Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Did you see the study @cuddlemonkey posted? It shows that clear as day.

That's not what it said at all unless you think "I'm struggling to take care of my children and this pregnancy might make it impossible to do so" is a matter of convenience.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Main? Probably not on paper but if they want to keep funding, eliminate the abortion part of their business model and there would be no problem as far as funding.

Why won't they do that, do you think?

Do you know what the Hyde Admendment is?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Just because they receive fundng from the Gov't is the same as using the funding for abortion.
Less than half of the funding they get is from the gov't. I guess the gov't shouldn't funy any organization that goes against anyones personal ideals..

 

[Farb]

You are absolutely right. It's possible for a transwoman to conceive with a ciswoman or transman, assuming nothing has made it medically impossible (such as gender reassignment surgery).

That said, the vast majority of pregnancies begin with cismen simply based on numbers and you are ignoring that to take try to get in a zinger instead.

No zinger, just pointing the new rules we all have to play along with.
I agree. It is impossible for a man to not be part of the conception as much as it is impossible to have conception with a woman.

That is why men should be responsible for any new life they help bring into this world. I wish we could legislate that the male has to be a good father figure too, but the only thing we can legislate is the fiscal responsibility. I would be all for both since the institutions that use to 'make that happen' in our society have become to problematic today.

 

[Farb]

Because the right to get an abortion is constitutionally protected healthcare? Just maybe because they believe that women, like all humans, have bodily autonomy?

Its getting harder to take this line of reasoning seriously.

Is healthcare a constitutionally protected right? I don't recall that being in the constitution.

 

[Farb]

Do you know what the Hyde Admendment is?

I do, that is why I said 'on paper'.

 

[Farb]

That's not what it said at all unless you think "I'm struggling to take care of my children and this pregnancy might make it impossible to do so" is a matter of convenience.

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Where is the health issues that is always brought up? These seem to be more about convenience than health and saftey, no?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Then why do you care if they get funding then. the funding they get from the gov't isn't used for abortions. Are you saying PP is breaking the law?
And do you want all funding stopped to evey single program that disagrees with ' the bible should be law" idealogy?

 

[Farb]

Then why do you care if they get funding then. the funding they get from the gov't isn't used for abortions. Are you saying PP is breaking the law?
And do you want all funding stopped to evey single program that disagrees with ' the bible should be law" idealogy?

I can't say for sure that PP is breaking the law, but I would guess they are.

Personally, of course I want to defund everything I disagree with on a moral level. Why would I not? That is just human nature. That is the basics of politics. Like I have said before, I am also a realist and know that will never happen and it will more than likely backfire if it ever did. But absolutely, I want to defund a lot of systems, institutions, and departments of the government.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No zinger, just pointing the new rules we all have to play along with.
I agree. It is impossible for a man to not be part of the conception as much as it is impossible to have conception with a woman.

That is why men should be responsible for any new life they help bring into this world. I wish we could legislate that the male has to be a good father figure too, but the only thing we can legislate is the fiscal responsibility. I would be all for both since the institutions that use to 'make that happen' in our society have become to problematic today.

Assuming you mean "without" a woman.

And if you agree with me, then you are agreeing that trans men are men and trans women are women.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Where is the health issues that is always brought up? These seem to be more about convenience than health and saftey, no?

So now you are against a woman's ability to take care of her children, take fiscal responsibility, stay out of bad relationships, and educate herself?

 

[MT15]

Is healthcare a constitutionally protected right? I don't recall that being in the constitution.

Not what I said. I said getting an abortion is considered to be constitutionally protected healthcare.

 

[V Chip]

Maybe get the federal government out of the decision completely then? Although that will go against a big donor for the Dems. Planned Parenthood would/should lose all it's federal funding if any part of the organization does abortions. That seems fair to me.

Interesting that you want the *federal* government out of the decision, but not the *state* or *local* government. I wonder if this decision is based on knowing more local governments would like to agree with your stance rather than the idea that the government shouldn't be in the decision making process for this at all, letting that decision be up to the woman and her doctor(s) and advisors.

 

[V Chip]

Planned Parenthood would/should lose all it's federal funding if any part of the organization does abortions. That seems fair to me.

I can't say for sure that PP is breaking the law, but I would guess they are.

They aren't, but interesting that you seemingly take the stance that any funding they receive helps to pay for abortions (when in fact it doesn't; all abortion services are paid for with donations or out-of-pocket by the woman). Assuming that is the case, do you feel this is the same for all organizations -- that if they receive funding from the government for any part of their services, then that funding helps fund all of their services? Should churches and religious-based organizations have all their funding and tax exempt status removed?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I can't say for sure that PP is breaking the law, but I would guess they are.

Personally, of course I want to defund everything I disagree with on a moral level. Why would I not? That is just human nature. That is the basics of politics. Like I have said before, I am also a realist and know that will never happen and it will more than likely backfire if it ever did. But absolutely, I want to defund a lot of systems, institutions, and departments of the government.

So, PP gets about $1.5B in funding (private and gov't), about $500M comes from the Gov't. Lets say they spend $30M (3%) on abortions, why would you assume they are using the funding from the Gov't to pay for them? What sense does that even make?

So, you want to outlaw aborions to save lives, but you have no problem cutting gov't services that could result in the deaths of children because of the crappy parents? I guess as long as we can put the blame on someone for the death, thats all the really matters....

 

[Taurus]

So now you are against a woman's ability to take care of her children, take fiscal responsibility, stay out of bad relationships, and educate herself?

Obviously

 

[Farb]

Assuming you mean "without" a woman.

And if you agree with me, then you are agreeing that trans men are men and trans women are women.

Does a trans woman have eggs? Can they breast feed and carry a child in a womb? They can't. So, no, they are not a 'real' woman.

 

[Farb]

So now you are against a woman's ability to take care of her children, take fiscal responsibility, stay out of bad relationships, and educate herself?

Having a child prevents these things? Single moms across the country must be surprised. I am not going to tell them, you do it.