B_starinvestor
Experimental Member
Wow, that's outrageous. Have you looked into a major medical policy? The deductibles are high but at least you are covered if something serious happens.
Understanding Republicans
- Thread starter Phil Ayesho
- Start date
Wow, that's outrageous. Have you looked into a major medical policy? The deductibles are high but at least you are covered if something serious happens.
No -- or to reciprocate the tone of your post, perhaps I should say, "No, asshole"? -- what I am saying is that the sexual education that young people get, whatever its source, should be based on fact and not fiction. "Abstinence-only" sex education prevents children from getting knowledge of the facts about contraception and how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases because it teaches them falsehoods about the efficacy (the supposed inefficacy) of condoms in order to scare them into refraining from premarital sex. Children so educated tend to have sex before marriage anyway, but with a lower incidence of condom use, and consequently a higher incidence of unsought pregnancy and the transmission of diseases.
My position is that once you're fertile then you need to know everything about what can happen with it.
Here's an analogy Republicans can understand:
Would you let little Johnny have a gun without any training simply because he might shoot somebody with it by accident and it's morally wrong to shoot people? It's the same thinking. Unless you lock up your kids, it doesn't matter if they start puberty at 8 or 18, that kid's able to be a parent. He or she is carrying a loaded gun whether you want them to or not.
What I don't get about the Republican stance is that they're interested in creating more Democrats. If a woman can't have a legal abortion then a few things happen:
If she's rich or middle class, she can travel to Canada to get an abortion. She might even be able to swing raising the kid on her own.
If she's poor or lower middle class then she's going to do one of two things:
A. Cost the taxpayers more money by going to a public hospital for prenatal care, delivery and maternity, then keep the kid and both end-up on welfare since she won't be able to work and keep the kid on her own.
B. She goes to a back alley abortionist and may perhaps need extensive medical care, at taxpayer expense, following the procedure. Then she'll be arrested and put in prison, again at taxpayer expense.
C. She might give the kid up for adoption where the kid grows up in foster care (unless the baby's white), or in an institution (since Republicans think private charities should handle this sort of thing), again at tax payer expense.
Which ends-up costing more to society? If you want to end abortion then you damn well better have a plan about what to do with all the minority kids you're going to have running around with one or no parents at all. Perhaps the, "compassionate conservatives," can open workhouses run by corporations. That way American kids can get work from American corporations that would otherwise go to Indonesian or Malaysian kids.
Here's an analogy Republicans can understand:
Would you let little Johnny have a gun without any training simply because he might shoot somebody with it by accident and it's morally wrong to shoot people? It's the same thinking. Unless you lock up your kids, it doesn't matter if they start puberty at 8 or 18, that kid's able to be a parent. He or she is carrying a loaded gun whether you want them to or not.
What I don't get about the Republican stance is that they're interested in creating more Democrats. If a woman can't have a legal abortion then a few things happen:
If she's rich or middle class, she can travel to Canada to get an abortion. She might even be able to swing raising the kid on her own.
If she's poor or lower middle class then she's going to do one of two things:
A. Cost the taxpayers more money by going to a public hospital for prenatal care, delivery and maternity, then keep the kid and both end-up on welfare since she won't be able to work and keep the kid on her own.
B. She goes to a back alley abortionist and may perhaps need extensive medical care, at taxpayer expense, following the procedure. Then she'll be arrested and put in prison, again at taxpayer expense.
C. She might give the kid up for adoption where the kid grows up in foster care (unless the baby's white), or in an institution (since Republicans think private charities should handle this sort of thing), again at tax payer expense.
Which ends-up costing more to society? If you want to end abortion then you damn well better have a plan about what to do with all the minority kids you're going to have running around with one or no parents at all. Perhaps the, "compassionate conservatives," can open workhouses run by corporations. That way American kids can get work from American corporations that would otherwise go to Indonesian or Malaysian kids.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, they are quite a bit less, but as I stated, they only cover surgery, inpatient and outpatient hospital charges, but no testing, no therapies (anything from rehab to chemo), drugs, or doctor's fees so why bother? You'll be bankrupt and on Medicaid anyway. The system blows.
Answer this stat:
• Parity. A large proportion (73%) of all women having abortions had been pregnant before: Some 48% had had a previous abortion, including 36% who had experienced both a previous birth and an abortion and 12% who had experienced only a previous abortion.
48% of those having abortions had a previous abortion!!!
They use abortion as birth control. Too fucking lazy to prevent the PG that right way.
Last edited:
Answer this:
What business is it of yours how many they have? Really! Tell me what it is that compels you to force another person to do what you want them to with their body.
As we all know, there are quite a few people in the world who think our entire culture is morally repugnant and are willing to kill us to stop us from living as we do. They believe they are compelled by God to force us to live, act, and think as they do and we hate them for trying to force us to live their morality. How is your version of forcing other people to do what you think God wants everyone to do any different from the Islamic extremists? Sure the methods are (sometimes) different, but the desire is the same.
I think God wants everyone to do [insert dogma here] so I'm going to force not just myself, but other people to do [insert dogma here] too.
This is one example of where the charge of a gross lack of empathy on the part of conservatives comes from, btw.
A large percentage of those women know what will happen to them if they have a baby. Their lives will be made immeasurably more difficult and they stand an excellent chance of living below the poverty line if they aren't already. Once again, if that happens, WE end up paying for the mother, the kid, and a lifetime of missed opportunities. Abortion is fiscally responsible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fucking great post Jason!!!
Those figures are meaningless and NOBODY uses abortion as birth control. The decision to abort a baby haunts a woman for the rest of her life. Women make bad decisions about who they sleep with and how they go about it, that's life, we ALL make bad decisions.
If it's not your baby SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
Those figures are meaningless and NOBODY uses abortion as birth control. The decision to abort a baby haunts a woman for the rest of her life. Women make bad decisions about who they sleep with and how they go about it, that's life, we ALL make bad decisions.
If it's not your baby SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
I'm not so sure. When I worked for a health insurance company processing claims, I saw the medical histories of hundreds of people. I recall being shocked at the few women who had numerous repeat abortions. Some women had three or four, others had as many as seven or eight. The most shocking was a woman who had thirteen abortions. All of these women were directly employed by our policyholders. Were they to have children, their career would have been derailed. They were all single, all working for the policyholder account I managed, and were professional women. I can recall precisely two abortions that occurred because there was risk to the mother's health, and just a few that were for underage daughters of our policyholders.
There really are women out there who have numerous repeat abortions and appear, given the options we have today, to use abortion as a form of birth control.
And thanks for the compliment even if I must question your post, Tripod.
I really, really, try very hard not to follow ideology but to call every argument as I see it. That means I will praise Bush for the things he does right, and condemn him for what he does wrong as I will do for anyone else. I follow no lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
But they are a ridiculous minority of the women having abortions and it is a disservice to present them as being somehow typical of women who have abortions.
I know plenty of women who have had one or two abortions, some have had three, but I have NEVER met anyone who had more than three abortions, they are uncommon and being shocked at the number of abortions those women had was none of your business.
We tell people all the time what they can and can't do with their bodies. Drugs, alcohol, bicycle helmets. Why compel people to wear a bicycle helmet if we aren't going to compel them to be reproductively safe?
And see? You totally proved my point better than I could have. Liberals seek to shield people from their own bad choices. No matter how many bad choices they make. So you are giving people carte blanch to make as many bad choices as they like. OK by me as long as they pay for it.
This is too easy. Candy from babes. A society by its nature has to have rules or its anarchy. Let just have one set of rules and make people live by them. I don't care if abortion is legal or not. Eventually you have to stop shielding people from their own bad choices and make them pay. Sorry. Thats life in a rules driven social structure.
How moronic and again proves my point better than I. 1 or 2 is OK but over 3 maybe thats getting too many or OK by you?
Thats just stupid. Should their insurance pay for the 4th or 5th? Should the state?
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Actually, you're trying to blame the kids when in reality the teenage daughter or son are still the parent's responsibility. In other words, MOM & DAD are to blame. Teaching students about contraceptives and safe sex in schools adds an extra level of defense in the prevention of teenage pregnancy & the spreading of STDs, especially if you have parents who outright refuse to teach their children at home.
The fact that you're actually trying to put all the blame on the young and exonerate a parent's responsibility to raise a child is laughable. Is there any wonder why "abstinence only" education doesn't work?
No wonder you are frustrated. You don't get it. It would help if you were better informed. If you are liberal and I assume you are by your capitalized screeching, you by writ want to deed more power to the state to make decisons for you. That is the liberal mantra. For example, universal health care would be state run. Public schools are state run. Retirement is state run. That means ALL of us, society in general, has a stake in YOUR behavior. So you in turn have an implicit responsibility to live an organized, efficient life so that your behavior does not impede my pursuit of happiness. That why the state CAN compel us not to take heroin, not shoot methamphetamines, wear bicycle helmets, exclude certain activities from insurance like sky diving, wear seat belts, etc. They are compelling us to make good decisions that protect the public welfare.
If you think the state makes better decisions about what to do with our time and money, but then don't require individuals to make good personal decsions in their own lives you are always going be frustrated. Thats conflicted.
I'm trying to figure out how these statistics (granting that they are accurate) tell against my claims about abstinence-only sex education.
Let me guess: If these women had gotten abstinence-only sex education, more of them would be Republicans and therefore when they get pregnant by accident they wouldn't try to get abortions?
I am not blaming kids. I am blaming people like you who wrongfully believe sex education delivered by schools (the state) leads to better outcomes. It does not. As schools have taken a larger and larger percentage of parental responsibilty, teen pregnancies and abortions have sky rocketed. New Mexico is the most liberal state in the Union and has one of the highest rates of teen pregnany. Washington DC the same.
And if you have read anything I have written, I place the entire blame on the parents for failed children. The family has to be the source of moral guidance and teaching kids to make good decisions. Schools can't do it.
Please read all that I post in a thread. You might learn something.
I am not cold hearted one bit i think the comment is plain ignorance. Yes I have a Liberal mindset but do vote republican. I think you are close minded yourself because you stereotype way to much.
stamrod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Posts
- 228
- Media
- 11
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Just because it isn't my baby, doesn't mean I should let the woman do what she wants. Do we let parents abuse their infants just because it isn't our child? No. I'm sorry, but the argument that it's a woman's baby and we should stay out of her business doesn't fly at all.
The issue really boils down to when you consider the baby an actual human being. If you consider it an individual prior to birth, then of course, abortion would be the same as murder. Liberals and pro-choice supporters argue that the baby is merely a parasite in the womb and is dependent on the mother so isn't really an individual. Republicans and pro-life supporters argue that even as an infant, the baby is dependent on others as well. Killing an infant is still murder. They consider the baby an individual from conception due to it's different DNA.
Personally, I think abortions should be made more difficult to get and maybe should only be allowed in extreme cases (risk to the mother, babies with genetic defects, rape, mother under 18 or whatever age is decided upon). Concurrently, ease of adoption should be increased so that it is a more viable alternative for mothers considering abortions.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Well, it has to come from somewhere if parents aren't going to do it. And believe me, most right winged, hyper-religious conservative families are NOT telling their children the right things when it comes to this issue. Just telling them to keep it in their pants until marriage may have worked back in the 40s and 50s, but in today's modern world it's not enough.
Prove that, please... links to any credible, non biased site? Is this on a census study, or are you just dreaming up the statistic?
You highly underestimate the power of good schooling.
Maybe if Republicans didn't always cut their funding and actually invested in things like Education instead of the war you'd see the difference? But I digress, of course.
If I told you what I've learned by reading your posts, I'd probably be banned from this site. I'm not good at tying a pretty bow around a bag of BS. Let's just keep it that way for now.
Similar threads
