The GOP really loves their women

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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?

Yes. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-08-2017, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not bitching about anything; as I'm OK with what the article in the OP suggests. Perhaps (and I'm just spitballing here)  those that are not are the ones bitching. And who ever heard of his body, his choice

You're the one falsely accusing others of claiming women (and only women) will be irresponsible without free birth control.  Seems like bitching to me.  Perhaps (and I'm just spitballing here) those that want to cut health care while increasing military spending are indeed the ones bitching.  Planned Parenthood provides contraception to men as well as women.  But, of course you automatically suggest women are irresponsible without even considering that men receive free contraception as well.  Shouldn't you falsely suggest I accused both women and men of being irresponsible?  Maybe you should just ***** that I accused humans, in general, of being irresponsible.

So your answer is: Not only provide them with free contraception, but give them the good stuff. I don't think abstinence costs that much.

Once again you're making another false assumption from a position of ignorance.  Simply switching from a condom (which you claim costs a quarter) to the withdrawal or rhythm method (as endorsed by the Church) are less expensive and less efficacious than a form of contraception you suggested which isn't "the good stuff."  In fact, those two methods of birth control are completely free, don't require health insurance, a health provider, access to health care, or even a prescription, or a trip to the store.  As stated earlier, the reasons for unintended pregnancies are multi-factorial, but of course you only focus on your preconceived narrative.

The withdrawal and rhythm method cost the same as abstinence.  Yet, unintended pregnancies are a reality.    

I merely asked how taking away free contraception would cost money; perhaps those that suggest it will are suggesting something. 

Actually, you asked if it would save money to take away birth control.  Not a peep about the savings from taking away any other health services.  I answered your question.  Then I asked you a question only to watch you ***** about people not answering questions once again after you didn't anwer my question.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-08-2017, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I haven't even brought up unintended pregnancies;

Really?  You're talking about birth control.  The primary purpose of birth control is to prevent unintended pregnancies.  Contraceptive methods such as OCPs are used to treat other conditions and condoms help prevent the transmission of STDs.  But, if you're talking about birth control you are talking about controlling unindended pregnancies.  I don't know which is worse; not knowing you are indirectly discussing unintended pregnancies or pretending you don't know.

much less who is responsible for them.

Really?  Then why were you falsely accusing others of claiming women (and only women) would be irresponsible without free birth control?  Because you were talking about who is responsible for unintended pregnancies despite your denial.

I do believe folks are suggesting that the taxpayer is responsible for them if they don't want their tax money going for free condoms.

Again, another false accusation.  I didn't suggest taxpayers are responsible for unintended pregnancies.  I asked would the savings from cutting free birth control provided by Planned Parenthood be offset by increases in other social programs like WIC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etcetera?  The reason I ask is studies indicate free contractive programs help reduce unintended pregnancies in certain demographics.  Other studies indicate single parent households are more likely to be on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.  Those in the lower socioeconomic scale are more likely to receive aid from social programs like the ones I listed.  

Thus by discontinuing free contraceptive programs provided by Planned Parenthood the number of unintended pregnancies will (not may) increase for multiple reasons (one of which could be irresponsibility, but not necessarily as there are multiple reasons.)  Since at least some of the children from the increase in unintended pregnancies caused by the discontinuation of free contraceptives provided by an unfunded Planned Parenthood will be born to those in the lower socioeconomic class, will taxpayer money spent on the increase in children potentially eligible for social programs offset the savings of defunding Planned Parenthood?  Or will the savings of defunding Planned Parenthood offset the money spent on the increased number of children due to unintend pregnancies potentially eligible for social programs as the consequence of defunding Planned Parenthood?

Now let me tell you how this conversation is eventually going to end.  You will leave by feigning taking the high road because you don't have a logical counter argument.  Or you will use your patented, "I guess that made sense in your head."

[hollodero]

(01-08-2017, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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? 

You're putting more into it than there is. First off, the state doesn't make a choice or a decision for anyone here. It provides help and, as I said, a responsibility enablement tool, that's all.
I do not think "free stuff" is, per se, evil and leads to dependence. Could be, but not in this case.
The other thing is, it's not how government regards women. It's more about society and what's best for it. Teen pregnancies are not "good" for a society, and especially young people could use some information and also, yes, some support - for me that's really all there is to it. PP helps with that. Whatever else you see in that, I do not. 

Finally, a part of me just doesn't believe you. You want PP gone because of conservatice standpoints, say because of abortions. And not because you're a fighter of individual responsibility or of women's independence (for that's something you would willingly want to deny women who want to terminate pregnancy). And fair enough, but I'd say don't pretend. 

[GMDino]

(01-09-2017, 04:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: You're putting more into it than there is. First off, the state doesn't make a choice or a decision for anyone here. It provides help and, as I said, a responsibility enablement tool, that's all.
I do not think "free stuff" is, per se, evil and leads to dependence. Could be, but not in this case.
The other thing is, it's not how government regards women. It's more about society and what's best for it. Teen pregnancies are not "good" for a society, and especially young people could use some information and also, yes, some support - for me that's really all there is to it. PP helps with that. Whatever else you see in that, I do not. 

Finally, a part of me just doesn't believe you. You want PP gone because of conservatice standpoints, say because of abortions. And not because you're a fighter of individual responsibility or of women's independence (for that's something you would willingly want to deny women who want to terminate pregnancy). And fair enough, but I'd say don't pretend. 

That's the main idea that seems to be getting twisted.  Government is not saying they know what is best for you.  They are providing a resource for people who think that is best for them.  Period.

Without that resource some people will not follow through with that best choice.

But hey, god and babies and stuff so the heck with people.

[Benton]

(01-09-2017, 04:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: I do not think "free stuff" is, per se, evil and leads to dependence. Could be, but not in this case.
 

I don't know if it's always been, or if it's just a recent thing, but one of the issues America struggles with is the importance of "my free stuff" versus "your free stuff."

Much of the "free" stuff people agree on (at least to a degree). Most people want some kind of military, police, roads, basic education, fire protection.

But there's a lot of other ones people can't agree on. Free or reduced college? Healthcare? Using the military as a global distribution network? Birth control? Race horses?

Some people think nothing of giving tax money to operate a theme park, but some get up in arms over giving condoms to teenagers.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 11:38 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if it's always been, or if it's just a recent thing, but one of the issues America struggles with is the importance of "my free stuff" versus "your free stuff."

Much of the "free" stuff people agree on (at least to a degree). Most people want some kind of military, police, roads, basic education, fire protection.

But there's a lot of other ones people can't agree on. Free or reduced college? Healthcare? Using the military as a global distribution network? Birth control? Race horses?

Some people think nothing of giving tax money to operate a theme park, but some get up in arms over giving condoms to teenagers.

It's okay to give billionaires hundreds of millions in tax payer dollars to build them stadiums which will be used 10 times in the fall. Personal responsibility and all. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 11:38 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if it's always been, or if it's just a recent thing, but one of the issues America struggles with is the importance of "my free stuff" versus "your free stuff."

Much of the "free" stuff people agree on (at least to a degree). Most people want some kind of military, police, roads, basic education, fire protection.

But there's a lot of other ones people can't agree on. Free or reduced college? Healthcare? Using the military as a global distribution network? Birth control? Race horses?

Some people think nothing of giving tax money to operate a theme park, but some get up in arms over giving condoms to teenagers.

The issue, at least to me, is that most people don't really understand how it all works. Government can be as transparent as we like, but people just don't understand how money flows from their pockets into the pockets of others in the various ways. They don't understand the bureaucracy, which is understandable for the most part, but there is a lack of basic knowledge of public administration and policies that leads people to not have a realistic understanding of where their tax money actually goes.

[Rotobeast]

(01-09-2017, 11:38 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if it's always been, or if it's just a recent thing, but one of the issues America struggles with is the importance of "my free stuff" versus "your free stuff."

Much of the "free" stuff people agree on (at least to a degree). Most people want some kind of military, police, roads, basic education, fire protection.

But there's a lot of other ones people can't agree on. Free or reduced college? Healthcare? Using the military as a global distribution network? Birth control? Race horses?

Some people think nothing of giving tax money to operate a theme park, but some get up in arms over giving condoms to teenagers.

Taxation is theft.

[BmorePat87]

(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?

These debates have been rehashed over a dozen times. It gets to the point where there's no longer any point in providing the same study that has been provided before if the person receiving the information does not wish to accept it. At this point, it's accepted as fact, despite the disagreeing party plugging their ears and closing their eyes. 

Repeated feigned ignorance is a trait of someone being a troll.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 04:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: You're putting more into it than there is. First off, the state doesn't make a choice or a decision for anyone here. It provides help and, as I said, a responsibility enablement tool, that's all.
I do not think "free stuff" is, per se, evil and leads to dependence. Could be, but not in this case.
The other thing is, it's not how government regards women. It's more about society and what's best for it. Teen pregnancies are not "good" for a society, and especially young people could use some information and also, yes, some support - for me that's really all there is to it. PP helps with that. Whatever else you see in that, I do not. 

Finally, a part of me just doesn't believe you. You want PP gone because of conservatice standpoints, say because of abortions. And not because you're a fighter of individual responsibility or of women's independence (for that's something you would willingly want to deny women who want to terminate pregnancy). And fair enough, but I'd say don't pretend. 

Obviously I am in the minority in this forum, but I just have a issue with enabling folks to do as they please, instead of putting the onus on them to be responsible for their own actions.

I have no issue with Planned Parenthood; however, I'm not against it being totally privately funded or the funds directed toward education; but assume what you will.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 12:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue, at least to me, is that most people don't really understand how it all works. Government can be as transparent as we like, but people just don't understand how money flows from their pockets into the pockets of others in the various ways. They don't understand the bureaucracy, which is understandable for the most part, but there is a lack of basic knowledge of public administration and policies that leads people to not have a realistic understanding of where their tax money actually goes.

The issue, at least to me, is that folks take exception when their dollars are used to fund things they don't agree with. Whether is be publically funded condoms, research on the survival rate of the spotted gooseneck squirrel, money spent on bridges to nowhere. military planes that will never fly, ect....

Each person is entitled to speak against the program they are not in favor of. However, I took exception with the theme of this "GOP hates women" thread. I understand this is just imflamitory jargon that the liberal uses; however, i felt it deserved a counter.

[Griever]

(01-09-2017, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The issue, at least to me, is that folks take exception when their dollars are used to fund things they don't agree with. Whether is be publically funded condoms, research on the survival rate of the spotted gooseneck squirrel, money spent on bridges to nowhere. military planes that will never fly, ect....

Each person is entitled to speak against the program they are not in favor of. However, I took exception with the theme of this "GOP hates women" thread. I understand this is just imflamitory jargon that the liberal uses; however, i felt it deserved a counter.

but its clear that they do, when no federal funding goes to abortions (what republicans attack PP on all the time) and want to defund it when all the funds they are getting are going to other things that actually help women out

congrats if you feel differently and dont hate women, but the majority of your base does if they actually go through with this

[Griever]

(01-09-2017, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously I am in the minority in this forum, but I just have a issue with enabling folks to do as they please, instead of putting the onus on them to be responsible for their own actions.

I have no issue with Planned Parenthood; however, I'm not against it being totally privately funded or the funds directed toward education; but assume what you will.

should we get rid of alcohol, because some people choose to drink and drive?

[hollodero]

(01-09-2017, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously I am in the minority in this forum, but I just have a issue with enabling folks to do as they please, instead of putting the onus on them to be responsible for their own actions.

I have no issue with Planned Parenthood; however, I'm not against it being totally privately funded or the funds directed toward education; but assume what you will.

I will.
Of course in the end I don't really know.
It's just... your way of argueing seems so forged - as if it were a disguise, a cloak of assumed rationality, so to speak.

As for rationality. I really fail to see the connection between free birth control and "enabling folk to do as they please".
To do what?
I also really fail to see the connection between free birth control and the "onus to be responsible for their own actions".
What actions?
Is the answer to both questions simply pipelaying?


Birth control might be free, but people still would have to choose to use it. Would it show more responsibility if they had to actually pay for it too?
In short, fine ok people obviously have sex and all, but at least they shouldn't have it for free without the chance of an offspring stemming from the act... that's what you seem to be getting at.
And that to me sounds like someone who thinks sex should always be performed under the aspect of procreation. And if it isn't, at least it should cost people then. Like some kind of indulgence. 
It sounds - religious, disguised as worldly concerns. Plus you brought up outlawing abortion. Hence the assumption.

[Griever]

(01-09-2017, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I will.
Of course in the end I don't really know.
It's just... your way of argueing seems so forged - as if it were a disguise, a cloak of assumed rationality, so to speak.

As for rationality. I really fail to see the connection between free birth control and "enabling folk to do as they please".
To do what?
I also really fail to see the connection between free birth control and the "onus to be responsible for their own actions".
What actions?
Is the answer to both questions simply pipelaying?


Birth control might be free, but people still would have to choose to use it. Would it show more responsibility if they had to actually pay for it too?
In short, fine ok people obviously have sex and all, but at least they shouldn't have it for free without the chance of an offspring stemming from the act... that's what you seem to be getting at.
And that to me sounds like someone who thinks sex should always be performed under the aspect of procreation. And if it isn't, at least it should cost people then. Like some kind of indulgence. 
It sounds - religious, disguised as worldly concerns. Plus you brought up outlawing abortion. Hence the assumption.

hes the type of republican that preaches small government, but then wants the government to overstep its boundaries about defund places like this

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 02:29 PM)Griever Wrote: but its clear that they do, when no federal funding goes to abortions (what republicans attack PP on all the time) and want to defund it when all the funds they are getting are going to other things that actually help women out

congrats if you feel differently and dont hate women, but the majority of your base does if they actually go through with this

First of all, you, nor anyone in this forum knows how much federal funding goes into providing abortions. In addition to rape, incest, and life of the mother that allows for Federal Funding 17 states have laws that allow it for "medically necessary" abortions,

Secondly, I have heard of no cuts to medicaid, so no one is denying anyone medical treatment. The whole hating women thing is just a ploy to get the libs fired up.

Finally, maybe they just hate California, as over half the $500 million the governemnt gives to PP is spent there.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 02:30 PM)Griever Wrote: should we get rid of alcohol, because some people choose to drink and drive?

No.

Matter fact we should probably create a new tax to pay Uber for those that drink and don't want to pay for one.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 02:43 PM)Griever Wrote: hes the type of republican that preaches small government, but then wants the government to overstep its boundaries about defund places like this

So government oversteps it bounds when it decides what to do with its funds? Just when I thought I was starting to figure the liberal mind out; I get thrown a curve.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Secondly, I have heard of no cuts to medicaid, so no one is denying anyone medical treatment. The whole hating women thing is just a ploy to get the libs fired up.

Medicaid is not the only way funding goes to PP. But, in some areas, Medicaid or not, PP is the only available place for a women to get reproductive health care without private insurance. My area is one of those areas, and PP is an hour away. Without children, you aren't going to get Medicaid in Virginia, anyway, and the free clinic (which has very limited gynecological services) has such a low max-income threshold that there are many people unable to go there that can't afford insurance. As a result, there are many women in this area that rely on PP for their reproductive health care. By cutting funding to PP, the closest clinic will likely close or they won't be able to provide as many services at the reduced prices these women deal with.

I can tell you that, without any doubt, cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood will deny thousands of women access to reproductive health care.