Outlawing all abortions

[Cypress]

I thought that the expansion went too far and began to reach into groups that didn't "need" the safety net any longer.

But, as I said, if it is a government program and it can be given more money then your "evidence" that rightwingers don't care is that they don't support that expansion.

That is weak evidence indeed.

In other words, your only evidence is that they don't think exactly like you and believe that the government should be the sole provider. Therefore they "don't care". That, my friend, is rubbish.

I thought that the expansion went too far and began to reach into groups that didn't "need" the safety net any longer.

For someone who purports to be a kind-a-sorta moderate, independent voter, you sure take the talking points of Bush, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck a lot and run with them.


As far as I can tell most moderate Republican governors are supporting the expansion of SCHIP. Those are the State officials with the best knowledge of what should work in their states.

 

[Damocles]

I thought that the expansion went too far and began to reach into groups that didn't "need" the safety net any longer.

For someone who purports to be a kind-a-sorta moderate, independent voter, you sure take the talking points of Bush, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck a lot and run with them.


As far as I can tell most moderate Republican governors are supporting the expansion of SCHIP. Those are the State officials with the best knowledge of what should work in their states.

In one case I agree with them and that is "alot"? You are being deliberately disingenuous. The only way I can be "moderate" to you is if I only agree with your position at all times. That is pointless. We don't agree. That I can see. However I do believe that an expansion of the grants would be a good thing, I just think that they deliberately went too far because of election year politics.

It gives them a "See! He vetoed healthcare for kids!" to point at during the election.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actively causing the death of Iraqi's and destabilization of the region is not the same as inaction. They both had deadly consequences and were wrong imo, but Bush initiated and is the root cause of Iraqi's troubles today. Clinton didn't start the Rwandan genocide.

Allowing the destabilization and genocide to occur through inaction is most certainly just as bad in my opinion. While Bush certainly opened the door for sectarian strife to raise its head in Iraq, he is hardly the root cause of the animosity between Shiite/Sunni/Kurd.

 

[Socrtease]

Allowing the destabilization and genocide to occur through inaction is most certainly just as bad in my opinion. While Bush certainly opened the door for sectarian strife to raise its head in Iraq, he is hardly the root cause of the animosity between Shiite/Sunni/Kurd.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

 

[Cypress]

In one case I agree with them and that is "alot"? You are being deliberately disingenuous. The only way I can be "moderate" to you is if I only agree with your position at all times. That is pointless. We don't agree. That I can see. However I do believe that an expansion of the grants would be a good thing, I just think that they deliberately went too far because of election year politics.

It gives them a "See! He vetoed healthcare for kids!" to point at during the election.

Its just a wierd argument your making Damo.


Five minutes ago you said the federal government should give block grants to the states with no strings attached. States can do whatever they want with the grants, Feds have to stay out of it.

Then, you apparently state there should be some sort of income cap, on who can get Schip, which would require a federal rule or regulation imposed on the states. So what if New York state wants to raise the income cap to 70,000 dollars? Weren't you just arguing the states should use the block grants as they see fit?

The whole business about the income cap was because new york state wanted to expand Schip about a certain income threshold, and the Feds said they couldn't do that.

 

[Damocles]

Its just a wierd argument your making Damo.


Five minutes ago you said the federal government should give block grants to the states with no strings attached. States can do whatever they want with the grants, Feds have to stay out of it.

Then, you apparently state there should be some sort of income cap, on who can get Schip, which would require a federal rule or regulation imposed on the states. So what if New York state wants to raise the income cap to 70,000 dollars? Weren't you just arguing the states should use the block grants as they see fit?

The whole business about the income cap was because new york state wanted to expand Schip about a certain income threshold, and the Feds said they couldn't do that.

And about a minute before that I stated that I am not against a safety net that supplements what others are already doing, but am against one that attempts to make the government the sole provider.

Yet I see you ignore what I previously stated to pretend I made another statement in vacuum. It seems to be your only way of "argument" on the board.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

A better quote I do not know.

 

[Immanuel]

Its a medical fact that some women die from complications arising from pregnancies. You can quibble about the number 82, but you cannot be taken seriously if you ask people to "prove" that women die during pregnancies.

How do you feel about a law that outlaws all abortions (even in cases of rape, incest) or to save the mother's life...and further, that you would criminilize abortion, throwing doctors and women in jail?

Did I ask you to prove anything? I asked you if you thought that there might be bias in the reporting. I didn't even state that it was. Simple question might the report be biased or not?

A mother's life should always be protected. What worries me is when doctors who profit from the procedure make the decision. I'm up in the air on Rape. Tough call, it is not the child's fault but then the trauma of a rape... well, not my call. As for incest, are you talking concentual or rape?

How do you feel about the 1.3 million lives that are lost in America every year to this tragedy?

Immie

 

[Cypress]

Immie, I believe its a worthwhile goal to minimize abortions. I support compreshnesive sex education, contraception, morning after pills, and universal access to health care and women's reproductive health.

Things the rightwing consistently fights against. With a passion.

After that, if an when an abortion is neccessary, I doubt any woman is taking it lightly. Nor can I pretend (like so many men apparently do) what a woman feels or goes through making this decision. Therefore, my default position is that the decision is one for a woman and her doctor.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I believe its a worthwhile goal to minimize abortions.

I have no doubt that you do.

I support compreshnesive sex education, contraception, morning after pills, and universal access to health care and women's reproductive health.

Things the rightwing consistently fights against. With a passion.

Well, I was blinded by the RR at one time. I am fighting to remove the scales. I ask myself, "is the goal to reduce and hopefully to eliminate abortions or is it to give the government control of a woman's body?" I think it is the first therefore if reduction of abortions is the goal then we should use whatever methods work and the government saying, "thou shalt not" does not work as evidenced by the never ending war on drugs.

After that, if an when an abortion is neccessary, I doubt any woman is taking it lightly. Nor can I pretend (like so many men apparently do) what a woman feels or goes through making this decision. Therefore, my default position is that the decision is one for a woman and her doctor.

Here I have a problem and maybe it is selfish, but generally there is a third individual in this equation and that is the father. The father should have rights as well unless, maybe the baby was conceived due to rape.

I guess I did not make myself clear earlier today. I wasn't condemning your article. I was simply stating that the source may be biased. That doesn't mean it is false either.

Immie

 

[Cancel7]

Nice subtle "you need to allow gays to adopt then" spelled out clearly in the second paragraph. No way I will ever vote for a politician who even hints at promoting this. Both (abortion and gay adoption) are situations which require a moral decision and to agree to one to get the other defeats the purpose of all.

This is a holy Roller, sorry.

And he has posted that he agrees with some very interesting biblical teachings about women.

You guys like him, that's fine, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

But jsut because he doesn't scream and curse, doesn't mean he's not a holy roller.

the guy is a holy rolller.

Period.

 

[Cypress]

Yeah, anyone who uses biblical scripture to relate to public policy issues is pretty much the definition of holy roller.

 

[Damocles]

This is a holy Roller, sorry.

And he has posted that he agrees with some very interesting biblical teachings about women.

You guys like him, that's fine, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

But jsut because he doesn't scream and curse, doesn't mean he's not a holy roller.

the guy is a holy rolller.

Period.

IMO, he is an actual 'Holy Roller'. I think his church likely has people being 'slain in the Spirit' and speaking in tongues.

However, 'dawg's definition of 'Holy Roller' is both larger and more specific. He might consider leaningright as one because he does, in this instance, speak against homosexuality, but he also might not.