- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 11, 2011 at 11:42 pm #722042
maudeParticipantT-Rex, your mother *chose* life. That’s the point.
April 12, 2011 at 2:02 am #722043
redblackParticipantwell, the missus and i have agreed that if we’re going to stop funding planned parenthood in a disingenuous attempt to stop abortion – under the guise of “saving the taxpayers billions of dollars” – then we should do away with the child tax credit as well.
let’s see, at $2000 per child per year, for 18 years…
come on “conservatives.” if you truly want the government out of health care funding and reproductive rights, put your money where your big, fat mouths are.
April 12, 2011 at 2:54 am #722044
JoBParticipantT-Rex…
as one of those women who made the choice
to have my child and give it up for adoption
i can assure you that the person responsible
has given that fetus far more thought than you ever will
after all
she is the one who is ultimately responsible
if she isn’t willing to do what it takes to nurture that fetus until it is a healthy baby..
then both the child and society pick up the bill for her inability.
when push comes to shove
a woman forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy isn’t the best environment for a healthy baby.
Every single healthy child born is the result of close to 9 months of their mother’s pretty much undivided attention.
that’s what all those signs have on them… adorable happy healthy un-addicted full birth weight babies…
you are in favor of healthy babies aren’t you?
Or does your interest end with the fetus?
April 12, 2011 at 5:10 am #722045
dawsonctParticipantT-rex, that was purely and simply an idiotic statement. No woman is going to choose to have a surgical procedure performed on her over the much simpler method of pill, diaphragm, IUD, or responsible male partner who doesn’t find his masculinity compromised by wearing a rubber.
Can you describe to the rest of us this bizarre need you have to control the lives of women you don’t know?
April 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm #722046
anonymeParticipantNot only should we do away with the child tax credit, but the marriage tax credit as well. When it comes to health care, I don’t believe fertility treatments should be covered at all, especially if birth control isn’t. If fertility is God’s mandate, does it not follow that infertility is also God’s will? How many so-called “pro-lifers” actually adopt sick, drug-addicted babies of racial minorities? I don’t have stats on this, but I suspect very few – especially since the loudest protests seem to come from fundie men.
April 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm #722047
redblackParticipant“marriage tax credit,” anonyme?
i’m going to use simple numbers for demonstration purposes, but here’s how i understand it:
before republicans changed the tax law, two unmarried people who lived together – each making $50,000 – let’s say they’re each taxed $10,000, or $20,000 on a household income of $100,000.
if that same couple got married, their combined $100,000 income would be taxed $25,000. that’s a $5000 tax just for being married.
that was the “marriage penalty,” and i see its dissolution as a good thing. even if it was a rare good idea by republicans.
April 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm #722048
anonymeParticipantSorry, RB – I should have checked my facts!
April 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm #722049
redblackParticipantno worries, anonyme. i thought maybe you were privy to some tax laws that i didn’t understand.
but +1 on the other stuff you said. :)
April 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm #722050
JoBParticipanthttp://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/happy-equal-pay-day/
lots i interesting links buried in this compilation
April 14, 2011 at 11:59 pm #722051
WorldCitizenParticipant1) I’m 100% firmly in the pro-choice camp.
2) What T-Rex said about the life of the child can not be so easily written off. Who are you to say when life begins? If you believe life begins at conception, then there is a justifiable belief to be had in being pro-life. The fact that it is the mother’s burden to cary the child becomes an unfortunate result of the decision she has made to have intercourse.
3) If the mother is a victim of rape and decides to get an abortion while holding the belief life begins at conception, then it would not change the “fact” that she is ending a life, regardless of the circumstances
The argument can’t just simply be put into the black and white context of women’s rights. Though to deny this has anything to do with women’s rights would be short sighted, foolish and dangerous as well. You can’t change someone’s mind about this without altering their core assumption about at which point life begins.
I have two children I love more than anything in this world, and am glad my wife and I were fortunate enough to not have been put in the situation where the choice on weather or not to keep them had to be made. Some people do have to make the choice to end their pregnancy. This is most definitely one of the most difficult decisions that two people (but ultimately the woman carrying the fetus) would have to make in life. The fact that it may be the best decision doesn’t negate the “fact” that to some, by doing this, you are indeed killing an innocent and defenseless human being.
April 15, 2011 at 1:30 am #722052
AndyParticipantJoB- a bit of a counterpoint: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
I post this not so much as an argument against your article, but an example of how far the parsing down of statistics go in order to make it possible to very effectively present two opposite conclusions from the exact same condition.
WorldCitizen – I think that the pro-life side would say that what you are calling the “best” decision is more accurately defined as the “easy” decision. I wish I knew which – if either – is right.
April 15, 2011 at 1:35 am #722053
JanSParticipantAndy…there’s the rub.you never will…period!
April 15, 2011 at 2:31 am #722054
datamuseParticipantThe fact that it may be the best decision doesn’t negate the “fact” that to some, by doing this, you are indeed killing an innocent and defenseless human being.
Despite which, some of them get abortions anyway. (Yes, the site has an agenda and it’s obvious, but it also highlights the chief issue I have with many on the pro-life side of the line: the belief that they have the right to make moral decisions for others.)
April 15, 2011 at 3:02 am #722055
JoBParticipantWorld Citizen…
“The fact that it is the mother’s burden to cary the child becomes an unfortunate result of the decision she has made to have intercourse. “
Really?
Where do incest or sexually assaulted minors or rape fit into that picture?
because pregnancy doesn’t depend upon informed consent…
and even if a woman chooses to have sex
she may become pregnant in spite of her birth control…
and then there is that elusive other person
the man who decided to have sex with or without his partner’s consent…
who may or may not decide to take responsibility
it seems men always have choice.
making a woman and her child pay the price
because someone else decides she should
makes an already unequal situation
even more unequal.
a human fetus is not viable until birth
that’s a fact.
as many of us have learned the hard way.
pregnancy is not a guarantee of a live birth
no matter how well a woman takes care of herself and the child she hopes will live
in fact.. this country has abysmal stats for a developed nation
when it comes to infant mortality.
we don’t treat any other fetus
in any other species
as living until birth…
so i have to ask
why would we make a special case for humans?
What purpose does it serve to insist on the birth of unwanted children
when we are not willing as a society to invest in the welfare of living disadvantaged children?
i firmly believe that if men carried babies
there would be no question about when life began…
it would begin at birth
why? because that is the sensible conclusion.
April 15, 2011 at 3:16 am #722056
JoBParticipantandy…
LOL…
i have seen those rationalizations before…
and definately am not surprised to see them in the Wall Street Journal.
the statistics themselves don’t lie…
even when when chooses to discount them.
yeah.. sure…
women choose lower paying professions and jobs :)
As a man, do you really believe that?
Is that a choice you would make?
Probably not.
So why do you think well trained well educated women would make that choice?
there was a study done recently on medical school graduates.
in spite of the fact that more women now graduate from medical school
and are equally well represented in specialties at that stage..
female graduates made less money in their first job than their male counterparts…
I am going to go out on a limb here
and guess that those women don’t ask to be paid less …
it’s far more likely that they were simply offered less.
why do you think that is?
and while i have you thinking here…
why do you think the wage gap has narrowed?
could it be because instead of women’s wages rising
men’s wages are diminishing?
again.. take a look at those stats…
a smart man would have fought for women’s wage parity..
but then.. a smart man would fight for unions too ;->
April 15, 2011 at 6:42 am #722057
WorldCitizenParticipantJOB-
Did you read my entire post? It seems as if you stopped after the part you quoted. (please see point 3 in my prior post)
April 15, 2011 at 11:32 am #722058
HMC RichParticipantT-Rex, hang in there. There are a bunch of agendas here. Plus there is posturing by both Dems and Repubs.
One, The Republicans are on a cost cutting drive which also plays into their mostly Pro-Life stance.
Two, women’s rights or choice vs everyone else.
All legitimate concerns.
For now, abortions are legal (except possibly late term.)
Would Planned Parenthood be solvent without government funding? Yes. But. With an abortion about every 95 seconds from Planned Parenthood, it truly is disingenuous to say that not any money from the government is going into abortions.
Planned Parenthood gets one third of its revenue from the Federal Government. About 360 million dollars a year.
It is interesting to note that it was founded by a known racist, Margaret Sanger. It is also interesting to note that Richard Nixon signed the legislation allowing Planned Parenthood to get funding from the government for family planning. Oh that Tricky Dick.
It needs to be known that a few of the leaders for planned parenthood have, shall we say, not been completely honest in their advocacy of women’s health. When the CEO lies about women’s health services and says mammograms would be lost? Bull-oney http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/30/live-action-planned-parenthood-mammogram-lies-exposed/
Caught in one lie, should we believe that no money goes to abortions?
PP performs about 25% of the abortions in the US. Although going down from 2000, that was about 305,000 a year in the year 2005. 10 percent of the patients had abortions. Planned Parenthood has about 3 million visitors/patients a year.
Women’s services will not go away if Planned Parenthood gets government funding cut. It would be much more difficult but it would not completely go away.
Two. The statistics are proving that women are equalizing in many areas. Note the link above. But there are problems.
I myself am miffed that in our states highest elected offices, there are only…..women! Chris, Patty and Maria. OMG!!!!!! You’ve come a long way…dare I say it…Baby.
Guys, they might open up Planned Malehood offices.
Be careful my friends. I am sure a few females would like to castrate males even more. Although any man who abuses their wife or kids maybe should be dealt that procedure!!!! F*&^ing Cowards.
Third. To group a Pro-Life person with the Taliban is completely and utterly nuts. Where is the civility?
Fourth. Why, when a mother that is pregnant, gets hit by a drunk and she and the baby unfortunately pass away… why is it a double homicide?
Fifth. I would never want someone to die from a Medical procedure but 46 million compared to even 10 thousand adults dying does not compare. Sorry, the back alley compare and contrast doesn’t work since abortion is legal.
Sixth. Planned Parenthood offices would still be open for family planning. Maybe not as many, but still open. And abortions could still be performed without government money.
Seven. I am a guy. I don’t get it. I am not a woman. But I am an advocate for the unborn child. They don’t have a say. Nobody represents them.
Finally, I do agree this is not a black and white issue. There are inequities in life. As the rest of the world improves their standard of living, I hope that women all over are given the chance to flourish. Western women and kids are so much luckier than women in other parts of the world.
April 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm #722059
redblackParticipantrich: can’t let you get away with that. do you have proof that planned parenthood is violating the hyde amendment? don’t you think the pro-life crowd would have been gnashing their teeth and rending their garments by now?
if you don’t have proof, you should stop repeating that.
and another thing: there are fewer abortions because of planned parenthood.
double homicide? chances are that a woman who knows she’s pregnant will carry her baby to term. therefore, she’s planning on bringing a potential human being into the world.
get it?
planned parenthood is there for girls or women who don’t plan on having a family, but find themselves in a situation where they need some kind of reproductive health care.
* * *
so if your 14-year-old daughter got pregnant from rape, you would make her carry the baby to term? because every sperm is sacred, or what?
what about your 19-year-old son? if he got a 16-year-old girl pregnant, would you demand that she carry it to term?
go ahead and speak for the fetuses. i speak for people.
April 15, 2011 at 5:16 pm #722060
datamuseParticipantWould Planned Parenthood be solvent without government funding? Yes. But. With an abortion about every 95 seconds from Planned Parenthood, it truly is disingenuous to say that not any money from the government is going into abortions.
Rich, how exactly does that follow? Cause I’m not seeing it.
It is interesting to note that it was founded by a known racist, Margaret Sanger.
She was also opposed to abortion, but nobody ever seems to remember that part.
Women’s services will not go away if Planned Parenthood gets government funding cut. It would be much more difficult but it would not completely go away.
Planned Parenthood is already the ONLY women’s health service available for hundreds of miles in some areas. Just how much more difficult should it get before there’s effectively no difference between difficulty of access and no access at all?
Why, when a mother that is pregnant, gets hit by a drunk and she and the baby unfortunately pass away… why is it a double homicide?
Because the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (which specifically exempts abortion) was signed into law in 2004? Point being: before that, it wasn’t, at least not at the federal level.
Western women and kids are so much luckier than women in other parts of the world.
Sure we are. But this sounds a lot like my mother telling me to finish my dinner because there are children starving in Africa. And it’s probably worth mentioning that the same people who want to defund Planned Parenthood also want to defund Title X (you know, the funding that PP and other organizations use for family planning services that are NOT abortion) and the UNFPA (you know, the agency that works for women and children’s rights internationally).
Sorry, the argument “be grateful and stop complaining, because other people have it worse” doesn’t carry much weight with me.
April 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm #722061
dawsonctParticipantIt is simply wrong that fetuses have a stronger lobbying presence on Capital hill than do the very much already alive, productive, working-class and under-class citizens of our Nation.
AGAINST ABORTION? DON”T HAVE ONE!
What medical procedure are you pro-government-intervention-into-private-medical-decisions-for-women willing to allow the State to dictate to men?
BTW, defunding Planned Parenthood will DEMONSTRABLY increase unplanned pregnancies, producing MORE destitute children (39% of our Nations children ALREADY live in poverty. What policies are you all on the right championing that will reduce this number?). Between 2000 and 2007, when the “compassionate conservatives” had PLENTY of chances to demonstrate their compassion, the number of children living in poverty in America increased 15%. I guess the Cheney/bush anti-poverty programs didn’t work. I can’t remember any initiatives they took on to SERIOUSLY reduce poverty, but whatever they did, it didn’t work.
And, since SOME of you don’t understand how search engines work:
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_843.html
Now, I realize that doesn’t come from one of those “acceptably ‘Fair & Balanced’ sources,” but I doubt:
Accuracy in Academia
African-American Life Alliance
All Children Matter Inc.
Alliance Defense Fund
American Center for Law and Justice
American Civil Rights Institute
American Conservative Union
American Enterprise Institute
American Family Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Life League
American Society for Tradition, Family and Property
Americans for Tax Reform
Arlington Group
Black America’s Political Action Committee
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Campaign for Working Families PAC
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Christian Coalition of America
Christian Legal Society
Club for Growth
Collegiate Network
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Committee for Justice
Concerned Women for America
Eagle Forum
Eagle Forum Collegians
Family Research Council
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Focus on the Family
FRCAction
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation
FreedomWorks
Heritage Foundation
High Impact Leadership Coalition
Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace
Independent Women’s Forum
Institute for Justice
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration
Judicial Confirmation Network
Landmark Legal Foundation
Leadership Institute
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Madison Project
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
National Association of Scholars
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Right to Life Committee
National Taxpayers Union
New Coalition for Economic and Social Change
Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research
State Policy Network
Students for Academic Freedom
Toward Tradition
Traditional Values Coalition
WallBuilders
Young America’s Foundation,
…really give a damn about children living in poverty, unless there is a profit to be made.
April 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm #722062
dawsonctParticipantRB, every sperm IS sacred, it’s the evil women who ruined our stay in the Garden of Eden, so she must continue to pay.
And pay, and pay, and……
April 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm #722063
dawsonctParticipantActually, the only ones who seem to think Margaret Sanger was a racist, are misogynistic, controlling paternalists. Like Willie Sutton robbing banks because “that’s where the money is,” she put her family planning clinics in poor neighborhoods where women didn’t have access to health care or family planning services which were accessible to the wealthy, of course. (Are we a Nation of the people, by the people, but only FOR the wealthy? Not in my mind).
Then, as it is today in our cities, the poor ARE overwhelmingly persons of color. Providing services to help them have a better life by not being burdened with a never-ending stream of children flowing from their wombs is NOT RACIST.
She DID make some misguided statements, which plumbed the prevailing wisdom of the day and has since been proven incorrect, but there is absolutely no evidence that her statements were made from the position of a racial supremacist.
Funny how the Republican meme is, if you help a person, you are hurting them. Of course, the same thing doesn’t apply to the poor super-wealthy, who have had to get by with their after-tax incomes increasing ONLY 256% since 1979.
HOW do the manage!?
April 15, 2011 at 7:31 pm #722064
TDeParticipantGood points on dictating medical procedures for men and sacred sperm, Dawson. After all, sperm is alive just like all cells of the body. And since sperm is so sacred, perhaps it’s time to regulate it; where it goes, how much can be wasted in a day, exactly who gets to use it and for what purpose. Maybe some should be required to take sperm reduction medication so they won’t be producing and wasting sacred sperm frivolously. Watch the legislative guys go ballistic.
April 16, 2011 at 4:52 am #722065
JoBParticipantApril 16, 2011 at 7:52 pm #722066
redblackParticipantTDe: lol. +100 and stuff.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.