• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women and government

srexob715

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
448
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
1. Eliminating abortion would simply be defining it as it should be defined - murder.

2. I fight against Planned Parenthood because of the above statement. If you agreed with #1, you'd be against them too.

3. "Women's rights" is subjective. I do not believe women should have the right to snuff the life of their unborn child.

Except that murder, under certain circumstances is not considered murder. This is an argument that pro-lifers make to justify having outlawing abortions because killing is killing. Yes, it is, but there are many instances where killing is warranted, necessary, and even justified..............self defense.
Secondly, planned parenthood doesn't perform the abortions themselves..........not that I know of and are not really tied to "abortion" per se. Their job is reproductive health and providing options that may not be available without them.
Lastly, that would be YOUR choice, but it may not be someone else's choice. Other people have a say so in this, especially when its their body and child...........even if you and I don't agree with their choices.

And I would also like to know what personal healthcare choices the gov't is making for you.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,559
Reaction score
26,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Tell me.

Do you support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

What if the mothers health is in danger?

If the mother's health is in danger, of course. In cases of rape and incest.... those are the only cases that would give me pause. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and have a child conceived from that. I cannot honestly say what I would do or feel since I've never been in that situation. If there's an abortion from either case, it's still the death of a unborn child. I guess you could say I would understand it more than if you just aborted her because you didn't want her.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,261
Reaction score
46,684
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm talking about the government having any power over health care decisions. I don't want to give any more power to government because that gives them the right to pull the strings.

So, you can't articulate any decision that is being influenced, but you know it's happening.
What I mean is that the government (whichever political party is in control at that moment) now has control over that aspect of your life. Therefore, they have the ability to take as much control as they want. They have the ability to regulate it as much as they want. They have the power to limit your decision-making if they're in charge of it.

They aren't in charge of it. Jeez, have you ever even been to see a doctor? Do you know anything about how the health care systems work in countries like Canada, the UK, France, or Switzerland, or Japan? It doesn't seem like you understand how it actually works.

The Federal Aviation Administration regulates air travel. That doesn't mean they are making air travel decisions for you.
 
Last edited:

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
33,655
Reaction score
39,186
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the mother's health is in danger, of course.

Fair enough.

In cases of rape and incest.... those are the only cases that would give me pause. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and have a child conceived from that. I cannot honestly say what I would do or feel since I've never been in that situation. If there's an abortion from either case, it's still the death of a unborn child. I guess you could say I would understand it more than if you just aborted her because you didn't want her.

But your dogmatic push to have abortion made illegal would deny that woman the option, and force her to give birth to a baby that will undenaibly remind her of that terrible event for the rest of her life.

Now there are women that carry to term in these situations and who can live with it.

But what you would deny is deny them that choice, by having government decide that health decision for her.

And so you are proposing the very thing you say you oppose in your OP.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate


1) Well I firmly believe that education - since it's been rulled unconstitutional to have a federally mandated cirriculum - therefor should fall purely to the states to impliment programs AND funding.

If funding comes from the government it should be one calculated request package put forward by each state - negotiated if necessary - and paid for to the state education department.

This will localize education and remove government's sticky fingers from our schooling.

2) Also - Race to the Top, Head Start - all these things - these aren't for girls-ONLY.
They serves both males and females. I'm bothered they're trying to turn it into a female-only thing because it's not . . . now whether or not it's beneficial is up for another debate. Or whether or not states can't decide on their own without federal government umbrellas what to do with their own programs for their own people is also another debate.

3) Healthcare - this is up to the Supreme Court . . . at present the entire healthcare bill that was passed is on the chopping block because the ignorant Democratic Congress failed to make it portionable- that means if it's ruled against the *entire* thing is ruled against. Any future president will have 0 controll over the health insurance mandate if it's deemed Constitutional and permitted to stand. Why didn't the government just provide their own health insurance from the start instead of governing and dictating everyone else's to comply with government-opinions? If someoen needs affordable healthcare then why doesn't the government just OFFER affordable healthcare?

4) Lilly Ledbetter act - well - it did pass *by Congress* and so whether Romney would have signed it or not doesn't matter. He cannot undo it now that it's in place, can he? No.

5) Federal budgets are passed by CONGRESS - in fact - everything that's questioned in this thing are Congressional measured. The President can only suggest *his* budget - and veto it if he doesn't agree with what Congress decides and votes on. To pretend the President is royalty and has *the most* say over these things is petty. . . No Child Left Behind, for example, is a Republican disaster - passed by Congress.

6) If the Opportunity Tax Credit worth up to 10K, Pell Grants - isn't enough to cover the cost of college so that at the end Julia still relies on student loans to cover the rest of hte cost - then evidently we have a serious problem of college being too damn expensive. What does Obama or ANY president have to say about this? Nothing - it's not like any of them could do anything, anyway . . . because college costs, tuition is a STATE issue and a STATE issue only to be decided and voted on.

7) She started a career as a web designer - hopefully she's aware of the efforts put in place now to limit internet 'freedom' as well as to charge extra for access to certain websites, government oversight, and the liabilities anyone that's accessing and using hte internet might face even if they just inadvertantly link to questionable web content. Also: web designing isn't as profitable of a career path as it use to be - maybe she should be worried about being able to pay her loans back on time and keep a job instead, eh?

8) Pregnancy is covered - now - by every single health care plan out there as far as I'm aware. . . if the supreme court rules the health care bill unconstitutional it won't CHANGE THAT at all. . . pregnancy will still be covered.

9) President Obama didn't all on his own work with the SBA to create incentives for women to get loans for businesses - and the SBA doesn't actually give out loans, by the way. . . what they do is *gaurantee the amount of the loan - or a portion* so loan-providers (banks, etc) will still get paid their interest/loan amount *if your business FAILS and you can't pay it back yourself!* (I know this because I'm doing research on opening my own business)

10) Medicare - no - it won't end as we know it . . . And around $7K for healthcoverage per year for a single person should be more than enough :shrug:

11) Social Security - going bankrupt because it's overbloated and unmanageable right now - the government borrows excess and 'pays it back later' . . hardly a Presidential problem and hardly something the President can 'fix' or 'end' - CONGRESS can make changes and CONGRESS can end it - not the President. It doesn't work that way. . . aside that: right now the pay-out per month (from what I hear) is inferior and doesn't compare ot a paycheck. . . I hope Julia also PLANNED for her own retirement with careful investments and consideration all on her own and didn't expect SS to be enough!!

The only thing I agreed with was the concern over charging women more than men for basic healthcare - but since health insurance is a region/state concern the feds should *stay out* of it and so should employers . . . for her cost, herself, she's facing a few hundred a month - if she chose a better career path she could likely easily afford her own coverage and not have to worry about what others have to say! And again - if they were more thoughtful when they wrote up the lengthy bastard of a bill we could overturn the parts we DON'T approve of and leave other parts in tact. . . and see # 3

What they COULD do is make insurance accessible *nationwide* - accross state lines - more competition = more flexible coverage choices.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I will stand against any organization that supports abortion.
Mmhmm

Any comment on this?

The government can regulate as much as they want even without government healthcare the same way that they regulate all private industries now. Furthermore, corporate entities who are interested primarily in profit can and often do limit the decision-making process and "take control" of their clients' healthcare in damaging ways. Even further, the government isn't like some totalitarian body. If it goes too far, there are means for the people, if they care enough, to change it.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,123
Reaction score
17,541
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not following. Could you explain for us senior citizens?

It's just a basic political observation. In any given number of political issues, you have a means of approaching it and defining it for the public. It's a means to fight over public policy. The idea is that each interest group needs to find a way to frame the issue and make it comprehensible for the public to adopt their viewpoint at any point in the policy process. Frequently it encourages kind of a tribalistic mentality in which one side simply cannot see the issue through the lens of the other tribe, because the framing has made it almost incompatible. It's needed for policy promotion, nevertheless.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
And where's the one for when Julia gets knocked up in highschool and her parents kick her out of the house - or she has an abortion when she's 17 and suffers serious life long complications?

Where's that one?
 

srexob715

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
448
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the mother's health is in danger, of course.

Then you are pro-choice. The mother has a choice on whether to terminate her pregnancy if her health is in danger!
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fair enough.

But your dogmatic push to have abortion made illegal would deny that woman the option, and force her to give birth to a baby that will undenaibly remind her of that terrible event for the rest of her life.

Now there are women that carry to term in these situations and who can live with it.

But what you would deny is deny them that choice, by having government decide that health decision for her.

And so you are proposing the very thing you say you oppose in your OP.
This is one thing that shows the faulty reasoning of the OP.

The OP attempts to point out an inconsistency between the liberal belief in government healthcare and the common liberal argument that we don't want the government controlling our bodies. This arguments rests on the premise that the government will exert more control over our bodies through government than it would otherwise. That is false because the government can exert control by regulating private insurance as much as it can through government healthcare. However, it is even more false because liberals have consistently supported government policies that give citizens more choices (e.g. requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions) and opposed policies that limit choice (e.g. restricting or banning abortion and contraception).
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Then you are pro-choice. The mother has a choice on whether to terminate her pregnancy if her health is in danger!

No - pro-life doesn't mean you oppose abortion 100% all the time :roll:
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,073
Reaction score
56,982
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's just a basic political observation. In any given number of political issues, you have a means of approaching it and defining it for the public. It's a means to fight over public policy. The idea is that each interest group needs to find a way to frame the issue and make it comprehensible for the public to adopt their viewpoint at any point in the policy process. Frequently it encourages kind of a tribalistic mentality in which one side simply cannot see the issue through the lens of the other tribe, because the framing has made it almost incompatible. It's needed for policy promotion, nevertheless.

Ok, framing an issue I understand.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,559
Reaction score
26,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Tell me how offering student loans is an intrusion in your life.

Tell me how having the option to cover your children until they are 28 is an intrusion into your life.

Tell me how having more options is taking options away from you.

You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm a libertarian. I think too much government intrusion is anti-freedom. The "Julia" propaganda showed a fictional character going through life with government carrying her along the way. I don't want women (or anyone) to want government to carry them from cradle to grave. I don't think anyone should find happiness in knowing that the government is there with another program full of regulations for them to follow.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,559
Reaction score
26,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Then you are pro-choice. The mother has a choice on whether to terminate her pregnancy if her health is in danger!

Yes, I'm for choice on that one. When someone's life is in danger, then choices have to be made. Either way, someone dies.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm a libertarian. I think too much government intrusion is anti-freedom. The "Julia" propaganda showed a fictional character going through life with government carrying her along the way. I don't want women (or anyone) to want government to carry them from cradle to grave. I don't think anyone should find happiness in knowing that the government is there with another program full of regulations for them to follow.

LOL - yes- if it wasn't for government Julia would be a crack whore!
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,559
Reaction score
26,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And where's the one for when Julia gets knocked up in highschool and her parents kick her out of the house - or she has an abortion when she's 17 and suffers serious life long complications?

Where's that one?

That's not a perfect story, though.... :p
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,123
Reaction score
17,541
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ok, framing an issue I understand.

Yeah, it allows one to be called an evil right-winger or a government-cradler by taking a position, even though both are potentially silly characterizations of the stance. :p
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Yes, I'm fine with government telling women they can't kill their babies. I'm such a horrible person.
So all women should be controlled by government’s word because you agree with it? You would stand behind them making laws which restrict a woman’s right to her reproduction?


*eyeroll* That's a tired, lame, unintelligent, incorrect, fear-mongering talking point.
Not at all fear mongering. What does the right wing want from women beside our votes? You can’t give an answer because you back the party that attack women’s rights and women outright.



Yes, I understand that you believe you own your unborn child and, therefore, can do whatever you want with "it".
I have five children living in my home. I would not have an abortion but I would not take that choice away from all my sisters because of my choice. You would. Then you say you don’t want government controlling your health care yet you stand behind the party that wants women to be forced to have invasive procedures. How funny that is.



Well, since women can vote, drive, get a job, own a home, go to college ... what else is there?
Those rights were fought for by women who actually wanted women to be equal. They would be outraged by the way the right wants to treat women. They would be outraged that a broadcaster could call a woman a slut of radio because she has sex. How long have women had to accept less for jobs than men? How many years did it take to fight for the right to attend college where the male was not treated preferentially? How much would you be willing to give back? How many rights are you satisfied with? Because you are content the rest of us can go to hell? How nice for you.


I don't know. You'd have to ask someone who believes that.
You don’t believe it but it is said by the side you say you identify with. Why is the Republican Party in trouble with women voters everywhere if they are so women friendly? You say you identify with them yet you create a thread to call on women to stand with you. It seems insulting to me. I have to laugh when anyone from the right says they are for women’s rights.



I don't know. I don't listen to Rush, nor does he speak for anyone but himself.

But he is on the right and the icon of the right. Are you right wing or not. What are you? What women’s rights do you stand for really? If you can stand shoulder to shoulder with the Santorum's of the world what women’s rights are you for.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
If the mother's health is in danger, of course. In cases of rape and incest.... those are the only cases that would give me pause. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be raped and have a child conceived from that. I cannot honestly say what I would do or feel since I've never been in that situation. If there's an abortion from either case, it's still the death of a unborn child. I guess you could say I would understand it more than if you just aborted her because you didn't want her.

So in some cases you can justify what you call murder? Wow now we have you wanting to play god and pick and choose what child is worthy of your protections. How special is that.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,073
Reaction score
56,982
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm a libertarian. I think too much government intrusion is anti-freedom. The "Julia" propaganda showed a fictional character going through life with government carrying her along the way. I don't want women (or anyone) to want government to carry them from cradle to grave. I don't think anyone should find happiness in knowing that the government is there with another program full of regulations for them to follow.

You avoided answering the question by simply not adressing them and offering more spin(as Fiddy put it, framing the issue). I am going to try again and expand to take these new comments.

The Julia propaganda(it is, I am not going to run from the term...it's a political add, which pretty much makes it propaganda...I wonder if I will see you calling Romney ads propaganda...I bet not) does not show some one being carried by government through her life. That is dishonest spin. It shows some one who got benefits at certain points in their life from government programs. Student loans and grants are not meant to carry people, but to offer people a chance to do something they would not otherwise be able to do. In other words, they give people more freedom to strive for their goals. Ni ether will get a person through college on their own. They help, they do not carry.

Regulations to require insurance companies to offer parents the option to carry their children until 28 is not the government carrying any one. It gives the parents and those children options they would not otherwise have.

Head Start is a program designed to help kids get the start of an education so they can get off government assistance. It is not government control, it is an option.

Race to the Top is a program to give states money to further fund education, and among its successes is an increase in the number of charter schools. In other words, more options.

I am wondering what spin equal pay for equal work will get...

SBA loans and tax cuts for small businesses are good for business and free markets. Are you telling me loans and tax cuts are limits to freedom?
 

srexob715

Banned
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
448
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No - pro-life doesn't mean you oppose abortion 100% all the time :roll:

I never said anything about 100% of the time. :doh The fact remains that allowing a women to make a choice, doesn't put you in the category of removing a woman's choice(pro-life).
 
Top Bottom