Author Topic: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!  (Read 18362 times)

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,584
  • Brokeback got us good.
Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« on: October 18, 2011, 04:17:57 pm »
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, what is Congress doing messing with women's rights when it's clear to see that they should be focusing on jobs and the economy? Apparently a bill has passed the Senate aiming to make sure government money isn't used for abortions.

(Added) This bill is so convoluted. From what I understand, it prohibits health insurers (which are private companies, not the government) from paying for covered abortion services to any organization that also receives Federal funds. Effectively, what insurers will do is stop paying for abortions altogether and then we'll be back to where we started from, with black market abortion clinics springing up along with Draconian techniques that kill, maim or cause suffering to more women.

(restored text)
Some people think the simple solution is for women to abstain from sex if they can't afford children. However, that doesn't take into account the other half of the equation, poor young men. These men are primarily looking for free entertainment and sex. There are no consequences of their actions since they plan to be long gone from the scene when the pregnancy asserts itself. Poor young women are the victims of rape, pressure and abuse and they pay for it with a decades-long sentence of hard manual labor and a lifelong one-way trip to the land of poverty.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 11:59:56 am by Scare-Ranger »
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2011, 01:13:29 am »
Quote
Some people think the simple solution is for women to abstain from sex if they can't afford children. However, that doesn't take into account the other half of the equation, poor young men.

They never take men into account for this because men are never going to restrict men's sexual freedom.  On the other hand, they're always more than happy to try to regulate and restrict women's sexual freedom.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2011, 02:38:18 am »
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns, what is Congress doing messing with women's rights when it's clear to see that they should be focusing on jobs and the economy? Apparently a bill has passed the Senate aiming to make sure government money isn't used for abortions.
so it comes down to money whether a woman can have an abortion or not. What the hell are they thinking?

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2011, 09:29:53 am »
This isn't about women's rights from a Congressional perspective. This is about how federal tax revenues---a/k/a your money and mine--is being spent. Its also about the role of government, and abuse of funds.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2011, 11:13:09 am »
Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.  

Of course, this is a feminist perspective       so some folks might want to take that into account...

Offline CellarDweller

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 33,230
  • A city boy's mentality, with a cowboy's soul.
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2011, 11:17:46 am »
Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.   

Of course, this is a feminist perspective so some folks might want to take that into account...   ::)

Marcia, abstaining from sex would never work.

However, I think I have a solution.

Let's take all the abortion clinics, and have the doctors turn them into Vasectomy Clinics.  Men could go in and have the reversable surgery, which will prevent pregnancies, and then there would be no need for the abortions.


Tell him when l come up to him and ask to play the record, l'm gonna say: ''Voulez-vous jouer ce disque?''
'Voulez-vous, will you kiss my dick?'
Will you play my record? One-track mind!

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,584
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2011, 11:30:42 am »
Milo, what this thread is about is saying that Congress should be focusing on the crisis at hand, which is the economy and jobs, not on prohibiting health insurers from providing coverage for therapeutic abortions to women. If women had jobs, then they would go ahead with more pregnancies since, like Alma, they'd be able to "support 'em". They'd also have the money to get preventive health care and birth control pills. Congress is being reactive, deceptive and delusional.

Chuck, your idea is good, but I thought vasectomies were already widely available. Apparently they aren't very popular with the men who would benefit from them most. It's another aspect of the actions being divorced from the consequences for men. Oh, why didn't the Creator figure out a way to physically burden the man for 19 years or so when he conceives a child? Seems He didn't think it through completely. God must be a He!!

Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2011, 12:27:45 pm »
not on prohibiting health insurers from providing coverage for therapeutic abortions to women.

The government is not prohibiting insurers from doing anything. The idea is to withhold federal funding from abortion practitioners. The insurers can fund whomever they please. The practitioners can still get state funding where allowed, and private funding. So to say that poor women will no longer have access to abortion is factually incorrect.

Congress is not interested controlling the sexual behavior of poor women, they just want to make sure that our federal tax dollars aren't involved in the abortion process.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2011, 12:30:30 pm »
This isn't about women's rights from a Congressional perspective. This is about how federal tax revenues---a/k/a your money and mine--is being spent. Its also about the role of government, and abuse of funds.
If that was the case, then the congress should understand that bringing unwanted children into this world will also cost tax money - eventually.

Besides, I donīt think thatīs what it is about. I think itīs about trying to please certain groups of voters.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2011, 12:31:13 pm »
Let someone propose that men abstain from sex to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen and see how far that would get.

If the women are abstaining, the men are abstaining too by definition.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2011, 12:34:41 pm »
However, I think I have a solution.

Let's take all the abortion clinics, and have the doctors turn them into Vasectomy Clinics.  Men could go in and have the reversable surgery, which will prevent pregnancies, and then there would be no need for the abortions.

That solution is already available. Its just that men who want the procedure go to a regular hospital rather than a clinic.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2011, 12:36:31 pm »
Besides, I donīt think thatīs what it is about. I think itīs about trying to please certain groups of voters.

Of course. They are trying to please those voters who don't want their tax money going to fund abortions.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2011, 12:39:59 pm »
Of course. They are trying to please those voters who don't want their tax money going to fund abortions.
My guess is that they are rather trying to please groups who donīt want abortions at all.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2011, 12:57:17 pm »
My guess is that they are rather trying to please groups who donīt want abortions at all.

Some of that population of constituents doesn't want abortion at all. But since they'll never get a ban passed, eliminating federal funding is a reasonable compromise.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2011, 01:01:43 pm »
Some of that population of constituents doesn't want abortion at all. But since they'll never get a ban passed, eliminating federal funding is a reasonable compromise.
No, nothing reasonable about it.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2011, 01:07:44 pm »
No, nothing reasonable about it.

You might not think so, but it beats a complete ban on all abortions.

If you were in office, what kind of compromise would you offer??
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2011, 01:15:32 pm »
You might not think so, but it beats a complete ban on all abortions.

If you were in office, what kind of compromise would you offer??
Remember, Milo, that I live in a country where a ban on abortions hasnīt been on anyoneīs agenda for a long time. The only times I ever discuss this issue is here on Bettermost.

I wouldnīt do anything that could possibly constrict womenīs access to abortions.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2011, 01:36:38 pm »
I wouldnīt do anything that could possibly constrict womenīs access to abortions.

Again, keep in mind that removal of federal funding is not the same thing as a constriction on access. The non-profit organizations that manage the clinics where poor women get their abortions are only partially funded by the federal government. Those organizations will continue to operate without the federal funding, but they will have to find ways to make up for the federal dollars they will lose.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2011, 02:02:29 pm »
Again, keep in mind that removal of federal funding is not the same thing as a constriction on access. The non-profit organizations that manage the clinics where poor women get their abortions are only partially funded by the federal government. Those organizations will continue to operate without the federal funding, but they will have to find ways to make up for the federal dollars they will lose.
You taking for granted that the federal dollars donīt make any difference sounds strange. These clinics often have a strained budget to being with. And besides, if the federal tax money didnīt make any difference, I doubt that the pro-life gang supporters would pursue this ban as strongly as they have.

That this ban targets poor women makes it even worse. Politics should be humane.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2011, 02:49:37 pm »
You taking for granted that the federal dollars donīt make any difference sounds strange. These clinics often have a strained budget to being with. And besides, if the federal tax money didnīt make any difference, I doubt that the pro-life gang supporters would pursue this ban as strongly as they have.

That this ban targets poor women makes it even worse. Politics should be humane.

Notice I didn't say that the $$ don't make a difference. I said that they will have to make up the difference if they want to perform the same number of abortions. The histrionics over this budget cut is exactly the same kind of "sky is falling" routine that my fellow opera singers go into every time there is a budget cut to money for arts organizations. What ends up happening is that the opera companies employ a variety of cost-cutting techniques paired with a variety of revenue-generating techniques. The opera companies have managed to survive all these years and several cuts to government arts funding.

If the opera companies can make it, the abortion clinics can make it too. Maybe they work with lower-cost medical staff. Maybe they ask their medical staff to see X number of patients each week for free. Maybe some of the clients that use the clinic are at an income level where they can pay at least part of their fees. Then again, being non-profits, they can always solicit more donors, and apply for grants.  

Here's an idea: All the Americans who want to make free abortion available can get together, pool their money, and start a foundation that provides grants to health clinics specifically for the purpose of abortion services.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2011, 03:19:34 pm »

If the opera companies can make it, the abortion clinics can make it too. Maybe they work with lower-cost medical staff. Maybe they ask their medical staff to see X number of patients each week for free. Maybe some of the clients that use the clinic are at an income level where they can pay at least part of their fees. Then again, being non-profits, they can always solicit more donors, and apply for grants. 

I fail to see the similarities between an opera company and abortion clinics, Milo.

Quote
Here's an idea: All the Americans who want to make free abortion available can get together, pool their money, and start a foundation that provides grants to health clinics specifically for the purpose of abortion services.
Then I suggest you do the same when it comes to funding wars.




To me, this is all just a smoke screen for covering up for pro-life supporters. The government should base their decisions on science and facts, not on religious arguments.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2011, 03:31:22 pm »
I fail to see the similarities between an opera company and abortion clinics, Milo.

The similarity is in the business model. They are all not-for-profit business enterprises, and as such, there are business practices that can be applied to both.

Then I suggest you do the same when it comes to funding wars.

Defense is mandated by the Constitution, abortion is not.

The government should base their decisions on science and facts, not on religious arguments.

No, the first priority of government is to work within the boundaries established by its Constitution. The next priority is to act based on the will of the voters. I agree with you that how government does what it does should be based on science and facts. But I don't see how that relates to this kind of legislation.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2011, 03:44:12 pm »
The similarity is in the business model. They are all not-for-profit business enterprises, and as such, there business practices that can be applied to both.

The dissimilarities are bigger than the similarities. An opera house is important, sure, but an abortion clinic provides an important service that is vital for women's health.


Quote
Defense is mandated by the Constitution, abortion is not.
Still, the funding of wars can still be discussed, can't it?


Quote
No, the first priority of government is to work within the boundaries established by its Constitution. The next priority is to act based on the will of the voters. I agree with you that how government does what it does should be based on science and facts. But I don't see how that relates to this kind of legislation.
Because the pro-life people often base their arguments in religion.



You won't ever succeed in making me want to support any antiabortionist messures, Milo.
I think itīs important that the federal government supports womenīs access to abortion clinics because they save human lives. Thatīs a very good use of tax money, if you ask me.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2011, 03:57:30 pm »
The dissimilarieties are bigger than the similiarities. An opera house is important, sure, but an abortion clinic provides an important service that is vital for womenīs health.

You're talking about the function offered to the public. I'm talking about how the non-profit is run. I think my suggestions are sound in that regard, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some abortion clinics not only surviving, but thriving if they implemented some of the things I suggested, or something similar.

I think abortion should be available to low-income women who need them. I just don't think its the government's job to pay for it.

Still, the funding of wars can still be discussed, canīt it?

Yes. Congress decides whether or not to declare war. Congress also decides how much to spend on the military. And they discuss, and discuss, and discuss.

What is not up for discussion is where the money comes from. Government must fund the military.

Because the pro-life people often base their arguments in religion.

It really doesn't matter whether the voters get their ideas from science, or from religion, they still have the ability to elect Congressmen who will support their position.

As a matter of fact, there are some atheists out there who don't like abortion too. So religion is not the only motivator on that side of the fence.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,584
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2011, 04:12:58 pm »
May I interrupt here?

The Hill publication wrote a story yesterday saying, “Groups opposed to abortion rights are pressuring the Senate to act on a bill passed by the House last week that would prohibit health insurers from offering abortion coverage if any of their customers receives federal subsidies.”

"...the House-passed bill would make it nearly impossible for women to exercise their legal right to an abortion. The legislation would place "unprecedented restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance," according to Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce oversight panel is investigating Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Stearns last month wrote to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards asking her to provide documents demonstrating that her organization is handling its federal funding properly.

"At a time in our country when women rely on Planned Parenthood more than ever for essential health care, this invasive and baseless investigation is all the more reprehensible, and is an abuse of your oversight responsibilities," a responding  letter states. "We urge you to immediately cease this investigation ... [It] amounts to no more than a witch hunt, and is a waste of resources at a time when the American people have asked that Congress come together and focus on job creation and economic growth."

My thoughts exactly.
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2011, 04:23:32 pm »
May I interrupt here?

The Hill publication wrote a story yesterday saying, “Groups opposed to abortion rights are pressuring the Senate to act on a bill passed by the House last week that would prohibit health insurers from offering abortion coverage if any of their customers receives federal subsidies.”

"...the House-passed bill would make it nearly impossible for women to exercise their legal right to an abortion. The legislation would place "unprecedented restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance," according to Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce oversight panel is investigating Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Stearns last month wrote to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards asking her to provide documents demonstrating that her organization is handling its federal funding properly.

"At a time in our country when women rely on Planned Parenthood more than ever for essential health care, this invasive and baseless investigation is all the more reprehensible, and is an abuse of your oversight responsibilities," a responding  letter states. "We urge you to immediately cease this investigation ... [It] amounts to no more than a witch hunt, and is a waste of resources at a time when the American people have asked that Congress come together and focus on job creation and economic growth."

My thoughts exactly.


Well, since this thread started out with a pretty broad statement, I thought the OP was referring to the Title X subsidies. I had no idea that there is pending legislation that would effect private insurance companies. I don't agree that government should be involved on this kind of micro-level.

What I will say is that Planned Parenthood should be investigated for misappropriation if there is probable cause.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,584
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2011, 05:29:58 pm »
Well, since this thread started out with a pretty broad statement, I thought the OP was referring to the Title X subsidies. I had no idea that there is pending legislation that would effect private insurance companies. I don't agree that government should be involved on this kind of micro-level.
The do-nothings in Congress are using the strategy called "Death by a Thousand Cuts" to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

What I will say is that Planned Parenthood should be investigated for misappropriation if there is probable cause.
I agree with you...but there is no probable cause!! Believe me, it's like testing Lance Armstrong for drugs...he's been tested thousands of times and they haven't come up with zip! And PP has been investigated near to death!!
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2011, 05:44:09 pm »
The do-nothings in Congress are using the strategy called "Death by a Thousand Cuts" to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

That's a leftist scare tactic. There are people who want abortion banned, but nobody want to see that again.

I agree with you...but there is no probable cause!!

We'll see.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2011, 01:08:13 am »
to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

That's a leftist scare tactic. There are people who want abortion banned, but nobody want to see that again.

Wait, what? "Leftist scare tactic"??

Oh, maybe you're saying that there's nobody literally declaring, "I want abortion outlawed -- let 'em use coat hangers." In which case, you're probably right (though my "everything under the sun" philosophy states that there are probably even people saying that).

But if there's anyone who "wants abortion banned" but doesn't "want to see that again" -- "that" being women using desperate, dangerous and potentially fatal measures to terminate pregnancies -- they're either pathetically uninformed, incredibly ignorant about human nature, or able to abide with an astounding level of cognitive dissonance.




Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2011, 07:01:28 am »
Wait, what? "Leftist scare tactic"??

Oh, maybe you're saying that there's nobody literally declaring, "I want abortion outlawed -- let 'em use coat hangers." In which case, you're probably right (though my "everything under the sun" philosophy states that there are probably even people saying that).

But if there's anyone who "wants abortion banned" but doesn't "want to see that again" -- "that" being women using desperate, dangerous and potentially fatal measures to terminate pregnancies -- they're either pathetically uninformed, incredibly ignorant about human nature, or able to abide with an astounding level of cognitive dissonance.

What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2011, 07:19:22 am »
What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.
If thatīs the case, then thatīs incredibly naive. Look at the past and the situation in some other countries still.

They might not have no malicious intent, but their actions will lead to suffering and tradegy just the same.

But hey, if and when they come up with the perfect solution, they should let the rest of us know. Meanwhile...

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2011, 09:25:53 am »
They might not have no malicious intent, but their actions will lead to suffering and tradegy just the same.

The current environment where abortion is allowed leads to suffering and tragedy too. And that's my own opinion, not just that of the anti-abortionists. I don't think the government should dictate whether a woman should have the choice to have an abortion or not, but I'm not going sit here and say that abortion is a reasonable solution to anything.

But hey, if and when they come up with the perfect solution, they should let the rest of us know. Meanwhile...

I agree that its the anti-abortionists that want change, so it is incumbent on them to come up with a viable, sustainable alternative.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,584
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2011, 09:52:20 am »
What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.

I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

Think what it would be like if every child who entered this world was a wanted child. Quality of life would rise and crime would languish. The ultimate solution would be an end to poverty. The fact that millions in our society suffer and struggle just to get the basics of food, water and shelter drags us all down whether we admit it or not.
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,295
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2011, 10:04:25 am »
I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

While I agree with you in principle, FRiend Scare, this seems to overlook the fact that the people who don't want abortion and don't want the coat hangers also tend not to want birth control; all they want is abstention (like that did Bristol Palin any good). They also tend not to want sex education and are against government-mandated-just-about-everything. I would like to live in the kind of world you describe, too, but to think it's even remotely possible in the political climate of the U.S. today would be both utopian and naive in the extreme. Maybe it will be possible in the lifetime of your grandson's grandson (if humans haven't destroyed the planet by then), but we won't live to see it.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2011, 10:25:28 am »
I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

This actually could work. I can see how it would at least reduce the incidents of abortions. A few thoughts.

- Currently every state offers healthcare coverage to children of low-income families, AFAIK. The problem is that parents too often don't take advantage of that care, i.e., don't take their children on regular doctor visits. So even when they become teens and can go on their own, they are already "trained" not to bother. We could solve this by affixing mandatory doctor (and dentist) visits as a condition of receiving subsidized care.

- I agree with you about the new birth control methods. Not only are we developing oral contraceptives for men, but there are also drugs being made that would terminate pregnancies at the embryonic stage. To me, that's better than having to kill a fetus.

- Making sex education mandatory is a sticky subject. Perhaps it could be woven into biology curriculae.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2011, 10:50:59 am »
While I agree with you in principle, FRiend Scare, this seems to overlook the fact that the people who don't want abortion and don't want the coat hangers also tend not to want birth control; all they want is abstention (like that did Bristol Palin any good). They also tend not to want sex education and are against government-mandated-just-about-everything.

Exactly. In fact, anti-choice groups aren't even particularly active with helping pregnant girls with adoptions.



Think what it would be like if every child who entered this world was a wanted child.

Well, infertile couples who want to adopt would be left high and dry. But at least there are fewer of them nowadays, thanks to improved infertility treatments.

Quote
Quality of life would rise and crime would languish. The ultimate solution would be an end to poverty. The fact that millions in our society suffer and struggle just to get the basics of food, water and shelter drags us all down whether we admit it or not.

Totally agree with this, Scare-Ranger, but I'm not sure it's very connected to the abortion debate. I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

Ant-poverty efforts WOULD, IMO, reduce the rate of teen motherhood, which is another big problem, and one that is connected with poverty as well as crime.



This actually could work. I can see how it would at least reduce the incidents of abortions. A few thoughts.

- Currently every state offers healthcare coverage to children of low-income families, AFAIK. The problem is that parents too often don't take advantage of that care, i.e., don't take their children on regular doctor visits. So even when they become teens and can go on their own, they are already "trained" not to bother. We could solve this by affixing mandatory doctor (and dentist) visits as a condition of receiving subsidized care.

Yes, that will go over well with typical anti-choice people: "Encourage the poor to take more advantage of their government-provided healthcare coverage!" (Not that all anti-choice people oppose national health care or vise versa, but there does seem to be a big overlap.)

Quote
- I agree with you about the new birth control methods. Not only are we developing oral contraceptives for men, but there are also drugs being made that would terminate pregnancies at the embryonic stage. To me, that's better than having to kill a fetus.

There already is such a drug, and while it might be OK with you, to a lot of anti-choice people it is anything but a satisfactory solution. Mifepristone, a pharmaceutical that can terminate a pregnancy in the first 49 days, was banned at first but is now legal and available in all 50 states. Anti-choice groups campaigned against it and continue to campaign for its withdrawal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#United_States

Quote
- Making sex education mandatory is a sticky subject. Perhaps it could be woven into biology curriculae.

Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,295
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2011, 11:12:24 am »
Totally agree with this, Scare-Ranger, but I'm not sure it's very connected to the abortion debate. I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

Ant-poverty efforts WOULD, IMO, reduce the rate of teen motherhood, which is another big problem, and one that is connected with poverty as well as crime.

That will require a change in culture in certain communities--so that having a baby no longer confirms a certain "status" on a girl of 15 years--or even younger.

Quote
Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

Sorta OT, but maybe sorta not: Do public schools still have "health classes"? "In my day," we were required to take "Health," and that was where we were taught about the human reproductive system (though not, of course, about contraception). That was the class where the football players used to pass out during the films of babies being born.  ;D  (I just closed my eyes during the gross parts.  ;D )

Quote
Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.

At best these people have their heads in the sand (or perhaps somewhere in their own anatomy  8) ). At worst, they're criminally stupid.

Oh, I forgot. Stupidity isn't a crime. ...
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2011, 11:33:07 am »
That will require a change in culture in certain communities--so that having a baby no longer confirms a certain "status" on a girl of 15 years--or even younger.

My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

Quote
Sorta OT, but maybe sorta not: Do public schools still have "health classes"?

Yes.



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,295
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2011, 11:37:20 am »
My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

Just as a point of information, I picked up the notion that having a baby confers "status" from something I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer some time ago.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2011, 01:00:30 pm »
I think most people who get abortions are middle-class or higher -- one because it's expensive, two because they have life plans that would conflict with young motherhood, three because in poorer communities there is less stigma against just having the baby.

I have to disagree with that. While there is a "trophy baby" phenomenon at work in poor communities, a disproportionate number of abortions are babies of poor, minority mothers.

According to Guttmacher, “The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008.” As you might expect, the profile of the abortion patient is disproportionately poor, as well as disproportionately Black or Latina.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-chen/demographics-of-abortion_b_567915.html

Yes, that will go over well with typical anti-choice people: "Encourage the poor to take more advantage of their government-provided healthcare coverage!" (Not that all anti-choice people oppose national health care or vise versa, but there does seem to be a big overlap.)

I didn't say "encourage," I said "mandatory." As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to make yourself a ward of the state, you have to follow the state's rules. And we're not talking about anything more than we already have in terms of Medicaid. We don't need Obamacare in order to get this done.

There already is such a drug, and while it might be OK with you, to a lot of anti-choice people it is anything but a satisfactory solution. Mifepristone, a pharmaceutical that can terminate a pregnancy in the first 49 days, was banned at first but is now legal and available in all 50 states. Anti-choice groups campaigned against it and continue to campaign for its withdrawal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#United_States

I'm sure that there is a wide enough range among the anti-abortion set that there would be some support for embryonic termination on that side, even if that support was luke-warm. Dead embryos are a lot less ugly than dead fetuses...especially dead late-term fetuses. I think an effective print, web, and TV campaign containing side-by-side photos of each could drive that distinction home  ;D  ;D
 
Sex education is pretty routine these days. It's probably not usually mandatory (if a school didn't want to offer it or a parent didn't want his/her kid attending, AFAIK that would be OK), but the schools my kids went to offered it without much fanfare. What IS still controversial is sex education that offers information about birth control.

There could be incentives for kids who's parents agree to allowing them to attend. There could be an extra .5 point uplift to the kid's GPA, or maybe free admission to an SAT prep class. Only the most fire-breathing fundamentalists are going to pass that up.

Many anti-choice people seem to think that if teenagers aren't given information about birth control they won't have sex. They tend to be the same people who think that if abortion is outlawed, girls and women won't resort to more dangerous methods of terminating pregnancies.

Again, I have to disagree. The anti-abortionists that I come in contact with are well aware of the coat hanger days. They just think that their alternatives will make a return to those days unnecessary. They're not stupid, they're just hopeful...maybe foolishly hopeful, but hopeful nonetheless.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2011, 01:02:47 pm »
I actually am one of the people who think there is a way to craft such a society. For many years we have been going towards preventive health care, in which all people stay in touch with their doctor and are regularly checked. Think what it could be like if all adolescent girls, no matter what their families' income, could consult with a health care professional a couple of times per year. There are new birth control methods that are far less punishing on health. Also, think about if sex and health education was mandatory for all young people. We would see far greater societal health across all income levels (and orientations too).

But inevitably, there will still be abortions. If they're outlawed outright, or if the Protectors Of Womanhood succeed in making them increasingly difficult to get, that might combine with the depressed economy to put a new twist on illegal abortions.

We've had over three decades now of legal abortions, and any compulsory-pregnancy advocate could tell you the exact number of abortions down to the nanosecond.  Now, these weren't do-it-yourself procedures for the most part, though herbal abortions with tansy, pennyroyal and cohosh have been used for centuries.  No, they were done in clinical settings, most of them early-term abortions. That means many, many people, not only doctors but nurses and medical assistants, who have experience in doing them, unlike the years before Roe v Wade.  So abortion might become part of the underground economy, with some women having them who might never have considered it before.  Financial difficulty can be a powerful game-changer.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2011, 01:09:20 pm »
My impression has always been that, in low-income communities, having a baby isn't so much about "status" as it is just a normal thing lots of girls do.

If your mother had you when she was a single teenager, and so did your neighbor's mother and your best friend's mother and lots of other people you know, it's not something you question much, one way or the other. Plus, your brother is in prison, which seems like a bigger problem than a pregnancy. Plus, you're not planning to go to college or "have a career," because nobody you know does those things, so it's not like teenage motherhood interferes with any big life plans.

Though I suppose that if having babies is equated with being a "grown up" older teenager, there could be a certain amount of "status" involved. Talking to a teacher at a low-income school in New Orleans, I heard about an 11-year-old who was going around pretending to be pregnant, with a pillow under her shirt. The school wrote a note to her mother, but later found out she was unable to read it. The mother was 22.

All three of those things are operating.

1. Everybody's doing it, so it becomes "normal." Therefore if you aren't doing it, you're not "normal." That's a form of peer pressure.

2. Grandma did it. Mama did it. So I can do it too. That's a generational cycle that is hard--though not impossible--to break.

3. They had a baby, so now they think they're "grown." That's the trophy-baby phenomenon.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2011, 01:09:29 pm »
Quote
If the women are abstaining, the men are abstaining too by definition.

 :laugh:     :laugh:    :laugh:

That's one's worthy of Mel Brooks.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2011, 01:16:12 pm »
:laugh:     :laugh:    :laugh:

That's one's worthy of Mel Brooks.

So if the women abstained, who would the men have sex with??
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2011, 01:41:44 pm »
I have to disagree with that. While there is a "trophy baby" phenomenon at work in poor communities, a disproportionate number of abortions are babies of poor, minority mothers.

According to Guttmacher, “The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008.” As you might expect, the profile of the abortion patient is disproportionately poor, as well as disproportionately Black or Latina.


That's interesting. Note, though, that the proportion has changed in just the past decade; traditionally the majority of abortion recipients were NOT poor. Here are some statistics from an anti-abortion website. Judging from your post, looks like these are accurate but outdated:

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.



Quote
I'm sure that there is a wide enough range among the anti-abortion set that there would be some support for embryonic termination on that side, even if that support was luke-warm.

Yes indeed. I think a lot of Americans are somewhere in the middle on abortion, and this kind of thing would appeal to them. There will remain, though, an anti-choice contingent who will not be satisfied.
 
Quote
There could be incentives for kids who's parents agree to allowing them to attend. There could be an extra .5 point uplift to the kid's GPA, or maybe free admission to an SAT prep class. Only the most fire-breathing fundamentalists are going to pass that up.

That sounds pretty easily struck down, just by your explanation alone. If people want to abstain for religious reasons, and if abstaining places their children at an academic disadvantage, I can't imagine a court holding that up as constitutional.

Quote
Again, I have to disagree. The anti-abortionists that I come in contact with are well aware of the coat hanger days. They just think that their alternatives will make a return to those days unnecessary. They're not stupid, they're just hopeful...maybe foolishly hopeful, but hopeful nonetheless.

I don't see how your position contradicts mine. I said that abortionists think that prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days. You say antiabortionists think that because of "their alternatives," prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days.



Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2011, 01:45:14 pm »
So if the women abstained, who would the men have sex with??

Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?


Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,295
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2011, 02:13:30 pm »
Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?

That might make (female) prostitution a growth industry. ...

Or sodomy. ...
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2011, 03:07:38 pm »
That's interesting. Note, though, that the proportion has changed in just the past decade; traditionally the majority of abortion recipients were NOT poor. Here are some statistics from an anti-abortion website. Judging from your post, looks like these are accurate but outdated:

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.


Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?

There will remain, though, an anti-choice contingent who will not be satisfied.

No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.
 
That sounds pretty easily struck down, just by your explanation alone. If people want to abstain for religious reasons, and if abstaining places their children at an academic disadvantage, I can't imagine a court holding that up as constitutional.

I don't know about that.

1. Not all parents will abstain for religious reasons. And then too, there will be kids who simply skip class even if their parents grant them permission. Plus those who fail the class. Now I'm clearly modifying here: if the academic incentive were tied to passing the class, as opposed to just taking it, that would not necessarily be a matter of purely religious discrimination.

2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.    

I don't see how your position contradicts mine. I said that abortionists think that prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days. You say antiabortionists think that because of "their alternatives," prohibiting abortion will not cause a return to the coat-hanger days.

You're right. We're really saying the same thing. I just threw in a qualifier.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2011, 03:13:28 pm »
Assuming you mean heterosexual men, let's say that 9 out of 10 women abstained. Do you think that would mean 9 out of 10 men would be unable to have sex with a woman?

Technically speaking, the 10% of women who do not abstain would be available to all the men, so no. What I'm saying is that in the moment, when the woman says "no" the guy has no recourse. So he'll be abstaining until he can find a woman who will say "yes."
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,618
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2011, 07:12:26 pm »
Ah. I see what you mean. That is interesting. I wonder what caused the shifts?

Good question. The report referred to in the story you posted offers some speculative possibilities, but they weren't very convincing.

Quote
No doubt. The only question is whether they will have the amount of influence they currently have.

True.


Quote
2. Let's say that a school district required that physics, chemistry, and biology were compulsory courses for being graduated. In other words, if you don't take and pass all 3, you don't get a high school diploma. When I was in school, we were required to take any 2, and some districts now require all 3. Let's say that evolution is taught in biology class, and the Big Bang Theory (or Cosmic Evolution as I learned it) in physics. The child of a Fundamentalist who objects to either or both of those might choose to pull their child from that class, or that part of the class--either of which would result in an "incomplete." The child would not be allowed to graduate. I'm not so sure that such a schools district would lose in court. At least it would make for an interesting test of the Constitution. I know there have been some high-profile cases regarding Creationism in school, but I'm not familiar with any cases involving Fundies challenging evolution/Big Bang as infringing on their rights.

I think in the post Clarence Darrow world, the difference between science findings that fundies don't like, and sex ed, might be that if you're going to teach science, it doesn't make sense not to teach what the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to have happened. Whereas sex education has not traditionally been the responsibility of schools; many parents would argue that it should be taught in the home, and certainly can be.


Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2011, 12:19:50 pm »
Good question. The report referred to in the story you posted offers some speculative possibilities, but they weren't very convincing.

Agreed. The Guttmacher report makes it seem as though economic disadvantage has caused the increase in abortions among poor/minority women. The problem I find with that thinking is that minority women have always had lesser access to services than their white peers. So why is the difference any greater now? Especially when there is more equality in our society, and more minorities are at economic parity with whites than ever in our history. It just doesn't make much sense to me. There is something else at play.   
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2011, 01:11:55 pm »
The government is not prohibiting insurers from doing anything. The idea is to withhold federal funding from abortion practitioners. The insurers can fund whomever they please. The practitioners can still get state funding where allowed, and private funding. So to say that poor women will no longer have access to abortion is factually incorrect.

Congress is not interested controlling the sexual behavior of poor women, they just want to make sure that our federal tax dollars aren't involved in the abortion process.

I hope you're eyes have been opened by the other postings on this thread Milo.  Government funding for women's clinics has been cut already and they pushing for more - for ALL their services - that includes family planning IOW birth control.

Since anti-choice groups are pushing for this legislation, it's obvious it's just another ploy to destroy a woman's right to her own choice.  They couldn't get Roe vs. Wade repealed, so they're making it all but impossible for women to exercise their right to an abortion if she so chooses.

This destruction of rights by the back door is insidious and infuriating.

I daresay certain conservative groups are now doing the same thing with voting rights for minorities.  If you find the technique abhorrent for one group, you should find it abhorrent for EVERY group whose rights it threatens.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,427
  • No crybabies
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2011, 03:12:15 pm »
I hope you're eyes have been opened by the other postings on this thread Milo.  Government funding for women's clinics has been cut already and they pushing for more - for ALL their services - that includes family planning IOW birth control.

Since anti-choice groups are pushing for this legislation, it's obvious it's just another ploy to destroy a woman's right to her own choice.  They couldn't get Roe vs. Wade repealed, so they're making it all but impossible for women to exercise their right to an abortion if she so chooses.

This destruction of rights by the back door is insidious and infuriating.

I daresay certain conservative groups are now doing the same thing with voting rights for minorities.  If you find the technique abhorrent for one group, you should find it abhorrent for EVERY group whose rights it threatens.

My eyes were open well before I posted in this thread.

I'm not going to comment on the alleged abridgement of minority voting rights. That is way OT here.

But I will say that whether or not abortion is a "right," the federal government is under no obligation to pay for it. I have a right to bear firearms, but I don't expect the government to subsidize my guns or ammunition. I have a right to practice whatever religion I choose, but I don't expect the government to buy me a Bible.

The only thing I find abhorrent in all this is the government's attempt to prohibit insurance providers from covering a perfectly legal medical therapy. That is an example of over-regulation.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 12:46:16 pm by milomorris »
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!
« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2011, 12:53:48 pm »
My eyes were open well before I posted in this thread.

Well, they obviously weren't since people had to point out to you that the legislation wasn't about saving money.  You didn't seem to know that.

I hope you do now.

Quote

But I will say that whether or not abortion is a "right," the federal government is under no obligation to pay for it. I have a right to bear firearms, but I don't expect the government to subsidize my guns or ammunition. I have a right to practice whatever religion I choose, but I don't expect the government to buy me a Bible.

Reproduction is also a health issue.  The government DOES subsidize the health care of its citizens.  Do you have a problem with that?