The GOP really loves their women

[GMDino]

(01-06-2017, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Stupid folk making these generalizations. 

Totally agree.

[hollodero]

(01-06-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate you providing the answer for all those that would not, rather they would just spout off.

This line of thinking (given it wasn't yours, you just provided the explanation) assumes that those women that we currently provide with free stuff will just become more irresponsible if we take their free stuff away. Seems kind of disrespectful toward such women.

Which side is it that hates women again?

Disrespectful... I think that's oversimplifying it a bit. Folk might get "more irresponsible" because of lesser opportunities to be responsible. That is what Planned Parenthood mainly does, in my understanding. Informing, helping with birth control and providing a possibility to make responsible choices, with abortions being a rather small portion of that portfolio. It's more a responsibility enabling tool.

But sure... by liking or advocating this tool I kind of silently admit that people sometimes are not that responsible on their own - or at least could use a little push to be. Which I do believe to be true, especially for people (not women in particular) at a rather young age. I think that's fair to say, given the development in teen pregnancies in the US - which sharply dropped since the 1990s, which I assume is partly a result of better education/information and providing more opportunity for birth control (not talking abortions).

But that's certainly a view from a welfare state person. I do admit (because it's hard to deny) that welfare can have the effect of making people more careless or irresponsible. But I believe this argument carries less weight here, compared to what you factually get when you do not provide or fund tools like PP.

[Rotobeast]

(01-06-2017, 11:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think that's fair to say, given the development in teen pregnancies in the US - which sharply dropped since the 1990s, which I assume is partly a result of better education/information and providing more opportunity for birth control (not talking abortions).

Nah....
Chicks wised up and started holding out for the guys with more money.

[GMDino]

(01-06-2017, 11:57 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Nah....
Chicks wised up and started holding out for the guys with more money.

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2017, 11:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Disrespectful... I think that's oversimplifying it a bit. Folk might get "more irresponsible" because of lesser opportunities to be responsible. That is what Planned Parenthood mainly does, in my understanding. Informing, helping with birth control and providing a possibility to make responsible choices, with abortions being a rather small portion of that portfolio. It's more a responsibility enabling tool.

But sure... by liking or advocating this tool I kind of silently admit that people sometimes are not that responsible on their own - or at least could use a little push to be. Which I do believe to be true, especially for people (not women in particular) at a rather young age. I think that's fair to say, given the development in teen pregnancies in the US - which sharply dropped since the 1990s, which I assume is partly a result of better education/information and providing more opportunity for birth control (not talking abortions).

But that's certainly a view from a welfare state person. I do admit (because it's hard to deny) that welfare can have the effect of making people more careless or irresponsible. But I believe this argument carries less weight here, compared to what you factually get when you do not provide or fund tools like PP.

This type of reasoning is absurd, It is akin to: If we outlaw abortion we force people to break the law. 

[hollodero]

(01-07-2017, 01:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This type of reasoning is absurd, It is akin to: If we outlaw abortion we force people to break the law. 

I don't think it's absurd... I tried to weigh possibly important factors, drew a conclusion and gave it as my opinion. Which could be changed by valid arguments/additional thoughts.
Not saying you didn't do that here; I just honestly don't get the comparison. How is (not) providing birth control akin to breaking a new law. Care to elaborate?

As for forcing people to break the law... by outlawing abortion you would certainly have less abortions, but would also create more "criminals" - people that probably do not really deserve to be punished and sentenced. According to my personal belief, yours on that one is different and I respect that to a point. Plus also according to current US laws. But I wasn't talking about that. 
Defunding PP is not just about abortions or abortion laws.

Honestly, right now it more feels like a political game to undermine Affordable Care Act or how you call that, Obamacare (sorry for my ignorance, but whatever the terms), with the abortion angle as the public figleaf for the conservative people. That's what to me that all seems to be.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-06-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate you providing the answer for all those that would not, rather they would just spout off.

This line of thinking (given it wasn't yours, you just provided the explanation) assumes that those women that we currently provide with free stuff will just become more irresponsible if we take their free stuff away. Seems kind of disrespectful toward such women.

Which side is it that hates women again?

Are you arguing contraception doesn't prevent unintended pregnancies?

[Rotobeast]

(01-07-2017, 12:08 AM)GMDino Wrote:

The first Pimp President !
Right ?

[GMDino]

(01-06-2017, 05:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My apologies I thought we were keeping it within the context of me and the person I replied to; I forgot to include the whole world. My bad.

(01-06-2017, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I understand; You don't know the purpose behind the quote function. Allow me to shed light inside of cursing your darkness:

Poster A: Taking away free birth control will cost the government money

Poster B (replies directly to poster A: How will taking away free birth control will cost the government money?

Poster C (replies directly to Poster B): You do know planned Parenthood does more than abortions don't you....and then something about hating women

Poster B (replies directly to Poster C) WTF, does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Poster D (replies to Poster B): Republicans what to defund planned Parenthood

Poster B (replies to poster D): WTF, does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Poster D: I'm just saying


All the while Poster B does not get his question answered, just insulted. 

(01-06-2017, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I appreciate you providing the answer for all those that would not, rather they would just spout off.

[THE Bigzoman]

(01-05-2017, 08:58 PM)Benton Wrote: any word on what the cost will be by getting rid of birth control to mostly middle and lower class women?

from medical care to food stamps to other.

I'm not sure if middle class women are as badly impacted.

Trump won  middle-class white women by 10 points. As a whole, women's left leanings have share an inverse relationship with their household earnings.

And it kind of makes sense. If your household has high incomes, you're not going to care about the government not funding things that you can already afford.

[*bfine32*]

(01-07-2017, 05:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are you arguing contraception doesn't prevent unintended pregnancies?

Nope. Just arguing that if we stop funding things by the government (contraception) that will not automatically cost us money; unless you have no faith in those that are currently getting the handout.

It is a counter to the whole premise of the thread that the GOP "hates women" because they want to take away their free stuff. Yet the liberal disrespects them by suggesting if you take away the free stuff they will just be irresponsible. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-07-2017, 01:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it's absurd... I tried to weigh possibly important factors, drew a conclusion and gave it as my opinion. Which could be changed by valid arguments/additional thoughts.
Not saying you didn't do that here; I just honestly don't get the comparison. How is (not) providing birth control akin to breaking a new law. Care to elaborate?

As for forcing people to break the law... by outlawing abortion you would certainly have less abortions, but would also create more "criminals" - people that probably do not really deserve to be punished and sentenced. According to my personal belief, yours on that one is different and I respect that to a point. Plus also according to current US laws. But I wasn't talking about that. 
Defunding PP is not just about abortions or abortion laws.

Honestly, right now it more feels like a political game to undermine Affordable Care Act or how you call that, Obamacare (sorry for my ignorance, but whatever the terms), with the abortion angle as the public figleaf for the conservative people. That's what to me that all seems to be.

The correlation of the two is if we do not provide this then they will act irresponsibly. Almost like the liberal wants to control the woman's actions, while they rally around the slogan that the conservative want to control their body. 

[hollodero]

(01-07-2017, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The correlation of the two is if we do not provide this then they will act irresponsibly. Almost like the liberal wants to control the woman's actions, while they rally around the slogan that the conservative want to control their body. 

Well, there will be more pregnancies, because not every woman is the same and some more "accidents" are indeed very ikely to occur. Some more irresponsibilities, if you will. - Weren't you the one that said only stupid people would generalize to "all women"?

[*bfine32*]

(01-07-2017, 02:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, there will be more pregnancies, because not every woman is the same and some more "accidents" are indeed very ikely to occur. Some more irresponsibilities, if you will. - Weren't you the one that said only stupid people would generalize to "all women"?

Of course I did and those predicting what would happen if such and such happened are doing just that; as I am not. 

For  instance I've been told if we take away free birth control more women will become pregnant; I'll not make that assumption

I've been told if we outlaw abortion more women will break the law; I will not make that assumption either. 

I will give them the benefit of the doubt. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-07-2017, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. Just arguing that if we stop funding things by the government (contraception) that will not automatically cost us money; unless you have no faith in those that are currently getting the handout.

It is a counter to the whole premise of the thread that the GOP "hates women" because they want to take away their free stuff. Yet the liberal disrespects them by suggesting if you take away the free stuff they will just be irresponsible. 

Simply switching to a less expensive and efficacious birth control method will result in more unintended pregnancies even if it involves sex between a married couple using contraception. Studies indicate free contraceptive programs reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, especially in teens and single women under the age of 25 without a college degree or high school diploma.  Plus single parent households and lower socioeconomic levels go hand-in-hand. That's what the data indicates without any passive aggressive insults and false accusations the researchers claimed women aren't responsible.

[hollodero]

(01-07-2017, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I did and those predicting what would happen if such and such happened are doing just that; as I am not. 

For  instance I've been told if we take away free birth control more women will become pregnant; I'll not make that assumption

I've been told if we outlaw abortion more women will break the law; I will not make that assumption either. 

I will give them the benefit of the doubt. 

Yeah I don't. Because this is not a trial. An "innocent" until proven "guilty" logic doesn't apply.

- I'd rather use the "logic" of experience and reality (or what I perceive to be that). Take away free birth control and there will be more unwanted pregnancies. If you do not want to believe that out of whatever priinciple or logical conundrum then to me you're not on the side of reality. You're on the side of your underlying agenda.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2017, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I did and those predicting what would happen if such and such happened are doing just that; as I am not. 

For  instance I've been told if we take away free birth control more women will become pregnant; I'll not make that assumption

I've been told if we outlaw abortion more women will break the law; I will not make that assumption either. 

I will give them the benefit of the doubt. 

When these discussions have come up before, we've had studiee brought in that show increased access to contraceptives reduces unintended pregnancies. That's something that can be found in many studies. So it would stand to reason that reduced access would increase the rate of unintended pregnancies. Woukd it not?

[Benton]

(01-07-2017, 11:21 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'm not sure if middle class women are as badly impacted.

Trump won  middle-class white women by 10 points. As a whole, women's left leanings have share an inverse relationship with their household earnings.

And it kind of makes sense. If your household has high incomes, you're not going to care about the government not funding things that you can already afford.

agreed that middle class women will be less impacted, but i dont think its only lowest earners utilizing access to free/reduced services. I don't think that's a political issue, but more an economic one. Healthcare costs rising reduces the access to services. More money, less impact; less money, more impact.

given that were moving back toward trickle down economics, there's going to be less money at the bottom and a bigger impact. How big, I have no idea. But I'd say significant if we start looking at the cost of unplanned pregnancies and the realistic increase we're going to see.

[*bfine32*]

(01-08-2017, 04:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't. Because this is not a trial. An "innocent" until proven "guilty" logic doesn't apply.

- I'd rather use the "logic" of experience and reality (or what I perceive to be that). Take away free birth control and there will be more unwanted pregnancies. If you do not want to believe that out of whatever priinciple or logical conundrum then to me you're not on the side of reality. You're on the side of your underlying agenda.

So you're an advocate of the government knows what is best for you principle.

"If we don't give you something; you're going to act the fool. So here's some free stuff."

I guess I just fall on the side of individual responsibility and think it would be incumbent on the individual to make the right decisions. 

Others think the government should make these decisions for you. What happened to her body, her choice? 

[*bfine32*]

(01-08-2017, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: When these discussions have come up before, we've had studiee brought in that show increased access to contraceptives reduces unintended pregnancies. That's something that can be found in many studies. So it would stand to reason that reduced access would increase the rate of unintended pregnancies. Woukd it not?

As I said: I'm more of an advocate of individual responsibility. A condom costs about a quarter. If you cannot afford that you may not want to participate in an activity that could lead to another mouth to feed.