Right Wing GOP Has Been Promoting Abortions for 35 yrs

If anyone thinks raising minimum wage will have any long term benefits to poor Americans....they lack basic economic understanding. they be sooo moral and sweet. I just looovvvveee when peeps slamming on corporate greed offer me a good job. Murica should just nuke every Walmart and gas station. We owe it to the world to go green. We should open free hospitals and schools all over the world. See how nice?
Now ask me how on earth I plan to fund my idealism.

 

Or a life saving lung transplant, open heart surgery? Who should fund any if it?
Thinking anonymity can exist for long in an international forum is so.... Stupid. Thinking all ideas are equal is even more stupid.

Let's talk about American Healthcare. Here is where you are about to fold kid because I am calling your bluff.
Kaiser, United, Bkue Cross Blue Shield....your premiums have NOTHING to do with your income.
The Bible suggests remaining silent and thought a fool rather than opening your mouth and be known a fool.

 

That was Lincoln....give credit where it is due.

Bible version:
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Lincoln:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

 

Well you served me, huh? I'm sure Lincoln wasn't referring to the Bible or paraphrasing. I will rememder to quote the Bible in Hebrew or Greek word for word in the future. Or maybe Vulgate Latin or Old English King James style.

 

True, perhaps we should remove all federal funding for everything then, cancer research, AIDs research, etc etc etc.

So in your estimation if PP were de-funded no extra woman would die due to pregnancy, do you deny that "If PP won't get funded, women will die"?

I never said they were, though you also advocate removing funding from ALL organizations .. PP would not be the only one to suffer.

So when the close you are ok for the thousands of people to be unemployed?

Great something we agree on .. BTW if you admit that a woman is risking her own body then you must also admit that she has the right to alleviate that risk.

I have already established that doing it your way would result in thousands of people being added to the unemployment rate, with what jobs there are being offered at "slave" type wages due to the removing of the minimum wage .. just how are people going to secure resources etc when what little they have is used to survive?

Erm no it is not, poverty is largely due to greedy businesses not paying a wage that can sustain the people who work for them, I'll grant you that illegal immigrants do have some effect but not to the scale you are suggesting.

Ergo insurance companies are not going to offer low-priced insurance unless they can make up the difference elsewhere, or the insurance they will offer will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Factual piece.

so all religious and right-wing people are Republicans are they?

The figures simply don't add up to your claim.

The estimated number of illegal immigrants within the work force is approx 8 million (PEW Hispanic Centre 2011) or 8.5 million (FAIR's Estimation), The PEW research is generally accepted as reasonable.

In Sept 2014 the number of unemployed people in the US stood at 9.3 million, even if you removed all of the illegal immigrants there would still be a short fall of jobs to the tune of 1.3 million using the PEW data or 0.8 million using FAIR's data - http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs

The above of course does not include demographic relationship between individual states and their level of illegal immigrants relative to the number of unemployed and the number of jobs available.

Add to this your advocation of removing federal funding (which I assume also means welfare) and you have 1.3 million or 0.8 million people living how exactly?

sorry you are wrong, there will always be people willing to work for less regardless of their citizenship status, especially when, if they don't work, they have no safety net.

The data clearly shows that in all countries that have introduced a welfare system the poverty rate declines.

The poverty rate of the US prior to the "Great Society" was 22.4 (1959) it stands today at 14.5.

 

A bit drastic IMO, though I suspect men would not agree with being sterilized, or are you just advocating sterilization for women?

VASGEL could very well be the answer, a simple 45 min operation under local anaesthetic, 100% safe, 100% effective, 100% reversible and relatively cheap compared to a lifetime of condoms, pills etc and certainly cheaper than sterilization.

Just think, if it was mandated by law, abortion would almost cease to exist (cases of saving the females life and fetal disability incompatible with life excepted), both men and women could have all the sex they liked without any risk and when mature enough, and in a stable relationship, get it reversed and have their children.

No more worries about long term effects of hormonal contraception, no more worries about failing condoms, no more worries about teenage pregnancies, no more worries about elective abortion .. win, win all round

.
.
.
.
.
or is it really that reducing abortions is not the "goal"?

 

for one, where did I even mention raising minimum wage?

The rest of your comment is irrelevant.

 

Suggest you direct that comment to the person who is advocating for the removal of all federal funding because it isn't me.

thinking you can jump into a discussion without reading the exchanges .. is really, really stupid.

I am not your "kid".

Great thank you for the information, I didn't actually know that. Time for me to do some more research.

I suggest you conform to what it says then.

 

Yes. Those who are interested in extending life can donate to those causes.

I don't deny women will die. Women die all the time. But they won't die because Planned Parenthood got defunded. Why? Because they can go elsewhere.

If they are not self-sustaining, they need to go away. That goes for all the other institutions that have to be propped up by federal funds.

I would be ok for thousands of people to be unemployed as long as they search for work in self-sustaining institutions. If they can't do that, they are on their own.

Yes, she has the right to alleviate that risk, but she should also use her own money.

They would have to pressure the government to create conditons to bring jobs back and remove foreign competition.

Can't only blame greedy businesses. If the populace knew what it truly meant to be cheap, they would be incentivized to buy locally instead of conducting business with multinational/globalist companies.

I wouldn't be ok with it because it would raise premiums. However, a company has the right to reach out and help the less fortunate. It is better to do it through a business than it is through government.

In this thread, yes!

They would still be poor, but the burden on charities, families, and taxpayers would be reduced significantly. With the reduction in taxes, people would be able to give more to charities.

This is false and this 1st-world country demonstrates that. The poor people in this country have been given an ever-increasing safety net, yet the poverty rate grows and now sits at 47 million people. The government just passed the TP Partnership, so it simply doesn't care about its poor citizens. I rather not give the government too much money. The citizens are better off taking care of themselves.

 

It is obvious that there are fundamental things we will never agree on, I personally do not see how your vision of things would help people in poverty. I also see a lot of assumptions in your comments, such as "They would still be poor, but the burden on charities, families, and taxpayers would be reduced significantly. With the reduction in taxes, people would be able to give more to charities. ", the assumption being that people would give more to charity, your faith in human nature is commendable if not reality.

BTW Charities are also funded, so by your ideology they would also lose funding.

The number of people in poverty will obviously be higher as the population is higher, what is relevant and important is that the poverty rate is 7% lower than prior to the introduction of the "Great Society", had poverty levels remained at the 22% they were before this there would be over 70 million people in poverty today.



The fact remains that in countries that introduced a welfare system their poverty rate declined regardless of the population increase.

Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kenworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs were implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods when major welfare programs were created.



Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfa...#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare

The introduction of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996) on the surface looked as if it was reducing welfare dependency .. in reality it only reduced case-loads, it did little to reduce poverty in the majority of cases.

 

Pressure your government to mandate anything you like. Not gonna happen here.
Abortion debate in America is almost nonexistent. I honestly don't care about abortion. My teens know about the Morning After Pill. They know the time frame in which it must be administered. They know either myself or their dad will go buy it and not give them hell about it.

 

The war on poverty in the US...
Descibe welfare in the US. How is it distributed? Who funds it? Who manages it?

 

so then in reality you are not that concerned at reducing abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

Off topic

 

I don't think conservatives are against sex education. They are against freak show situations like kindergarteners reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" and placing condoms on bananas in front of first graders.

 

Please show where that is done.


Yes, Republicans have shown they're against sex education by saying things like "placing condoms on bananas in front of first graders."

Republicans have touted only preaching abstinence which does not work.

 

"Conservatives" support abstinence-only sex ed in schools. They are afraid that comprehensive sex ed will inspire their teens to experiment with sex.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/2012-gop-education-platfo_n_1837670.html

Broaching the subject of sex education in schools, the Republican platform issues a renewed call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education, as that is the only way to protect against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. Branching off of that, the party opposes school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.

 

I would be against these things as well...and would appreciate you not promoting them, as you seem to be the only source I have yet seen for both.

 

Who would be thinking 'Why is that person putting the funny balloon on a banana?'

 

Reminder that it was a Republican majority that ruled in Roe v Wade. Hypocrisy is the actual name of that party.

 

The driving force behind the prolife movement was and is the Catholic church. All the slogans are ancient Catholic theological doctrine, even the word choice.

The same people who want the government to outlaw abortion also vehemently oppose the government funding sex education and contraceptives. The prolife movement is directed by an in lockstep with the Catholic church. Thus they oppose contraceptives, avoidance of pregnancy and abortions.

Want to hear prolifers rage? Advocate the government giving away condoms. They will rage the government is promoting evil sex. Tell kids in school how to avoid pregnancy? They will go crazy.

 

Cool story, bro. If only it were true.

Interesting. Is that why they set up so many in black neighborhoods? To help them? Rather than.... you know.... to stop them from breeding like Margaret Sanger originally wanted.

 

How insidious! To convince Black women to kill their own children while still small in the womb.

If it's just a clump of tissue in there then why is it these women are never shown the ultrasound? tell me that

 

Why do you think black women are "convinced " to have abortions?


Why do you both think black women shouldn't have the same rights as any other women??

Why do you want to deny poor black women accessible affordable health care?

You aren't racist, are you?






















Neither one of you, nor ANYONE else, have given any proof that black women were forced to get abortions.

 

No, I am affirmative action. I only want to take away rights from white women.

 

Another regurgitated myth that has been blown apart.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah you just want to take rights away from born disabled kids.