mcsluggo Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if it was from womb to tomb. I very well might choose that side myself. However, it is not. Mostly, it's from womb to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The pro life side often is antagonistic towards the ACA, welfare, the foster system, school lunches, public school, and practically any support anyone tries to provide for a child or infant. Life doesn't end at birth. i don;t think that is really a fair assessment. Anti "welfare" (broadly defined) people are generally conservative, and anti abortion people are generally conservative... but the groups don't necessarily overlap in all ways. very religious people are CERTAINLY more inclined to be conservative/anti-abortion, but they are not less inclined to be pro-service-to-the-needy. I believe that Catholics right now are roughly split dem versus gop, but leaning a little more democrat. But in terms of single-issue voter, NO issue is close to abortion--- It is a absolute litmus test for a significant minority. i think catholics are more "pro-help-for-the-needy" than the general population, and they are CERTAINLY more anti-abortion than the general population. mix those together, and you get a tasty soup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 There are biological reasons for legalization of abortion. But to me the strongest argument is economic. Child care is still primarily a female issue. Women sacrifice time, money and work to raise children in ways men don't have to. The reality for lots of women is that giving birth means they are sacrificing their work life and to a good degree, financial freedom. Compared to the rest of the first world, we don't even have decent maternity provisions in place that protect women's workforce labor prospects when going through pregnancy, birth and early child care. There is a way to reduce abortion in the country. It's by acknowledging the hardships that come with pregnancy and child birth and child care. Sadly the debate is focused on the act itself and not the issue that contribute to the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Burgold, besides gov't programs, what do you contribute to fostering, adoption, hunger care, widow care, or orphan care? When you can't attack the message, go after the messenger. Pretty typical. For what it's worth. Yes, I have volunteered thousands of hours to working with children and esp. children with disabilities over my lifetime. That's pretty irrelevant though to the question I tried to raise, but I have have given pro bono time in psychiatric hospitals, expressive arts centers, camps, and more. In addition, I've put my money down. In doing so, I've seen ridiculous holes in the safety nets. In doing so, I've heard too many bloviating morality and casting shame upon those trying to do some small good. I happily agree that Gbear has taken more on his shoulders than I have. What he has chosen to do warms my heart and I am happy to call him a good friend. Back to the thread, it's really easy and kinda pathetic to be against the funding of all these programs, against the development of infrastructure children need in food, health, schooling, etc. and then get on your high horse. I really don't say this stuff lightly. Too many people are short sighted, greedy, and like to preach morality while turning a happy blind eye to the suffering at their front door. Edit: I'm not sure if I would have responded to this post, but gbear texted me and he was upset on my behalf. That annoyed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 There is a way to reduce abortion in the country. It's by acknowledging the hardships that come with pregnancy and child birth and child care. Sadly the debate is focused on the act itself and not the issue that contribute to the act. insert pregnancy for abortion. most don't need killing to better the mother's life or because of economics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 When you can't attack the message, go after the messenger. Pretty typical. For what it's worth. Yes, I have volunteered thousands of hours to working with children and esp. children with disabilities over my lifetime. That's pretty irrelevant though to the question I tried to raise, but I have have given pro bono time in psychiatric hospitals, expressive arts centers, camps, and more. In addition, I've put my money down. In doing so, I've seen ridiculous holes in the safety nets. In doing so, I've heard too many bloviating morality and casting shame upon those trying to do some small good. I happily agree that Gbear has taken more on his shoulders than I have. What he has chosen to do warms my heart and I am happy to call him a good friend. Back to the thread, it's really easy and kinda pathetic to be against the funding of all these programs, against the development of infrastructure children need in food, health, schooling, etc. and then get on your high horse. I really don't say this stuff lightly. Too many people are short sighted, greedy, and like to preach morality while turning a happy blind eye to the suffering at their front door. Edit: I'm not sure if I would have responded to this post, but gbear texted me and he was upset on my behalf. That annoyed me. I am glad you do these things Burgold. I suspected you may be more involved than most people. That's why I tried to make clear that I wasn't trying to guilt you or shame you in any way. It was not intended to insult in any way, you or Gbear. I just take it pretty seriously when I feel somebody is painting a picture of me and my family and friends as something we are not. We'll just have to disagree on the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 what i like best about this view is that it promotes a view of pro-life and self identifies an appropriate action towards implementing that looks something like: we believe every life is wonderful, and to demonstrate it we will commit (now, when you are contemplating an abortion) to provide the love and support to parents and children (later, when you will need it, after the child is born ) that will best allow people to make this decision that we think is so important and joyous. it is a much more compelling argument than shouting and cursing at people when they are already traumatized... to say the least. That's why there are pregnancy care centers and also where churches also play a role in community (I'm sure synagogues and mosques do to, but I'm not Jewish or Muslim, so IDK). At many, many churches congregations make it part of their covenant for membership to be dedicated to helping each other raise our children. However, it is a struggle in America, because the individualism and selfishness so rampant in our culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 insert pregnancy for abortion. most don't need killing to better the mother's life or because of economics That isn't a realistic look at the situation. Women will get pregnant. And we as a society don't really have adequate support for single mothers, children born in poverty and lower income people. We don't even have adequate work force support for middle class women who get pregnant but don't want to sacrifice their careers and financial freedom. To top it off, if the unrealistic position of abstinence only is dropped in favor of educating about proper birth control, you'll somewhat chip away away at this problem more. You want to reduce abortions; you chip away at what makes people want to get them. Humans aren't going to stop ****ing and any position that requires this is unrealistic and nothing more than a cute meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 to me there is little difference in killing them before or after birth so the economics argument seems lacking unless ya advocate removing the inconvenient burdens at any time. I'm all for proper birth control, but population control thru abortion seems macabre and excessive. they are more than organs and tissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 i'm annoyed by the using of the terms 'highly edited' video, when it doesnt reference what we're missing from the video. seems like a sort of red herring, slick language tactic that only serves to muddy the waters further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 i'm annoyed by the using of the terms 'highly edited' video, when it doesnt reference what we're missing from the video. seems like a sort of red herring, slick language tactic that only serves to muddy the waters further. Yes, agreed. Yes, we know its edited. At worst, it takes things said out of context by removing some statements which sought to clarify or disclaim, but they still said what they said. They didn't dub it. ****************************************************** Fifth video released http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/250179-fifth-planned-parenthood-video-turns-to-intact-fetuses http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/planned-parenthood-fifth-video-houston/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Yes, agreed. Yes, we know its edited. At worst, it takes things said out of context, but they still said what they said. They didn't dub it. The biggest issue is you don't know what else they said that was edited it out. You don't know if you even have whole statements. I can take part of a sentence you've made cut out the beginning or end, and make it sound like you've said something you didn't mean at all without any dubbing. Context is everything. These videos are essentially worthless as anything other than as propaganda and an effort to misinform, mislead, and miseducate people. This type of behavior should be loudly, clearly, and specifically denounced by anybody broadly interested in a more ethical society, including Christians. Not made excuses for. As a Christian, I'm offended that this guy would do something like this while claiming a Christian basis for his actions. His actions are not at all consistent with my idea of Christianity. The value in his actions and the resulting videos is LESS THAN ZERO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 There are biological reasons for legalization of abortion. But to me the strongest argument is economic. Child care is still primarily a female issue. Women sacrifice time, money and work to raise children in ways men don't have to. The reality for lots of women is that giving birth means they are sacrificing their work life and to a good degree, financial freedom. Compared to the rest of the first world, we don't even have decent maternity provisions in place that protect women's workforce labor prospects when going through pregnancy, birth and early child care. There is a way to reduce abortion in the country. It's by acknowledging the hardships that come with pregnancy and child birth and child care. Sadly the debate is focused on the act itself and not the issue that contribute to the act. When you start de-valuing human life for things like money, society starts to slip in the wrong direction. You start deciding that some humans are not worth the time/effort/money in keeping around. You'll start deciding that mentally retarded people aren't worth dealing with, elderly people who can't take care of themselves are a drag on society, people with mental disorders shouldn't be treated - they should be eliminated. History has shown time and again what happens when all human life isn't valued, when everyone isn't treated with dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 When you start de-valuing human life for things like money, society starts to slip in the wrong direction. You start deciding that some humans are not worth the time/effort/money in keeping around. You'll start deciding that mentally retarded people aren't worth dealing with, elderly people who can't take care of themselves are a drag on society, people with mental disorders shouldn't be treated - they should be eliminated. History has shown time and again what happens when all human life isn't valued, when everyone isn't treated with dignity. I'm not getting into a eugenics argument because that is far from my point. My point is simple to understand in the sense that we have very few protections for women getting pregnant where they can sustain their financial and social livelihood after childbirth. The best example I can give is from my own field (academia). http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/06/female_academics_pay_a_heavy_baby_penalty.html Our Berkeley research team has spent more than a decade studying why so many women begin the climb but do not make it to the top of the Ivory Tower: the tenured faculty, full professors, deans, and presidents. The answer turns out to be what you’d expect: Babies matter. Women pay a “baby penalty” over the course of a career in academia—from the tentative graduate school years through the pressure cooker of tenure, the long midcareer march, and finally retirement. But babies matter in different ways at different times. A new book I co-wrote with Marc Goulden and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Do Babies Matter? Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower, draws on several surveys that have tracked tens of thousands of graduate students over their careers, as well as original research.* It's easy to vilify the choice of getting an abortion. But really the heart of the problem is that pregnancy and childbirth affect both genders differently and we have few protections in place that prevent women from being penalized for getting pregnant, especially if they want successful careers. I'm making an assumption but I strongly believe that you'll see abortion rates go down, and maybe even peoples opinion flip if we improve workplace protections for pregnancy/childbirth and expand maternity/paternity benefits. Our societal views on the value of maternity and childbirth can summed up quite nicely by this: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/parental_2008_09.pdf The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) sets a minimum standard for parental leave, but due to the exclusion of small employers and short-tenure workers, about 40 percent of U.S. workers are not eligible for the FMLA. In general, U.S. employers as a group have not stepped in to fill the gap. While about 60 percent of workers are eligible for FMLA-related leave, only about one-fourth of U.S. employers offer fully paid "maternity-related leave" of any duration, and one-fifth of U.S. employers offer no maternity-related leave of any kind, paid or unpaid. Private employers do not appear to be narrowing the statutory gap in parental leave entitlements between the United States and the rest of the high-income countries analyzed here If there is a desire to protect the unborn, start with making life easier for those who will carry them for 9 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 The biggest issue is you don't know what else they said that was edited it out. You don't know if you even have whole statements. I can take part of a sentence you've made cut out the beginning or end, and make it sound like you've said something you didn't mean at all without any dubbing. Context is everything. These videos are essentially worthless as anything other than as propaganda and an effort to misinform, mislead, and miseducate people. This type of behavior should be loudly, clearly, and specifically denounced by anybody broadly interested in a more ethical society, including Christians. Not made excuses for. As a Christian, I'm offended that this guy would do something like this while claiming a Christian basis for his actions. His actions are not at all consistent with my idea of Christianity. The value in his actions and the resulting videos is LESS THAN ZERO. I fully agree that context is important and that some people's idea of Christianity is a little nutty, but my point is, what do we think is missing from the video? When I keep reading "highly edited" without any further speculation as to how the missing words would make it any better, my bs detector goes off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I fully agree that context is important and that some people's idea of Christianity is a little nutty, but my point is, what do we think is missing from the video? When I keep reading "highly edited" without any further speculation as to how the missing words would make it any better, my bs detector goes off. If the guy doesn't think they are highly edited, he should release the whole videos. PP doesn't have video to prove they are edited. The one thing I've seen is that PP is claiming the person in the first video specifically and repeatedly stated that they did not profit from the "selling". They only acted as a go between the donor (the parent) and the recipient researcher, and as such collect a fee for shipping to cover the shipping costs where the fee collected really only covers their shipping costs. But PP doesn't have a copy of the video to actually prove that. Only one side was recording the conversation. The fact that he hasn't released the whole unedited video really tells you all you need to know about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I get that, Peter. Personally, I'm not so much caught up in the "for profit" part of it. I think for most people it's the language. It's uncomfortable. But it's why we say things like 'procedure' and 'tissue'. Certainly part of it is the idea that body parts are sold, even if it's not for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I think for most people it's the language. It's uncomfortable. But it's why we say things like 'procedure' and 'tissue'. . . . and "baby". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 If there is a desire to protect the unborn, start with making life easier for those who will carry them for 9 months. so they are hostages? How much easier is the price or does it vary? I agree with your general principle of better support but where does it end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I agree with your general principle of better support but where does it end. When poor people have refrigerators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 If the guy doesn't think they are highly edited, he should release the whole videos. PP doesn't have video to prove they are edited. The one thing I've seen is that PP is claiming the person in the first video specifically and repeatedly stated that they did not profit from the "selling". They only acted as a go between the donor (the parent) and the recipient researcher, and as such collect a fee for shipping to cover the shipping costs where the fee collected really only covers their shipping costs. But PP doesn't have a copy of the video to actually prove that. Only one side was recording the conversation. The fact that he hasn't released the whole unedited video really tells you all you need to know about the situation. They've actually released 5 videos. They did release the full unedited first one, not sure about the rest. If there is a desire to protect the unborn, start with making life easier for those who will carry them for 9 months. You'll get no argument from me on this. Absentee father's are a big part of this problem. Men in this country need to grow up and take responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 When poor people have refrigerators. Pfft. Another post showing how soft we are in America. Other countries don't need refrigerators.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Booby Jindal has pulled Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding in his state. You cannot make this **** up. https://www.yahoo.com/health/bobby-jindal-cuts-medicaid-funding-to-planned-125852338057.html Last year, Planned Parenthood in Louisiana provided care for more than 4,300 patients through Medicaid, including birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Presently, there are only two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state of Louisiana, neither of which provides abortion services. A third clinic is being built in New Orleans and will offer abortion services. The construction site was subject toattempted arson over the weekend; no one was injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 so they are hostages? How much easier is the price or does it vary? I agree with your general principle of better support but where does it end. I don't think they are hostages. But they are certainly treated as nine month incubators and nothing more by majority of the employers in this country. As far as what needs to be done, I'm not an economist so I don't know. Maybe this will help this question: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/parental_2008_09.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I don't think they are hostages. But they are certainly treated as nine month incubators and nothing more by majority of the employers in this country. As far as what needs to be done, I'm not an economist so I don't know. Maybe this will help this question: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/parental_2008_09.pdf I'd argue not even nine month incubators. If that was their role, they'd see that the "incubators" were well maintained, but the opponents are generally are opposed to funding neonatal care and other supports during pregnancy. Look at who opposes the funding and leads the movement to cut services and materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 small employers and those employing part-timers should just pony up the ransom then as the price of hiring females? you don't seem familiar with profit margins perhaps a federal program, we can add another tax to payrolls.....or take funding away from the undocumented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.