Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
gtn130 wrote:
This is all just very good and normal #MAGA stuff. Nothing to see here folks keep it moving
daoneandonly wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Great - and that is where we disagree. From my point of view the folks that don't support women raising children are right there in the middle of the brigade (actually worse because in my mind an infant is even less able to support himself than a fetus).
And there you have it... now you should be able to clearly understand why gtn's comment was so succinct. It just took a like time to get there.
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
VoxWhy America doesn’t win wars anymore
A month into his presidency, Donald Trump lamented that the US no longer wins wars as it once did.
“When I was young, in high school and college, everybody used to say we never lost a war,” Trump told a group of US governors last February. “Now, we never win a war.”
Dominic Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and the author of multiple books about how America wages war, may know the reason why.
He believes the US can still successfully fight the wars of yesteryear — World War-style conflicts — but hasn’t yet mastered how to win wars against insurgents, which are smaller fights against groups within countries.
The problem is the US continues to involve itself in those kinds of fights.
“We’re still stuck in this view that war is like the Super Bowl: We meet on the field, both sides have uniforms, we score points, someone wins, and when the game ends you go home,” he told me. “That’s not what war is like now.”
The US military is currently mired in conflicts in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It’s hard to see any end in sight — especially an end where the United States is the victor, however that’s defined.
dckingsfan wrote:daoneandonly wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Great - and that is where we disagree. From my point of view the folks that don't support women raising children are right there in the middle of the brigade (actually worse because in my mind an infant is even less able to support himself than a fetus).
And there you have it... now you should be able to clearly understand why gtn's comment was so succinct. It just took a like time to get there.
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
Deuteronomy 30:19 wrote:I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live
Jamaaliver wrote:VoxWhy America doesn’t win wars anymore
A month into his presidency, Donald Trump lamented that the US no longer wins wars as it once did.
“When I was young, in high school and college, everybody used to say we never lost a war,” Trump told a group of US governors last February. “Now, we never win a war.”
Dominic Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and the author of multiple books about how America wages war, may know the reason why.
He believes the US can still successfully fight the wars of yesteryear — World War-style conflicts — but hasn’t yet mastered how to win wars against insurgents, which are smaller fights against groups within countries.
The problem is the US continues to involve itself in those kinds of fights.
“We’re still stuck in this view that war is like the Super Bowl: We meet on the field, both sides have uniforms, we score points, someone wins, and when the game ends you go home,” he told me. “That’s not what war is like now.”
The US military is currently mired in conflicts in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It’s hard to see any end in sight — especially an end where the United States is the victor, however that’s defined.
620,000 american died in that war. Homes were torched. Wives and daughters were brutally raped. Whats the difference?dckingsfan wrote:daoneandonly wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Great - and that is where we disagree. From my point of view the folks that don't support women raising children are right there in the middle of the brigade (actually worse because in my mind an infant is even less able to support himself than a fetus).
And there you have it... now you should be able to clearly understand why gtn's comment was so succinct. It just took a like time to get there.
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
Pointgod wrote:dckingsfan wrote:daoneandonly wrote:
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
The biggest deterrent to reducing the need for abortions is a highly educated female population. The more educated women are, the less children they have. Also increasing sexual education and access birth control will reduce the need for abortions. But present these solutions to the same people that want to control women’s bodies and they’ll go off on tangents about using their tax dollars to pay for education and some nonsense about lazy liberals who want free stuff.
Pointgod wrote:dckingsfan wrote:daoneandonly wrote:
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
The biggest deterrent to reducing the need for abortions is a highly educated female population. The more educated women are, the less children they have. Also increasing sexual education and access birth control will reduce the need for abortions. But present these solutions to the same people that want to control women’s bodies and they’ll go off on tangents about using their tax dollars to pay for education and some nonsense about lazy liberals who want free stuff.
Deuteronomy 30:19 wrote:I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live
Pointgod wrote:dckingsfan wrote:daoneandonly wrote:
So then where do you stand? You say part of the brigade is saying a woman who cant afford to raise a child should be able to have an abortion, so what about the women/men that can? Are you for them having that right?
Cause you are basically saying one of two things, either a poor person has more rights and freedoms than a rich when it comes to abortion, or you support abortion on all levels, across the board, no exceptions. So which is it?
1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
The biggest deterrent to reducing the need for abortions is a highly educated female population. The more educated women are, the less children they have. Also increasing sexual education and access birth control will reduce the need for abortions. But present these solutions to the same people that want to control women’s bodies and they’ll go off on tangents about using their tax dollars to pay for education and some nonsense about lazy liberals who want free stuff.
daoneandonly wrote:Pointgod wrote:dckingsfan wrote:1) Women take a significant risk having a baby (I have cited articles on this) and the less well-off you are the higher the risks.
2) Over-the-counter abortion pills and Canada/Mexico make it impossible to significantly reduce abortions legislatively without a "war on abortion" like we have a "war on drugs" and incarcerating lots of women. And there, women with means would go to prison far less often than those without.
3) There are significant costs (medically & work) to having a baby.
4) There are significant costs after having a baby(medically & work).
5) There are significant costs to raise a baby over time.
6) There is still a stigma to having a baby without a significant other or husband.
Therefore, I would first start with 6. I would run a campaign talking about the need for children in our country (true, look at the demographics). I would destigmatize out of marriage births. I would create program(s) that ensured that all mothers were protected starting with free prenatal care for all, free after care for all children and ensure that no mother could lose her job based upon having to care for her child.
And then you get to the harder part - education. We have so f'd up our educational system in the US as to make it unworkable. This is a state's issue vs. a federal issue at this time and the more that the federal government has become "involved" in education the worse it has become.
But there could be an unfunded mandate that all could get free education through college. Not hard to do if you tie all junior college systems into the K-12. And expand K-12 to pre-K as well. But there would have to be competition to make this work. And if you want to beat on the Ds - this would be the issue where they are way off base.
This would result in SIGNIFICANTLY less abortions. But I feel that those that are currently against abortion aren't working toward a solution but rather a rhetorically exploitive message for political purposes calculated to appeal to the fears and prejudices of most church goers (opinion with no fact).
The biggest deterrent to reducing the need for abortions is a highly educated female population. The more educated women are, the less children they have. Also increasing sexual education and access birth control will reduce the need for abortions. But present these solutions to the same people that want to control women’s bodies and they’ll go off on tangents about using their tax dollars to pay for education and some nonsense about lazy liberals who want free stuff.
Yeah because birth control is relatively cheap, so everyone should be responsible to attain their own, that's not asking a whole lot.
pancakes3 wrote:preventative care is cool but **** happens. my dentist isn't going to deny me fillings bc i slacked on flossing.
yes, in an ideal world every pregnancy is planned but the reality is that there are irresponsible people in this world and doubling down on a severe punishment on "principles" doesn't help, especially with the externalities of bringing an unplanned child into a family that is ill-equipped to handle it.
goes doubly when the parents are children themselves. saddling a 16 year old with a baby because she made a mistake and not allowing her access to plan B, or RU-486, or abortions bc of ill-defined "i know it when i see it" fetus grounds is a medieval mindset.
Sedale Threatt wrote:I just had a flashback to my old, racist grandfather who used to gorge on Fox.
Pointgod wrote:Sedale Threatt wrote:I just had a flashback to my old, racist grandfather who used to gorge on Fox.
The stupid thing about STDs anti immigrant stance is that unless you’re Indigenous American, everyone in the US are immigrants. This same stupid argument has been made decades before. Guess what if immigrants come to the US and have kids, then their kids grow up as Americans! Imagine that.
Sedale Threatt wrote:Pointgod wrote:Sedale Threatt wrote:I just had a flashback to my old, racist grandfather who used to gorge on Fox.
The stupid thing about STDs anti immigrant stance is that unless you’re Indigenous American, everyone in the US are immigrants. This same stupid argument has been made decades before. Guess what if immigrants come to the US and have kids, then their kids grow up as Americans! Imagine that.
Stupider still are the policy ideas that the GOP has vehemently opposed for decades. "Raise the minimum wage!!!" Lol, like how big of a rock do you have to be living under to miss that one? Even the conservatives who would benefit hate it; they'd rather spend their energy freaking out about Muslims and Mexicans swarming over the border. One again, LBJ's quote about how to manipulate working class whites was one of the most accurate political observations of all time. Right behind Trump noting that he could kill somebody and still not lose any voters.
