Obama's Czars push abortion agenda

[pool_hustler]

So is not paying for their rubbers or helping out with their abortions really too much to ask?

Broader access to contraceptives and abortion isn't "helping" those who reproduce for profit. Obvioulsy they aren't interested in birth control or abortion. Those programs are available for those who don't want to reproduce irresponsibly, which based on everything you've said should be something you're completely in favor of.

yep, especially this.
imagine the founding fathers during the signing of the declaration saying "wait, we forgot to include an article to buy rubbers and diaphrams so poor people can fuck more and pay for and set up abortions if they dont use them"
its crazy.

We're 200 plus years away from the founding fathers. Societal dynamics have, quite naturally, evolved since their day - for better, worse, or a combination thereof. They were wise enough to know there was no hope of envisioning all the possible changes that lay ahead, which is the primary reason not all the powers granted the national government were specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Instead in some instances those powers were granted based on broad foundational precepts, the most notable examples being to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare".

So, are unwanted/irresponsible pregnancies (and their repercussions) a national (beyond local or state) problem that impacts the general (beyond local or state) populace?
If you believe they are then one might think you'd support the federal government's programs that attempt to address them.

 

[Will E Worm]

Oh that must hurt. People start to actually ignore you, you loose your crowd of people that still might have read, and, in a curious way, enjoyed your rants.

I am making it worse:

I am setting you on my ignore list, too. I am fed up with you.

arty:

 

[Rattrap]

Ahh, good ol' abortion.

[size=+10]wake up america!!!!

obama going to kill our babies!!!!!![/size]

(Note: yes, I see the sarcarsm. But it feeds nicely into this) Ready for this? Ready?

Abortion is good for society. Yes, not just in terms of population control. It's good for you, me, and your neighbors. Or so it's argued (I recommend giving it a read) in Freakonomics, chapter four. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

how bout money being taken out of your check each week to pay for an abortion for some chic that you dont know or didnt impregnate?
no problem?

if not, you sir are a damn fool.

legalized abortion is one thing, taxpayers being forced to pay for rubbers, birth control pills , morning after pills , any contraceptives and paying for abortions is wrong
ITS WWWRONG!

mrt there are already so many social programs in existence, free rent,reduced housing, free food, free medical, free spending money, tax credits(a clever disguise that literally means giving a check of 2,500 to even 7 or 8 thousand dollars per year to people who paid absolutely no federal, state taxes or social security payments because they fucked and had a few or more kids)
how do you think probably about 25% of the US population and growing survives these days?
so in a literal sense the working citizens are already paying for this group to fuck,get pregnate and have kids they cant afford.
So is not paying for their rubbers or helping out with their abortions really too much to ask?

The thing is, what you're against (first quote) directly affects the social programs mentioned in the second quote. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of this either, but it's the way things work: you get two choices. Pay for the abortion/condoms, or pay for decades of the unwanted/unprepared-for-child's welfare. I believe the first choice is much cheaper, and certainly better in terms of overpopulating and resource consumption (this point was touched on by pool_hustler, I think, but I wanted to clarify).

My post here, regrettably, as little to do with the actual potential policy implementations that the thread began with. Just a couple of points I wanted to throw in.

 

[meesterperfect]

Ahh, good ol' abortion.



(Note: yes, I see the sarcarsm. But it feeds nicely into this) Ready for this? Ready?

Abortion is good for society. Yes, not just in terms of population control. It's good for you, me, and your neighbors. Or so it's argued (I recommend giving it a read) in Freakonomics, chapter four. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect





The thing is, what you're against (first quote) directly affects the social programs mentioned in the second quote. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of this either, but it's the way things work: you get two choices. Pay for the abortion/condoms, or pay for decades of the unwanted/unprepared-for-child's welfare. I believe the first choice is much cheaper, and certainly better in terms of overpopulating and resource consumption (this point was touched on by pool_hustler, I think, but I wanted to clarify).

My post here, regrettably, as little to do with the actual potential policy implementations that the thread began with. Just a couple of points I wanted to throw in.

Broader access to contraceptives and abortion isn't "helping" those who reproduce for profit. Obvioulsy they aren't interested in birth control or abortion. Those programs are available for those who don't want to reproduce irresponsibly, which based on everything you've said should be something you're completely in favor of.



We're 200 plus years away from the founding fathers. Societal dynamics have, quite naturally, evolved since their day - for better, worse, or a combination thereof. They were wise enough to know there was no hope of envisioning all the possible changes that lay ahead, which is the primary reason not all the powers granted the national government were specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Instead in some instances those powers were granted based on broad foundational precepts, the most notable examples being to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare".

So, are unwanted/irresponsible pregnancies (and their repercussions) a national (beyond local or state) problem that impacts the general (beyond local or state) populace?
If you believe they are then one might think you'd support the federal government's programs that attempt to address them.

i like both your posts, well your responses.
they make sense.
i still dont believe its the GOVs responsibility to provide birth control or aid in abortions but youve both pointed out the "on the other hand" very well.

 

[Rattrap]

i like both your posts, well your responses.
they make sense.
i still dont believe its the GOVs responsibility to provide birth control or aid in abortions but youve both pointed out the "on the other hand" very well.

I suppose ultimately that depends on what sort of government you favor; on one end, a government providing little to no social programs shouldn't be responsible for providing birth control, no.

At the other end, a government providing a social service probably ought to be doing its best to avoid having folks need that service; a government providing national healthcare would be wise to do a lot with preventitive care as it's a lot cheaper than dealing with health issues after they emerge (providing education/funding for healthy foods and activities for schools, for example, so the kids aren't getting fat and diabetic and stuck costing the state loads more in the future), or, in this case, providing preventitive measures such as condoms so as to avoid paying the higher cost of more people on welfare.

Personally, I haven't quite decided where I'd fall in my preferences, though I'm certainly leaning toward the more-personal-less-government responsibility; coming from the US to the UK has its advantages and disadvantages, though it seems to me (and I confess I'm not as read on this as I could be) that the differences are shrinking anyway as one becomes the United States of Europe and the other, the European Union of America.

 

[meesterperfect]

:thumbsup:social services are great for the country if they go to people who need them because they have no other option.
take care of mentally or physically disabled, seniors when they reach the point when they just cant work, even TEMPORARY assistance for those who have had a bad break and are facing living on the street are all fine in my book.
government college grants or loans based on a persons grades and financial situation and not on their skin color are great too.
but the GOV has been awarding, supporting able bodied people who had kids they couldnt afford for almost 50 years now, its so corrupt and abused and i believe the results are obvious, the current economic problems, over populated, over taxation, an over burdened society, nice areas turning into ghettos everywhere you look,high unemployment, a basic destruction of the overall quality of life for all.
its grim, but its true.
new york, new jersey and california seem to be the first victims.
thank you liberalism for finally hammering that final nail in the coffin of the US.

sidenote. i live in a semi big city in south america where there is pretty much zero social programs, its sad to see sometimes, but familys tend to stick together much more because of this.
i ask the people here sometimes what would happen if the GOV started supporting people for having children.
the answer is always the same: a population explosion in the already big poor areas of the city and an eventual collapse of the gov, the society,the economy and homeless people everywhere.