|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:53 am
Lady_Amalthea It's not the tax payers job to fund peoples sex life no more then it's their job to fill my dads car with gas so he can drive to work. Amen! I know that some Pro-Lifers support free, effective contraception but, honestly, as much as that might lower the number of abortions, it really isn't my job to pay for your sex safety. If you really can't afford condoms, you can't afford sex. (I'm also a newly-discovered Libertarian, so I'm figuring out exactly what few things I think the government should pay for, and contraception isn't one of them. If some non-profit organization wants to make contraception available for free, be my guest, but that's not the government's job.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:38 am
I.Am Lady_Amalthea It's not the tax payers job to fund peoples sex life no more then it's their job to fill my dads car with gas so he can drive to work. Amen! I know that some Pro-Lifers support free, effective contraception but, honestly, as much as that might lower the number of abortions, it really isn't my job to pay for your sex safety. If you really can't afford condoms, you can't afford sex. (I'm also a newly-discovered Libertarian, so I'm figuring out exactly what few things I think the government should pay for, and contraception isn't one of them. If some non-profit organization wants to make contraception available for free, be my guest, but that's not the government's job.) Exactly. I have no problem with people donating money to supply free BC pills and condoms but I don't agree with being forced into funding it via taxes. In Canada, not only do we supply people with free BC pills but we are forced to pay for their abortions; meanwhile there are homeless people all over our city streets that those taxes could have gone to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:15 am
Firstly, Waters we never compared choicers to crackwhores. KP and I were simply doing what we do best, being completely foolish. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a sexually active person and have been since I was 15.
Secondly I agree and disagree with the publicly funded stuff which I'll expand on when I'm back from class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:34 am
Beware the Jabberwock Firstly, Waters we never compared choicers to crackwhores. KP and I were simply doing what we do best, being completely foolish. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a sexually active person and have been since I was 15. I think comparing pro-choicers to crack-whores would be pretty funny. I.Am I know that some Pro-Lifers support free, effective contraception but, honestly, as much as that might lower the number of abortions, it really isn't my job to pay for your sex safety. If you really can't afford condoms, you can't afford sex. I sort of agree and disagree... I agree that tax money is better spent elsewhere than on contraceptives, but then again I can also understand how freaking hard it can be not to have sex. (I'm still a virgin by choice despite talking about lubricant and what not smile ). Though I disagree with the idea that people "must have sex" or "be sexually active" in order to be happy, blah blah blah, I feel that sponsering contraceptives can be a way of preventing abortions, or bringing children into the world with two parents who are (assuming they don't have the money for condoms or what not) too poor to support them. But then again, I'm not going to stay in America, so whatever. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:02 am
Yes, but I don't believe that the government should have to pay for it.
My opinion on government is that the government should tax only as much as is absolutely necessary, and provide only so many services as it has to, and leave the rest to private sectors. Basically, a really small government, which provides services like the police and the military, but that's about it. No free medical care, no free nothing.
I don't think that poor people should go without these things. Without the government taxing people and providing these things, normal citizens would have to take up the slack and fund organizations to do whatever else they want done. But, this way, I don't have to pay for something that has nothing to do with me and that I don't care for, and the people who do care about it run it, which seems to me to be a lot more efficient then the government grabbing up a third of what we make, and then funneling it into organizations who can do whatever the hell they want with it, knowing that they will get more the next time the budget discussions come around.
That's my idea right now, at least. It's sort of a new idea for me of how the government should function, I haven't decided on everything. Like, should the government fund research for cures for whatever, or should that also be privatized? Should the government provide innoculations at minimum cost for certain diseases to prevent epidemics? I lean towards saying that the government should provide those things, but I'm not entirely certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:03 am
Okay, my expanding begins. I agree that abortion shouldn't be publicly funded, unless it's in the case of the mother's life being at risk without the abortion. Because unless that's the case the abortion is purely a need, not a want, like most abortions are.
In terms of contraception, while I agree to some degree that if you can't afford condoms you can't afford sex, I still think that those kinds of things are neccesary. Yes in a perfect world everyone would do it themselves, but I think that until we reach that world our money being used to supply those things is the best road.
Women need options and if they feel as though they don't have any that's when they turn to the people who claim to be giving them options. I believe that one of the reasons that I'm so very pro-life isn't because I was brought up anti-sex, it's because I was brought up being told that sex is my choice. I was also brought up being told that if I made that choice I was to make sure I was on birth control, whether I told my parents or not. And beyond that I was told that if all else failed and I got pregnant I was told that my parents would support and love me no matter whether I chose to have the child, or whether I chose to give it up for adoption.
My parents gave me choices and they gave me options. If they have told me having that I was too young to have sex or too immature (even though they may think it) things would have went differently. If they had told me that if they found out I was having sex, they would do this-that and the other thing to me, I probably never would have risked birth control for fear of being found out. After I'd been on birth control for awhile my mom told me that she knew I was on it and she was proud that I was being responsible, what would have happened if she flipped out? And if my parents constantly condemned sex and didn't tell me that through everything, even if I got pregnant when I was 15 or 16 or 17, they would support and love me, I probably wouldn't be so strong as to say; "I'm better than abortion."
No, it's not the pro-lifers' jobs to act as parents to young women in this situation. But the truth is, sometimes they need someone to tell them and support them and their choices. Because not having that stuff available isn't going to stop them from having sex, it's only going to stop them from having safe sex. And if we don't tell them that we support them and love them, then, why are they going to listen to us when we tell them that we support and love them after they get pregnant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:29 am
I.Am First of all, they weren't comparing Pro-Choicers to crack whores. As you've said, not all Pro-Choicers get abortions. Second of all, even then, they have a valid point. Why do women get abortions? Because they get pregnant when they can't afford to, or merely don't want to. What causes pregnancy? Well you've said yourself that couples frequently have to actually work at it to get pregnant, so, logically, most women who get an abortion, and certainly women who get multiple abortions, are highly sexually active. So, they have abortions because they can't stand to just not have sex during the times when they are most fertile. I can understand your objections, and I would say that Pyro's comments about comparing crack whores and Pro-Choicers is out of line, as it is not very tasteful, but it's not exactly against the rules. And crack, as in the rock, is a form of cocaine, just like the powder is. Perhaps it is used in a different way, and the chemical makeup is slightly different, but they are both cocaine. (I heart Wikipedia) It was a joke Andy. done in jest to show here what we're talking about...dosn't mean I don't beleive what i just said though ninja The powder is snorted, I beleive the rock is burned in a pipe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:55 am
Beware the Jabberwock My parents gave me choices and they gave me options. If they have told me having that I was too young to have sex or too immature (even though they may think it) things would have went differently. If they had told me that if they found out I was having sex, they would do this-that and the other thing to me, I probably never would have risked birth control for fear of being found out. After I'd been on birth control for awhile my mom told me that she knew I was on it and she was proud that I was being responsible, what would have happened if she flipped out? And if my parents constantly condemned sex and didn't tell me that through everything, even if I got pregnant when I was 15 or 16 or 17, they would support and love me, I probably wouldn't be so strong as to say; "I'm better than abortion."
No, it's not the pro-lifers' jobs to act as parents to young women in this situation. But the truth is, sometimes they need someone to tell them and support them and their choices. Because not having that stuff available isn't going to stop them from having sex, it's only going to stop them from having safe sex. And if we don't tell them that we support them and love them, then, why are they going to listen to us when we tell them that we support and love them after they get pregnant? None of that is necessarily true. I'm a virgin. My sister's a virgin. The rest of my siblings I would assume are virgins too, but they are fairly young so who knows. Maybe that's how you would have reacted had your parents condemned pre-marital sex. Maybe not. As it is, they didn't, so there's really no way to know now is there? If they had condemned pre-marital sex, their whole parenting schema probably would have been different, and there's really no way to be sure it -would have- been one way or the other. And I'll repeat myself: I've no problem with free contraception. My problem is with government funded free contraception. If someone doesn't think that contraception should be just handed out for whatever reason, they shouldn't have to pay for it with their taxes. And I would seriously challenge you to find anywhere where I said that we shouldn't love and support, etc. the young women. You don't have to support federally funded free contraception to support young women and their choices; What I'm talking about is a completely different way of doing things, with far less taxes, and more private organizations to do this sort of thing that it would be assumed the responsible citizen would donate to in leu(However the hell you spell it) of taxes. It would only be different in that you would have complete control over where your money went and, since businesses would be taxed less too, the organizations would be able to get this sort of thing cheaper, they would be able to ship it cheaper on cheaper gas, etc. etc. etc., making the private organizations a lot more efficient and cheaper to run then the government funded organizations ever were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:57 am
Tiger of the Fire I.Am First of all, they weren't comparing Pro-Choicers to crack whores. As you've said, not all Pro-Choicers get abortions. Second of all, even then, they have a valid point. Why do women get abortions? Because they get pregnant when they can't afford to, or merely don't want to. What causes pregnancy? Well you've said yourself that couples frequently have to actually work at it to get pregnant, so, logically, most women who get an abortion, and certainly women who get multiple abortions, are highly sexually active. So, they have abortions because they can't stand to just not have sex during the times when they are most fertile. I can understand your objections, and I would say that Pyro's comments about comparing crack whores and Pro-Choicers is out of line, as it is not very tasteful, but it's not exactly against the rules. And crack, as in the rock, is a form of cocaine, just like the powder is. Perhaps it is used in a different way, and the chemical makeup is slightly different, but they are both cocaine. (I heart Wikipedia) It was a joke Andy. done in jest to show here what we're talking about...dosn't mean I don't beleive what i just said though ninja The powder is snorted, I beleive the rock is burned in a pipe. I know it was a joke, but it was not a very tasteful joke. I hate to be all blunt like that, but that's the facts. And it's called freebasing. Not that I'd know. ninja (Psychology class is where I learned everything I need to know to get addicted to drugs. o.o Freakin' Freud.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:24 pm
Tiger of the Fire WatersMoon110 Beware the Jabberwock kp606 Hot sweat, slippery rubber...
why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I say, find a way to do your crack WHILE having sex and you've got it made.Crack is a rock. Cocaine is a powder. If you are going to insult Pro-Choicers and call us all crack-whores, at least you can get the drug right. You're insulting the crack-whore by comparaing them to choicers lol How about not assuming things and mackign your self look like an a** and instede see her comments for what they are, pure humor. An exageration purposfuly drawn out to one of the most extensive extremes rolleyes So I'm not allowed to joke in here? Even when others are joking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:30 pm
I.Am First of all, they weren't comparing Pro-Choicers to crack whores. As you've said, not all Pro-Choicers get abortions. Second of all, even then, they have a valid point. Why do women get abortions? Because they get pregnant when they can't afford to, or merely don't want to. What causes pregnancy? Well you've said yourself that couples frequently have to actually work at it to get pregnant, so, logically, most women who get an abortion, and certainly women who get multiple abortions, are highly sexually active. So, they have abortions because they can't stand to just not have sex during the times when they are most fertile. I can understand your objections, and I would say that Pyro's comments about comparing crack whores and Pro-Choicers is out of line, as it is not very tasteful, but it's not exactly against the rules. And crack, as in the rock, is a form of cocaine, just like the powder is. Perhaps it is used in a different way, and the chemical makeup is slightly different, but they are both cocaine. (I heart Wikipedia) 1. I was joking. It was, is, and continues to be a joke. I figured, since everyone else was joking, it would be assumed that I was simply joining in. 2. Crack is a way of preparing cocaine, which involves cutting it with something (usually baking soda) and "cooking" it to make it into a rock. So "white powder" would refer to cocaine while "rock" is a reference to crack. 3. The joking changed from Pro-Choicers being sex addicts to Pro-Choicers being sex addicts who use crack (who could also be considered "crack whores") when Beware the Jabberwock made mention of using crack while having sex. 4. Perhaps I should not try to joke, even when others are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:32 pm
I.Am Tiger of the Fire I.Am First of all, they weren't comparing Pro-Choicers to crack whores. As you've said, not all Pro-Choicers get abortions. Second of all, even then, they have a valid point. Why do women get abortions? Because they get pregnant when they can't afford to, or merely don't want to. What causes pregnancy? Well you've said yourself that couples frequently have to actually work at it to get pregnant, so, logically, most women who get an abortion, and certainly women who get multiple abortions, are highly sexually active. So, they have abortions because they can't stand to just not have sex during the times when they are most fertile. I can understand your objections, and I would say that Pyro's comments about comparing crack whores and Pro-Choicers is out of line, as it is not very tasteful, but it's not exactly against the rules. And crack, as in the rock, is a form of cocaine, just like the powder is. Perhaps it is used in a different way, and the chemical makeup is slightly different, but they are both cocaine. (I heart Wikipedia) It was a joke Andy. done in jest to show here what we're talking about...dosn't mean I don't beleive what i just said though ninja The powder is snorted, I beleive the rock is burned in a pipe. I know it was a joke, but it was not a very tasteful joke. I hate to be all blunt like that, but that's the facts. And it's called freebasing. Not that I'd know. ninja (Psychology class is where I learned everything I need to know to get addicted to drugs. o.o Freakin' Freud.) Freebasing is creating freebase (or smokable) cocaine by refining cocaine, it isn't cut with anything. Crack is different, since it is cut with something to make it form rocks. Cocaine is snorted, crack is smoked from a crack pipe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:38 pm
[quote="FreeArsenal"I agree that tax money is better spent elsewhere than on contraceptives, but then again I can also understand how freaking hard it can be not to have sex. (I'm still a virgin by choice despite talking about lubricant and what not smile ). Though I disagree with the idea that people "must have sex" or "be sexually active" in order to be happy, blah blah blah, I feel that sponsering contraceptives can be a way of preventing abortions, or bringing children into the world with two parents who are (assuming they don't have the money for condoms or what not) too poor to support them.[/quote] Thank you. I feel that people who are against others choosing to abort, really should be trying to get those same people access to contraceptives, and also strongly encouraging abstinance. But for those who will choose to have sex with protection or not, wouldn't it be better if they were at least less likely to get pregnant (which means less likely to get an abortion). I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:05 pm
I.Am None of that is necessarily true. I'm a virgin. My sister's a virgin. The rest of my siblings I would assume are virgins too, but they are fairly young so who knows. Maybe that's how you would have reacted had your parents condemned pre-marital sex. Maybe not. As it is, they didn't, so there's really no way to know now is there? If they had condemned pre-marital sex, their whole parenting schema probably would have been different, and there's really no way to be sure it -would have- been one way or the other. And I'll repeat myself: I've no problem with free contraception. My problem is with government funded free contraception. If someone doesn't think that contraception should be just handed out for whatever reason, they shouldn't have to pay for it with their taxes. And I would seriously challenge you to find anywhere where I said that we shouldn't love and support, etc. the young women. You don't have to support federally funded free contraception to support young women and their choices; What I'm talking about is a completely different way of doing things, with far less taxes, and more private organizations to do this sort of thing that it would be assumed the responsible citizen would donate to in leu(However the hell you spell it) of taxes. It would only be different in that you would have complete control over where your money went and, since businesses would be taxed less too, the organizations would be able to get this sort of thing cheaper, they would be able to ship it cheaper on cheaper gas, etc. etc. etc., making the private organizations a lot more efficient and cheaper to run then the government funded organizations ever were.
However; you assume citizens will donate? You hope they'll donate. Well that's great, for the people who do. Unfortunitally time and time again society has proven to be completely self serving. To quote 'Hotel Rwanda'; "I think that people will watch this on TV and say 'that's horrible' and then go back to eating their dinners."
You think private organizations should help, and yet you give them no way to sustain themselves except the HOPE that people will donate money. Well what makes you think that people are going to donate them money if they're unwilling to do so now, through their taxes? Yes some organizations will be able to sustain themselves but more will flounder and fail.
Part of being in a society, a communitee, is helping out one another. It's not all about looking out for #1 and the others can hope that someone else takes care of them.
I never said that you don't love and support women; I know you so I know differently. But what are you doing to show them that? You're fighting against some of their options, because some of them CAN'T afford contraception. Through doing this you're simply telling them that they shouldn't be having sex at all, which truthfully isn't the message that they need. The message that they need is, "We are here for you - no matter what." Because someone has to be and if it isn't us, than who is it? The abortion clinics.
Want proof?
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Notice a common recurring theme? In every single one, except for the last one the girls who had abortions felt they had to, because of lack of support in keeping the child. The ones who DID keep their child had support from someone.
One woman even says about a protestor outside a clinic;Quote: There was one picketer standing on the sidewalk and he screamed at me, “You’re just a baby killer if you walk into that building!” And I knew that he was right, but it didn’t stop me. His words echoed in my head and reinforced everything that I was already feeling… I was just. Just nothing. Just empty. Just a failure. And now, just a baby killer. I was just adding one more failure to my miserable string of mistakes. If he had said anything else... If he had asked me, “Are you hopeless? I’ll help you if you’re hopeless.” I probably would have turned around, but I just kept walking and ignored him.
No, I don't think that you, or really any of the people in this guild, are going to stand on the sidewalk and scream "Baby killer" at women going into a clinic. But how exactly are we helping them? Are we helping them by trying to convince them to not kill their children, or are we ACTUALLY going to help them?
You're lucky, you really are. Because when you're not a woman you don't fully understand the feelings and thoughts that go through your head. You don't understand how incredably deperate and alone you feel when you find out that you're pregnant. You don't have to worry about having an entire society telling you that unless you kill that child you're going to fail. You don't have to walk down the street with a full belly that tells everyone around you that you're about to be a parent, whether you're ready for it or not. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
