Sam Brownback cuts medicaid funding to Planned Parentood

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The sense is made that they should be required to agree on the course of action. I have answered the question. She should be required to carry the child to term and then surrender all rights and responsibilities.

That does not answer the question I asked.

What if he wants an abortion but she doesn't?  How do you settle that disagreement?

You can't say that the man has the right to force a woman to carry a child, but not the right to force her to have an abortion.  How can the man have control over the womans body in one case but not in the other?

[StLucieBengal]

Vas Defere Wrote:I guess Lucy didn't want to advance this conversation after all.  Not surprised.

Really now..... Why do you allow population control mostly in poor and minority areas?

Where is the population control in the rich communities?

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:45 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why are we putting PP clinics mostly in poor and minority neighborhoods?   Where are all the PP's in the rich suburbs?    

Like I said before.  Pick up your game.  You are no fun when you don't even offer a challenge.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Really now.....   Why do you allow population control mostly in poor and minority areas?  

Abortion is not allowed in rich neighborhoods?

When did that happen?

[StLucieBengal]

Belsnick Wrote:Not to mention, as I've pointed out every time this topic comes up, there is a portion of the population that makes too much for a free clinic, does not qualify for Medicaid (especially in those states that have not expanded it), and can't afford the full cost either because their insurance is shit or they have none. These people rely on PP, and places like it, because they work on a sliding scale.

Then PP doesn't need any subsidy. Even Medicaid . They have proven they make plenty of money already and can continue to make enough money to keep expanding .

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 01:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That does not answer the question I asked.

What if he wants an abortion but she doesn't?  How do you settle that disagreement?

You can't say that the man has the right to force a woman to carry a child, but not the right to force her to have an abortion.  How can the man have control over the womans body in one case but not in the other?

Of course it does; She keeps the baby. 

I'm just of the crazy notion that if one parent is willing and able to raise the child; then why not give it a life?

The best answer I get is because the woman doesn't want to be inconvenienced for a few weeks? Or as the T-Shirts say "Her body,  her choice"

You didn't answer the transgender and reality question. 

[StLucieBengal]

   fredto Wrote:Abortion is not allowed in rich neighborhoods?

When did that happen?

They don't park PP clinics all over the area like they do for minority and poor areas.  

[Vas Deferens]

(01-21-2016, 01:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Really now.....   Why do you allow population control mostly in poor and minority areas?  

Where is the population control in the rich communities?

Go take a look at the answers I gave you on this topic pages ago.  When you decided to bail on the conversation until you could come in as if these things were never answered.  

Pathetic. 

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You support laws that allows a woman to terminate her financial  responsibility or rearing a child and not a male based solely on biological  differences and that makes no sense at all.

So it makes no sense to take reproductive reality into account?

Refresh my memory on why you oppose same sex marriage again?  Doesn't it have something to do with giving couples different rights based on their biological sex?

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2016, 01:51 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They don't park PP clinics all over the area like they do for minority and poor areas.  

What does that have to do with allowing abortions?

Is PP the only place in America to get an abortion?

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 01:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So it makes no sense to take reproductive reality into account?

Refresh my memory of why you oppose same sex marriage again?  Doesn't it have something to do with giving couples different rights based on their biological sex?

Quit asking, start answering.

Does transgender count or do we just have our laws deal with reality? 

[StLucieBengal]

Vas Defere Wrote:Go take a look at the answers I gave you on this topic pages ago.  When you decided to bail on the conversation until you could come in as if these things were never answered.  

Pathetic. 

Sorry I can't be glued to your posts all the time. I don't look up your post history when I login.

You brought up population control. That's interesting. I'm sure you had loads of reason why abortion supposed to be ok. I will never think it's cool to kill babies.... So there is no need wasting any time on that.... We can however dig into why you think we should have population Control. And your reasons behind it.... I'm sure it's something about money and how people should be able to afford kids... Even though throughout history it's been about families coming together and doing what's necessary for the children.

When you give me these reasons you might want to do some Sanger/eugenics research and make sure your reasons aren't parroting what eugenicists said back in the day. Just in a more cleanly worded version to somehow sound today like it's not from monsters.

As far as abortion goes .... Tell me why more minorities are dying to them over white's?

Look at where PP sets up worldwide..... Lots of countries with blacks and Browns. Please tell me how they are not targeting minorities.... Look at their numbers and locations of clinics worldwide.

[StLucieBengal]

fredtoa Wrote:What does that have to do with allowing abortions?

Is PP the only place in America to get an abortion?

Isn't this thread about PP and their funding?

Excuse me for sticking to the thread topic.

[Vas Deferens]

(01-21-2016, 02:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sorry I can't be glued to your posts all the time.    I don't look up your post history when I login.  

You brought up population control.   That's interesting.   I'm sure you had loads of reason why abortion supposed to be ok.    I will never think it's cool to kill babies....   So there is no need wasting any time on that....   We can however dig into why you think we should have population Control.   And your reasons behind it....   I'm sure it's something about money and how people should be able to afford kids...    Even though throughout history it's been about families coming together and doing what's necessary for the children.  

When you give me these reasons you might want to do some Sanger/eugenics research and make sure your reasons aren't parroting what eugenicists said back in the day.   Just in a more cleanly worded version to somehow sound today like it's not from monsters.  

As far as abortion goes .... Tell me why more minorities are dying to them over white's?  

Look at where PP sets up worldwide.....   Lots of countries with blacks and Browns.    Please tell me how they are not targeting minorities....   Look at their numbers and locations of clinics worldwide.

Already answered these questions.  After you said you were happy to discuss these issues.  You know where I stand there, you just refuse to step up and retort.  Same tactic you use when you start new threads about the same issue to avoid advancing the conversation.  I commend Larry for picking up and having an actual discussion where you ran away.   Maybe you can learn to actually discuss, or at least attempt to discuss, something in the future. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 01:50 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then PP doesn't need any subsidy. Even Medicaid . They have proven they make plenty of money already and can continue to make enough money to keep expanding .

Sometimes the most convenient location for healthcare that accepts Medicaid could be a PP clinic. By stripping them of Medicaid payments, you may have just made any reproductive healthcare inaccessible to a portion of the population because without it they may not be able to afford the services even with the sliding scale. The subsidies I could take or leave. Government funding efforts to make contraceptives more widely available and to educate the public on family planning and STD prevention is important, but I don't know how much money they get for that specifically. I do prefer NGOs to stay non-government, but grants are a reality with these things. It is wrong to pull funding from them, and only them, when there is no proven wrongdoing. Despite all of the videos, no actual investigation has turned up any violations.

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The sense is made that they should be required to agree on the course of action. I have answered the question. She should be required to carry the child to term and then surrender all rights and responsibilities.

So essential imprisonment, then? Who will compensate for the healthcare, the potential lost wages (since paid maternity leave isn't a thing here), and any health effects after the pregnancy that may result from the trauma?

Also, first an oven and now relegation to incubator. I am sincerely concerned with the way you view women.

[GMDino]

(01-21-2016, 01:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The sense is made that they should be required to agree on the course of action. I have answered the question. She should be required to carry the child to term and then surrender all rights and responsibilities.

You support laws that allows a woman to terminate her financial  responsibility or rearing a child and not a male based solely on biological  differences and that makes no sense at all.

Would it matter if the father was transgender and felt she too was pregnant or do you just what your laws to address reality?

(01-21-2016, 01:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Quit asking, start answering.

Does transgender count or do we just have our laws deal with reality? 

(01-21-2016, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So essential imprisonment, then? Who will compensate for the healthcare, the potential lost wages (since paid maternity leave isn't a thing here), and any health effects after the pregnancy that may result from the trauma?

He's already throwing in the question of transgender rights as a father Matt.  He certainly doesn't really care he just hates abortion and wants to fight about it.

But heaven forbid someone say the conservatives want women to be subservient and human incubators because we are taking their position "out of context".  Just never have sex unless you are married to a man that you can never leave because sky man said it was bad.  And if he gets you pregnant...whether you wanted it or not...it is a gift from the same sky man.  Quit arguing with the sky man!!!

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2016, 10:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: He's already throwing in the question of transgender rights as a father Matt.  He certainly doesn't really care he just hates abortion and wants to fight about it.

But heaven forbid someone say the conservatives want women to be subservient and human incubators because we are taking their position "out of context".  Just never have sex unless you are married to a man that you can never leave because sky man said it was bad.  And if he gets you pregnant...whether you wanted it or not...it is a gift from the same sky man.  Quit arguing with the sky man!!!

I was just thinking about a suggestion for the laws that would be put in place if something like forcing a woman to be an incubator were to happen, the father should also follow certain guidelines for the duration of the pregnancy:

1. No alcohol
2. No smoking
3. No caffeine
4. No fish
5. No rare meat (including soft/over easy eggs and other things of that nature, only things well done)
6. No lunch meat or hot dogs
7. No herbal teas/supplements

Now, I'm sure there is more to it there, and we could also go into the unpaid time off from work and all of that. I think if we are going to force women to have to carry a child to term, the man that impregnated her should be forced to undergo the same dietary and physical restrictions that are recommended for a pregnancy.

[GMDino]

(01-21-2016, 10:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was just thinking about a suggestion for the laws that would be put in place if something like forcing a woman to be an incubator were to happen, the father should also follow certain guidelines for the duration of the pregnancy:

1. No alcohol
2. No smoking
3. No caffeine
4. No fish
5. No rare meat (including soft/over easy eggs and other things of that nature, only things well done)
6. No lunch meat or hot dogs
7. No herbal teas/supplements

Now, I'm sure there is more to it there, and we could also go into the unpaid time off from work and all of that. I think if we are going to force women to have to carry a child to term, the man that impregnated her should be forced to undergo the same dietary and physical restrictions that are recommended for a pregnancy.

Drug testing too.

Also marriage should be strictly enforced...its just better for the child!

And no gheys!  

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2016, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So essential imprisonment, then? Who will compensate for the healthcare, the potential lost wages (since paid maternity leave isn't a thing here), and any health effects after the pregnancy that may result from the trauma?

Also, first an oven and now relegation to incubator. I am sincerely concerned with the way you view women.

She made the bed she if required to lie in for a few weeks. Obviously if the father wants the child healthcare expenses are his responsibility.

Who deals with any health effects after the abortion that may result from the trauma?

Removing all rights of fatherhood from the male. If you want the child, too bad,if you don't want the financial responsibility too bad.I am sincerely concerned with the way you view men.

So liberal to say "objectify women". She objectified herself when she voluntarily elevated those thighs.