Discussions

Obama Reverses Rules on U.S. Abortion Aid

+
0 Votes
Locked

Obama Reverses Rules on U.S. Abortion Aid

jdclyde
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/24obama.html?hp

?For too long,? he said, ?international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back-and-forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.?


Is Obama's exporting of the culture of US paid for abortions his idea of improving the world view of the US? How does pushing abortion as birth control make us look good?

This goes against his earlier statements that he would work to reduce the number of abortions. Looks like he just found a larger "customer base".
+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

but I would like to go off at a tangent. The agencies which push abortion, notably International Planned Parenthood Federation and its associates, do not teach Billings, the most effective method of family planning, but concentrate their efforts on the Pill and condoms and so forth. Why did not Bush feed the family-planning money into WOOMB and the like?

+
0 Votes
jck

they didn't give enough money for his "office for faith-based initiatives" to help out with that.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Obama said he intends to INCREASE faith based initiatives.

Being a community organizer (as you repeatedly bragged), he knows first hand that government can't do ANYTHING half as efficient as private organizations. More money and better care gets to the end user this way.

And the great thing, HE is intelligent enough to know that it IS constitutional for government to give this aid.

+
0 Votes
jck

faith-based doesn't necessarily mean "community". churches aren't required to let anyone participate. public funded programs require equal participation by law.

Oh, and btw: if Obama doesn't believe that government "can't do ANYTHING half as efficient as private organizations", then why is he trying to nationalize to some extent healthcare? Hm?

Please explain his concept of a "National Health Insurance Exchange" to be run by the federal government as part of his plan, if what you say is right?

You can't dispute it. He's looking to implement more government oversight of the operation of insurance to stop the system raping people (patients and doctors) for profits.


As for aid programs:

He is also intelligent enough to understand the Supreme Court decision that says you can't use your programs to push religion as well. He is, after all, a constitutional professor of law.

Unlike Bush, I don't think Obama will be as likely to overlook transgressions in the law in favor of organizations who "helped out" his campaigns in trade for a "faith-based" check-in-the-hand.

BTW, when did you think him to be so intelligent about government? I thought he wouldn't be able to do a good job cause he wasn't experienced enough in government? :^0

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

again, reading into it what you want.

only, unlike many others of clearly limited intelligence in this country, Obama understands that if the Supreme court rules something to be constitutional, then it is.

There are many of questionable intelligence that have actually tried to say otherwise.

+
0 Votes
jck

You still don't understand the concept of caveats placed upon the program by law.

You think because someone professes they are of God, then they have divine right to free reign to do as they wish.

If they start teaching God as a part of the program, they lose funding. As well, they can not exclude anyone from participating in it even if they are not of the religion they prescribe to.

Hence, it's not really faith-based. It's volunteer.

Just Bush was giving kickbacks through a loophole to religious orgs who contributed to his campaigns.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

and since it was just evil kickbacks on the part of Bush, it must be REALLY evil kickbacks on Obama if he wants to increase it, right?

Or can't you be honest and consistent on a topic?

+
0 Votes
jck

Since Bush did it means Obama is gonna do it?

You have just made ZERO sense.

You really are losing it. Go home and have your booze and play your video games.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

I assume he is going to do it.

Since you only remember what you very selectively what you wish, let me remind you what he said in his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3mWX8RNrug

"They are ALWAYS free to hire who they wish"

+
0 Votes
jck

You implied:

That since the Bush-initiated "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives" was shown to have been giving the vast majority of it's funding to religiously-affiliated organizations who contributed time and/or monies to his campaigns...

That Barack Obama is going to do the same thing?


That's a stupid thing to assume, since Obama has done everything he can to recuse his staff and appointees from all lobbying and special interest.

And, it is something Bush never did.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

The Billings ovulation method of family planning is not faith-based but scientifically proven. WHO long ago tested it and found it successful, but does not promote it much, presumably because of IPPF influence.

+
0 Votes
jck

also depends on women having regular cycles.

The absolute most effective way to 100% prevent unwanted birth is abstinence.

Period.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

the Billings method does not depend on a woman having regular cycles. You are mixing it up with something else.

+
0 Votes
jck

The Billings ovulation method (BOM) is a method which women use to monitor their fertility, by identifying when they are fertile and when they are infertile during each menstrual cycle. Users pay attention to the sensation at their *****, and the appearance of any vaginal discharge. This information can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy during regular or irregular cycles, breastfeeding, and peri-menopause. Described by the BOM organization as "Natural Fertility Regulation", this method may be used as a form of fertility awareness or natural family planning, as well as a way to monitor gynecological health.

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


Ovulation is not always tied to external body indicators, nor do eggs always drop on regular cycles. It has very much to do with cycles happening in regular patterns with indicators based on a standard assumption.

It is used to *avoid*...not prevent.

And therefore, is not 100% effective.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

It has been empirically tested to be more reliable than the Pill. I mentioned this earlier. In China the method is spreading and "Recent surveys of all areas where the BOM is taught has shown a very pleasing seven-fold decline to 0.61% in artificial abortion-rate as compared with 4.06% rate where the BOM has not yet been introduced.".
http://woomb.org/bom/chinareport.html

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

Pick one. Either it can be used during irregular cycles, or it can't.

The Billings Method also depends on women having regular cycles.

This information can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy during regular or irregular cycles

etu

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Give the girl a dime, and have her hold it between her knees at all times that she wishes to engage in intercourse.

It has been found to be a big deterer of pregnancy. B-)

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

are pro-abortion people so against what you have just said is the "absolute most effective way"?

Why do pro-abortion people want so many others to have abortions?

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Do proabortion people really WANT people to have abortions? Now I am speaking of true pro-abortionists, not just doctors who stand to gain a lot of income through it.

Having an abortion is risky and dangerous for the mother, of course a proabortionist would never say that. Having an abortion is more reliable than the day after pill or the birth control pill, I'm sure proaboritonists offer that info too.

Yeah, those pro abortionists, they are at it again killing people with their lies...er, no actually that would be the ones who ban abortion funding not the ones who support it.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

between having a safe procedure available, and making it free (financially) and free (from guilt).

It is a barbaric thing, and should never be done casually.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Have you gone completely mad?

What mother do you actually believe would abort her child and be "FREE OF GUILT?"

Just one, even the hookers and horrific crack whores with the lowest morals will not be FREE FROM GUILT if they abort a pregnancy.

Abortion is one of the most horrific and life damning operations ANY woman will EVER experience in her ENTIRE existence. Nothing will ever make that go away it is a scar she will always have on her heart.

To suggest, even lightheartedly, that ANY woman in such a situation would be free from guilt just illustrates how completely devoid of any real knowledge of the subject you actually are.

How can you even suggest having a rational opinion when you demonstrate such an outrageous misconception of the practice which you condemn?

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

when the low lifes a few years back were handing out "I had an abortion" Tee shirts, as if it were something to be proud of.

Why do pro-abortion people NOT want a perspective customer to know EXACTLY what the procedure is?

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

I don't know who your miniature mind works, but it certainly is scary to consider.

I am speaking of mothers who bear intense guilt at the thought of aborting whats was to be a child of heir own creation.

You equate it to a bunch of radicals handing out 'kin t-shirts at a pro-abortion rally?

When you fight against repression, then see that fight come to fruitition of course there is reason for celebration. Cigarette manufacturer's like to advertise and promote smoking but how many smokers do you see proudly parading that they are smokers?

Your example shows just how singular and simple your mindset is towards the issue, you are seeing radicals and protesters and trying to expose them as the majority or the or even the norm.

To suggest that women are "GUILT FREE" when they have an abortion, just because some people handed out t-shirts to celebrate their change in human rights, shows just how out of touch with reality you really are in this case.

I'd honestly like to see more female input on this subject also, it is THEM we are discussing afterall. I wonder why most have conveniently chosen to avoid your post lke the plague?

+
0 Votes
jck

where pro-abortion people (all, most, or significant numbers) have said "we are against abstinence"....

please?

You can't do it. Because, most pro-abortion people wants *choice*.

Right-restricting pro-lifers want to impose their ethos on others and have control.

And also, please show me proof of the majority of pro-abortion people taking the stance of "we want others to have abortions!"

Again, you can't.

That is total sensationalism and hype.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

pro-abortion people harping that "abstinence doesn't work" or that it is unrealistic to expect that anyone could abstain from having sex.

+
0 Votes
jck

I have never heard them say that.

I have heard them say that it should not be the only option.

So, you're right.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

Abortion is big business.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

now that after they kill the babies, they can sell the parts.

They are Ghouls.

Can't sell my organs, but we can sell the dead baby? When do women start to get PAID to get abortions? Not until after the government stops gleefully picking up the check, I bet.

Heck, it will become like selling plasma, although you don't have as fast of a turn around.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Watch your eyes, here it comes, arms and hands inside the bed, hang on, here we go!

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Unfortunately we live in a real world.

Unless you also support locking up young girls until they are of age to be forcibly married to whom YOU deem the correct mate for her, what makes you think for even a second that abstinence is going to be the answer?

Sure, he best way to create world peace is for everyone to simply put down their guns, and its game over, but reality has to fit int there somewhere too.

+
0 Votes
jck

I just said that it was the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

After reading your other comments I get a better picture of your stand, my mistake.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

does not take into account those societies where if the man wants sex, he gets it - or those marriages where society might not sanction that attitude but the man does, anyway.

It suggests to me that the IPPF are just a little more pragmatic than those groups who see the world through the filters prescribed by their Imaginary Friends.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

does not take into account those societies where if the man wants sex, he gets it - or those marriages where society might not sanction that attitude but the man does, anyway.

+
0 Votes
DHCDBD

2.3 Subject-screening Procedure. After the training, every subject was interviewed to see whether she could proficiently master the BOM. Those who could not identify the mucus symptoms were either allocated a special tutor to help them or screened out. This measure was intended to ensure everybody participating in the study mastered the BOM.

+
0 Votes
DHCDBD

were sought after and not scientific.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=300179&messageID=3003869

http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol27/no4/chinaEvaluation.html

Then, who knows, maybe this is the new empirical method - screen out the element that does not support your hypothesis or that is least likely to prove your position.

+
0 Votes
jck

It is wrong for a woman/couple to terminate a pregnancy of a child they can't/won't take care of?

But, it's okay for me and every other American who doesn't have children to pay tax monies to pay to keep your children in a public school, have a school bus, have sports activities, school buildings, books, etc?

I didn't choose to have your kids. Why is it fair for you to get MY tax dollars for 13 years of your childrens' lives to put them through school, when I didn't make them or choose them?

Guess it's okay for you to get my money to upkeep your children, but not okay for a woman and father of a child to have the option not to have a child she/they can't take care of.

See my point?

BTW...note: it's an option, not a mandate. No one is "pushed" or "coerced" or any other term you want to use to make it look like government is forcing or intimidating women into having them.

BTW, most other industrialized, civilized countries on this planet have legal, government funded family planning programs including abortion as an option. So, most "world views" of us right now are that we are far too hung up on implementing religious ideology into government than to properly care for the health of people in our country or to think first of the welfare and well-being of children not born yet.

Even most Muslim states allow for limited condition abortions.

Except for, that is, places like: Iran and Iraq.

Guess you wanna have an abortion policy like Iran and Iraq?

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

If someone wants to get an abortion because they are knocked up again, that is for them to have to live with knowing they killed their baby out of convenience.

Tax payer dollars should no more be used for this than to give someone a nose job.

In a time of financial crisis, we DEFINITELY should not be wasting US tax dollars on other countries to abort their youth. Let them pay for it themselves. People are losing their homes HERE, and we are worried about being able to pay someone to kill someone elses baby?

Something you can't understand, refusing to use taxpayers money for abortion is not the same as refusing to allow women to repeatedly get their abortions. Just make them pay for their own. Simple, really.

+
0 Votes
jck

In a time of financial crisis, we DEFINITELY should not be wasting US tax dollars on other countries to abort their youth. Let them pay for it themselves. People are losing their homes HERE, and we are worried about being able to pay someone to kill someone elses baby?

If that's so, why have we spent $100Bs in Iraq saving babies there? Why haven't we got out of there and taken care of our own?

Why are we worrying about someone else's babies and country, when ours is going down the $hitter?????

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

to compare the value of saving a life with killing unborn babies.

+
0 Votes
jck

How many Americans were killed from 2003-2008?
25,119 dead as of July 15th 2008.

"Forces: U.S. & Coalition Casualties". CNN, From March 2003 onwards.

Number of Iraqis dead? Over 90,000

Saving a life, eh?

We've made that country more deadly now than before we went in there.

We've caused more deaths than we've saved.

Saddam may have been a tyrant and a psycho, but you didn't see the terrorists running his country.

We'd have done better keeping our butts here and having done our own little insurgency to take over the government rather than **** it up.

Shows ya how good that "go git 'em boys!" attitude you take has done.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

This is in the UK because that's what I know.

The "morning after pill" is an abortefacient drug. The coil and other IUD devices are also abortefacients so all ought to be proscribed the the Extremely Religious.

Early term abortions - up to 14 weeks - used to be all vacuum aspiration but this is being replaced by the drug misfepristone that blocks the hormones that maintain the uterine lining.

High-dose Prostaglandins in later pregnancies force a birth within a few hours.

The thing worth remembering about abortions is that when you have a society that sanctions early abortion, the late ones are fortunately much rarer. In the UK, 90% of abortions were carried out at under 14 weeks gestation; 60% were at under 10 weeks.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

that people decided to make this a discussion about abortion rather than a discussion about funding abortion and abortion groups.

Quite two different things.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

Generally, those who are against abortion are against government funding of it. I accept that there are those, like yourself, who are more against the funding on principal but in the case of this thread I was generally answering John Wills' anti-abortion posts.

It was your "elective surgery" that prompted my response to you as I was suggesting that the cost - monetary cost - of an early abortion is not as high as you might imagine if you don't have to protect your abortion clinics from pro-lifers or your society doesn't stigmatise people to the extent that they delay.

As for the psychological cost to the woman and the cumulative cost to your society, I leave up to you to decide.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

if we wouldn't have "put down" the millions of babies over the last few decades, would we have a large enough work force to keep our social security from going under?

+
0 Votes
jck

more than likely would have expanded the cost of the welfare system, because most of those babies would not have been born to women who could afford to take care of a child on their own.

it's obvious to me that would be the more likely case. women/couples who can afford a child most often don't have the abortion.

most abortions are for young women with no established career, or who are not old enough to get work to support a child.

anyways, the debate either way is:

Abortion has a use, and yes it's abused by a vast minority of those who use it.

Cutting off its funding totally because of the misuse by a vast few, would be like cutting off funding to all government departments because the Department of Defense has let so much misspending happen on $600 toilet seats and $1000 hammers for various military projects.

Or, maybe it'd be like...

Police shooting everyone in a grocery store because one of them was a robber. lol

+
0 Votes
TheChas

A lot would depend on the demographics of the women who had their babies aborted.

If most of the women would have ended up on welfare because of having a baby, the cost of entitlement programs in the US might well be many times what they are now.

If most would have ended up as part of lower middle class working families, we would either have higher unemployment, or a lesser need for South American immigrant workers.
(An interesting aside here is that illegal immigrants using forged Social Security cards may actually be what keeps payments going into Social Security.)

Only if these unwanted babies had gone to loving and nurturing homes would there be an expectation that they would improve the world.

Not to say that there is not a value to every life and every soul. Just that the "what if" game is very complex.

Chas

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

that entitlement programs are a bad thing?

Are you saying that only people from wealthy, loving homes ever amount to anything?

Mom was on welfare when I was young, and some think I turned out alright. Oh, and she has her Masters degree now in computer science and is one year away from retirement.

It is the individual, not their income level, that determine if they have any worth or not. I know some great, hard working people that just don't make a lot of money.

+
0 Votes
jck

luck and opportunity.

there are also people like your mom, jd, who never get out of the situation despite working 2 and 3 jobs.

consider yourself lucky.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

what, of being poor?

Like I said at the end of that post, I do know people that are near and dear to me that ARE poor. They are good people that live good lives, they just don't have the money for that big screen TV or the summer cottage.

THINGS to not make for a good life. These POOR people that bust their asses everyday for their paycheck are happier with their lives than some of the rather rich people I know.

"Can't buy me love......"

A lot of "poor" people have risen to do great things. Poor people actually have a better chance to get through college than middle class does because government grants will pick up the whole tab. Graduate with no student loans, what a concept.

Life is only what you make if it.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

a desire to do what the opportunity requires, and the wherewithal to persevere if you are not successful at first.

Instilling work ethic is the single most important factor, in my opinion.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

hand-outs do not instill a work ethic. It has quite the opposite effect.

The entitlement programs are designed to trap people, not lead them to a productive life.

+
0 Votes
jck

jd:

it has nothing to do with being poor. trust me. both my parents were born at the end of the depression.

mom butchered chickens and washed other peoples clothes to make money to help her single mother, who worked her way to a masters' degreee and became a principal and teacher while raising the 3 girls by herself.

dad worked with his mother from the time he could walk, and hasn't stopped working to this day. he's 75.

but, the fact is: your mom had opportunities in working to get where she wanted to go. and if those opportunities had not have happened or gone poorly for her, it could have been a totally different situation than you.

so it depends on the opportunities that come to you, and the circumstances in which they happen...as to whether things go well or poorly in your pursuit to better yourself.


tony:

the "do what it takes" thing isn't always the solution.

for example: if your daughter wanted to be with an actress and she got auditioned for a huge role in a movie, but to get it she had to sleep with the director...are you gonna tell her..."you have to perservere and have the fortitude to do what it takes to get the role."?

of course not. you do what is reasonable and necessary, but not "whatever it takes".

+
0 Votes
jck

Thing is:

It's horrible for a person not to do it, but they can rename it a "tax credit" or "stimulus package" and give it to a corporation and it's a-okay.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

nothing? that is what I thought.

+
0 Votes
jck

you started in on entitlements...so...i'm following that vein of "taking the handout"...which is what "entitlement programs" are...right?

Because you sit and bash people for taking the handout, but a company to get almost all it's profits back from the government in tax credits...them getting a handout is okay? but the little guy can't?

and if you really want to get down to it, putting your children in a non-required public school program that you aren't paying 100% of...that is taking a handout from all other Americans who pay for it.

a free ride is a free ride.

don't complain about someone else shoes being dirty til yours shine like gold...that's what i'm saying.

some companies waste their handouts just like some people do, and come back for more from the government again asap.

anyways...tell corps to stop wasting, start hiring, and then when the lazy welfare people don't work and there are plenty of jobs open...cut them off. period.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Why is it the only time you drone on about it, is to justify something else?

Like usual, instead of admitting if something is a problem or positive, you have to go off on something else.

It does not address the issue that was being discussed, it is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and does not change or effect the issue being discussed.

If something is said about a politician, you jump right back with "well, THIS PERSON OVER HERE DID XYZ".

You are a born apologist that is unable to honestly discuss a topic on its own merits.

Is that Bush's fault too?

+
0 Votes
TheChas

I did not mean nor intend to imply that everyone living below a specific income was destine to be a failure. Or, that every child aborted by those of limited means was predestined to not succeed.

But, the odds do show that far too many children born of poor single moms never make it out of the poverty they were born in.

The street gangs and drug trade capture and destroy too many of the youths that live in impoverished areas.

Even when you get outside of the big cities and look at the chronic poor in Michigan's northern areas and upper peninsula, you see far too many children that just aren't going to make it to college or even trade schools.

True, some of these kids will find a way to make a good living in a variety of local jobs.

I also will not deny that there are a few people who will make it and do well under any conditions.

As far as the "what ifs" for the lost children of abortion are concerned, I worry more about the great minds, scientists and entrepreneurs we have lost over the years.

Chas

+
0 Votes
jck

Why is it the only time you drone on about it, is to justify something else?

Because I understand that fixing one thing about a problem isn't necessarily the solution to fixing the entire problem.

Essentially when you contribute to any problem that you sit and whine about, you are just as guilty as the people you put down for it.

Like usual, instead of admitting if something is a problem or positive, you have to go off on something else.

What f*** have I been doing? Reading the Bible?!?!?!

All I have done is pointed out problems or positives.

It does not address the issue that was being discussed, it is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, and does not change or effect the issue being discussed.

The fact that Obama gave money to fund abortion in any country is not the problem.

If people had your morals, then none of them would use it.

But, we can't all be perfect and from Michigan like you.

If something is said about a politician, you jump right back with "well, THIS PERSON OVER HERE DID XYZ".

Yeah well, I would if it was a politician you had praised for how great they were doing and they really weren't.

If you're gonna support the activities of someone and then degrade someone in the same position, don't expect me not to point out your hypocrisies.

You are a born apologist that is unable to honestly discuss a topic on its own merits.

And you are a born and raised narrow-minded egotist who thinks your own valueset is what the world needs to be right, and that no one else should have any other option other than what you approve.

Is that Bush's fault too?

No, it's the fault of whoever raised you.

Someone should have taught you a simple lesson about always assuming that you could be wrong until you prove your case.

And in the cases of opinion, not assuming that everyone has the same values and standards by which they live.

Just remember...we have freedom of and from religion and its persecution in this country.

And if an Athiest woman wants to go have an abortion and it is deemed a legal procedure by your government, she should then have as much right to have one and you pay for it as you have to send your kids to school for 13 years, go get them reduced-rate flu shots, etc., and have me pay for it.

But, don't go crying about someone who is taking advantage of a federally funded program that you don't approve of, when you in reality have been doing it for years to others.

Hypocrisy: it's what's for lunch today.

I'm going home. I'm sick, and don't feel like dealing with it.

Have a nice weekend. Get sloshed.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

hand-outs do not instill a work ethic. It has quite the opposite effect.

The entitlement programs are designed to trap people, not lead them to a productive life.


Thankfully, the trap fails sometimes...

[Add: and who's place is it to define "productive"?]

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

allow early abortions because their theology is still stuck with medieval biology. If we accept modern biology we accept that abortion is murder from fertilization onwards. Whether it should always be punished is another question, but certainly the state itself should never contribute to murder.

+
0 Votes
jck

you say "modern biology"

let's get some "biology" right here.

if it is murder to terminate a fetus before the brain stem becomes active, then it should also be murder for you to chop up a carrot, eat an egg from a chicken, etc.

Biologically (and medically) speaking in the modern sense of biological science, "human life" is determined by factors of the embryotic structure differentiating itself from those things existing that are similar. That is, a fetus is scientifically considered to be fully "human life" once the brainstem and nervous function has fully developed, which is typically as early as 10 1/2 weeks and as late as 15 in a normal, healthy fetus.

The *only* precepts that say abortion is murder from fertilization onward are those religiously-perpetuated concepts that state "life begins with conception".

However, human life is scientifically differentiated by sentience and self-awareness. So if that is the case, then how can it be human without having the nervous and cognitive organs (even in their most basic form) in place?

I do have a question:

If you have/had a daughter, someone abducts her at the age of 9, molests her for days, then takes her, puts her in a trash bag, and puts her in a hole, and buries her alive.

Do you still think that person has a right to live after taking the innocence and life from your child?

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

The villain you submit has forfeited his rights by violating them in another person. That is not true of the preborn child.

+
0 Votes
jck

as I am someone with no children:

Why is it the right of anyone who wants to push out babies before they can take care of them to a normal standard...and make people like me pay for their schooling, after school programs, etc?

How is it fair?

Why do you punish me a viable, breathing, living, thinking, productive person who does good things, by FORCING ME to take care of OTHERS' children?

But you give more rights to a blastula or zygote or clump of cells that has no more humanity or ability to think or do than a potato?

It's hypocracy. You give more rights to a cellular glob than you do a human being who is proven.

As for it being a "pre-born child", I would agree after first trimester when if is a life. But prior to that, when there is no brain function, no brain stem, no heartbeat...it is not life scientifically to me.


And it is fair asking you about John Cooey. Would you...or would you not...have that man's life taken for what he did to Jessica Lunsford? If that were your daughter, would you not want to see his life ended?

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

if the family loses their job and is no longer able to care for them, we should take the children and kill them, right?

+
0 Votes
jck

You're thinking in black and white again. Think for yourself, not in the box conservatives tell you to sit in.

And as a matter of being able to take care of your children:

When parents can't feed or house their children, we have a system to provide for those children.

When I'm talking about the mother and father not being able to take care of them, I mean this:

You have a 14 year old girl and 15 year old boy.

How do they get jobs?
Pay rent?
Pay for daycare?
Feed the baby?
Pay for doctor's visits?
Pay the hospital bill?

Simply put, you want ME to have to pay for the kids that I didn't have. Plus, you want a couple kids to have to ruin their lives because of a mishap.

I really hope your boys don't get a girl pregnant soon. Or, you will learn what it is really like. Whether you want it or not, grandpa would get calls and office visits and asked to take care of the baby on weekends.

If it does, have fun.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Would not they both go into the SAME system that YOU are paying for?

Why, yes, they would.

But you would kill one set of kids and pay for the other?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

Why is it the right of anyone who wants to push out babies before they can take care of them to a normal standard...and make people like me pay for their schooling, after school programs, etc?

isn't those parents, it's the system that imposes the unfair consequences...

The government shouldn't be addressing any specific person's needs or desires to a greater or lesser extent than another's, nor should it be burdening one person any more than another. Equal rights demands equal responsibility.

+
0 Votes
jck

that since JD grew up in this country, knew how the system worked, knew single people would have to pay for his kids public program expense...that he knew it was unfair yet had kids anyway with his ex because it satisfied his desire to be a father?

If you know the speed limit is 70, and you knowingly go 85...it is breaking the law no matter what.

Just because the system doesn't get you for it doesn't mean that it's not wrong.

and jdclyde (and many others) had a choice to have children knowing that those without children would be paying for them in part...they chose to impose that unfair standard on me...not the system. the system just facilitates it.

and i agree. equal rights. i want my fair share of money that would be used by the system to put my 2.5 kids through now. lol

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

Since people had been having children for tens of thousands of years before the concept of school, the onus is on the government.... It is they who imposed the cost on you.

+
0 Votes
jck

however...if people stood up and didn't have kids until they could afford them, government would have no reason to run schools.

just like drugs...if there is no demand for them, they would go away.

supply and demand...so, government is just supplying what the citizenry demand of them...not what they invent to rip us off in a grand evil scheme.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

WHAT is a "preborn child"?

Actually, I know what you think you man by it but, really, such emotive language just marks you as just another Religious Nutter.

You are up there with those who, when Amnesty International adopted what the Pro-Life organisation labelled a "pro-abortion" stance (it was in reality an adoption of the idea of a woman's right to choose, focused on a woman's human rights in the face of rape and other acts of violence), prominent members of Pro-Life withdrew their membership of and support for Amnesty. The Roman Catholic bishop of East Anglia, Michael Evans, stated "appalling violence must not be answered by violence against the most vulnerable and defenceless form of human life in a woman?s womb."

This tactic of emotionalising the argument and using 'human' words to refer to the foetus is a common one. It is an attempt to shock and manipulate when the facts of the argument are stacked against you and there is no logical defence of your stance.

Neil

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

To which I leave you, and the tree entire.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

I think not. Just indulging myself in, gently for now, prodding another owner - or do I mean pet? - of an Imaginary Friend.

Probably a good idea to leave me to it. I haven't properly cut loose in AGES.

:)

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

This thing has spiraled and morphed and transmogrified into the purely unrecognizable. You falling from way up there won't make a sound.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

does that make it shrimp?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

but it is not, until it is born, a human being.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

right?

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

So it's human, but has no existence until it's born?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

So it's human, but has no existence until it's born?

And it has many rights... but it does not have the right to force (or have the government force) its mother to risk her physical or mental health to save its life, just as the government cannot force you to run into a burning building to save the life of another.

Laws change though, so nothing is etched in stone.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

By definition, life begins at conception. The question then arises where/when conception happens. In a jellyfish life cycle, the gamete is conceived at meiosis, the polyp is conceived at fertilization and the medusa is conceived at budding. In the human life cycle the gamete is conceived at meiosis and the soma at fertilization.

+
0 Votes
jck

between "life" generically and "human life"

Otherwise, I can call you an abortionist for eating chicken.

I invite you to go read some scientific journals. You'll see that not everyone is in accordance with religious concept that fertilization means it is a human life.

BTW: Human developmentof a fetus in-utero is a process of mitosis...not meiosis.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

development of the foetus, and indeed of all somatic mammalian life, is indeed by mitosis, but formation or conception of gametes is by meiosis.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

Neither meiosis nor mitosis are in anyway reserved for human ontogeny even if jck's statement was wrong. Which it wasn't.

You feel that you must assign some "divine spark" and that fertilisation is an easy place to do it and I believe that the process of becoming a whole person with rights takes longer than that and cannot be applied to a ball of undifferentiated cells.

That's the binary that we can't get beyond.

I, however, do not choose to push MY view on another person and force them to an action - backstreet abortion - or an inaction - carrying and bringing up an unwanted child - that they do not want.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

is not eally the issue, because no-one is saying that human gametes are sacrosanct. But human somata are sophonts, or sapients, and their life is continuous from fertilization.

As it happens, I do read science from time to time, and I have in particular read quite a bit of biology. I have never found evidence in modern biology of the kind of sequence of discrete lives that mediaeval biologists thought occurred.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

I don't reckon sapience is much evident anywhere else, either. If ever a species was badly named, "**** sapiens" takes the prize!

Significant brain structures connecting the thalamus and the cerebral cortex develop during the third trimester of pregnancy. They are not usually apparent until at least the 23rd week of pregnancy and may not begin to be operational until the 30th week. Until this point, it is unlikely even that the foetus feels pain as pain is the conscious recognition of an unpleasant stimulus.

This research was posted in the JAMA in 2005 as part of a study when the US government was proposing that doctors be required to tell women having an abortion from the 20th week of pregnancy that the foetus felt pain.

Rather blew the pro-lifers out of the water.

Usually the case when the Extremely Religious argue biology.

+
0 Votes
jck

then a miscarried baby is a life?
a still-born infant is a life?

i beg to differ. not all things of genetic material in-utero are "life".

And, not all fetuses are sophont or sapient, since there scientific proof that there is no intelligence or thought in a being with no center of neuro-chemical impulse acquisition, recognition or recall.

Brain function has to be present for cognitive intelligence to be present even at a basic level, and complete development of that does not happen until about the end of the first trimester in the human fetus.

+
0 Votes
jck

I haven't read that article. I need to go read it. I had always been educated that basic brain and brainstem neuro-chemical function starts at about week 10-13, or something in that area.

Thanks for that tidbit of info on the JAMA article. :)

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4180592.stm

You can make your way to the root article from there. If I get the chance, I 'll find it for myself again although I did read it three years ago as the research really came as a surprise to me, too.

"A UK expert said the JAMA conclusions were in line with what was already known about foetal pain."

Not what I "knew" at the time!

Neil

+
0 Votes
jck

I owe you more pints :)

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

In circumstances where one's rights interfere with another's, one must give way. Should the government, for example, FORCE a raped woman to give birth?

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

When you two uncover "being" by divvying it up into ever-increasing taxonomic crap. Then let me know when you're about to enforce your angels dancing on the head of a pin over the barrel of a gun.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

do you, then, distinguish between life and being?

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

Does it "be"?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

They do not count fetuses in the census, nor do they allow a tax deduction.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

I'd have thought the bean counters would have counted themselves into oblivion by now.

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

That would be "persons", I think. The fetus is unmasked.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

are the closest man has come to a perpetual motion machine.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

is what keeps any valid person of science from considering a baby with a beating heart to not be life.

It is valid to conclude at the time of conception, but it is NEVER valid once a child would be viable outside the womb. Ever.

+
0 Votes
jck

when the brainstem activity begins in a fetus, that is when what develops into the heart starts to beat.

it's part of it. go read some NEJM or JAMA.

Oh, and btw: If you consider life to be a child that is "viable outside the womb", you are implying you support that as "not life" since fetuses generally don't survive until after 26-28 weeks.

And, it is not the "politicization of science". It is what medical scientists and biologists have categorized as what defines and separates human life from that shrimp you eat at Red Lobster.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

does that shrimp become a shrimp?

+
0 Votes
jck

it fulfills the roll of being a shrimp, and not just shrimp genetic material which is growing and *might* become a shrimp.

I mean if you are going to define a non-viable fetus as "human life" (meaning no heart beat, no brain function, no circulatory system), then I could take and mix up fertilized genetic material in a beaker and call it "human life".

Humanity and its existence has a distinction from all other forms of life, and to say that a ball of cells with no functioning systems is "human life" is a stretch.

It may be growing, human-based cells...but, it is not "human life".

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

"but it is NEVER valid once a child would be viable outside the womb. Ever." For a reasonable definition of "viable", anyway.

Still, that's a long, long time after conception. Five months and more and that's plenty of time.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

sure, they look like a doll instead of a person, but they are alive.

ThingTwo dropped down to 2.5 lbs the first night at just over 7 months.

+
0 Votes
neilb@uk

had twins that developed TTTS (Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome) and the medics were forced to deliver the babies at around 25 weeks. Both are now five, intelligent, pretty and attending school although Emily is profoundly deaf.

Younger than that presents HUGE difficulties and survival rates drop with each week more premature. A major study recently completed over here has found no significant improvement in the survival rate for very premature babies over the last 10 years.

The research showed babies born above 24 weeks gestation were more likely to live than in the past but there was no significant improvement in survival of babies born before 24 weeks.

Forty per cent of babies born at 23 weeks die in the labour ward. Severely premature babies who do survive very often have long term problems stemming from the lack of lung and brain development.

Neonatal survival figures are 26% at 23 weeks, 47% at 24 weeks and 67% at 25 weeks.

I don't use these figures to promote abortion later than 20 weeks as that's something I don't like although I do believe that potential foetus independent survival isn't a reason to ban abortions earlier than 22 weeks.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

it's murder to kill an unborn child.

If divorced couples can go into court to argue interminably over who gets custody of fertilized eggs, then life begins at conception.

Legalism is bullsh*t.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

There was a big protest by the pro-abortion people over the Peterson case. They didn't WANT him charged with the murder of his unborn son because it DOES recognize it as a baby that can be murdered.

This has never been about right and left, but right and wrong.

People that know it is wrong looking to validate away something as barbaric and uncivilized as this procedure. They further wish to get as many others to join in the club, because it helps them sleep at night knowing they weren't the only ones so it can't be THAT bad, right?

+
0 Votes
jck

If divorced couples can go into court to argue interminably over who gets custody of fertilized eggs, then life begins at conception.

you are saying a zygote is a human life?

get real. show me sapience or sentience at any level by a zygote.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

"sapience or sentience" in the Democratic party.


You just KNEW that was coming, didn't you?

+
0 Votes
jck

doesn't surprise me coming from you.

Get me an electroencephalogram machine, and let me hook it up to Obama and I'll tell him to think about making love to Michelle, and prove to you he thinks based on the change in brainwave patterns that occurs...and i'll make you a printout of it too. Hard proof of sapience.

Sapience? I could prove that by asking Obama:

"How do you feel when you read a story about murder?"

His answer would be subjective about his feelings and perceptions.


Now, please show me sapience and sentience in a 10 week fetus.

Did you know that was coming?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

"homicide" might be a more accurate term than "murder", because murder is defined as an "unlawful killing" while abortion is not unlawful. In fact, it might even be considered 'self defense'!

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Infanticide

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

the definition of "infant".

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

force you to harm yourself to save the life of another?

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

the only fair about life is that conception is 100% fatal to the conceived.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

What about the women who are at risk by carrying it full term?

What about the women who are UNABLE to care for their cihld due to sickness and ailments due to unplanned pregnancy at an early age?

What about those mothers who are forced to give birth to children with special needs?

The only FORCE I see here is the fact that women are FORCED to carry a child full term and then FORCED to raise it or rely on the state to do so.

Lifting funding does not FORCE people to abort pregnancy though. What utter BS.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

As it wasn't illegal, they had the option all along to get as many abortions as they could afford, like anyone else that wants something that has a price.

There is no "force" involved either way.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

So removing funding bans does NOT force abortion? Why the change or heart?

What abut a teenage girl, can't tell her overly religious parents about it and is 'forced' to have a child because she cannot afford an abortion. They won't support it and you are in turn FORCING her to rely on YOUR tax dollars to raise it for the next 18 years, or even more for a suitable care home to do so at your expense.

How about the single mother who gets pregnant, even though using protection, a very common occurance also, but now she will be FORCED to have her child as she cannot afford other options or her options are limited enough that she is FORCED to have another child.

If you limit or remove OPTIONS and CHOICES, how is that not the same exerting FORCE?

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

because I can't afford a nice fancy one.

I am "forced" to live in a modest home because I can't afford a fancy one on the beach.

It is an elective surgery and should not be paid for with government funds.

If there is a life saving emergency, it would be performed in the emergency room (if it really were an emergency) and if the person has no insurance or money, the debt is written off.

Don't believe the hype, "the poor" don't pay for that emergency visit, nor are they turned away.

As for dealing with her parents, that is a family matter, and government has no business getting involved.

Did you know they can't/won't give my kids a friggen aspirin in school without my permission?

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Judging by your comparison to luxury items, car and home, you see abortion as a luxury item that is a decision taken on by someone who decided to get pregnant.

Your understanding of the subject matter you are trying to negate is hideous to say the very least. I wonder what world you grew up in where you have not been subject to the necessary side of abortion and simply see it as an unnecessary, luxy expense.

I don't even knw how you can continue to debate a subject yo clearly have no real understanding of, beyond the fact that your tax money may pay for it.

Whilst you accept the billions your government wastes to make YOUR life a little more comfortable you reject the importance of addressing unwanted pregnancy that may completely ruin two or more people's lives.

Way to be American, all for one and all for one!

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

does not make necessary.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

So yu have no response other than to dig for the meaning of a single word? sucks when you realize how off track and wrong you are doesn't it?

Lets change that word, for your benefit to NECESSARY. Either way, by your standards they are screwede anyway. and MANY such cases are necessary, even imperative to th elife of teh mother, but that means nothing to you, as long as your tax money is accounted for and ONLY applied to what you support.

Looking at your ideals, lets say all of YOUR tax money was allocated ONLLY to what YOU personally support.
Of course, each and every American is afforded the same luxury; you'd sure be screwed in Iraq, there would be a lot more people in the USA declaring personal banruptcy due to delinquent mortgages, your streets would be littered (even moreso) with panhandlers and homeless people, crime, drugs and death.

But hey, they wouldn' tbe gettign at YUOR tax dollars to sort out problems anymore, and you call yourself a CiTIZEN and consider yourself an AMERICAN and are PROUD of your MIGHTY NATION.

You actually sound like a one-off looking to do his own thing by himself, but still reap the great benefits of a nation and government...however only those benefits you enjoy and none of the costs or obligations attached to them.

Yeah, maybe we'd all like to live in Wonderland and drink tea with rabbits while eating magic mushrooms with catepillars too.

+
0 Votes
dwdino

None of your other examples include murder.

+
0 Votes
CharlieSpencer

The previous administration stopped funding any program that included abortion as one of it's services, regardless of whatever other services it offered. How did refusing ALL services make us look? Resuming funding for programs that offer contraceptive measures in addition to abortion will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and, by extension, abortions.

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

use all the money for programs not involving abortion? Why bother at all with IPPF and the like?

+
0 Votes
CharlieSpencer

I couldn't care less either way. It's chump change compared to many other programs, and I don't have a philosophical interest in the question.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

You'll find anything you can and twist it into what you would like, controversy. Just like a cheezy tabloid "editorial". You even make up the comments by yourself and apply them to the people involved as if they actually said it.

For some reason, I thought you were more astute than to create your own comentary and editorial out of absolutely nothing at all.

Utter fabrications, such as:
"How does pushing abortion as birth control make us look good?"are cmoplete garbage and pure fantasy.

Stopping funding that RESTRICTS something does not equate to "pushing it".
Alcohol was once banned, lifting that ban did not PUSH it upon people.

It simply lifted a restriction on people's personal choices, which you obviously feel they are not entitled to.

But then in another heartbeat, you will defend YOUR right to personal choice, when it is aligned with your OWN personal choice of course, what a hypocrite!

Banning abortion does NOTHING to stop unwanted pregnancy, and does NOTHING to educate or protect people from spreading AIDS. That funding was also used for family planning education and was used to protect people, not force them to abort or as you suggest PUSH abortion upon them.


Comments such as this, which was not offered by yourself, "President Obama will be remembered forever not just as a smart, savvy, gifted and eloquent leader but as the Abortion President"
simply shows how small minded and ignorant people will choose to be when they see an opportunity to have THEIR say based on what someone else has already said. Its easier to condemn than create I suppose.

As with yourself, instead of coming up with compelling reasons to support your own stand, you simply discount someone else's, whether with fabrication or fact. in this case you are stretchign that limit pretty far, you offered NOTHING that was actually said but focused on speculation and your own fabrications instead.

Such as Douglas Johnson who said "the first in an anticipated series of attacks on longstanding pro-life policies as the new administration pushes Obama's sweeping abortion agenda."
What a crock of shite! Yeah, pushing abortion is all Obama's is about, you can tell by looking at his daughters just how much he hates pregnancy and procreation.

I am sure he too tells his daughters to go get knocked up and he will see that the state sorts it out for her afterwards. No education on pregancy or family planning is allowed because that will just push abortioon on her, just let her learn from her own mistakes instead of offering guidance.

What a typically absurd an thoughtless commentary!

The guy is a father of two daughters, for Christ's sake! Do you REALLY think he is PUSHING abortion or perhaps he is simply accepting it is a CHOICE that should be made between his family and his daughters, should they ever wind up in such a position?

You know, you are such a hypocrite; when it comes to welfare you say its a waste of YOUR money and people should be held more responsible for their own situations.

Then when they are forced to have a child even if it literally kills the mother, which you also proudly support, you feel that THEY should have no choice but to let it suffer in poverty if the mother is dead or can't afford to raise it herself.

To top it all off, she shouldn't even be educated on the subject of planned prenthood either, just lock her in a closet until she's ready for her arranged marriage and that'll take care of things. What is this, 1934?

Trolling, fabricating commentary, stirring the shite pot and putting it forward as a valid and reasonable discussion that illustrates the new president elect's shortcomings.

So clever!

Get a life JD, go see a concert or something.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Abortion was neither restricted nor prevented.

Is simply wasn't paid for by Uncle Sam.

Uncle Obama is going to pay the bill, so step right up and be the first in your neighborhood to get your free abortion!

Wanna get an abortion? Knock yourself out.

Want to waste our limited tax dollars for it, especially during an economic crisis? Bullsh1t.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

500 BILLION on an unnecessary war is okeydokey, alright Uncle Sam, just keep throwing money at that problem until you win or pull out but still claim you won....it protects YOU in your mind anyway.

700 Billion to the companies that have proven they are irresponsible in money management...shady lenders may help YOU when you need a mortgage, who cares if others iresponsibly take on debts they have no intent or means of repaying.

Lets bail out the auto manufacturer's that refuse to build a car that stands up to Japanese and European imports (even North American cars in Europe are ten times better than those built in North America).
They build substandard garbage to appease cheap ***ed American consumers who demand lower prices, regardless of the shite the product is. Who knows, you may want to buy a GM one day, and now you can!

But as for supporting our future generations who just may wind up operating companies that perform accordingly and don't leech billions of your tax dollars, forget it. They are ****-bags and deserve to be forced into having their unwanted, unplanned children, let them and their children suffer for eternity. That doesn't benefit you directly, so screw it, they get nothing from you, no money no support not a care.

Yeah, have a long sit and think. You really need to start looking at reality for a change and not just your knee jerk reactions in your neverending quest to dicscount Obama and make yourself feel better by think ing you have more money in your pocket by paying for fewer government programs.

"The money" is the saddest, lamest excuse I have ever heard with regards to support of government funded programs. Americans seem to believe that if they support fewer programs, that teh money will be put back into their pockets, that the government will tax them less or something, UNTRUE.

You tax dollars will simply be reallocated somewhere else, there's no surplus and never will be in the USA, you are simply not structured for it you consume many more times than you produce. Take oil for example, you have 5% of the world's population, but consume 25% of the world's oil resources.

How do you possibly believe that stopping anti-abortion funding is going to alleviate your taxation and fincancial problems in any way shape or form?

For someone who supports billions, trillions of ridiculous expenses from your government and your taxes, which you feel are taken from your pocket and wouldn't be otherwise, you sure are cheap and selfish when it comes to people other than yourself.

+
0 Votes
jck

Well said. Kudos.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

again...

+
0 Votes
jck

for years evidently had something up your arse that makes you think you are so much better, and that women who have abortions never pondered having it or felt guilt.

You really need to go and work at a planned parenthood center, and go talk with a 14 year old girl who got molested that's having to go through it.

Oz is right. You have grand misconceptions of this, and never have dealt with it and it makes you ignorant.

Oh, and yeah Mr. Self-righteous:

I did have to talk with my sister about it when she got pregnant with my niece. And as much of a ***** as my sister is, she didn't have a walk in the park deciding one way or the other. It isn't easy like you think.

I'm logoff now, before I say something cruel.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

especially, as we find out, the bank bailouts. Should be stopped, not increased.

Auto bailouts? Stop bailing them out and stop over regulating them.

Any plan that increases government spending as a handout without a return to the US tax payer should be pointed out, each and every time.

Or we can just excuse it away, right? "At least it isn't as bad as XYZ was".....

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Again such marrow focus. Your auto industry has FAR fewer regulations than Europe or Japan's does. Manufacturer's meet far lower standards or quality and build in the USA, that's why they are allowed ot produce teh crap you get sold. Go to Frankfurt or Okinawa and have a look at THEIR auto industry, ours doens't even come close as far as regulations, government quality control and plant demands are concerned.

RE: ANY plan....

How is you taxes being used to support the future of a femail amefixcan NOT giving back to the US taxpayer? Because it doesn't give to YOU personally?

So each and every tax you pay must directly benefit YOU as an individual, and not your country as a nation?

Go find an island, you are too selfish for words.

+
0 Votes
cupcake

Kudos to both you and jck today. You've both made excellent points and comments.

(And before *someone* makes any nasty comments, I have to explain that this has been an extremely busy week preventing me from posting much today. But this one did catch my eye and I did read through the threads.)

+
0 Votes
jck

Want to waste our limited tax dollars for it, especially during an economic crisis? Bullsh1t.

Exactly. All the abortions done in the USA in the past 25 years that were subsidized don't mount up to near the cost of 5 years in Iraq overthrowing a leader who had no chemical or biological weapons, and posed no threat to making a nuclear program...as was LIED ABOUT.

SO...GET OUR TROOPS OUT AND STOP WASTING $9B A MONTH ON IRAQ AND HELP OUR OWN PEOPLE EAT AND LIVE.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Can't be honest about that, can you?

+
0 Votes

And

jck

that is, or do you know?

(you were too terse. you rurn to speek engrish right lol)

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

you talked about abortion and the war.

figure it out, you're a bright boy, right?

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

If, in your cryptic style, you are referring to stopping both abortions and the war, again you are equating them as equals that need to be dealt with the same way, jck didn't equate them but showed what an extreme difference in cost the two are.

If not, then perhaps being more concise and less cryptic would afford you some credibility.

Again though, you can accept an illegal war that costs you hundreds of billipons, and yet you oppose the health and welfare of future generations of Americans as it will take up your tax money, which for some reason you think will put more in your pocket.

If yuor government found 1 trillion sbarrles of oil, already refined and sitting in barrles in the Nevda desert, found a way to feed, clothe and house all citizens at no cost and all the doctors decided to work for no pay so yuo can get free health care, YOUR paycheck wouldn't change one dime, you would STILL pay the same taxes, they would just find something else to spend it on.

Government's DON'T give back money.

In Canada people think we actually get money back because the government pays average income earners a GSt credit 4X a year. People in Alberta were all given over a grand back in teh form of a check from the provincial government, but they take it all back in other ways. For example, Canadians pay a crap load more GST than they will ever get back and those who earn the most, spend teh most and pay teh most GST, but undisqualified from getting a GST rebate as they are above a set income level.

Albertan's got over a grand, but they also pay absurd housing and property taxes for living in such a rich and prosperous province.

YOU GET NOTHING BY BITCHING ABOUT TAXES, even if yuo feel you've won with a small victory such as no paid abortions, you get soaked out the backdoor on something else.

talk about whining about the wrong things. I'd say you need to get your priorities straight, American lives and well being should come WELL before your own interests or foreign interests.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Interesting.

My comment was just to point out the consistent tactic jck takes when he can't understand or support an idea, he talks about something else, as if it will make the original idea go away or not mean anything.

You at least stay on topic, at least until you decide it is time to inform me of your low opinion of me and Americans in general.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

I didn't see any combination of your words in his post.

Aborting babsies DOES give health to many mothers unfit to carry and birth a child, better to let them both die then?

Aborting babies often increases a persons chances at leading a normal life, as opposed to weighing them down with unfathomable costs and responsibilities hthey canot face, often due to a deadbeat dad.

For some, having a child is the end of their hopes and dreams, which you cherish your freedom to have it seems.

In SOME cases, yes you are correct. It is used as an easy out.

In the MAJORITY of cases I would suggest the opposite is true. I have yet to meet a single mother who is proud to have had an abortion or pleased that she did (and I DO know a lot of them from my past working as an employment councellor with a youth service agency). It is something women NEVER forgive themselves for, getting pregnant AND terminating it.

And you see it so lightheartedly claiming that they must be proud because they wear t-shirts advertising it.

Few does not make all.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

about how many are of convenence rather than life saving for the female (can't call her a mother, now can we?). And no, "social life" doesn't count.

And NEVER forgive themselves, but how many have more than one? I know a few people that have had more than one. Again, because it reflects poorly on the pro-abortion side, such records are conveniently not available.

There are a lot of things in life that are legal but not "right". Those of us that have any kind of conviction will NOT do anything to assist someone do something that we know to be wrong.

And we both know this issue is NOT about the person that will DIE if they don't abort their baby.

Cheers.

+
0 Votes
jck

a) when you make vague references, you could be talking about anything. be direct next time, and i'll answer you.

b) i don't presume (like you do) to think everyone who doesn't agree with me (or live my lifestyle or by my creeds) is some kind of zealot radical as you do with many people of differing opinions (pro-choice, democrats).

c) i'm not your boy or anyone else's. i'm a man, i'm pretty much your age...16 months younger?

If anyone is someone's "boy" here, it's someone who has their nose up (you've admitted that, and with a lot of pride about it too) the boss' arse by doing brown-noser favors on the side for them whenever they can to make brownie points and get in good.

So you should start cleaning your own chin, jd, and stop talking about mine.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Can't justify your inability to focus on a topic, so you go elsewhere, again.

Anyone that has a clue about business would say you are again, full of ****. For those that dont' know, the president of my company is an elderly man with a replaced hip. Doesn't get around well, so he has a home office. Guess who goes to that home office to work on his equipment DURING company time? Bingo. It is called doing my job.

As for the "bright boy" comment, it is what is known in the adult world as an "expression". Are you THAT insecure in your manlyhood that you would take offense at THAT? :0

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

should we start "putting down" any kids that are growing up on welfare or other government programs? Seems that is what you are saying as for how you are justifying the abortion as birth-control option.

+
0 Votes
jck

people around me don't refer to me as 'bright boy' or any kind of boy ever, outside of my mother calling me her "baby boy".

being 6'6 and having graying hair, it is obvious i am no boy

my boss referred to me the other day to the other sr. programmer as a "really sharp guy".

maybe people call you boy. maybe it's a michigan thing. but, not me.

and i didn't justify going anywhere. you called me boy...and i told you otherwise.

and, you made a VERY vague, non-descript, non-topical inquisition where we had been discussing a variation of things having to do with life and abortion and whether groups are right or wrong. you made the unclear question, not me.

as for your boss, you have told me before on Techrepublic that you have gone a number of times and done work for him on his equipment for no pay.

that's called...kissing up...doing favors...brown nosing...etc.

trust me. i see more of it in government than you will ever see or do.

maybe you can run for governor of Illinois. I heard that job will open up soon.

+
0 Votes
jck

is your reasoning.

For someone who often says you are for family values, raising kids right and in a healthy environment, that you can always work your way out of poverty, etc...

You sure do want to promote policies based on the fact that they meet *your* beliefs...

Yet would do nothing more than:

a) mandate that young girls who do get pregnant by accident to become unwed, single, struggling mothers before they are even legal adults

b) cause the greatest majority of women to have to use public assistance programs to raise the child because they can't afford an abortion for themselves.

Basically, your moral ethos and would-be requirement for government policy dooms the young women who can not afford an abortion to be even more likely to have an unprosperous life, while it rewards those who can afford it and allows them to be even more unresponsible with their actions.

Essentially, your law discriminates against the impoverished who can't or haven't had that "golden opportunity" to work their way out of welfare as you so claimed can be done all of the time.

As well, the way you would have it would further drive the welfare system into a frenzy.

Listen...am I saying I advocate abortion as a tool for random, frequent application as a birth control device? No.

Do I advocate abortion after the first trimester? Only when it saves the mothers' life.

Do I think a fetus with no complete set of fully functional organs is a life? No. Still born babies are not a life. Miscarried babies are not a life. Undeveloped, attached, parasitic twins are not life.

But, I do NOT assume that everyone has MY belief and I do NOT believe everyone should live by MY moral standard...as you do.

Your blanket concept that government shouldn't fund abortions solely because it doesn't fit YOUR morality is simply obtuse.

Not everyone has your same religious beliefs.

Not everyone believes that life starts when you believe it does.

Hence, law has to fit a common standard. And luckily, that standard is not set to yours or that of the religious right whose views are right in line with yours.

Otherwise, you'd be religiously ecstatic and monetarily miserable from beinng taxed out the *** from the drastic increase in public assistance that would be needed.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Talk about drama!

CONVENIENCE of abortion? I challenge you to find a single woman, ANYWHERE in the world, who thought that having an abortion was the "convenient" option.

Again, while you may actually buy into the young mom's who brush off abortions easily, you perhaps don't realize that those same mom's are very scarred internally and will never get over the horrific event that they have undergone, many wind up in long term counselling as it eats at them over time.

Your whole stand on this is that people use it like the mornign after pill. While I am certain that there may be VERY few who actually see it that way, they too are also in a great deal of internal pain and usually wind up facing severe issues later in life.

It is not a joke to these women, though you have REALLY tried hard to make it seem that way, however it is NOT, understand that at least, as you are VERY wrong with that stand.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

should we start "putting down" any kids

they would already be doing it. Of course, maybe they are...

http://www.wnem.com/news/18566890/detail.html#-

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

But I can come up with a long list of supposed adults here who they could 'put down' in order to make room for rational thought, as opposed to beliefs based on religous faith and theory.

I don't know how religious 'values' even exist in our modern society. There is no fact or realism behind FAITH based religion at all, and yet people hang onto it as if their lives depend on it. so much so that they are willign to go to war over their 'values' that God gave them.

Man, what a bunch of backwards nutters the world is chocked full of these days.

I can accept that people saw it when they thought the world was flat and the sun was 17 miles away (yeah, this is from the same guys who wrote the bible, what visionaries!).LOL

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

First, "Boy". Just has a thought, that maybe it is more of a regional thing to take offense to "Bright boy"? Kind of like how blacks were called "boy"? Just an after thought, as I was surprised of everything, THAT would get to you. (stores that bit of info away for when REALLY wanting to **** jck off)

There are a lot of things in life that the poor poor can't get that the evil rich get. I am by no means rich, and I go without all the time with zero assistance from this government that has decided I make to much money to spend tax dollars upon me. IF there really IS a situation where the female is in jeopardy, you do what you can to save her. Anything else, the use of abortion as birth control, IS just the killing of a baby out of convenience. Still legal and their choice to make, and a scared kid is not given much of the real information.

Oz, you have repeatedly harped upon the emotional issues women have over having done such a barbaric thing, yet you think it is still a good thing for them to do. Do you hate women and WANT them to go through that suffering that you admit they go through?

"that those same mom's are very scarred internally and will never get over the horrific event that they have undergone, many wind up in long term counselling as it eats at them over time"

And no, they killed their baby, so they are NOT "mom".

What did societies do for thousands of years before there were government paid abortions?

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

done work for him on his equipment for no pay.

that's called...kissing up...doing favors...brown nosing...


like it's a bad thing...

We have ice pretty bad here right now. I went home for lunch and had to drive around several downed lines and trees and move some large branches. While I was eating (this was an hour and 15 minutes ago), I looked out the window and saw a van stop. A large branch was blocking the street (not in the direction I was going). I got up, put my coat on, and went out and helped them move it. Was I wrong? I didn't know these people, so what motive do I have? (Oh, I know... I'm trying to reduce the need for city tree-moving crews.. Damn that Tony anyway... trying to screw someone out of their livelihood... doesn't he realize that those guys have families to support?)

Geesh!

+
0 Votes
jck

"Induced abortion can be traced to ancient times. There is evidence to suggest that, historically, pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques."

-Wikipedia

go do some reading.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

All the abortions done in the USA in the past 25 years that were subsidized don't mount up to near the cost of 5 years in Iraq

How did you arrive at the value of those lives lost to abortion?

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Jck is not equating lives lost to money spent in Iraq. He is comparing the costs of war compared to the costs of providing abortions.

I believe it is JD that seems to have no concern for human lives and feels that if you can't afford an abortion, you should be forced to raise a child regardless of the cost of its welfare or the possible dangers to one's life.

The question being addressed here is not one of support for abortion, it is purely one of tax payers expenses. (as if it actually makes any difference to the amount of tax you will pay)

In the case of tax money, you can't possibly suggest that offering state paid abortions over the last 25 years equals or exceeds the 500 billion+ spent on the war in Iraq.

Even still, if we went from your viewpoint and declared the cost of lives, we would then have to consider the cost of all lives lost in the war too, regardless of country or the side they are on.

I am pretty confident that 500 billion+, added to the value of thousands of lives lost would definitely not equal or be less than the costs of state paid abortions.

So lets work it out, shall we?

A number out of the blue, $10,000 per human life, aborted or killed at war.

1.21 abortions in 2005 = a total cost of 12.1 billion dollars.

Now, I'll be overly conservative in the cost of war 2005 and suggest a commonly found number of $100 billion.

"War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote."

?It keeps going up, up and away,? Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said of the money spent in Iraq since U.S. troops invaded in 2003.

?We?re seeing the war costs continue to spiral upward. It is the additional troops plus additional costs per troop plus the over-reliance on private contractors, which also explodes the costs,? said Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who opposed the war.


Now lets say only TWO people were killed, one Iraqi in 2005 and one US soldier, at a value of $10,000 ea.

That equals 100 billion, twenty thousand in 2005 for the war "effort" and 1.21 billion for abortions.

Yeah that's pretty even ground, about 100 times. even if you added up the costs of abortions over the last 25 years, at a value of 10,000 dollars a head, you STILL would only JUST equal the spending on ONE YEAR at war in Iraq, not even including the lives lost there.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

While I will not stop someone from aborting their "unwanted baby", I will do nothing to help in that process either.

Some of us think about the dead baby more than the scared teen you paint all abortion seekers as, and do not see it as Obama does of "punish you with a baby".

Kind of simple, actually. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of my position here.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Firstly, you chastize JCK for changing the subject. I respond with numbers to illustrate a point and you reply with the title WRONG. And then you fail to even mention one rebuttal or comment on a single figure I put forth? Look in the mirror, hypocrite! You didn't address the subject at all, but I suppose its different in your case than for others, as you always see your view and are completely blind to others, especially when faced with fact or reason.

Seems to be you like that approach to making your point, perhaps a bigger attention getter.

I don't think of the scarred teen more than a dead fetus (baby? who aborts babies?)A fetus is just tissue that is still part of a woman's body, "fetal tissue". Up intil the 24th week, fetal tissue is unable to support life on its own, even with the most advanced medical attention, onc eremoved from a mother it will be dead tissue.

After that time, it has the ability to support its own life, in which case it is a human being.

When a wart grows on your finger, it is tissue that is 100% reliant on you as a host to keep it alive and growing. Once removed it no longer grows.

this is wher eyou miss the entire point of my post and say that I think unborn babies are warts....I'll wait while you make those notes.....okay, anyway, while still unable to support its own life, I don't consider a fetus a baby. It is unable to breathe, feed, control its own heartrate etc.

SO you can think about what you deem is Anne Marie, being killed by a death doctor or you can grasp a little reality.

now, with that fact in mind,a 22 year old woman with a hopeful career who may die due to pregnancy complications is unable to have her fetal tissue removed and loses her life. But your story was better at pulling at the heart strings, once you bring 'baby killer' into the picture it really helps cloud reality and change the concern behind it. People start to see blue eyes and hear little giggles, knitted booties etc. but that's not the reality when aborting fetal tissue, makes for great press though.


In closing, please provide the fact where Obama has said he believed it is punishing you with a baby.

I'd say your views here are as screwed up and unqualified as your views on anything else he says or does.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

Oh yeah, it was a negative thing against Obama, so it disappeared pretty quickly.

I can understand the world press NOT wanting to get that out.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810130005

'kin youtube, your source for political facts? Get real.

"Oh, well he's still a nasty man!"

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

you get to hear the person, in their own words. Not a reporting on by someone that may or may not have an agenda that adds in spin. You are going to believe "mediamatters" more than the person saying something themselves? Loser.

"I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16."

Ok, they got the values and morals, but IF they make a mistake.... what mistake is THAT, oz?

You can't even be honest about something as simple as this. Nice one.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

What a complete nutbag, looney, and I mean that with utter conviction. You are so set on disagreeing with anything said, that you are now sinking farther and father into fantasyland.

You DEFINITELY didn't visit the link provided as it ALSO offered REAL footage of the ENTIRE comment he made (his live words) in FULL context. NOT the youTube version.

I can upload a vid on YouTube in 30 mins that has Obama calling Bush a sexy sailor with a nice butt. What a crock of complete shite!

Now, had you taken time to visit and learn that you were incredibly wrong in your false assertion, you'd have some solid ground right now.

As others can also see the same video and realize that you are talking out of your unqualified arse, you are just falling through the air.

What a dunce! Kinda like those cartoons when the guys turns into a heel or a donkey, EEEE-AAAWWW!

"How sweet to be an idiot
as harmless as a cloud
too small to hide the sun..."

Duh, can I go pet the rabbits George?

YouTube, your place for factual videos! Buy into that crap and you'll buy anything, it does explain your buying into the Iraq war BS though, the simple ones are always the quickest to fall.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Fact got your tongue? LOL

+
0 Votes

No

jdclyde

work did.

And when you say fact, are you referring to your OPINION you have been throwing around/up here? ;\

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

I wasn't talkign about mY opinion, unless you consider words coming out of Obama's mouth to be MY opinion.

Your entire argument here, and concern about what Obama said is built upon false information.

He did NOT say what you suggest he said, he did NOT say what you little YouTube video implies, as it is out of context).

The full comment and the FULL context was in teh link I provided where the reporter was shown to have made a mistake. You know, the one you refused to watch due to a 'flaky source', unlike the snippet you found on YouTube. The entire VIDEO in proper context was at the link I provided, proving (FACT) that you are incorrect in your haste to jump onboard the rumour train.

If you really want to see the full video and see just how wrong you are about his stand on the subject:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810130005

But as you say, that video is just my opinion, right? Get real!

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

that is the single best written post you have done all week.

It clearly shows the value of your input.

+
0 Votes

Yup

Oz_Media

sure, beats the **** out of any of your lies, which you still fail to prove otherwise.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

you can't possibly suggest that offering state paid abortions over the last 25 years equals or exceeds the 500 billion+ spent on the war in Iraq.

Because none of those aborted will grow up to pay taxes :)

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

do many things.

Maybe the person that would have invented a REAL "alternative fuel" for cars was one of the dead babies? Time to go listen to some cooper.



Dead babies can take care of themselves
Dead babies can't take things off the shelf
Well we didn't love you anyway
ma ma ma-ma, ma ma ma-ma, ma ma ma

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

how you feel JD. I feel the same way... I just don't think we (or or government) has the right to impose our feelings onto others (who aren't hurting us).

We cannot find the way by being herded into it. The correct way to lead is to simply do. Others will see, and if they see it as right, they in turn will do... Almost all strife can be thus eliminated... no force required, no war required... very little government required... It's what "... of the people, by the people, and for the people" means... We are supposed to be leaders.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Pro-abortion people think that it is their place to attack anyone that sees abortion for the barbaric procedure that it is. Why is that?

I don't advocate passing laws that ban abortion, but I do agree with the idea of not using government funds to pay for it.

Where do pro-abortionists get the crazy idea that someone else should have to pay for them to kill the baby? You want the baby dead, you pay to have it killed.

Simple, really.

Now some loons will start talking about Bush or Iraq or VietNam or the moon being made of cheese, as if any of that has anything to do with this topic.

+
0 Votes
jck

will:

have a mom who had to go on welfare or WIC either to support them

have medicaid to pay for their medical care

have government-paid daycare

have government-paid housing

have a mom who gets foodstamps


so, they won't be burdens either...

And, them becoming children of a mother who needs assistance to raise them would be more likely than them becoming large income tax payers.

so, touche' Tony

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

they won't be burdens either...

'not concerned' about the burden, they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain level. After all, they are not unlike a business in that they pass all of their costs to us (and adding in a cut for themselves).

+
0 Votes

So,

Oz_Media

YOu feel if the did THEY would pay 500 billion in taxes between them? Even a number with a few less zeros would be unrealistic

Either that or you see newborn babies as tax revenue. Fewer people means lower operating costs, more people requrie more tax money.

Talk about a dead point....NEXT!

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

Pro-abortion people think that it is their place to attack anyone that sees abortion for the barbaric procedure that it is. Why is that?

the best way to battle stupidity is to let it run its course. Anyone of the mindset to seek abortion would likely teach their children the same (all the more reason to avoid public schools and teach YOUR kids YOURself), so going ahead and letting them may well solve the problem through attrition.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

YOu feel if the did THEY would pay 500 billion in taxes between them?

but we'll never know... as the opportunity has been taken.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

Those unborn fetuses may have invented teh next new fuel...yeah, what a lame pathetic retort that is.

However, the highly educated civlilians in Iraq are disposable.

You do know that the most advanced botanical science and future solutions are being funded in the middle east, where there pretty much IS no plant life, of course you don't know that, they are the foreign enemy, not an intelligent and scientifically advanced culture.

What about the many scholars that have died in Afghanistan or Iraq from Canada,US and the UK? They are useless peons when there's some fetal tissue attached to a woman who could be saved.

Your head is somewhere in the clouds, nowhere NEAR reality or reason, you make it up as you go and try to fit it all together when challenged on your insane comments.

Your morals and values are all over the place, contradicting each other as you try to sort out your stand in life.

What you deem core principals are just loose tidbits of life lessons that all swirling in your head as you try to make rhyme or reason of them.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

It reminds me of an old saying.

"If your parents didn't have any kids, you won't either".

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

You have been on the record more than once about how you agree with the War in Afghanistan. So, you would take something YOU agree with, and try to hold it up to ME as a bad thing? Gawd, you have me laughing my *** off. Thanks.

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

"Anyone of the mindset to seek abortion would likely teach their children the same"

You have GOT to be kidding! that's the most ridiculous comment yet, that even beats out JD's comment that women don't care because he's seen them handing out the t-shirts.

I know many, and have met a LOT of young women who have aborted their pregnancy (not killed babies but stopped the fetal tissue in their bodies from becoming babies)

Not ONE of them would advocate abortion for ny reason other than on an individucla case by case basis and certainly NONE of them would encourage their own child to do so, NOT ONE.

And yet you assert, ANYONE of the mindset to seek abortion would likely teach their children the same.

actually I see the absolute and extreme opposite to that.

"Anyone forced to seek abortion as a solution would NEVER teach their children the same"

There's no way you can find ANY woman (just one, compared to your 'anyone'), ANYWHERE who has had an abortion and would suggest others do it too.

Its too bad the women of TR have not been posting here, peorbably because of the undue ignorance being illustrated here towards the horrors of abortion.

I am sure there are more than a few female peers that have had an abortion, I'd be really interested to see how easy it was for them, as some suggest it's an easy way out and that they would encourage others to do it too. Just the pain (both physical and mental) a woman suffers to abort a fetus is enough to stop most women wishing it on their worst enemy.

but between you and jd, they are lining up and laughing about it, getting others in on a massive baby killing rampage.

"Abortions here, get your abortion t-shirts, show them that we don't care!"

if you think YOU care, you have no idea what it means to mother a child and how much THEY care, men don't have anywhere NEAR the attachment to babies that mothers do, not even remotely close to being on the same planet.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

more people requrie more tax money.

They're productive.

+
0 Votes
jck

Not supporting/agreeing with the war in Afghanistan in his last post?

You have been on the record more than once about how you agree with the War in Afghanistan. So, you would take something YOU agree with, and try to hold it up to ME as a bad thing? Gawd, you have me laughing my *** off. Thanks.

He might agree of the purpose of the war, but what does that have to do with valuing a fetus over a fully grown, productive adult as he pointed out?

He is pointing out that you will make the assumption that fetuses will end up being productive, honest, hard-working people, and provide them with all the protection and respect in the world.

Yet, you won't cry damnation for an adult who has worked their butt off their whole life who goes to a war zone and isn't given any protections and guarantees their rights won't be violated.

It seems he is right. And, you just went WAY off the topic like you accuse me of doing constantly.

I need a drink. Glad I have plenty of booze at home.

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

"Anyone forced to seek abortion as a solution would NEVER teach their children the same"

if something were "forced" on someone, it means the person was against it (otherwise they wouldn't HAVE to be forced, would they?). I was therefore referring to those who DO look at it as 'not a big deal'.

As I've said, I am personally against it in most circumstances, but am not into imposing my view onto anyone else (my religious view prevents it... God doesn't force anyone, so why should I think I have the right to).

+
0 Votes
jck

that went over your head.

i was talking about cost of funding a war vs the funding that went to subsidize abortions.

as for life...if you're having an abortion of a 5 week fetus and you want me to call it "human life", it better be able to prove its humanity to me.

otherwise, it's a clump of genetic material.

not "human life".

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

No where does it say in the article that the US would fund foreign abortions. Period, full stop.

What the ban was on was providing any funds to organizations that in any way support abortion as a birth control method. So the UN Population Fund, a group that looks at worldwide population issues, would not get any funds from the Bush Government since they advocate abortion as one of many birth control methods.

I would not like to see my tax dollars to a group whose sole focus is pro-abortion, nor would I like to see my tax dollars go to an anti-abortion group either. But if I stopped supporting my local hospital because they provided a very small number (compared to their other sevices) of legal abortions, I wouldn't be giving any health instituitions any dollars.

James

+
0 Votes
john.a.wills

Money is fungible. There is no practical way to distinguish between money IPPF gets from the US, which must not be used for abortion and money it gets from the EU, which, as I understand, may be used for abortion. There are accounting methods to try to monitor such things, but under Clinton IPPF was found to be making last-minute adjustments, shifting money from column to column, to be able to claim that US money was not being used for abortion.

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

Or do they just provide counselling?

That is the question.

James

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

And the goal isn't to reduce abortions, but go into more places and provide more, clearly directly against the Obama statement that he wanted to REDUCE the number of abortions.

As for IPPF, they only wish to reduce UNSAFE abortion, not reduce abortions.

"We aim to reduce the number of abortions worldwide that are unsafe."

The rest of their claims are BS, as to get the funding they wanted, all they had to do was not do abortions. They could have continued all of the other services, but made the CHOICE instead that abortion was more important than "health services".

+
0 Votes
DelbertPGH

The biggest reason Reagan and Bush signed these orders shutting down funding to international family planning groups was that they were too smart to try to stop abortion in this country. They could make big brave gestures about our aid to foreign countries, though, to pacify the angry right-to-lifers here. So, they did; they forbade, by presidential order, any group receiving U.S. government money from giving any family planning advice if they told anybody about abortion. In other words, no information for you is best for your fetus, and therefore best for Republicans in the United States.

Planned Parenthood and other groups spend most of their overseas efforts teaching women not to get pregnant, not on aborting (or advising on the abortion of) fetuses already conceived. Under the Bush rules, that was illegal. I'm glad the free flow of family planning information is restored.

+
0 Votes
TheChas

The rules that President Obama changed do not specifically now fund abortion counseling or services. The rules that have been in place for the last 3 Republican administrations prevent providing funding to agencies that include abortion services or counseling as part of what they do.

From the article you linked:

"The restrictions Mr. Obama lifted on Friday barred the United States Agency for International Development from providing money to any international nongovernmental organization that ?performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning? in foreign countries, and covered a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling or information regarding abortion. The restrictions did not apply to counseling for abortions in the case of rape, incest or danger to the life of the pregnant woman."

While not defending the change in the rules, there is a difference between giving targeted family planning and health care funding to agencies that also provide abortion counseling and directly funding those activities.

At the heart of the issue is the fact that in many small countries and remote areas there may be only one group that provides any health care services at all. Without funding for the full range of family planning education and options, there could be more abortions requested and performed than if families knew what options they had to prevent a pregnancy.

NO, I do not want to see any of my tax dollars being used in any way to promote or subsidize abortions. However, to deny funding for family planning and health care services because the only NPO in town also provides information on abortion limits peoples access to alternatives to abortion.

Chas

+
0 Votes
Oz_Media

That's what Obama said actually, the part JD is on about was out of context and teh full video of thta comments shows he was referring to his daughters getting pregnant as a result of not having sex education.

If they are not allowed to be educated on the subject, unable to learn about protection and sexual relations, he feels they would then be punished with a baby.

Perhaps punished was not the best choice of words but his point is strong, without educating our youth, we cannot condemn them for their choices. If they were not educated and also not allowed to abort, then they'd be really getting teh short end of teh stick.

Someone making a choice based on knowledge or against their better judgement is not the issue here, JD just read the wrong story and didn't check it for facts, in his haste to quickly raise his hackles over Obama.

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

We could use an influx of moolah.
end sarcasm

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

How does pushing abortion as birth control make us look good?

Fewer people born means fewer who hate us as the old ones die off :)

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

to speed up the passing of the haters?

I see government funding for "mercy killings" of our old next. After all, "what kind of life is that"? And if you medicate them enough, I am sure more and more will sign away.

Amazing what some people can rationalize away. But think of all the MONEY we will SAVE!?!?!

+
0 Votes

yep

jck

And think of all the pharmaceutical companies that will go out of business when the old farts die off. lmao

So let's see what this week's lessons are:

Screw all you want and make babies, cause it's okay to expect your fellow citizens of the world to pay for the public services your kids use...even tho you don't think those services should exist.

It's okay to tell a woman what to do with her body, despite the fact you don't own her or rule her.

A human baby is a clump of mitosing genetic matter not even yet attached to the uterine wall, even tho no scientist can look at it under a microscope or test it's content and tell whether it's a human or chimpanzee...or whether it will ever fully and properly mature.

True linear thought is not allowed...only lines of reasoning that zig zag around like a drunk bumblebee in a windstorm.


Next week's lessons:

Why cooking with your feet is not friendly.

Why cough syrup can look so much like transmission fluid but not work well in a 4-speed.

Top 5 reasons why you never want to run down the streets of Liverpool screaming "Steven Gerrard sucks!".

and...

Why it is important to wash and sanitize your toothbrush after losing a roommate or girlfriend or both.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

The lessons of the week:

You are free to be as responsible or irresponsible as you wish.

Neither JD nor TT have said they would ban abortion.

If you decide to use abortion as birth control, this elective procedure should be paid for by the person getting the elective procedure.

JD and TT have both advocated self responsibility and having a work ethic.

If you kill living cells, you are killing living cells. At what point there is an individual baby, is of differing position. Many in the pro-abortion camp (including our new president) feel it is a baby only after you take it out of the hospital.

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

Next weak lessons:

feet. ugly things, look like little monkey fingers.... :0

"Excuse me Ms, can I smell your crotch?"
"NO!" she exclaims back.
"Oh, must be your feet then......"


Because transmissions don't cough.

Because I don't run, period. B-)

Because jd might stick it in the toilet.... :0

+
0 Votes
jck

You are free to be as responsible or irresponsible as you wish.

That's what you've said, with caveats abounding though.


Neither JD nor TT have said they would ban abortion.

But jd has said he would restrict access to it as a valid, legal medical procedure within the US Government Department of Health and Human Services because it doesn't meet with his moral standard.

If you decide to use abortion as birth control, this elective procedure should be paid for by the person getting the elective procedure.

And if you are going to use flu shots, polio vaccines, DPT, MMR shots, TB vaccines, etc., that they give kids at school, you should pay the full price for that too. So, have you? Nope. All federally subsidized.

JD and TT have both advocated self responsibility and having a work ethic.

What does a work ethic have to do with abortion?

If you kill living cells, you are killing living cells. At what point there is an individual baby, is of differing position.

And despite scientists and doctors defining a standard for it, you refuse to accept it.

Many in the pro-abortion camp (including our new president) feel it is a baby only after you take it out of the hospital.

That is a lie and exaggeration of an extreme. Obama has never said that, and you know it.

In fact, he said (in certain terms) that late-term abortions were wrong ("needed to be scrutinized" were his words) except in the case of the mother's life or health being endangered.

Such a typical post. Blathering misinformation about Obama.

Go figure.

Go home early and get drunk. I would, but I'm chugging cough and cold medicine.

+
0 Votes
santeewelding

So, too, should law be left to lawyers.

Like ****.

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

I'm not opposed to assisted suicide under the right conditions. We've had people in Canada go to Europe to end their suffering. Its kinda the ultimate personal decision that one can take, and if its under the right circumstances, we should not oppose it.

James

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

it is so ripe for abuse.

Going to see my grand parents in the nursing home on a regular basis, many of the people in there are not there. There is a body in that chair or bed, but the mind is gone.

Some might be talked or drugged into "not being a burden upon the family".

The extreme elderly need and deserve protections be put in place.

An outside source should never have the say over this, and always error on the side of caution. Don't want your lifeclock to run out before you hit 30, right?

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

Either there needs to be a legitimate legal document specifying the conditions under which they would want to be terminated (like a will, witnesses, notarized etc), or the person has to be assessed to see if they are in full possession of their faculties.

Thats the way it works in Europe.

In other words, prove you've given it some thought, and that it isn't a spur of the moment thing, or that you are depressed because of a recent diagnosis. Apparently they do turn people away.

The only role the government would or should have is legislating what would be required before a physican can assist a suicide.

James

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

for someone that is brain dead or has advanced Alzheimer?

I HATE the idea that they stop the feeding tube and let them starve to death.

+
0 Votes
cupcake

Have you been a part of this process? I have watched my father go down the Alzheimer's road for the past two and a half years and the man that was my father has been gone for more than a year. He doesn't have ANY QUALITY OF LIFE and considering the full, wonderful life that he led up to that point, it is way more painful to see him now than to reject a feeding tube and allow him to die with some dignity.

BTW, the body does some amazing things when the brain decides that its ready to die. He isn't in any pain and agony, as opposed to the experience of the loss of his life for the past two years. He is in a wonderful hospice program now.

You need to be a little more tolerant of situations that you may (notice I said "may") not be involved in. Things are much easier when you're standing on the outside looking in.

+
0 Votes
jdclyde

Wouldn't something that just puts them to sleep be better than the starvation?

I've seen the alzheimers from the point of a long time girlfriends dad, but have more personal experiences with losing people to cancer.

Believe me, I was not making light of Alzheimers in the least.

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

....it defines when you want any heroic measures to stop. You define - if I am brain dead, or if I can no longer communicate and am being kept alive by machines. Alzheimers is tougher to define the point at which you want to let go.

James

+
0 Votes
boxfiddler Moderator

Just because you can't see or find what you think you know of him? Since when is starving to death dying with dignity?

No grief about going through it myself, either. You don't know what I've been through anymore than you know what your father goes through.

+
0 Votes
cupcake

My father raised 10 children. Held a job until about 3 years ago (yes, well into his 70's) and did woodworking, an active member in the Shrine, went to church, was very involved in his local community and had many, many opinions that he wasn't afraid to voice.

How do I know this man is not there? He has Alzheimer's Disease. Its a brain disorder that robs him of his memories, cognitive functioning and now his functional motor skills. Its not like he is in a coma or he is paralyzed. His personality, what made him who he was, has deteriorated to the point that he is "gone".

BTW, he did have a living will, and we (his 8 remaining living children) are carrying out his wishes. He watched half of his siblings (of which he had 10) and his mother and father die slow, prolonged deaths due to the same disease and he didn't want to live that way.

And no boxfiddler, I don't know what you go through, I don't know you. I DO know what he goes through, I watch it on a regular basis.

And my sister sent along this info... which helps me deal with his decision to stop eating and drinking:

When Food and Fluid are Stopped:

There is an increase in opiod (morphine-like substances) in the body which has an effect upon the brain which produces analgesia and euphoria.

Hypernatremia and hypercalcemia are present in 50 percent of patients producing a sedative effect on the brain.

The increase in ketones (waste products from fat metabolism) turns off the appetite mechanism in the brain so that after 36 hours hunger is not a problem (this lack of discomfort is confirmed by healthy individuals who are on a voluntary hunger strike for political reasons).

Systemic dehydration induces little pain or discomfort provided the mouth is kept moist. Dryness of mouth is usually the only complaint; this can be alleviated with ice chips without producing enough fluid intake to change the course of events significantly (Sullivan 1993)

+
0 Votes
TonytheTiger

but if prior knowledge was known of their wishes, I would honor them.

+
0 Votes
jck

it sucks.

As a boy, I watched my great-uncle Terry decline into oblivion. He would not remember you 30 seconds after meeting you. Then he lost his peppyness.

I have watched other uncles fall to the same situation, and it kills me.

The thing I hate about the "assisted suicide" is this:

In our country, we consider stopping the feeding tube humane...letting them die over a period of 7-14 days of malnutrition.

But, we think of euthanasia of that person going to sleep and never waking up as something only suitable for putting down a rabid dog or some other beast.

Honestly, I think the paramount thing is: if the person has a "living will" or some other document that states their wishes, then that should be their choice. If that person doesn't want to be kept in constant care (fed through a tube in a home or hospice or whatever, let the person have the dignity of deciding to go.

Give the person one last bit of honor, for God's sake.

+
0 Votes
AnsuGisalas

You (the US govt) have been reviled for decades for requiring that, to receive US money, charities in poor countries may advise only on abstinence and fidelity.
That's the problem, those measures fail to get used in the states, and they also fail to get used in africa, causing the fight against the HIV epidemic to be ineffective.

It's not just abortion, condoms too.
So sweet, little Dubya and his wife and mother, saying "don't use a rubber" to women who would really like to not get HIV from their adulterous husbands.
So, yes, outside of the flucking vatican, this will make you a lot more popular.

EDIT: and no, these women cannot, on pain of getting stoned to death, "just say no".

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

The Canadian PM Harper has been pushing a women's health initiative targeted at improving women's health in the developing world. Harper doesn't oppose those countries providing abortions, but doesn't want the G8 funding to include funds for that purpose. Thats because its an issue that is controversial for all, both those in the g8/G20 who would approve the funding and those developing nations, many of whom oppose abortion funding.

Hillary Clinton took our PM to task on the issue, but Harper didn't change his mind.

James
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/stworory/2010/04/27/maternal-health-harper.html

+
0 Votes
AnsuGisalas

We're talking about people and their physicians here.
No funding for abortions doesn't mean no abortions. It means no safe abortions.
Like in the western world in the '30s - '60s.
It happens. We should help make sure that people can live to regret it, instead of dying trying.

+
0 Votes
JamesRL

Then countries will outright refuse the aid. And will women be better off then?

I'm not against abortions, though I regret some do it for the wrong reasons.

But I don't think we should dictate to sovereign countries what their abortion policies should be through conditional funding.

James

+
0 Votes
AnsuGisalas

To demand that abortion be supported would be a mistake, yes.

Like they demanded that abortion and non-chaste pregnancy prevention methods be not even whispered.

But, it doesn't preclude allowing abortion to be subsidied, and that already makes a difference. Then nations can do what they do best, or worst, as they invariably will.