Republicans trying to stop abortions

[Davidnic]

That's interesting.

A liberal might look at that and say:

Conservatives advocate abstinence education instead of the pill. Girls have unprotected sex.

And a conservative might respond that the same stats used by planned parenthood say that 54% of these women used contraception . Of those 27% used it in the proper manner as instructed. The rest were not sure about the nature of their use or were inconsistent. So 54% were using contraception, and 46% were not. The rate is higher in those using. That includes 27% using it properly. This of course is in the study but not on their site. Meanwhile 100% of teenages not having sex did not get pregnant.

They then want to go to a drugstore and get the morning after pill, and the pharmacist sends them away because it's against his conscience.

Actually the stats say that do to irregular cycles they are not even sure they are pregnant. And many, as stated have:

prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner

So the above does not wash since we have no percentages of how many are being refused in this situation and many are not going in the next few days.

They then want to have an early abortion, but conservatives have made it more difficult for them to get abortions--parental consent laws, lack of facilities, etc.

Yes. Early or late: Abortion is wrong. This is not a morality where life changes it's value based on the state. Life is life. So yes. The conservative would respond that they are indeed responsible for less access to abortions and making sure parents are part of the process and their child's life.

They then want to have a late term abortion......which perhaps could have been stopped with an educational program that promoted abstinence but discussed alternatives if they became sexually active in a moment of weakness.

Or perhaps all political parties could work together to improve the adoption and foster care system in this counrty.

That way if there is a moment of weakness and a child is the result, no life is taken and the many, many people who want a child but can not have one could have access to a fully functional federal adoption system that is supportive before, during and after adoption. A system that encourages and supports life at every stage, so a moment of weakness does not cost a life.

A liberal might therefore say that conservatives are more responsible for morning after pill use, early abortions, and late abortions....

They might say that.

Responsible for use of the morning after pill that they were refused in the above point? That's a neat trick.

And how are the people having sex not responsible but someone else is? A conservative might ask.

Saying anyone is responsible for an abortion (in the above examples) except those who choose it, perform it or support and aid the creation of facilities seems like shifting responsibility.

I have truly and honestly have many dear and close friends who are liberal and I hope they would not make that argument. It is unproductive, provides no solutions to the crisis and not very good logic.

 

[PetertheRock]

As I expected, an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against it. But the bill still passed thanks to the Republican majority. Here is the breakdown of votes.

Republicans:
Yeas= 210
Nays= 9
Not voted= 10

Democrats:
Yeas= 40
Nays= 152
Not voted= 10

You can go here and see the names of who voted for what. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll526.xml

 

[CrusaderKing]

It's nice to know that Dr. Boustany voted for this. He's now got my support for as long I live in this representative district.

 

[PetertheRock]

I am not too good at math but assuming the Republicans that were voted out of office voted in favor of this bill and the incoming Democrats would have voted against this bill would this bill still have passed if the Dems had the majority. I am suspecting since 40 Dems voted for it then it might have had a chance. But it probably wouldn't have made it out of committee.

 

[GorrionGris]

I'm not american but... I'd like to say that in my own nation I feel kinda hijacked by the conservative. I don't believe in conservatism at all, but what may I do? Support laicism? or even worse, abortion?

No way.

 

[PetertheRock]

I'm not american but... I'd like to say that in my own nation I feel kinda hijacked by the conservative. I don't believe in conservatism at all, but what may I do? Support laicism? or even worse, abortion?

No way.

Why would you feel hijacked by conservatives? It's the liberals who chose the evil path. Now I don't believe all liberals are evil and all conservatives are good but based on the platform of both parties it's the conservatives who have it right on faith and moral issues.

 

[Fantine]

Why would you feel hijacked by conservatives? It's the liberals who chose the evil path. Now I don't believe all liberals are evil and all conservatives are good but based on the platform of both parties it's the conservatives who have it right on faith and moral issues.

Your definition of "moral issues" is certainly narrow.

How wonderful it must be not to worry about war, poverty, and injustice being moral issues....

Sure must make it easier to sleep at night.

 

[PetertheRock]

What have liberals done about poverty. Clinton and the Democrats were in office for 8 years and poverty didn't go down at all. The government cannot and will not end poverty. If we want to end poverty it's up to the private individuals.

Clinton and the liberals started as many wars as Bush has. In fact, Bush was right in going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan since we were attacked. Clinton got us involved in places we never should have been. Somalia, Haiti, even Clinton was bombing Iraq as much as anyone else when it suited him.

Let's also not forget, even though the liberals like to hide from their record almost all of them voted in favor of going to war with Iraq.

Again, conservatives want to help people out of poverty so they no longer need any government assistance. Liberals want to keep people in poverty and drag everyone down into poverty so everyone needs government help. If no one needed government help there would be no need for liberalism.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Your definition of "moral issues" is certainly narrow.

How wonderful it must be not to worry about war, poverty, and injustice being moral issues....

Sure must make it easier to sleep at night.

Fantine, do you have any response for David? I thought he made some good points.

 

[Fantine]

Yes, I do, Miss Shelby.

What have liberals done about poverty. Clinton and the Democrats were in office for 8 years and poverty didn't go down at all. The government cannot and will not end poverty. If we want to end poverty it's up to the private individuals.

Correction: Clinton and "the Democrats" were in office for two years. The Republicans had big wins in 1994, partly because the Democrats supported the Brady bill (oh, yeah, I know the drill, "Guns don't kill people, abortionists kill people" and all that hogwash. Guns DO kill people.) And because of a huge media campaign by the insurance industry and the AMA trying to prevent government health insurance reforms--how many tens of millions of people are regretting their foolish votes for Republicans today????

Clinton and the liberals started as many wars as Bush has. In fact, Bush was right in going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan since we were attacked. Clinton got us involved in places we never should have been. Somalia, Haiti, even Clinton was bombing Iraq as much as anyone else when it suited him.

Let's also not forget, even though the liberals like to hide from their record almost all of them voted in favor of going to war with Iraq.

Bush disseminated false information. Liberals thought the information was true. But they came to the same conclusions the bipartisan committee came to this week long, long, long before Bush ever will.

This interesting article discusses why Clinton's military policies were more effective----and less protracted:

the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, American tolerance of military casualties significantly increased. In sizing its stabilization operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the new US leadership abandoned the strategy of overwhelming preponderance (sometimes labeled the “Powell doctrine” after former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell) in favor of the “small footprint” or “low profile” force posture that had previously characterized UN operations.

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=730613

Not only did we "fight needlessly" in Iraq, we "fought stupid," too.

Again, conservatives want to help people out of poverty so they no longer need any government assistance. Liberals want to keep people in poverty and drag everyone down into poverty so everyone needs government help. If no one needed government help there would be no need for liberalism.

It hasn't been liberalism that has attempted to "drag everyone down into poverty." For the most part, it's been trends like outsourcing overseas and closing American plants. That's what happens when businesses with few regulations and even fewer ethics become so bottom-line oriented they don't care about everyday workers.

And when governments sign treaties like NAFTA and CAFTA without requiring that the participating countries follow environmental rules, child labor and fair labor laws, etc. Read Lou Dobbs' latest book to learn more about this......And yes, NAFTA was signed in the Clinton years---with the aforementioned Republican Congress trying to thwart him at every turn.

 

[PetertheRock]

Fantine, you are wrong in so many of your points I don't know where to begin. Your first thing is you have to stop using the Useless Nations as your source for information. The UN only helps the enemy. The best thing the USA could do to fight crime is to get out of the UN and move them to another country.

So, lets see...Bush was only using the information Bill Clinton and the Democrats had when they were in office. President Clinton while in office had a policy that regime chage in Iraq was needed because of Iraq's WMD threat. The difference is Bush acted while Clinton got BJs in office from Monica.

So Clinton had 2 years with total control over everything. How come he only made the problems worse while in office? Hillary couldn't even get national health care passed while Clinton was in office because she wasn't happy with just giving people health care. She wanted total government control over the entire health care industry which would have made taxes go up 500% and would have made the government responsible for telling people what health care they would have instead of having doctors say what their patients need.

Liberals will never get it. People don't want the government controling their lives. You could have government subsidise private health insurance providers for people that can't afford insurance and it would be a lot cheaper and people wouldn't have the government telling them what health care they can have. Many states already are doing this.

So, you really need to learn some facts and not liberal propaganda. Oh, and the Republicans didn't win because of the Brady Bill. Republicans won because Clinton gave us the biggest tax increases in history.

 

[Fantine]

I have a slight correction. People who hold your point of view "don't want government controlling their lives."

Some women would say that you want government controlling their bodies....

Some gay people would say you want government to control their ability to make a loving commitment to the person they choose.

Many people think that, under the guise of "anti-terrorism," our privacy and first amendment rights have been considerably weakened.

Oh, I forgot....that's not government controlling their lives. It only counts when taxes are involved.

Otherwise, hand government the binoculars and a box of popcorn.....

November's election showed that more and more people are beginning to think that government is going in the wrong direction.....

Among people over 50, who comprise half those who voted in November, there were 13% (50 to 65) and 18% shifts (over 65) who changed from Republicans to Democrats in the last election......according to the AARP. And although "moral issues" made their top six priorities, they barely squeaked in at # 6, behind political ethics, economics, Iraq, and several other things. I guess they just got mad as he11 and decided they weren't going to take it anymore...

As for your remarks about the United Nations, if you truly want to be an isolationist, why not do it in a useful way?
Enact some sensible reforms that will keep jobs here in the US.

I mean, why meet with other nations to bring about a more peaceful world when you feel brute force will do the trick every time?

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Actually, the bill did not pass as it needed a 2/3 majority to pass this certain bill.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

And a conservative might respond that the same stats used by planned parenthood say that 54% of these women used contraception . Of those 27% used it in the proper manner as instructed. The rest were not sure about the nature of their use or were inconsistent. So 54% were using contraception, and 46% were not. The rate is higher in those using. That includes 27% using it properly. This of course is in the study but not on their site. Meanwhile 100% of teenages not having sex did not get pregnant.





Actually the stats say that do to irregular cycles they are not even sure they are pregnant. And many, as stated have:

prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner

So the above does not wash since we have no percentages of how many are being refused in this situation and many are not going in the next few days.



Yes. Early or late: Abortion is wrong. This is not a morality where life changes it's value based on the state. Life is life. So yes. The conservative would respond that they are indeed responsible for less access to abortions and making sure parents are part of the process and their child's life.





Or perhaps all political parties could work together to improve the adoption and foster care system in this counrty.

That way if there is a moment of weakness and a child is the result, no life is taken and the many, many people who want a child but can not have one could have access to a fully functional federal adoption system that is supportive before, during and after adoption. A system that encourages and supports life at every stage, so a moment of weakness does not cost a life.




They might say that.

Responsible for use of the morning after pill that they were refused in the above point? That's a neat trick.

And how are the people having sex not responsible but someone else is? A conservative might ask.

Saying anyone is responsible for an abortion (in the above examples) except those who choose it, perform it or support and aid the creation of facilities seems like shifting responsibility.

I have truly and honestly have many dear and close friends who are liberal and I hope they would not make that argument. It is unproductive, provides no solutions to the crisis and not very good logic.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Although this would not stop abortions per se, what it does do is makes sure that women seeking abortions are informed that the unborn child does feel pain during this "proceedure." Hopefully this would convince some women not to have an abortion, thus it would indirectly have an effect at limiting the number of abortions which would be a step in the right direction.

You wouldn't go into surgery without knowing the risks of the operation so why would you want to have an abortion without knowing what the unborn child will go through?

Well hopefully it gets passed.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Fantine, you are wrong in so many of your points I don't know where to begin. Your first thing is you have to stop using the Useless Nations as your source for information. The UN only helps the enemy. The best thing the USA could do to fight crime is to get out of the UN and move them to another country.

So, lets see...Bush was only using the information Bill Clinton and the Democrats had when they were in office. President Clinton while in office had a policy that regime chage in Iraq was needed because of Iraq's WMD threat. The difference is Bush acted while Clinton got BJs in office from Monica.

So Clinton had 2 years with total control over everything. How come he only made the problems worse while in office? Hillary couldn't even get national health care passed while Clinton was in office because she wasn't happy with just giving people health care. She wanted total government control over the entire health care industry which would have made taxes go up 500% and would have made the government responsible for telling people what health care they would have instead of having doctors say what their patients need.

Liberals will never get it. People don't want the government controling their lives. You could have government subsidise private health insurance providers for people that can't afford insurance and it would be a lot cheaper and people wouldn't have the government telling them what health care they can have. Many states already are doing this.

So, you really need to learn some facts and not liberal propaganda. Oh, and the Republicans didn't win because of the Brady Bill. Republicans won because Clinton gave us the biggest tax increases in history.

Wow you are so wrong on so many points. I mean, in a thread about putting restrictions on people's lives you say the government shouldn't control people's lives. And Clinton didn't have the biggest tax increase in history. Learn some history and not conservative propaganda.

 

[Davidnic]

Wow you are so wrong on so many points. I mean, in a thread about putting restrictions on people's lives you say the government shouldn't control people's lives.

This thread is not about putting restrictions on peoples lives. Tell me where telling someone that a fetus can feel pain is a restriction? Tell me where giving someone all of the facts about what is about to happen is a restriction? This bill was not even opposed by NARAL. But the pro-choice members in congress shot it down.

What is wrong with the fetal pain bill that anyone who supports full disclosure in medical situations would have a problem with?

A fetus is alive. It is life. Human life made in the image of God. There is no debate on that.

 

[Davidnic]

And Clinton didn't have the biggest tax increase in history. Learn some history and not conservative propaganda.

According to the statistic of the treasury department the 1993 Clinton tax increase was the largest in american history. Personally, I don't mind taxes. I don't vote one way or another because taxes are raised. I do so based on what was done with the taxes.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The only honest way to measure tax increases is by percentage. Due to inflation, its impossible for any but a small handful of recent presidents to even compete for largest tax increase in history if you measure in dollars.

 

[Davidnic]

The only honest way to measure tax increases is by percentage. Due to inflation, its impossible for any but a small handful of recent presidents to even compete for largest tax increase in history if you measure in dollars.

A valid point worthy of consideration. So how far back would be comparable to each other in your opinion?