What are your important issues? (2 Viewers)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[Incumbent]

If someone believes all life is sacred and there is never a reason to take a life, then on the same logic if someone believes life is not sacred and can be ended just before birth due to inconvenience, then they can not have a moral argument against the death penalty.

I am just trying to make sense of the argument that is used all the time in the abortion debate. If you believe one thing, then you have to believe in this other unrelated thing and if you don't, you are being dishonest and your point is invalid.

I don’t believe it’s that simple. I think a person can be pro-choice out of respect for women’s rights and agency, not deciding abortion over a moral basis regarding life, and still object to the death penalty, or other relevant social issues, on the grounds of valuing life. But as I said, my views on the death penalty are shaped by systemic flaws.

 

[Lapaz]

Tell that to the 332k babies aborted by planned parenthood in 2018. (That’s only planned parenthood hood in the US). Abortion is the number 1 cause of death in the US and worldwide.

Only some people don’t consider it a death because the baby is in the womb. I can’t wrap my mind around this concept.

Abortions are tragic, but the alternative is worse. What do you think would happen if an additional 332k babies were born to people that either didn't want those babies are were unprepared to care for them? Hint, many would be in the foster care system, and a large portion of those kids end up in trouble. A large percentage would get raised by their mothers with less love than the average child, and that leads to many problems in adulthood. The damage to society would be far greater if most of those kids were born vs aborted, most of which were in early term.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

How is birth control not easy to get? Also, I’m curious. Of the 370k or so abortions performed by planned parenthood, how many didn’t have access to birth control. Or how many of them didn’t realize the outcome of having unprotected sex.

when people want to advocate a woman’s right to chose, we get every example under the sun except one.

how many abortions are from woman who just don’t want kids. Pick your reason why, they just don’t want kids and use abortion as a solution.

I was not aware condoms are kept under lock and key are hard to obtain in the good ole USofA. You can order them from amazon, buy some when you get some gas, picking up some milk, condoms are on isle 4, I went drinking last night, and grabbed a couple from the bar for free when I left. Lazy does not mean lack of access.

The fact of the matter is people are lazy or forgetful, or impulsive, and birth control pills are not free. In fact I seem to remember a very heated discussion from conservative sides about mandatory birth control pill coverage for all health plans, where Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for advocating for her health care plan to cover birth control costs.

It's a simple proven method of reducing abortions. Free birth control results in fewer abortions.

Access to free birth control reduces abortion rates | Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

A study from Washington University School of Medicine shows that providing free birth control to women reduces unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

medicine.wustl.edu

But it is constantly fought by conservatives on other grounds. Also, another way to reduce abortions is to provide better and cheaper child care.

 

[Lazybones]

Abortions are tragic, but the alternative is worse. What do you think would happen if an additional 332k babies were born to people that either didn't want those babies are were unprepared to care for them? Hint, many would be in the foster care system, and a large portion of those kids end up in trouble. A large percentage would get raised by their mothers with less love than the average child, and that leads to many problems in adulthood. The damage to society would be far greater if most of those kids were born vs aborted, most of which were in early term.

I can’t wrap my head around what you just said. It really crushes my heart to hear anyone say the above. I can’t imagine being given the gift of life and then depriving someone else (a fetus to appease) the chance at that life. Instead of giving this fetus life, the justification is that their life would have been difficult and society would be better off without them. Shame shame shame.


My father was abused physically, mentally and sexually. He was put in a boy’s home as a teenager. He fought addiction until that last 7 years of his life. Yet my sister and I are very successful, we both have 2 children who are fantastic kids. My mother has a great life and loves her now dead husband, the father of her children and the grand father to her grand children.

 

[Lazybones]

The fact of the matter is people are lazy or forgetful, or impulsive, and birth control pills are not free. In fact I seem to remember a very heated discussion from conservative sides about mandatory birth control pill coverage for all health plans, where Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for advocating for her health care plan to cover birth control costs.

It's a simple proven method of reducing abortions. Free birth control results in fewer abortions.

Access to free birth control reduces abortion rates | Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

A study from Washington University School of Medicine shows that providing free birth control to women reduces unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

medicine.wustl.edu

But it is constantly fought by conservatives on other grounds. Also, another way to reduce abortions is to provide better and cheaper child care.

so now it’s the price of birth control? Come on man, you can buy a condom at any 711 bathroom for $1. And really you are making my point with the last statement. Abortion is being used as a matter of convenience by hundreds of thousands of woman each year, as you say because a baby sitter cost to much.

we are wrecked as a society.

 

[Ayo]

so now it’s the price of birth control? Come on man, you can buy a condom at any 711 bathroom for $1.

birth control for women - which puts control in their hands, instead of putting it in the hands of their partners. They can refuse, sure. But the numbers on sexual assault and the power in those relationships doesn't mean the woman is going to be able to control whether or not her partner uses a condom.

So, we can't just talk about condoms and think it's an even discussion on "birth control"

I'll also add a personal note - my wife needed birth control for a skin condition and it was provided by the government when she was here in Ontario. When she moved to the US and got on an insurance plan - a good one - but it was not covered. Because it was birth control. But even though the prescription was from a dermatologist, it was not covered, whereas other skin prescriptions were covered. We were told it was because it was "birth control" medication and it didn't matter beyond that.

as you say because a baby sitter cost to much.

I don't think this is a reasonable or fair way to frame it. Childcare isn't hiring a babysitter.

Here in Toronto, daycare costs about $17,000-$20,000 per year.

The city has opened up subsidized care for poorer families, but it's still a huge issue.

Now, you can say "Well, that's Toronto" and sure, you've got a point. Average household income is around 90k/year.

Look at friends of ours in Richmond, Kentucky. They pay around 7k/year for their 2-year old. The average income is 35k.

So, in both places, you're talking about 1/5 household income on childcare. Of course, that's 1/5 on average. If you're below average - making less than 50k or 20k here, that's a huge chunk of change.

Now, I'm not getting into the discussion on moralizing - but I think it's too dismissive to turn "child care expenses" into "a baby sitter costs too much"

 

[Lazybones]

birth control for women - which puts control in their hands, instead of putting it in the hands of their partners. They can refuse, sure. But the numbers on sexual assault and the power in those relationships doesn't mean the woman is going to be able to control whether or not her partner uses a condom.

So, we can't just talk about condoms and think it's an even discussion on "birth control"



I don't think this is a reasonable or fair way to frame it. Childcare isn't hiring a babysitter.

Here in Toronto, daycare costs about $17,000-$20,000 per year.

The city has opened up subsidized care for poorer families, but it's still a huge issue.

Now, you can say "Well, that's Toronto" and sure, you've got a point. Average household income is around 90k/year.

Look at friends of ours in Richmond, Kentucky. They pay around 7k/year for their 2-year old. The average income is 35k.

So, in both places, you're talking about 1/5 household income on childcare. Of course, that's 1/5 on average. If you're below average - making less than 50k or 20k here, that's a huge chunk of change.

Now, I'm not getting into the discussion on moralizing - but I think it's too dismissive to turn "child care expenses" into "a baby sitter costs too much"

I’m sorry, there is no price on life. And the argument that birth control is not available and to expensive is just talking points. Birth control is available everywhere. A quick google search says 250-600 per YEAR without insurance.

 

[Lazybones]

this isn't fair either

you are making it out like I am saying there is

I edited my above post above.

When you make an argument that child care is expensive as a way of justifying a “woman’s choice”, you are.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

so now it’s the price of birth control? Come on man, you can buy a condom at any 711 bathroom for $1. And really you are making my point with the last statement. Abortion is being used as a matter of convenience by hundreds of thousands of woman each year, as you say because a baby sitter cost to much.

we are wrecked as a society.

Do you have any stats to back up your assertion that hundreds of thousands of women have abortions every year because it's convenient?

 

[Lazybones]

Do you have any stats to back up your assertion that hundreds of thousands of women have abortions every year because it's convenient?

370k were done by planned parenthood alone. I am asserting this based on shear nbrs. Do you have something saying it’s not true?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

370k were done by planned parenthood alone. I am asserting this based on shear nbrs. Do you have something saying it’s not true?

I didn't make a claim. You did. I will quote it for you.

Abortion is being used as a matter of convenience by hundreds of thousands of woman each year

Do you have any evidence that this many women are getting abortions each year for the reason you claim?

 

[Lazybones]

I didn't make a claim. You did. I will quote it for you.



Do you have any evidence that this many women are getting abortions each year for the reason you claim?

Planned Parenthood: Fast facts and revealing numbers | CNN

The vast majority of federal money that Planned Parenthood does receive goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women’s health services. Learn more facts.

www-m.cnn.com

“With a focus on prevention, Planned Parenthood said that 80% of its patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
What services does Planned Parenthood offer?
This is how its services break down:
Abortion

• Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
• 323,999 abortions were performed in 2014

 

[Lazybones]

80% of 324k is somewhere around 259k and this is just planned parenthood. Now that you have this info is your opinion different?

 

[Incumbent]

Planned Parenthood: Fast facts and revealing numbers | CNN

The vast majority of federal money that Planned Parenthood does receive goes toward preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women’s health services. Learn more facts.

www-m.cnn.com

With a focus on prevention, Planned Parenthood said that 80% of its patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
What services does Planned Parenthood offer?
This is how its services break down:
Abortion

• Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
• 323,999 abortions were performed in 2014, according to the organization.

I think the issue being raised is your assumption about the reasons these women are seeking abortions - that it’s out of convenience. I do agree that laziness and irresponsibility play some part, that’s true of decision-making in any number of areas. But how much of it is that?

Let’s say that convenience is the driving cause. Then that would support what Jim and others are saying about making birth control more convenient, and, I think, doing more to destigmatize its use. Think about it, if hundreds of thousands of women are opting for an invasive procedure that isn’t without risks and anguish, out of convenience, maybe it’s true that we can, and should, make prophylactic prevention a lot more accessible to everybody? Isn’t that a much better approach, no matter the side of this issue we find ourselves?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

so now it’s the price of birth control? Come on man, you can buy a condom at any 711 bathroom for $1. And really you are making my point with the last statement. Abortion is being used as a matter of convenience by hundreds of thousands of woman each year, as you say because a baby sitter cost to much.

we are wrecked as a society.

I’m sorry, there is no price on life. And the argument that birth control is not available and to expensive is just talking points. Birth control is available everywhere. A quick google search says 250-600 per YEAR without insurance.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm giving you a data driven method that will reduce the number of abortions, and you reject it out of hand. You say that there is no price on life, but you seem unwilling to pay for methods that have been shown to reduce abortions.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

80% of 324k is somewhere around 259k and this is just planned parenthood. Now that you have this info is your opinion different?

That isn't what that data says. It says 80% of their services is for birth control, not abortion (ie prevent unintended pregnancies).

 

[JimEverett]

birth control for women - which puts control in their hands, instead of putting it in the hands of their partners. They can refuse, sure. But the numbers on sexual assault and the power in those relationships doesn't mean the woman is going to be able to control whether or not her partner uses a condom.

So, we can't just talk about condoms and think it's an even discussion on "birth control"

I'll also add a personal note - my wife needed birth control for a skin condition and it was provided by the government when she was here in Ontario. When she moved to the US and got on an insurance plan - a good one - but it was not covered. Because it was birth control. But even though the prescription was from a dermatologist, it was not covered, whereas other skin prescriptions were covered. We were told it was because it was "birth control" medication and it didn't matter beyond that.



I don't think this is a reasonable or fair way to frame it. Childcare isn't hiring a babysitter.

Here in Toronto, daycare costs about $17,000-$20,000 per year.

The city has opened up subsidized care for poorer families, but it's still a huge issue.

Now, you can say "Well, that's Toronto" and sure, you've got a point. Average household income is around 90k/year.

Look at friends of ours in Richmond, Kentucky. They pay around 7k/year for their 2-year old. The average income is 35k.

So, in both places, you're talking about 1/5 household income on childcare. Of course, that's 1/5 on average. If you're below average - making less than 50k or 20k here, that's a huge chunk of change.

Now, I'm not getting into the discussion on moralizing - but I think it's too dismissive to turn "child care expenses" into "a baby sitter costs too much"

No sure if this matters or is even on point to the discussion, but a family of 3 earning right around $35,000 a year will qualify for government child care assistance in Kentucky. That family should also receive other benefits as well.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

80% of 324k is somewhere around 259k and this is just planned parenthood. Now that you have this info is your opinion different?

My opinion is that you didn't actually provide any relevant info. It says that 80% of their services are to prevent unintended pregnancies, not terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Also, unwanted pregnancies are not universally terminated for the same reason, much less the reason being that it is convenient. If an older woman gets pregnant and wants to terminate because of potential health risks, that is an unwanted pregnancy being terminated for reasons other than convenience.