with modern young people and shouldn't be giving advice at all.
Because of the proliferation of sex in all forms of media, kids are learning about it at a very young age. The basics of sex education should be taught at 10 or 11 years old.
If you think that is too young, why do you take your kids hunting, or to the firing range, at that age or younger? If you introduce your kids to guns at a young age, doesn't it make them want to go "out in the weeds" and shoot guns?

If you defund Planned Parenthood, where else are kids going to get low cost birth control? Where are poor women supposed to get health care?
And yes, it is YOUR problem because YOU keep bitching about it.
As long as Republicans continue to oppose sex education and access to birth control, there will continue to be abortions.
Just like there will continue to be gun deaths every day.

The thought of sex ed for 10 yr olds is horrifying. WAY TO YOUNG.

People will still be able to go to planned parenthood and get low cost birth control or free, they will also continue to get free or reduced exams.

Defunding them simply means that MY tax dollars will no longer to towards someones abortion. Planned parenthood will not close their doors because they loose gov. funding.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Robert, if you are over 70 years old, you are WAY out of touch with modern young people and shouldn't be giving advice at all.
Because of the proliferation of sex in all forms of media, kids are learning about it at a very young age. The basics of sex education should be taught at 10 or 11 years old.
If you think that is too young, why do you take your kids hunting, or to the firing range, at that age or younger? If you introduce your kids to guns at a young age, doesn't it make them want to go "out in the weeds" and shoot guns?

If you defund Planned Parenthood, where else are kids going to get low cost birth control? Where are poor women supposed to get health care?
And yes, it is YOUR problem because YOU keep bitching about it.
As long as Republicans continue to oppose sex education and access to birth control, there will continue to be abortions.
Just like there will continue to be gun deaths every day.

Now you clearly show age discrimination!! Why shouldn't he talk about sex , you think he is a virgin or what??
You think his age indicates he can not use Google or keep abreast of current trends etc??
I can guarantee that if he absolutely agreed with you his age would have never been spoken about!!
A mark against you that you attempted such a shameful low and prejudicial blow IMHO..
I find it to be a rude and desperate act on your part Gabby.. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Will you teach your child about personal responsibility? Abstinence? Being responsible when it comes to sex and pregnancy? Or will you just teach her ways to get free contraception and perhaps a map to an abortion clinic?

She already knows all of this. It came up and we talked about it.
How can you teach abstinence when all forms of media feature people have sex? I have taught my daughter about personal responsibility and how sex belongs only in committed relationships.

Jim, what have you taught your son? Is he as crazy about the pursuit of boobies as you are?
If you had premarital sex in high school, you can't really be telling your kid how immoral it is.

I brought my daughter to a discussion session where teen mothers talked about how having kids at age 14-17 affected their lives. It wasn't pretty. They also discussed common myths about teen sex and pregnancy and how to avoid peer pressure.
It was a serious eye opener and yielded a lot of productive discussions.

[jimnyc]

Now you clearly show age discrimination!! Why shouldn't he talk about sex , you think he is a virgin or what??
You think his age indicates he can not use Google or keep abreast of current trends etc??
I can guarantee that if he absolutely agreed with you his age would have never been spoken about!!
A mark against you that you attempted such a shameful low and prejudicial blow IMHO..
I find it to be a rude and desperate act on your part Gabby.. --Tyr

While 'ol Bobby can be a feisty bastard at times - I for one am glad to have someone his age sharing great experiences and knowledge with us. Hell, he comes from a time when it wasn't normal routine to demand free contraception, and it wasn't routine to use an abortion clinic as birth control.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While 'ol Bobby can be a feisty bastard at times - I for one am glad to have someone his age sharing great experiences and knowledge with us. Hell, he comes from a time when it wasn't normal routine to demand free contraception, and it wasn't routine to use an abortion clinic as birth control.

Also he comes from a time when American men did not have to guard their words or placate any PC bullshit as is now the standard.
I have found him to be a great addition to the forum myself.
Now that he has settled down and starts to hit his stride so to speak.
These youngsters could stand a little straightening out by the older generation IMHO.
Sho' nuff feisty he is, a trait I admire when tempered with well thought out reasoning. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

A lot of things were different in the 1950s and 60s. Ozzie and Harriett couldn't even discuss sex, much less be shown in bed together.

My grandfather used to think my cousin was a slutty tart because she wore dresses where the hemlines were above her knees. And she wore fishnet stockings, which were "Only worn by whores."

[jimnyc]

She already knows all of this. It came up and we talked about it.
How can you teach abstinence when all forms of media feature people have sex? I have taught my daughter about personal responsibility and how sex belongs only in committed relationships.

Jim, what have you taught your son? Is he as crazy about the pursuit of boobies as you are?
If you had premarital sex in high school, you can't really be telling your kid how immoral it is.

I brought my daughter to a discussion session where teen mothers talked about how having kids at age 14-17 affected their lives. It wasn't pretty. They also discussed common myths about teen sex and pregnancy and how to avoid peer pressure.
It was a serious eye opener and yielded a lot of productive discussions.

It's all about responsibility. I had premarital sex, but never had to worry about pregnancy. I would teach abstinence - to someone who apparently did not have enough money for birth control or condoms. In rare cases where someone can't afford $1 to avoid an abortion, they are better abstaining. I would teach that abortion is NEVER an answer as it's almost ALWAYS avoidable if people simple employ personal responsibility. I know shit happens, but outside of that, the only way it happens is if people have unprotected sex. It's really that simple in almost all cases, just don't have unprotected sex. Teach kids that $1 spent is better than a day at a clinic killing an unborn, because that person couldn't be bothered to use common sense when having sex. Premarital sex doesn't mean all protection goes out the window. '

Hell, every hooker in the land uses condoms. Imagine that, hookers use condoms to avoid pregnancy and disease - and we can't expect our children to do the same or better?

As for my son... We had a few "boobies" moments, the best one of all being when we busted him for looking for "boobs" on his computer, and he claimed he was looking for "boots" and made a typo! But honestly, just turning 12, he's not at that stage yet. He's still in the video games and cooties stage, as he should be just turning 12!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A lot of things were different in the 1950s and 60s. Ozzie and Harriett couldn't even discuss sex, much less be shown in bed together.

My grandfather used to think my cousin was a slutty tart because she wore dresses where the hemlines were above her knees. And she wore fishnet stockings, which were "Only worn by whores."

People change and gather more knowledge as they age. That you attempted to belittle him simply because of his age has no justification . In fact, there are laws against just that kind of behavior.
Can you guess why??-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, if you are over 70 years old, you are WAY out of touch with modern young people and shouldn't be giving advice at all.
Because of the proliferation of sex in all forms of media, kids are learning about it at a very young age. The basics of sex education should be taught at 10 or 11 years old.
If you think that is too young, why do you take your kids hunting, or to the firing range, at that age or younger? If you introduce your kids to guns at a young age, doesn't it make them want to go "out in the weeds" and shoot guns?

If you defund Planned Parenthood, where else are kids going to get low cost birth control? Where are poor women supposed to get health care?
And yes, it is YOUR problem because YOU keep bitching about it.
As long as Republicans continue to oppose sex education and access to birth control, there will continue to be abortions.
Just like there will continue to be gun deaths every day.

So, are you telling me they invented sex?

Woman, I was born in the Summer of 1938.

Are you aware that back then we kids knew much more about sex by age 5-6 than you give us credit for? Some of you democrats slay me by assumng sex is a modern invention.

Apparently with your ego, you believe you are smart enough to coach the youth but i am just too old. ROFLMAO

Can you put yourself in my shoes only suddenly you are today 74. Can you imagine your surprise that suddenly age made you dumber? Do you actually think that as you age, you will be dumber?

Actually my natural tendency is to not offer they advice unless it is family and mostly about getting a very good education and all that education entails.

I learned plenty about sex by 1944. My youngest sister was delivered by the doctor at our home.

Do you not suppose we kids knew about sex?

The main thing about sex is don't waste your time having sex with men who are dogs and women who will do it to anybody. A lot of women don't care who they screw. Not all of women, but far too many. It is like shaking hands to them. I suppose in your world they got to be sluts by taking courses in high school. And of course I say that about the boys too.


Maybe I should have just done a point by point analysis of your post and stuck to only your points.

However much I knew about sex by age 6, it did not mean the girl sitting in front of me in the 8th grade got took up on her statement to me at the time, to wit: Bob, would you like to fuck me? I had no idea who else heard Marion ask me for sex. She must have had experience.

She said it with no warning. I was almost in shock and not thinking clearly, I like a dumb ass blurted out ... NO. That was in 1951 I believe. I know that I started high school in the fall of 1952, I really messed up by your standards.

I shot guns as a kid. And Dad never took me out to train me. I did things with a gun I won't mention since it was stupid but never hurt others.

I got my gun training at my high school. California had an ROTC program funded by CA so it was not called ROTC. I spent two years getting military training during our hour long course per day.

Planned parenthood to me is no better than church being paid to preach to you.

Church clearly is private. Planned parenthood should get no fundiyg at all by Government. They make profits or can if they so choose.

I am not eager to fund companies for much of anything.

Even to build military items, if the Feds wanted to, they could do all of it.

We could then hold the Feds fully responsible for all phases of the military.

As to your claim that we must depend on Government to sex educate those kids or pay for their condoms and pills, why?

The parents would be better parents if they did not so depend on government. It is a ritual to democrats. Turn it over to Government then complain about the results. Make each parent totally responsible for their own children. Stop asking your neighbors to supply them with condoms and pills. It's their sex. Let them handle it.

[Robert A Whit]

Gabby

Say this stud of say 21 that you perhaps know asked you to educate him about sex.

How much would you do for this young man?

Would you get naked and show him just what he needed to know?

I have a point too. But first start with this if you will.

[Robert A Whit]

A lot of things were different in the 1950s and 60s. Ozzie and Harriett couldn't even discuss sex, much less be shown in bed together.

My grandfather used to think my cousin was a slutty tart because she wore dresses where the hemlines were above her knees. And she wore fishnet stockings, which were "Only worn by whores."

Johnnie Jones from Castro Valley had parents that encouraged him to bring his women to their house and breed her anytime day or night. Well, Johnnie ended up going to San Quenton Prison for some odd reason. I recall this guy well. He had days where he had sex with up to 4 various girls on a day. He even showed up at my apartment and openly was having sex on my sofa. In my living room I am saying. He sounds like a guy a girl should meet I suppose. And this was during the Ozzie and Hariet era. Around the time of Eisenhower I believe.