Contraception use fell and Medicaid births rose after Texas defunded Planned Parenthood.

Edmond Smith said:

I agree, completely. Prevention is awesome. Keep that up.

Click to expand...

They can't. You defunded them.

Belk said:

Are you certain? Kind of difficult to discuss the particulars of the case when we don't have any.

Click to expand...

Point taken. I just remember that they were talking organ donation. You don't talk organ donation until someone has been declared brain dead.

This isn't the case I'm thinking, but it's one case where this guy was in a vegetative state for 12 years. "Take him home and make him comfortable until he dies" - these days that means seeking out the right combination of pills or drugs to inject to die quickly a la Brittany Maynard.

Ah, my bad, it wasn't a recent story - it must've shown up in Facebook feed recently though:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...hours-after-doctors-suggest-pulling-the-plug/

In any case let me rephrase my question:

If someone was conclusively brain dead would you force them to stay on life support?

Click to expand...

Again, define conclusively brain dead? Are they hooked up to machines doing all of the work? Or is their body functioning while their brain is not?

Terri Schialvo is a good example. She was basically legally murdered - starved to death, as far as I'm concerned. She didn't die because she was brain dead, she died because she starved to death. Let's see, how long did that process take again? Oh yeah, 14 days.

I cannot attest to the biases of this website, but it does list numerous cases where the question of preserving life or prolonging death are certainly interesting ones:

http://kgov.com/brain-dead

This is why I say it's case by case.

smaneck said:

Nonsense. State legislatures pass laws all the time that are unconstitutional. The South was and remains infamous for this.

Click to expand...

Assuming you mean slavery, that wasn't unconstitutional until the 13th amendment.

cow451 said:

To be followed by the wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives over the number of people on welfare, follwed by legislation to limited funding for these lazy kids. They need to get jobs and get off the dole!

Click to expand...

I'm trying to like your post but there's this glitch & it's unliking my like so I'm just saying LIKE.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Assuming you mean slavery, that wasn't unconstitutional until the 13th amendment.

Click to expand...

No, I mean all the Jim Crow legislation and the laws preventing blacks from voting.

Edmond Smith said:

I agree, completely. Prevention is awesome. Keep that up.

Click to expand...

They can't, PP been de-funded in Texas and no one has stepped up to take their place, especially in the poor areas where it is needed most.

This is what many don't get, abortion was a small part of PP. Most of the care given out was medical exams and birth control, stuff I know far to many women had to go behind their folks to get in my own state, much less Texas. Without PP, most of the women I know would had kids before they where ready. Most where taken to PP by a friend or family member (sister usually) so they wouldn't get pregnant. Mostly because they where not taught safe sex in school, or by their parents, and the boys that where seducing them into bed didn't care.

Removing PP removes all their services from the community and it takes a long time for others to supply them. Longer since the state has de-funded all like clinics.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Point taken. I just remember that they were talking organ donation. You don't talk organ donation until someone has been declared brain dead.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that they performed the MRI only after they discussed the possibility of organ donation. The MRI showed he was not brain dead.

This isn't the case I'm thinking, but it's one case where this guy was in a vegetative state for 12 years.

Click to expand...

Actually it was only a couple of months. The accident was in October 2013. He woke up the following December only hours after the MRI.

Again, define conclusively brain dead?

Click to expand...

One is generally diagnosed as brain dead when the MRI shows that the most vital areas of the brain are darkened. Generally the more primitive part of the brain, the brain stem which governs automatic body functions like breathing and heart beat are still functioning but the cognitive parts of the brain are gone.

smaneck said:

No, I mean all the Jim Crow legislation and the laws preventing blacks from voting.

Click to expand...

Ah yes.

At any rate, you are right that a law being unconstitutional automatically means it wouldn't be passed isn't necessarily true. If that were the case, would we really need SCOTUS?

smaneck said:

I have to agree with you on that. I am not comfortable defining any human being out of existence, including fetuses. (They are not children, however.) But I think there are some babies who have a right not to be born and certain situation where a woman should not be compelled to carry a baby. And I don't trust government to make such decision over a mother and her doctor.



I do not have a problem with the government not wanting to fund abortions. Refusing to fund any agency performing them regardless of the fact the money goes to a different purpose in my mind is going too far.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's the government's job to provide contraceptives (or anything else intended for use by an individual) either, so I'm probably a little biased here. But, assuming, arguendo, that government funding of contraception is a legitimate use of government funds, I'd still tend to think that if the government believes that an organization is involved in a legal activity, but the government support of which is contrary to public policy, then government ought not fund any activity of that organization. It is nearly impossible to fund such an organization without indirectly funding the controversial aspect of the organization.

Edmond Smith said:

Never said they could or would outlaw womens rights.

You just proved that taxpayers funded PP in your statement. You know that right?

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand that reimbursement through Medicaid isn't the same thing as you're trying to imply. That tax payers are paying outright for abortions. It's a Medicaid program .
You're paying for the poor and others in other ways as well.

Where is the Medicaid program funded....taxpayer's.
The taxpayers already pay for children that are part of the welfare system.
It's already done.
The awesome part about it....is this....There are Children Alive to receive that help if needed. Their not dead, killed from the womb.

Click to expand...

Yes, by all means argue on behalf of women who have children so they can collect more welfare.
Meanwhile children aren't killed in the womb.

Again, There is Absolutely No Excuse for Killing a Child, NONE!!

Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. However, that opinion stops when it meets a woman who is entitled to hers. And hers is none of your business.

smaneck said:

I have to agree with you on that. I am not comfortable defining any human being out of existence, including fetuses. (They are not children, however.) But I think there are some babies who have a right not to be born and certain situation where a woman should not be compelled to carry a baby. And I don't trust government to make such decision over a mother and her doctor.



I do not have a problem with the government not wanting to fund abortions. Refusing to fund any agency performing them regardless of the fact the money goes to a different purpose in my mind is going too far.

Click to expand...

Removing funding for free to low cost birth control only results in an increase in unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies end in one of two ways. Those who claim they only want to stop abortion should be jumping up and down happy at the idea of someone over 18 the age having easy access to affordable birth control as that is the only way to reduce/stop abortions.

However, if they want to attempt to stop all premarital sex, then that is a different subject. From the methods I see being used, it appears they are trying, albeit ineffectually, to stop premarital sex. This approach will inevitably increase abortion rates and children being raised on medicaid and welfare.

Kersh said:

I don't think it's the government's job to provide contraceptives (or anything else intended for use by an individual) either, so I'm probably a little biased here. But, assuming, arguendo, that government funding of contraception is a legitimate use of government funds, I'd still tend to think that if the government believes that an organization is involved in a legal activity, but the government support of which is contrary to public policy, then government ought not fund any activity of that organization. It is nearly impossible to fund such an organization without indirectly funding the controversial aspect of the organization.

Click to expand...

Cost for abortion ($450.00 to $3000.00)
Cost for birth control ($5.00-$40.00/mo)

Versus

Cost of prenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancy approx $2000.00
Cost of delivery $9600.00-$15500.00
Cost of raising a child to age 18 approx $175,000.00 to $304,480.00 (based on extrapolated poverty level vs quoted middle income)


So, we can fund approximately $1,080.00 to $8,640.00 for 18 years of birth control.

OR

We can fund $186,000.00 to $321,980.00 for the 18 year life of a child.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The difference between paying for birth control vs paying for a child?...........$184,920 to $313,340.00.

Economically, it only makes sense to fund preventative care.



Sources:

http://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/06/much-abortion-cost-draft-theresas/
http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/cost-of-having-a-baby?page=2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/18/cost-of-raising-a-child_n_5688179.html

PreachersWife2004 said:

Ah yes.

At any rate, you are right that a law being unconstitutional automatically means it wouldn't be passed isn't necessarily true. If that were the case, would we really need SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

Correct. If all laws were vetted for constitutionality prior to enactment, SCOTUS would not exist.

Kersh said:

I don't think it's the government's job to provide contraceptives (or anything else intended for use by an individual) either, so I'm probably a little biased here. But, assuming, arguendo, that government funding of contraception is a legitimate use of government funds, I'd still tend to think that if the government believes that an organization is involved in a legal activity, but the government support of which is contrary to public policy, then government ought not fund any activity of that organization. It is nearly impossible to fund such an organization without indirectly funding the controversial aspect of the organization.

Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say "public policy"? I had heard it before and thought I knew what it meant, but now I am not sure. Am I genuinely asking, not trying to be snarky or underhanded.

When I looked it up, this is what I found: "Public policy is the principled guide to action taken by the administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. The foundation of public policy is composed of national constitutional laws and regulations."

What I gather from this it means a government's actions and policy that relate to a specific set of issues regarding the public. Not the a policy of the public as it relates to government nor the standing public opinion on a matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy

Edmond Smith said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Why? What kind of question is that?

You would watch your wife die in favour of a foetus?

I could not watch my wife die like that.

She is more important than a foetus.

Edmond Smith said:

I do, I call on the lawgiver, God.

Click to expand...

Who seems happy enough to let it continue to happen over many thousand years.

I'm against abortion but I feel most of the people against PP will be more against it because their political culture tells them they should be, but even more angry when they realise there's likely going to be an increase in welfare expenditure.

I guess we're going to see whether morality matters more than money. I am guessing to most, it doesn't.

Edmond Smith said:

Why?

Click to expand...

For real? Do you place a low value on all womens' lives?

Edmond Smith said:

Not a huge win, no. But not a failure either. It only takes one pebble moved in the right direction to cause a landslide.

I have no consequences to face. Only those who do these things do. Education and prevention can stop a lot of this.
Again, no Excuses for Killing a Child. You guys go from one extreme to another. Is it so hard to let a child live?

Click to expand...

You say "let a child live" - bearing in mind it's not a child, look up the definition of child - as though there isn't anyone else concerned in that decision. To people like you, a woman is a womb, not a person. To me, a woman is a person.

Edmond Smith said:

You like to go fishing for the Red Herrings don't ya...lol.

If a child shoots at me. I shoot back. Because once he's picked up a gun and points it at someone or me to do bodily harm or take anothers life, then he's no longer a child anymore. He's stepped into the adult world and will suffer the consequences of such.

But an infant in the mothers womb. Does not do any thing intentional. it's not curled up in there thinking of ways to do the mother in or takes someone elses life.

Click to expand...

At what age are you going to shoot these children? If a 3 year old picks up a loaded gun (it happens) are you going to shoot him or her? So it only took 3 years to go from innocent victim to "adult".