The DNA of the Democratic Party

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 Quote by: Protostar Quote by: underbear1 Poor women will still be granted financial assistance for abortions under medical assistance, what possible difference is it that those funds are provided by state agencies or federal agencies, there will still be people opposed to abortions paying for abortions? Do you seriously think all anti abortion folks will move from states which pay for abortions? Like I said earlier Republican and anti-choice folks end up with pregnant mistresses and teen daughters, why the hell should states which pay for abortions, pay for these women/girls crossing statelines to clean up their little mistakes? That's bullshit. You want women to have the right to choose, fine. I'm willing to compromise. But under no circumstances, should public funds (on any level) be used to pay for abortions. This is what really irks me with the pro choice folks. Not only do they want women to have their right to "choose" they want the rest of us to foot the bill for their mistakes. I'm not one of these people who looks down upon sex. On the contrary, I believe sex is a wonderful thing and should be engaged in as much as possible. But I realize that there are consequences to sex, and pregnancy is one of them. I would never turn to the government to pay for poor decision making on my part, and cannot understand why others would do any differently. OK you go tell a poor woman pregnant from being raped you won't pay for the abortion she wants. yeah, that's gonna happen!

First off, abortions due to rape make up a very small percentage of abortions done. Second off, even in the case of rape you are forcing me to pay for something I had no part in. She still has her choice to abort, why the hell should the public be forced to pay for it?

[underbear1]

It doesn't matter how few abortions are due to rape, if you make the exception to pay for that abortion, then not paying for abortions, by the unwilling argument becomes moot. You state it's something you had no part in, a rape is something she had no choice in! No state official in this country is going to deny a raped woman the right to abort, it'd be political suicide. They also won't tell a woman who's life is at risk, or a woman carrying a fetus with the brain growing outside the skull she can't abort.

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 It doesn't matter how few abortions are due to rape, if you make the exception to pay for that abortion, then not paying for abortions, by the unwilling argument becomes moot. You state it's something you had no part in, a rape is something she had no choice in! No state official in this country is going to deny a raped woman the right to abort, it'd be political suicide. They also won't tell a woman who's life is at risk, or a woman carrying a fetus with the brain growing outside the skull she can't abort.

DUDE!! YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!! I'm not talking about denying her the right to abort. I'm talking about using public funds to pay for it. No public funds should be used to pay for abortions no matter what the circumstances. I'm making no exceptions. If women want their right to choose, then make THEM pay for it. That's what I am saying.

[underbear1]

So you are de facto telling a poor woman who can't afford to abort, she has no choice. Sell that concept at an election. Since any woman might become poor, and any woman might become raped, you are taking on 99.9% of the women in our country.......not going to win any election that way.

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 So you are de facto telling a poor woman who can't afford to abort, she has no choice. Sell that concept at an election. Since any woman might become poor, and any woman might become raped, you are taking on 99.9% of the women in our country.......not going to win any election that way.

So you are telling me that I have to pay, with my tax dollars, for her right to choose simply because she can't afford it? Nonsensical. It's not my problem if a woman gets raped or becomes poor. I had no part it her unforntuante situation, so why should I have to pay for it? Like I have said a million times, if women want their right to choose, let them pay for it. No need to use public funds to pay for these death clinics.

[underbear1]

With NO public official in ANY STATE willing to take up your argument, then your having that opinion is fine with me, honey!

btw. the familarity you show calling me "dude", is very similar to my calling someone "honey."

[underbear1]

I pay for many other people's sexual decisions. I didn't tell them to have several children, but I pay for their children's public education.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If anybody sincerely cares about what Alito is all about, you should have watched the questions on the 4th day of the hearing, where it wasn't political bi-partisan mouthpieces asking vague, unpointed questions. On the 4th day, the President of the BAR association, as well as several watchdog groups, civil rights organizations, constitutional scholars from Harvard, Yale etc, posing questions and statements on Alito. These were the people who clearly made up my mind, as they didn't play politics, they stated the facts that Alito is a pro-government whore in his record as a judge, and he is exactly what I would expect the fascist Bush to promote to the bench. ...

I didn't follow this stuff but I trust your views of it. Though I hadn't heard many things obviously indicating such positions were likely true, the fact that Bush picked the guy left me skeptical. (That's sad isn't it? It wouldn't matter who Bush picked. Probably even if the guy/gal came straight out and talked about strict interpretations, separation of powers and limitations on federal powers, I'd still be somewhat skeptical though would support him if these positions were clear ... not that my personal views make much of any difference on this stuff anyway )

Quote by: underbear1 I pay for many other people's sexual decisions. I didn't tell them to have several children, but I pay for their children's public education.

... and you pay for their WICS, Medicare, tax writeoffs (as dependents), and support for Family laws regarding these also. Fun huh? (I've got 5 children, but that was by choice and I'd much prefer if other people didn't try to stick their hands in private family matters ... ironically other people end up paying for a lot of this too)

btw. the familarity you show calling me "dude", is very similar to my calling someone "honey."

You can recognize capitalists because they say dude. :)

[underbear1]

Saying dude a decade or two since it was FRESH, was a dead giveaway. I'd have thought they'd be co-opting "dog" by now.

[US Independent]

Quote by: underbear1 So you are de facto telling a poor woman who can't afford to abort, she has no choice. Sell that concept at an election. Since any woman might become poor, and any woman might become raped, you are taking on 99.9% of the women in our country.......not going to win any election that way.

Yes, we all know that the thousands of woman killing their babies were all raped and none of them can pay for their own abortion. :rolleyes:

Figure out the probability of that happening. A poor woman being raped, and not being able to afford an abortion, so that the government has to pay for the immoral surgery. Not very high.

Recent surveys and medical records show that abortion is on a decline. Either that means woman are becoming more aware of how awful abortion really is, or they have decided not to have unprotected sex and become pregnant on "accident". Either way that is a good thing. Leave it to democrats to defend a "right" that fewer and fewer woman are using.

Funny thing is, is that Democrats seem to think pleasing minorities win an election. Pleasing the minority really worked out for Gore and Kerry huh? Of course Democrats don't always please the minority. The Elian Gonzalez case stopped Gore from taking Florida. The crap that Clinton pulled on Elian really ticked some Cuban-Americans off.

Democrats are a minority, people hate them, even more so then Bush. That is what is really puzzling to Democrats. It is quite easily said that democrats hate Bush like republicans hated Clinton. But average people realize that democrats don't support the middle class...they tax them, people realize that Democrats lie and are hypocrites, people know that democrats shove welfare down your throat willingly or not, plus they make you pay for it (social security), democrats suck. Conservatives are much better, I am glad that many Americans are realizing that and are voting against Democrats. Of course all the media excitement over Jack Abramoff and the war that is alledgedlly going to cause the Republicans to lose their "hold" over congress is just a big hype. People hate democrats more then they hate republicans, its a fact every democrat is just going to have to face.

[Protostar]

Quote by: underbear1 I pay for many other people's sexual decisions. I didn't tell them to have several children, but I pay for their children's public education.

Were you not educated in a public school? I was, and as such donot mind paying taxes to fund such schools (I would like to see alot of reforms though). It you were privately educated, then that is another matter altogether. My point is I had no part in her situation, so why should I have to pay for it? Public funds should not be used to fund the ramafications of other people's poor decisions/planning.

[Zealot]

Quote by: US Independent Yes, we all know that the thousands of woman killing their babies were all raped and none of them can pay for their own abortion. :rolleyes: Figure out the probability of that happening. A poor woman being raped, and not being able to afford an abortion, so that the government has to pay for the immoral surgery. Not very high. Recent surveys and medical records show that abortion is on a decline. Either that means woman are becoming more aware of how awful abortion really is, or they have decided not to have unprotected sex and become pregnant on "accident". Either way that is a good thing. Leave it to democrats to defend a "right" that fewer and fewer woman are using. Funny thing is, is that Democrats seem to think pleasing minorities win an election. Pleasing the minority really worked out for Gore and Kerry huh? Of course Democrats don't always please the minority. The Elian Gonzalez case stopped Gore from taking Florida. The crap that Clinton pulled on Elian really ticked some Cuban-Americans off. Democrats are a minority, people hate them, even more so then Bush. That is what is really puzzling to Democrats. It is quite easily said that democrats hate Bush like republicans hated Clinton. But average people realize that democrats don't support the middle class...they tax them, people realize that Democrats lie and are hypocrites, people know that democrats shove welfare down your throat willingly or not, plus they make you pay for it (social security), democrats suck. Conservatives are much better, I am glad that many Americans are realizing that and are voting against Democrats. Of course all the media excitement over Jack Abramoff and the war that is alledgedlly going to cause the Republicans to lose their "hold" over congress is just a big hype. People hate democrats more then they hate republicans, its a fact every democrat is just going to have to face.

And after that sad display by their icons Kennedy and Byrd, they hate them even more. When will they learn? Thanks US, as usual you wiped up the place>

[SteveA]

Quote by: Protostar Were you not educated in a public school? I was, and as such donot mind paying taxes to fund such schools (I would like to see alot of reforms though). It you were privately educated, then that is another matter altogether. My point is I had no part in her situation, so why should I have to pay for it? Public funds should not be used to fund the ramafications of other people's poor decisions/planning.

With regard to feeling obligated to "pay back" for a public education, you'd can't really do it. You can only pay for the current education of others. The prior generation already paid for your education. If people could commit to teaching their own children in return, that's enough of a repayment from my point of view.

For example, let's say there was truly a debt to repay public education - if noone had any more children but we all repayed some outstanding debt for our educations, then there'd be a stockpile of unused resources going nowhere.

If you feel obligated to return the favor extended you, by all means go ahead but from the way I see things, this debt was already paid by our ancestors who had children and desired to see them educated for various reasons of their own. A child doesn't sit in a school because (s)he really wants to go to school everyday but does so because their parents and others benefit from this in various ways and so it was in their interest to educate children, a child doesn't inherently owe others anything for being made to attend a public school, though we'd hope the experience was beneficial enough that the favor would be extended to others.